PWR - L16

Has anyone else noticed that this weekend's games will replace the losses to Ohio State and Northern Michigan as our 15th and 16th games in the last 16? That, coupled with a win over a TUC like RPI, could mean a huge PWR jump if we sweep.

On an entertaining sidenote, we actually win our PWR comparisons to Dartmouth, Northern Michigan and Ohio State right now. We lose to BU, but would beat Harvard if they were a TUC.

No matter how you slice it, we're on the bubble. Big time. I think if we make the NCAA tournament we've had a great season. Period. Even if we lose at Lake Placid. I think this weekend is the key -- presumably virtually all the top teams will sweep the first round of the playoffs. And I don't think a split will do it.

That's why the L16 stat is so pointless when included in comparisons in February. The NMU and OSU games have never had anything to do with the L16 stat for tournament selection. I'd rather see a L16 stat that only included games that could really count at season's end. Unfortunately it's hard to pin those games down with variable length playoffs.
Realistically, our L16 currently stands at 8-1-1, making the assumption that we sweep the QF and make it to Placid and 7-1-1 if we win the QFs in 3. So either 10-1-1 plus RPI/Union and 2 in Placid or 9-2-1 plus those four games.
(If we don't make it to Placid we don't deserve an at large bid regardless of what the comparisons say, so 'll ignore that possibility. UVM '96 notwithstanding...)

> If we don't make it to Placid we don't deserve an at large bid regardless of what the comparisons say

You can always run into a goaltender who plays out of his head; you can always hit 6 posts, etc... there are plenty of ways to lose one or two games even though you utterly outplay the opponent. Flukes do happen.

Yes, flukes do happen. We could possibly lose. But I maintain that a team that can't win it's league QF series doesn't deserve a chance to play for the national title. The PWR doesn't capture this at all, which is a flaw IMNSHO. I actually think that a team that doesn't win one of it's leagues titles (RS or tourney) doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship. I mean, how how can you be national champ if you're not your league champ first? Of course, I also absolutely detest the idea of wildcards in baseball...
People often say that they want a system where "the best teams" make the tournament. But it's not a question of "best". It never is in sports. It's a question of who performs the best during the competition (i.e. wins). Returning to my initial argument, if you can't win the QF series you haven't performed well enough to warrant moving on.
[/rant]

Odd juxtaposition, Keith. You wrote both:

I maintain that a team that can't win it's league QF series doesn't deserve a chance to play for the national title.

and

I actually think that a team that doesn't win one of it's leagues titles (RS or tourney) doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship. I mean, how how can you be national champ if you're not your league champ first?

You seem to be saying that while winning the tournament is sufficient, winning the regular season (no matter how decisively) requires a good tournament run as well. I disagree. While an early-round tournament choke after a successful regular season is embarrassing (can I get an amen, vicb?), and a Cleary does not have the visceral appeal of a Whitelaw (right, RichS?), a first-round loss is not a negation of all that came before it and should not keep the team out of the NCAAs automatically.

Admittedly, Cornell is in a precarious position in the PWR, and a first-round loss may well be our death-knell. But if Cornell wins enough comparisons in spite of a first-round elimination to finish in the top "12-minus-non-overlapping-automatic-bids", I don't think that Cornell has the type of profile that the Committee would feel justified (or should feel justified) in skipping over Cornell to the next team on the chart (which, by definition, also did not win their conference tournament).

My big issue is that the conference tournament games count no more in the PWR and head-to-head "bubble" comparisons than regular season games (last 16) against those same teams. I'm with Keith: if you can't get past the quarterfinals, then stay home. Seems to me BU was upset in the first round (Merrimack?) a few years ago, but they went to the dance anyway.

Of course, Keith, if the NCAA only took tournament winners and regular season top seeds, they might get as few as five teams for the tournament!

And what's wrong with that?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Oh, stop it guys. It is about more than just money. The reason there is more money is a larger tournament is that more people care. More money is a result of more interest.

This does not mean that we should have a 64 team tournament (please return those slippery slope arguments to their holster), but a 6 team tournament that includes, for example, Lowell, Denver, Michigan, RPI, Wayne State and Mercyhurst is hardly a fitting finale to a season and a not-entirely-unrealistic scenario under the champions-only rule.

Basketball started letting more than just conference champions in because it was obvious that "purity" was producing a less-interesting, less talented tournament field than one that included at-large bids. The money didn't hurt, but wasn't the only reason.

I understand that you (this is a group "you" not just Al, or even Al and Keith, since this comes up all the time) think that all decisions by the NCAA are made solely for the filthy lucre. I am begging you to get over it.

Forgive me, apple, but I think that sometimes you take things here too seriously.

Basketball started letting more than just conference champions in because it was obvious that "purity" was producing a less-interesting, less talented tournament field than one that included at-large bids. The money didn't hurt, but wasn't the only reason.

