It's interesting to have the post-seeding discussion being completely
devoid of any remarks on "who" got in - I assume that either the choices
for the 12 participants were obvious this year, or we're all better
educated about the process. Now what about those seedings...
 
I'm with Time Brule in feeling that the committee did a good job this
year.  In fact, the final seedings matched what I had penciled in -
with the exception that I had the two #4 seeds (Lowell/Western Mich) is
the opposite regions.
 
As far as I can tell only Lowell and Lake Superior have any reason
to be disappointed with their seedings.  One could make a case for LSSU
as the second Eastern bye team, but I would tend to agree with the
committee's thinking that the byes be reserved for teams from that
region.  Should LSSU or Minn be sent east as #3?  A close call - so maybe
minimizing conference match-ups says LSSU goes.
 
With all due respect, Providence had the worst record on paper, so it
makes sense that if anyone gets shipped west, it's the Friars.  Now,
who should be the second Eastern team to "go west"?  Cornell?  Don't
think so, by PWR ratings they are pretty solidly #11 so makes sense to
put them as the other #6 seed.  Makes sense to me that the two clearly
"best" (on PWR paper) non-byes should get the "easiest" first round games.
Before the flamethrowers get turned on, I am only basing "easy" judgements
on the PWR numbers available to the committee.
 
Would Lowell really prefer to swap places with Cornell and face LSSU in
the first round and then BU?  IMHO, that's the toughest route to the Cincy.
 
So should Lowell or Clarkson be the second team to make the western trip?
I think that this could easily be argued either way - using the same
data!  Argument #1:  Head-to-head power comparisons are tied (2-2), but
Lowell wins more PWR comparisons with other teams - so Lowell gets the
higher (#4) seed and Clarkson gets the lower (#5) seed.  Argument #2:
Same premise (Lowell beats Clarkson in PWR) - so Lowell gets to stay
in the East and Clarkson goes West.  Argument #3: The head-to-head PWR
comparisons are tied (2-2), so we use the RPI comparison and give the
nod to Clarkson letting them stay in the East.  Argument #4: Clarkson
wins PWR on the RPI tiebreaker and gets the #4W seed.  My opinion:
Argument #3 is most likely what the committee considered - probably in
 conjunction with the no conference match-ups.
 
BTW: would it make sense to award 1.5 "points" for "winning" the RPI
criterion, thus eliminate any talk of ties?
 
While we're discussing the critieria, does it make sense that a team's
record has no direct bearing on the selection process, (although it's
certainly related to each of the other criteria)?  Why not?  Well, you
need to take into consideration the quality of the opponents - can't
just beat up on easy teams.  But is the quality of opponents figured
into the record in last 20 games?  If you were putting together a schedule
for next year, wouldn't you want to play at home or vs. weaker teams for
many of those games?  But record against common opponents should be "fair".
But what if Clarkson only plays BU once, while Lowell sees them several
times?  Similar difficulties occur with teams under consideration.
 
Given the stated criteria and goals, I think the committee did a very
creditable job of balancing all the competing variables.
 
Robin Lock
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.