I hate to jump in here, but this is the issue that just won't go
away....
 
There are really 3 separate issues:
1.  did the selection committee correctly apply the selection rules?
2.  were the rules (applied by the committee) themselves flawed?
3.  could the selection committee have done anything else, and if so,
    should they have done something else?
 
I don't believe, based on private email conversations with many
people, conversations in St. Paul and minneapolis at the championships
last year, and based on the notes posted here, that ANYBODY is saying
or means to say that the  published rules were applied incorrectly.
 
I firmly believe, and I'm not convinced that many people disagree,
that the rules as applied were flawed.   There's a whole lot of
evidence including the change in the rules for this year, a widely
held belief that the rules unduly penalized CC for playing their cross
town rivals and hitting a hobey candidate goalie in the playoffs.
 
The third issue is more controversial.  Clearly, living in the same
town as CC, knowing several of their players, and having them (this
year at least) playing at Air Force's home rink, and knowing Coach
Lucia from back when he brought his Fairbanks nanooks down to this
same building to play air force, I have a strong bias and can't be
objective.
 
So lets understand that when people say CC was screwed, they mean
that the selection procedures appear to have been flawed.  Moreover,
perhaps some feel the selection committee SHOULd HAVE done something
about that at the time.
 
> From: Mike Machnik <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Well, I don't feel this was the case - I think there were legitimate
> reasons why CC did not make the final 12, most of which were under
> CC's control and which I discussed in great detail last spring (hmm,
> and into the summer too :-)).
 
Mike and I disagree on this one a bit.  Last year, CC was coming off a
cellar dwelling season, and almost everything had been set before
Coach Lucia Came on board.  The scheduling of Air Force has been a
long standing tradition, and will continue (i hope) for many years to
come.  Giving up the CC Air Force series would be to colorado springs
tantamount to giving up the beanpot to bostonians. (As an aside,
though, I applaud Jack McDonalds efforts to put together a colorado
tournament similar to the beanpot, but there isn't a fourth colorado
team)
 
The second part is the inclusion of ALL 10 teams in the WCHA playoffs.
That wasn't a CC decision.
 
> I think that before I buy into a new method which is meant to solve
> whatever problem was supposed to have existed, I'll need to be
> convinced that there was a problem in the first place.
 
mike is correct that the "do SOMETHING, even if it isn't the right
thing" should be avoided.  my perspective is different.  I'm convinced
last year's scheme was broken, unsure that the band aid (the so called
CC rule) will cure the problem, and looking for a better way.  I share
mikes skepticism, and hope the NC$$ will do something good with this.
The NC$$ has 500 or so pages of rules, and sometimes one has to wonder
about them.
 
> So I also have to ask, since a situation like CC's could never happen
> again (unless the rules are changed), why is it necessary to make any
> change in the RPI at all, even if I do agree that CC should have
> received a bid last year?  What are we trying to prevent?
 
as always, mike asks the good question.
 
>       ...... as well as good, solid evidence that any solution really
> does work.  And we also need to remember that these aberrations in RPI
> do tend to get taken care of as the season goes on and more games are
> played.
 
and makes the correct observation.
 
charlie shub
[log in to unmask]  -or-  cdash@colospgs (BITNET)
(719) 593 3492               (fax) 593-3369