Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

[RightDecision?]

Cortland loses a playoff slot due solely on how the ECAC West has interpreted their own Policies and Procedures rules for tie breakers. The ruling is currently written as: 1. Comparison of game results between the tied teams (head-to-head); Neumann and Cortland are tied 2. Number of league wins; Neumann and Cortland are tied 3. Comparison of results against common opponents; The only common result for comparison is the goal differential between the common opponents. Cortland faired better vs. 3 common opponents while Neumann faired better vs. 2 common opponents. They are tied with 2 other common opponents. 4. Overall record; Is this overall league play or overall league and non-league play? If it's overall league and non-league, why wouldn't every coach play down to stack their stats? And, I've been informed, that playing non-league games against teams within your league is looked at as not what they are, non-league games but as common opponent games. This is another tie breaking policy that is taken into consideration but not written anywhere. Therefore, following the documented tie breaker policies currently in place, Cortland faired better than Neumann yet somehow they did not get a playoff seed.

I have been informed that the tie breaking policy will be rewritten to be more clear and precise for next year. In the meantime, the ECAC West should not interpret their policy but to enforce it as it is currently written.


9.2 Tiebreakers
Tiebreakers (listed in order of application) will be used to determine Women’s West seeding:

1.Comparison of game results between the tied teams (head-to-head);

2.Number of league wins;

3.Comparison of results against common opponents; and

4.Overall record.

 

[Clever Dik]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

This is not right. Going out-of-conference to make a final decision, when one team played three more games than the other, and those three games were three wins against a first year team! Does this decision actually promote scheduling games out of conference with challenging opponents, or does it promote playing down against lesser teams to pad stats. I think the latter; a mindset that benefits no one.

This is an extremely poor decision on the part of the ECAC West. They should be embarrassed. If ever there should have been a one-game playoff, this is it.

 

[Diiihockeyfan]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

I don't see goal differential mentioned anywhere in the tie breakers. How could the ECAC bring that into play without listing it?

 

[cetihcra]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

This comparison never got to Overall Record, it ended at the Common Opponent comparison. Simply, Neumann went .360 (5-9), and Cortland went .320 (5-11-1) against common opponents. Neumann clearly wins this comparison.

Playing Buf State and Utica in non-conference games (and losing/tying those games) sunk Cortland.

r

 

[gojackets]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

did you really start a new thread for this? let it go....Neumann won the tie breakers

 

[hockey 98]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

Neumann won the tie breaker fair and square and BTW they beat Oswego 3-0 yesterday
The best team made the playoffs

 

[chippy]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

In any event, Cortland made HUGE strides in the past 2 seasons.......

Chip

 

[Russell Jaslow]

This comparison never got to Overall Record, it ended at the Common Opponent comparison. Simply, Neumann went .360 (5-9), and Cortland went .320 (5-11-1) against common opponents. Neumann clearly wins this comparison.

Playing Buf State and Utica in non-conference games (and losing/tying those games) sunk Cortland.

Exactly. There is no controversy whatsoever. Sounds like a lot of sore losing Cortland fans.

 

[gojackets]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

This comparison never got to Overall Record, it ended at the Common Opponent comparison. Simply, Neumann went .360 (5-9), and Cortland went .320 (5-11-1) against common opponents. Neumann clearly wins this comparison.

Playing Buf State and Utica in non-conference games (and losing/tying those games) sunk Cortland.

r

For some reason he feels that the non-conference games against Utica and Buff State shouldn't count because they were non-conference. Which of course is dumb.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

For some reason he feels that the non-conference games against Utica and Buff State shouldn't count because they were non-conference. Which of course is dumb.

You're right. The ECAC West applied the tie-breaker 100% correctly.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Did the ECAC West make correct seeding decision based on their policy?

From what I've read, it sounds like the complainers have a point. RECORD vs common opponents is a 100% clear criterion. RESULTS is not. Can we interpret RESULTS like the D-I men today (averaging the win pct vs each opponent) or look at the overall record? (I can't tell if this makes a difference in this case, since the original poster noted who was better against each opponent, not the avg win pct)

For example, the women's NC NCAA committee has RESULTS as the legislated criterion but has not always interpreted it as RECORD. The D-I men had legislated RECORD and needed to pass new legislation to implement the present criterion.