Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
All true. But it's also true that PWR only serves one function: to determine (or mimic the tool used to determine) the NCAA tournament field. The only reason to switch to a different system is to come up with a different tournament field. You say that KRACH's predictors of team quality are more fair (which I won't dispute). But if you adopt KRACH, and then change the results if it gives you a field that looks wrong, then I still don't see how you're any better off. And if you adopted KRACH and DIDN'T have a failsafe preventing more than five teams from a conference getting in, then you'd be worse off still.
It's also worth repeating that KRACH and PWR don't really disagree on the best of the best - it's only at the edges where there are conflicts and uncertainties, and they would not be solved by the use of KRACH because of the nature of the college hockey schedule. We would still have arguments over whether it was fair to include one team or exclude another as the 16 seed. If anything KRACH + conference limits would make things worse, since the chosen system could identify two teams as being the 8th and 9th best in the country, and then expressly exclude them in favor of the 18th- and 20th-best teams. Talk about arguments over arbitrary cliffs.
Originally posted by LynahFan
View Post
It's also worth repeating that KRACH and PWR don't really disagree on the best of the best - it's only at the edges where there are conflicts and uncertainties, and they would not be solved by the use of KRACH because of the nature of the college hockey schedule. We would still have arguments over whether it was fair to include one team or exclude another as the 16 seed. If anything KRACH + conference limits would make things worse, since the chosen system could identify two teams as being the 8th and 9th best in the country, and then expressly exclude them in favor of the 18th- and 20th-best teams. Talk about arguments over arbitrary cliffs.
Comment