>They used the computer rankings exclusively.  Somehow, though, I get the
>feeling that the committee was cheesed that the coaches forced the computer down
>their throats.  So, in response, the committee tried to throw it back at the
>coaches by not using any discretion.  The committee is saying 'you asked for it,
>you got it'.
 
I got the same impression.
 
Comley also pushed some of the blame for the CC omission on the
conferences. If the WCHA *really* wanted the regular-season title to
mean something, they could award the auto bid to that team, instead of
the play-off champion. It is up to each league to decide who gets the
automatic bid. (Ala the Big Ten in basketball-- they say the reg.
season winner gets the bid.)
 
But the WCHA, like the other leagues, wants the play-offs to mean a
lot, to make more money. Also, with the league play-off formats where
everybody and his brother makes the post-season, the league is saying
the regular season does not mean much. For example, if only 8 teams
made the WCHA tourney, CC would have played North Dakota. Even if
Colorado loses, they would have lost to a better team, and they would
have had a better chance of getting into the NCAAs.  By forcing CC to
play 10th place Tech, you are actually hurting your #1 team's chances
of getting a bid. If the WCHA only let in 4 teams, then CC would
probably be in the NCAAs, since they would have made it to the semis in
their league play-offs and could have lost to an even-better SCSU.
 
So again, I say, the leagues don't value the regular season crown; why
should the selection committee?
 
>I think that the NC$$ selection committee should be comprised of non-affiliated
>persons.  Not affiliated with teams, schools or conferences.  Maybe then the
>committee could look at the big picture in college hockey, not how many teams my
>conference is getting in the tournament.  Maybe the committee should be more
>than 4 people so politics would have less of an effect.  Maybe include pro
>scouts, veteran refs and linesmen, ex-coaches, AHAUS personnel or whatever.
 
Interesting. In essence, they did exactly that this year, by using the
computer.  Their algorithm does not specify "let in a 3rd team from 1
league before letting in a 4th from another". I don't think adding more
people will solve anything, however. My only suggestion for improvement
would be to work on better algorithms and better rating systems. The
committee's job could be to seek out improvements to the RPI (or even
trashing it for something better) and then reporting the rules to the
hockey community before the season starts. Then they sit back and
watch.  And report at the season's end of who is in and who is not.
 
Keith