The message that Eric Rickin replied to was one sent privately.  I
appreciate his clarification, but I will go on record as saying that I
don't think that issue is one I want to discuss on HOCKEY-L, thus the
email instead of a post.
 
Since it is that time of year, I want to remind everyone to be careful
of making cases for certain teams for NC$$ bids/seeds based on either
one or two statistics (Maine's win% comes to mind) or evidence that
does not enter into the consideration of the committee.  Often this is
what gets people upset when the seeds are announced - "why didn't my
team get a bid when they had a better {win%, head to head record,
etc.} over team X."  Try to keep in mind the following:
 
* 12 teams get bids.
* The winner of each of the four conference tourneys gets an automatic
bid.  Those teams do not have to be seeded anywhere special, like top
2 or top 4.
* Each conference is guaranteed at least 2 bids.  Some conferences may
only get 2, some may get more.  It is not required that each
conference get three.
* From past experience, we know that some numerical factors that have
been considered by the committee are:
  - RPI rating (virtually identical to Erik's RPICH)
  - DivI win%
  - Head to head record
  - Win% against other teams under consideration
  - Win% in last 20 games
  - Win% vs common opponents
  - Schedule strength (however defined by the committee; I believe it
    to be some combination of oppwin% and oppoppwin% as they appear
    in RPICH)
* Also from past experience, the RPI (or RPICH) rating has been a
prime factor, with other factors coming into play to break ties
between pairs of teams considered to have close enough ratings.
 
Some factors that do NOT have bearing, again from my experience, are:
* Regular season conference finish.  The winners of the regular season
are not guaranteed bids.  This happened with Harvard in 1992.
* Home/away record.
* Conference tournament finish, other than the automatic bids to the
winners.  However, the games themselves that take place in the
conference tourneys do have bearing as far as they relate to the
numerical factors - such as win% in last 20, common opp, head to head,
DivI win%, etc.
* Success in seasons prior to 1993-94.
 
Other factors may come into play - such as availability of student
athletes (if the UNH players remained suspended, this could have hurt
them) for bids, and once bids are decided, seeding may be affected by
a team's location.  For example, it is very possible as some have
mentioned that RPI and MSU could be swapped to be #5-6 seeds in the
opposite region so they could "play at home".
 
I'll just reiterate that all of the above is based on what the
committee has done and said in the past.  Their interpretation of the
factors remains up to them, and they may place a heavier weight on
certain factors over others in breaking ties.  My experience has been
that when looking at all the factors, every decision has been
explainable - though some may not be agreed with.
 
Keeping all of the above in mind may go a long way towards helping
understand the decision of the committee when it is announced this
weekend.
 
Finally, on Maine: the decision on how to count 3 wins Maine obtained
while playing with Jeff Tory is still unknown.  This could have a
significant effect on Maine's chances.  But it would be incorrect to
declare flat out that Maine has no chance based solely on the
ineligibility situations that have occurred.  Their numerical standing
taking all things into consideration makes them a strong candidate, IMO.
 
BTW, with my group at Cabletron moving this weekend, I expect I won't
be able to be reached at this address until at least Monday with all
the network confusion we are sure to encounter.  However, my account
at Merrimack, [log in to unmask], is still active and receiving
mail from HOCKEY-L, and that's how I plan to stay in touch with the
results from the other conferences.  Good luck to all your teams in
the tourneys and at selection time, and here's hoping the committee
does as solid a job as they have done in the past.
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93