Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings
I just don't understand how the West has "earned" 3 byes. CSS barely got past Superior last weekend, the bottom feeder in the NCHA and their record gets two ties as a result (which I'm assuming evens out to a win and a loss). Oswego beats out Norwich, Midd, GAC/Hamline in the Pairwise and is tied with SNC and CSS at this point.
All true. But the NCAA treats the tournament as a regional entity aimed at minimizing travel in the early rounds - true for all D3 sports. The unique nature of hockey and Adrian's location and expectation of winning the MCHA makes those requirements potentially difficult.
The Lakers have the top winning % and a very good (top?) record against Ranked Opponents. With Middlebury owning the PWC against CSS, wouldn't it make more sense that Oswego, Norwich, SNC, and Midd have "earned" the byes?
Yes. See above.
I know this whole process is convoluted and the most important thing for the NCAA is to stick to the 500 mile rule, but I think that's a cop out.
Is that really all it is? The 500 mile rule is making Oswego (possibly) play a Play-In game?
Yes, but again, let's continue to reiterate, there is no assurance of a 7-4 split with Adrian as a western team. There is also no assurance the NCAA couldn't be convinced to bend the rules and (potentially) fly a team for the quarterfinals.
I know that if Oswego had just taken care of Geneseo this past weekend, this conversation would be rendered moot right now. Still, it grinds my gears and I don't understand it (especially since Oswego has the edge over Norwich in comparison).
If anyone out there can shed some light, since I've always had a hard time with this stuff, it would be greatly appreciated.
As mentioned in another reply, you could potentially make a case that NU's adjustment in RNK combined with each respective adjustment in WIN, combined with the disparity in SOS (which has been highly weighted by the committee in the past) could make the NU-OSU comparison tip in the way the committee described. Again, it's important to note the NCAA rankings, not the projections of anyone on the USCHO Fan Forum will seed the tournament. So analyzing why the rankings came down the way they do might give us a look at how the committee is examining things. Hint: SOS is king. Nor is this news based on previous years.
NUProf said:
Potter and Letzeisen are the only two who are involved in all of the rankings/seedings. I'd guess they trade the "hat" back and forth. Talk about conflicts of interest. What a great system! Flawed as it is, I'd rather see them just use the PWR count and be done with it. It's like if MLB were to use a committee to pick the wild card teams for the playoffs
Yes, clearly because several individuals are prohibited from talking about a single specific team each, the entire process is flawed. Are you just choosing to ignore that means 80% of the committee or at least four people is involved in a discussion of each team? I get you have a horse in this race, Prof, but the sky is not falling Chicken Little.
Which adds even more to the conflict of interest thingie - While it would seem that selecting teams for Pool C that aren't you wouldn't be a conflict of interest, it would be in the best interest of all of the East teams - particularly, NU and PSU that the West not get any Pool C bids. If SNC wins the NCHA, then the discussion of STS as a Pool C impacts how many byes the East gets. Both McShane and Delventhal have a vested interest in keeping them out - the rule is that they can't discuss their own team, but the distribution of Pool C bids is important.
It is always in the interests of the eastern committee to have more eastern teams in the tournament and it is always in the interests of the western committee to have more western teams in the tournament. Always. This is why the final committee involves 2 eastern and 2 western representatives and they must all come to an agreement on a bracket together based on the NCAA criteria. Distribution of Pool C is important every year for every region. This is nothing new and again, raising the alarm that this somehow makes the process crooked seems disingenuous. I'd counter that the process is actually rather well balanced to protect against the inherent conflict of interest in each region wanting to see the greatest number of representatives from their region.
Thankyou NUPROF for listing the committee members and it does explain a lot as to why OSWEGO isn't the number 1 seed. Lets have some thoughts about Delventhal. Ex coach of RIT when RIT played OSWEGO, AD of PSUC which plays OSWEGO, I believe ex coach of UNION which played OSWEGO. No biases here at all. I really feel bad for the West teams for they as usual can't get a fair selection committee. I am surprised that coaches haven't submitted a complaint about the eastern baises. I know I may sound crazy but what about a committee with 2 member from the east/west and the chair is rotated every2-3 years from a west to a easter chair???
OSWEGO '89
The final committee, which NUProf fails to mention because it doesn't fall into his tinfoil hat look at the whole process, is comprised of 2 eastern and 2 western representatives, just as you describe. And in fact I believe the chair does rotate annually between an eastern and western representative. But that doesn't make for a compelling conspiracy theory does it? Nor does it help when somebody angling to explain an unfavorable result for his team provides inaccurate information to further a specific viewpoint. The concept that somebody is on the selection committee inherently rigs the process against a specific team/conference/region, whatever is pretty absurd to me.
Imagine you're in charge of selecting a group of people at your place of employment to designate a team for a special project. Your boss gives you a list of rough criteria to go by and says you need to post two preliminary lists of candidates so people can know if they're being considered or not. But the boss understandably doesn't want to make the final list public because that could have a negative effect on morale. So you present your final list and the team is selected. But then people who don't make the project team accuse you of conspiring against them. Does that mean you weren't well-intentioned and didn't give everyone a fair shake? Maybe you were hampered by your boss's criteria? Does that mean you're suddenly a corrupt individual? Given the NCAA guidelines, last year's field was the most appropriate possible I've seen since I've started following the selection process in 2005. It seems like we're beginning to understand the process a lot better and inform people about it in a clearer light. It's just sad to see misinformation put out there which only confuses the issue.
Prof, I know I've taken a few shots at you in this thread and I want to make it clear I have nothing but respect for you and you bring a lot to the table. I just feel like your current "guilty until proven innocent" mentality isn't helping people understand the process,
why some things are happening the way they are, and only furthers what I believe to be a mistaken belief the process is corrupt. I think we should all be focused on getting the best information to people we can and helping them understand what actually happens.
if you understand college sports politics, you would understand that Delventhal, if he had a bias at all, would not be biased against Oswego.
