Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

-- [ From: Adam Wodon * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
 
(Hey Mike M. - look already, would 'ya and stop paying attention to
that dang Hockey East thing <BG>!)
 
I have gone to Tim's hockey home page, downloaded the complete PWR
chart, etc... and think I understand the whole thing.
 
However, now I am told that the NCAA doesn't strictly go by this.  Why
then are we wasting our time figuring it out?  Do they only use the
"Fudge Factor" to break ties, or do they weasel teams in they feel
SHOULD go? for example, Denver over Cornell if Cornell loses the final.
      I understand the basketball selection committee has a lot of
opinion in it, even though they use the RPI as a guide.  But I was
under the impression that the hockey selections were more cut and
dried.  Where is it written OFFICIALLY that the pairwise method is used
in exactly the fashion in which us on hockey-l use it?
 
   Also, the tiebreaker system seems somewhat unfair in one respect
(Though a benefit, currently, to Cornell).
   To break the 2-2 tie with Denver in the Pairwise matchup, Cornell
wins because of a better RPI, which, further, gives Cornell and Denver
6 pairwise wins each, which Cornell also wins because of the RPI.
     This seems like an unfair "double-dip" of the RPI. Denver should
be ahead of Cornell.
 
   Nonetheless, from just a cursory look (the computations are too mind-
boggling, figuring out the ECAC playoff picture was hard enough), it
appears Cornell could actually jump over Clarkson with a win over them,
and a loss to Vermont, because Clarkson would only get to play Harvard
in the consolation, which is not a TUC.
 
   Mike Machnik, where are you <G>??
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.