Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.
Eeyore <[log in to unmask]> writes: >Mike Machnik wrote: > >>Re-seeding the East, Denver hops up to third ahead of Clarkson because of >>overall ranking: >> >> west east >>1 CC (2) BU (1) >>2 minnesota (3) vermont (9) >>3 western mich (4) denver (10) >>4 michigan (5) clarkson (11) >>5 msu (6) lowell (12) >>6 lssu (8) bowling green (13) > >If this is the way the seedings end up, and these are in fact the final PWR >numbers (unlikely though it is to remain unchanged) I'd be somewhat >perturbed. (Make that steamed.) I'm not that worried about the bye, since >I think it's of somewhat dubious advantage. This seeding, though, >guarantees that one of the Final Four entrants will have finished with a >ranking no better than 9th, a lower ranking than any of the teams in the >West Regional. Right, I noticed that too. Note that I did say that the big question was how to determine the crossovers. Here's another thing I could see happening: take two crossovers from each region and send them to the other regional. This has happened in the past, including the last two years. In a 6-6 split, this would mean that two East teams would go West and two West teams would go East. But in the 8-4 split here, it would mean that two teams from the East would go West, and four from the West would go East. Result is 4 West, 2 East in each region. BU, Vermont, Clarkson, and Lowell were the four East teams here. So Clarkson and Lowell would go West. In the West, normally the bottom four teams - MSU, LSSU, Denver, BG - would go East. But MSU must stay home because they host. So instead, Michigan goes East. New regionals after re-seeding: (since #7 Maine is not included, I decided to bump up the ranking of the teams ranked 8-13 to account for this and make it less confusing.) west east 1 CC (2) BU (1) 2 minnesota (3) michigan (5) 3 western mich (4) lssu (7) 4 msu (6) vermont (8) 5 clarkson (10) denver (9) 6 lowell (11) bowling green (12) This still means that Michigan, ranked lower than WMU, would get a bye and, supposedly, have an easier road to the Final Four (LSSU/Vermont, as opposed to Lowell and then Minnesota for WMU). Brackets are (6v3)v2 and (5v4)v1. What throws a wrench into all of this is that the East has only one team ranked in the top 8, with Maine not participating. This type of situation has not happened before. It could be enough to cause the committee to decide to award the second seed in the East to the third highest West team, if that team is not MSU. Suppose the seeding approximated that of basketball. Then we'd take the top 12 teams and send the first to one regional, the 2nd and 3rd to the second regional, the 4th and 5th to the first regional, and so on. Here's what we'd get: west east 1 CC (2) BU (1) 2 minnesota (3) western mich (4) 3 msu (6) michigan (5) 4 lssu (7) vermont (8) 5 clarkson (10) denver (9) 6 lowell (11) bowling green (12) It would be a precedent, but it could very well happen. These seeds seem to make some sense, too. Although, Clarkson and Lowell people would be upset at being seeded higher than BG but being forced to cross over. Would attendance be a factor? Perhaps...it could be why the committee would choose to keep all four East teams in the East. This is another thing to watch for. I don't think it is as much of a factor in the West, however. It is tough to call. This is such an unusual year that I can think of several things that could happen this time that have not happened before, as I have shown above. You can make a case for any of them. >What a fine reward to Michigan for being near the top of >the CCHA; they would have to beat MSU and CC to advance to Cincinatti >(against what is likely to be a hostile crowd, no less) while Bowling >Green, the fifth place team in the conference (and eight rankings lower), >faces Denver and Vermont. Which sounds like the easier road to you? I think you raise a good point about a lower seeded team having an easier road, but as I always do around this time of year, I'll caution people against thinking that a higher conference finish entitles a team to a seeding that is higher or easier than that of a lower ranked team in another conference or even their own conference. Even teams that win their conference regular season or tournament can be seeded lower than teams from their conference that did not. The NCAA tournament selection is based on the entire season long performance of the teams. That means nonconference games as well as conference games. It is not unusual for teams ranked lower in the conference to come out higher in the NCAA's ranking when *all* games are factored in, including postseason. So what is key here is not that Michigan was near the top of the CCHA, but that Michigan was ranked higher in the NCAA's ranking of the 12 seeds. On a related subject, I say this every year, but I just *know* that when the seeds are announced, someone is going to complain about a team winning their conference regular season or tournament but being seeded lower than another team that did not. Mark my words, it happens every year. --- --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93 ***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: ***** ***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html ***** HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.