Art Stine writes:
>Funny how TCHCR ranks Clarkson below BU and UNH, both of whom they beat
>during the season. Also interesting in that, even though Clarkson won
>1st in the ECAC regular season, they are ranked below teams who are 3-4 in
>other divisions. I think this poll is somewhat slanted towards divisions
>who play more games.
 
    Well, first of all, yes, the fact that Clarkson defeated BU and UNH
    will be a consideration when it comes to the committee's decisions
    in two weeks.  Yet, I have seen too many people picking one statistic
    and using it as a reason why their team should get in.  Michigan was
    guilty of this last year, and they cried long and hard about why
    they should have made the NCAAs (they shouldn't) on the basis
    of one statistic.  Similarly, Clarkson's wins over BU and UNH do NOT
    guarantee that they will get in over either of those two teams.  If
    BU and UNH have the clear advantage over Clarkson in all or most of
    the other categories, then how can anyone expect Clarkson to get the
    nod just because they won one game?  Head-to-head results tend to come
    into play when two teams look equal in almost all aspects.
 
    Don't take this the wrong way.  I believe Clarkson is just about a
    lock for the NCAAs; in fact, I would rate them a little above BU, who
    I would rate a little above UNH.  I just want to point out that there
    are many considerations that the committee has when choosing the
    at-large bids, and you have to step back and look at the Big Picture
    in order to understand why they select the teams they do.  For
    example, BU and UNH have clearly played a much more difficult schedule
    than Clarkson.  Clarkson has played 8 games against what I would call
    "Top 14 Teams", while BU has played 16 and UNH has played 14.  So it
    is not a question of playing more games; it is a question of playing
    more difficult competition AND proving yourself.
 
    As for Clarkson being ranked below teams who have finished lower in
    other conferences: that is precisely the point of TCHCR.  We know that
    some teams have worse records than other teams, but they are actually
    better.  TCHCR is a way to determine just how teams compare to each
    other across the conference distinction.  Why should it be inconceivable
    that Clarkson might not be as good as another conference's third-place
    team?  Hockey East is a much stronger conference than the ECAC is, and
    I don't know of anyone who would argue against this.  I'd say that UNH
    and BU, both of whom lost close games to Clarkson, have had pretty
    similar seasons to Clarkson's.  I think both would have given Clarkson a
    run for the title if they were in the ECAC (actually a moot point since
    we'll never know for sure).
 
    Also, Clarkson was in a three-way tie for first in the ECAC entering their
    last game.  That makes it pretty obvious that they can't be much better
    than the ECAC's third-place team.  Why shouldn't a 3rd or 4th place team
    in any other conference be at least as good?
 
    Finally, as far as TCHCR goes, as I have mentioned to Keith, "It ain't
    gospel, but it's still pretty useful."  It points out some interesting
    tendencies and ways of looking at things.  I would never suggest that it
    be used to pick the seedings (at least not by itself - perhaps in
    conjunction with a number of other statistics).  But it has been my
    experience (and Keith's) that those who ardently support TCHCR are the ones
    whose team it makes look good, and those who denounce it are the ones whose
    team it makes look bad.  In fact, there has even been the case where
    Someone* who rejected TCHCR early in the season suddenly turned around and
    supported it when later on their team shot up the rankings!
 
 
    - mike
 
    *-capitals intentional.