That may be, but anyone who thinks the modern basketball tournament isn't all about money, and specifically how to keep a greater share of that money in the "power conferences" is kidding themselves. Otherwise how can you explain going to the bastardized 65 team format just to preserve the somehow sacred 34 at-large bids, 30-33 of which in any given year will go to the power conference teams? Meanwhile two poor shmucks who fought their way in with a conference auto bid get to be in a play-in game for the right to be destroyed by Duke, and meanwhile get their share of the NCAA money cut from 1/64 to 1/65 of the first round take.

I like my idea better, have the last 2 at-large teams have a play-in game for the right to be a 12 seed an lose to a better mid-major team like Gonzaga - oh wait, no mid-major team is allowed to be seeded higher than 8th in the NCAA tournament no matter what their RPI/record would dictate, so never mind.

If you say so, Pot.

Yours truly,

Kettle

> I actually think that a team that doesn't win one of it's leagues titles (RS or tourney) doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship. I mean, how how can you be national champ if you're not your league champ first? Of course, I also absolutely detest the idea of wildcards in baseball...

Jesus, I've finally met someone who is more hardcore on this than I.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say at the beginning of the season: there will be two NCAA seeds from each of the six conferences. The conferences can allocate these however they want -- by RS title, PS title, RS 1 and 2, PS 1 and 2, PWR, whatever. Now you all know the rules, now go out and win a seed, and don't come whining to us.

If the lesser conferences really do suck, then their reps will be road kill and no harm done. In the meantime, there is greater exposure for a breadth of teams, and there's diversity in the tourny, rather than it just being a replay of the same 4 lowest common denominator easterners vs. the same 4 lowest common denominator westerners every single year.

For the record, I also hate wildcards, expansion, artificial turf, shoot outs, the dh rule, and overtime in football.

BRA, I don't believe that all of the NCAA's decisions are based solely on money. I do believe that certain decisions are and the number of teams in a tournament is probably influenced by dollars. But it's certainly not the only reason. However, even if $$$ had absolutely nothing to do with the decision I would still be in favor of requiring a team to win to get in and it probably would never happen. A lot of folks have the idea that inclusion is the best thing for sports, to give everyone a chance, spur interest, etc. I think that American sports have gone way overboard on this. Sports is about competition and the spirit of competition is best served by rewarding winning - whether it be in terms of tournament bids or admission to the league tournaments (letting all 12 teams in is ridiculous, IMO).
BTW, when I said that a loss in the first round would mean that Cornell wouldn't deserve a bid, I didn't mean to imply that the committee wouldn't give them one if the PWR numbers warranted it. The Vermont '97 situation showes this (I mistakenly said '96 before) and I didn't mean to say that they'd do it differently now (even though that's what my comment about UVM sounds like). I simply meant that if Cornell were to lose in the QFs I wouldn't think they were worthy and therefore wasn't going to bother giving L16 stats for that possibility.
One more thing: I do have a habit of writing NC$$ instead of NCAA, which reflects the opinion that a lot of the decisions of that body, especially with regards to the big money sports, are motivated by cash. I think I picked it up from HOCKEY-L a few years ago. Largely it's a reflex now.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say at the beginning of the season: there will be two NCAA seeds from each of the six conferences. The conferences can allocate these however they want -- by RS title, PS title, RS 1 and 2, PS 1 and 2, PWR, whatever. Now you all know the rules, now go out and win a seed, and don't come whining to us.

Yes!!!!! I've been thinking exactly that for a while now.

> For the record, I also hate wildcards, expansion, artificial turf, shoot
> outs, the dh rule, and overtime in football.

Agreed, except that I don't mind the NFL's version of overtmie that much (I don't like the college version).

It's happening in nearly every area, not just sports, Keith.

Take the annoying and seemingly ubiquitous bumper sticker: "My child was student-of-the-week at Elmer Fudd Middle School." Well...whoop-de-do! Will that go on his/her application to Harvard? In ten years we'll have "student-of-the-day," I regret to say.

We used to have an "outstanding player" award for the ECAC tournament. Now it's for the "most outstanding player." Why? Did it bruise the egos of other players that they might be thought of as less than "outstanding?"

The good news is that Larry Summers (a fellow kid from New Haven) is concerned about grade-inflation at Harvard. I wish him well. Effecting change there is like moving a cemetery.

Now--as long as we're rewriting the rules--if we can ban air horns, sirens, train whistles, bells, and the like...I'll third the motion.

This business about wondering whether a team that you beat--or lost to--in October or November will finish as a TUC or not on the last day of the conference tournaments so it will affect your PWR one way or the other in March...whew...is just ridiculous.

Agreed. It's this silly idea that we can't risk hurting someone's feelings by distinctions based on performance or ability.

Ben F,

I have long advocated that the NCAA basketball tourney should seed the top half...this would mean that seeds 1-8 in each region would be chosen by the committee...the remainder should be randomly assigned. This would mean that the Northwest Southland conference champ wouldnt have to play the ACC champ every year.

I know that some would complain about no regional representation...conference foes could meet in the first round...etc...but...

Tough...we are only talking about changing around the first round matchups....assuming no upsets, then everything else is the same.