2 NCAA bids for the MAAC

So the hockey writer on the MAAC page of USCHO.com wrote an article this week predicting that if Mercyhurst wins out, but loses their championship game, the MAAC would likely get 2 bids.

HAHA! And that would mean 2 bids from a conference that is 1-25-3 (.086) against the 'Big 4' conferences!
Without being a mathematic wizkid, even I could tell you that if the same situation were to happen to Cornell in the ECAC (win out, then lose the championship final) and it were Cornell vs. Mercyhurst for the extra bid- the victor would be Cornell.

Why is it that I have such trouble accepting the MAAC as a reputable conference? Maybe it's that .086 record vs the 'Big 4' Maybe it's Mercyhurst's 1-4 record vs the 'Big 4' (the one win being vs a November era Colgate team).
Is it wrong to feel that Mercyhurst is "stealing" a spot in the tourney? I know, I know- it fosters development of the MAAC as a reputable league by giving them an automatic bid. But from the looks of it it could be years until the MAAC "steals" at least a .250 record from the 'Big 4'.

Here's the story:

[www.uscollegehockey.com]
(see farther down the page)

"Just when you thought it was safe to say that there would be no controversy in the selection process for the NCAA tournament, it seems the Mercyhurst Lakers are prepared to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into things.

The Lakers have compiled an eight-game winning streak and have been victors in 11 of their last 13 contests, propelling them from the bottom of the PairWise Rankings to a bubble position of 15th. Of course, should the Lakers defend their postseason title, the argument becomes moot as they would earn the automatic berth to the NCAA tournament.

But what if the Lakers run the gamut and win their final eight regular-season games, win in the first round of the MAAC playoffs, win again in the semifinals but lose in the championship game? The chance that the Lakers could stand in the top 10 of the PairWise is very good.

...It will be interesting to listen to the arguments for and against the MAAC getting two tickets to the big dance."

This USCHO.com article was written last week.
With this weeks' TIE versus (#29 PWR; #44 RPI) Sacred Heart,
Mercyhurst now drops to (#16 PWR; #17 RPI)

I seriously doubt the selection committee will give the MAAC two bids, especially given the out-of-conference record you mentioned. That is why the NCAA has a "cover-our-rear-end" clause at its disposal:

"In addition to revising one of its selection criteria, the committee noted that it reserves the right to evaluate each team based on the relative strength of their respective conference using the overall conference ratings percentage index (RPI) in determining competitive equity."

(Thanks to JTW's site for the exact wording.)

Not wanting to bust anyone's balloon, but the Committee could also not award Cornell a bid if they lost the ECAC Tourney based upon the same rule. Except for Brown, the ECAC doesn't exactly have a great OOC record. I don't think that it will happen, but it could.

Good to see that MAAC supporters' supply of crack has not run low over the past few years. The writer conveniently ignores the fact that Quinnipiac was denied an at-large bid, not because of expected performance in the NCAAs, but because their stellar record against a weak schedule gave a misleading picture of their performance over the year. On some level, I hope the scenario described comes about to give the NCAA another chance to adopt a set of selection criteria they don't have to override.

While you are absolutely right, this is a case in which polls do matter. The NCAA committee would have a very hard time justifying the exculsion of Cornell on these grounds given that they have been nationally ranked all season long.

the other thing the pollster ignores is the fact that if u get a maac upset without any others in their tourneys then mercyhurst has to be in the top 9 right? i doubt they can gain enough comparisons for that....

Wait. Let's assume that Mercyhurst wins out the RS and makes it to the conference final, which they then lose. I really can't see them finishing above about 10th or so in PWR anyway. Their RPI won't improve that much, since their opponents all suck. Their last 16 record is about as good as it gets, etc. Therefore, even if all the other tourneys are all won by teams above them in PWR, they would still probably be labelled a "bubble" team, and the decision about whether to invite them would be based on their individual comparisons with the other bubble teams. I just can't see them rating well enough with a loss in their title game to win those bubble comparisons, without even taking conference RPI into account. With taking conference RPI into account, they don't have a chance.

Although the flaws in the selection criteria do inflate Cornell's PWR, I suspect they would still get an at-large bid if the comparisons indicated it for the following reason: Niagara finished #5 in the PWR and got an at-large bid in 2000, even though they played a relatively weak conference schedule in the CHA. I can't imagine the committee would judge the 2002 ECAC more harshly than the 2000 CHA. To give a sense of how much the weak schedule inflated Niagara's PWR, they were #5 in the PWR but #16 in the KPWR. Right now we are #8 in the PWR and #15 in the KPWR.