Last, Simplest Word on the New Criteria

In 40 words or less (which lets me out), what's the formal definition of the bonuses, at what point are they being factored in (for selection or just seeding), and is there anywhere that this is already being tracked in the ratings?

As far as I know it *can't* be tracked in the ratings because the selection committee has intentionally declined to disclose the exact numerical value of the bonus for a good win.

32 words; fewer if you exclude the AFAIK, which isn't helpful anyway. 33 if can't is two words. Damn. Now I've gone over 40.

It's all in the article

[www.uscho.com]

What we need to know is: How many bonus points will be assigned for each "quality win" situation?

I think the NCAA has been very clear that they're not going to say - at least not until after the process is over.

Beeeej

Which--as I said before--makes it a fudge.

I'm skeptical also, Al, but until the NCAA selects or seeds in a manner that defies rationality it is just a secret, not a fudge.

The committee claims that the bonus is objective, and you will probably sleep better if you assume honesty - despite the lax evidence - until the results show otherwise. And then we can rage at the injustice together if it comes to pass.

Can you think of a good reason why they would want to keep it a "secret"--other than if the number of "bonus points" is announced ahead of time they can't "fudge?"

Or maybe they've put the bonus point amounts in a sealed mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch (we'll see who remembers that line ) to be opened on March 23.

Is that Funk & Wagnall's front porch just past the "fork in the road" after the Slawson Cutoff (where, of course, you cut off your slawson)?

I can think of one "good" reason for keeping the bonus amounts secret. The selection show airs on TV, right? (ESPN2?) Maybe either the NC$$ or the network feels that they'll get better ratings if they add some uncertainty into the process. Seems like a stupid reason to cloud up the process and possibly piss people off later (why didn't my team get in?), but I can see why some beancounters might want to do it this way.

BRA, you're right - it may well be entirely objective and deterministic. But the way they're doing it gives the impression of subjectivity. So whatever they do will look like a fudge.

"The answer is 'A punk, a drunk, and a trunk.'"

"A punk, a drunk and a trunk."

"The question is 'What did the Vermont AD, the Vermont coach and a Vermont teammate respectively call Corey LaTullipe."

"Hi-o!!!"

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, Al. But I also don't think that they are being completely dishonest when they say that the secrecy is to create suspense for the selection show. The selection show is televised, and what is the point of watching if everyone who cares enough to watch is 100% sure of what the result is going to be.

Edit: I posted before I read Keith's post. I swear.

[q]The selection show is televised, and what is the point of watching if everyone who cares enough to watch is 100% sure of what the result is going to be.[/q]

I completely agree. So don't change the make-up of the tournament, potentially leaving someone home who deserves to be there under the published criteria - ditch the selection show.

Seriously - the selection show is an archaic leftover from a time when the internet, USCHO, John Whelan's scripts, and a better-informed fan base weren't available to help us know exactly who was going to the tournament the minute the conference tourneys were over. It used to be an interesting, suspenseful process; now it's not. Big freakin' deal.

So if you're suggesting - or the NCAA's suggesting - that the process should be changed so much that potentially a team that otherwise would've gone to the tourney is going home, or vice versa, just so a few hundred extra people will tune into a station that most people don't get, to watch a poorly produced, barely semi-professional show, on which so much work was done in advance that they'll be talking excitedly about teams that have already been eliminated, to find out whether their team is going because they absolutely can't wait until USCHO posts the same info ten minutes later, thus making it possible for the NCAA to charge $900 per thirty-second advertisement instead of the $845 they charged last year, well...

...that's a damn scary idea, way scarier than the far simpler, but still idiotic "a little mystery is a good thing" argument.

Beeeej

Just explaining their (possible) reasoning, not buying into it, Beeeej. I would ditch the selection show in favor of transparency also.

Although sickening greed and criminal mendacity have always been a large part of the NC$$, in this case I'd wager it comes down to simple incompetence. They almost certainly don't know what they're doing or why, and hope to hell it will all work out so they can slap a rationale on it and call is an "improvement." It's exactly like politics -- before assuming either greed or guile, give idiocy a good, long look. The people involved just aren't all that bright.

Is there any sign that anyone is listening to the complaints on USCHO and everywhere else?

I really can't recall reading a positive comment anywhere...

I dunno - there were an awful lot of "yes" votes to the USCHO poll that asked if it was a good thing. Granted, the highest vote getter was, "Yes, but," but still.... I guess this is what it feels like to be in a vocal minority - you feel like the majority, because that's the only opinion you hear....