John writes:
>In 1989, the 5th place CCHA team (BGSU) defeated the 3rd place CCHA
>team (UIC) in the consolation game of the CCHA tournament.  The NC$$
>presumably placed a good deal of importance on that outcome because
>BGSU went on to the NC$$ tourney.
 
But they did not.  Back in 1989, I sat in on the conference call that took
place to announce the seeds and field questions, and afterwards, I
transcribed many of the committee's answers and mailed them to r.s.h. (this
was six months before the list existed).  Here is what they said about the
CCHA consolation game that year (I still have my original post and this is
taken directly from it):
 
Q: "Did the committee wait for the outcome of the Illinois-Chicago vs.
Bowling Green consolation game (won by Bowling Green) to decide between the
two?"
 
A: "No.  Even though UIC finished 3rd and BG 5th in the CCHA, the committee
is not required to consider teams on the basis of conference standing.
We had already given an extensive look to all factors before deciding."
 
Thus, BG had already been chosen before the game was even played.
 
Elsewhere, the committee stated that postseason games are only considered
to the extent that they affect a team's won-loss record, head-head record,
record against teams under consideration, etc.  They are not weighted any
more than regular season games.
 
Also, note that it was not down to BG and Michigan.  BG got the *5th* seed
in the West, ahead of Wisconsin.  The committee had determined that not
only was Michigan behind BG, they were behind Wisconsin as well.  I believe
the key factor that hurt Michigan here was record against teams under
consideration but I am not sure, the question of why Michigan was not
selected was not even addressed during the call.  But basically, consider
that since Wisconsin was seeded behind BG, and the committee stated that
they had a decision to make between BG and UIC, then Michigan effectively
had to beat out BG, Wisconsin, and UIC.  Michigan may have been 4-3-0 in
the season series against BG, but overall, they fell short in the other
factors.
 
>In 1990, the 4th place team (Michigan) defeated the 3rd place team
>(BGSU) in the CCHA consolation game.  BGSU and Michigan were battling
>for the 3rd and final CCHA berth in the NC$$ tournament.  Looking
>back to the 1989 selection of BGSU, one would think that Michigan's
>victory in the 1990 consolation game was of some importance.  Apparently
>not, because BGSU still got the nod.
 
First: BG and Michigan were not battling for the "third CCHA berth" in the
tourney, because there is no such thing.  Nothing states that any conference
must be given X number of bids.  Michigan could have just as easily lost
out to Providence or Cornell.  What happened was the four tourney winners
were given bids, the top Independent team was given a bid, and then seven
other teams were chosen at-large.
 
Again, just because it was in the playoffs did not make the game of prime
importance.  BG still won the season series that year and the other factors
were in its favor vs Michigan as well.  Again that year I sat in on the
call, and that time the committee stated that BG went over Michigan due to
head-to-head record.  I have that call on tape but did not transcribe it as
I did in 1989.
 
Before the selections were even made, I sent my own prognostications to
the list, and among the 23 or so teams I was looking at, I came down to six
teams for the final two spots, of which two were BG and Michigan.  I tossed
out Michigan right away, because their record against top teams just did
not match up with the other teams I was looking at.  I ended up leaving out
BG in the end too, but I did note that they had a better chance than
Michigan - thus I wasn't surprised that they sneaked in with the 6th seed.
 
As I saw it, here were the two situations that caused Michigan to be left
home in 1989 and 1990:
 
1989: Michigan had better head-to-head record vs BG, but several other
teams (including BG) had better numbers in the other factors, and these
outweighed Michigan's head-to-head record vs BG.  Specifically, BG itself
also had solid enough numbers that the head-to-head record (which is but
one of many factors) was not determined to have that significant of an
impact.
 
1990: Michigan and BG were closer this time in many factors.  BG had a
slight edge in record against top teams as you looked at progressively
better sets of teams (top 20, to top 14, to top 8).  But it was still
rather close, in nearly every category.  Now, THIS is where head-to-head
can have an impact, and BG's 3-2-0 season series record was a deciding
factor.  The CCHA consolation between BG and Michigan was of little
consequence because it did not have much of an effect on the other factors
(BG still came out ahead even if it lost), and BG had a 3-1-0 record vs
Michigan going in.
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)    *HMN*