the PWR

ugarte · March 16, 2008, 06:09:42 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah]Thx. Also, maybe I should include Sucks as a quality opponent. [/quote]Off with his tongue!

Al DeFlorio · March 16, 2008, 07:25:32 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah]
I'm not sure I understand what's so ridiculous. The team's RPI still has to be above .500 to be considered, right? And isn't the whole point of the RPI to account for balance of schedule? Minn-Duluth has played 4 games each against Denver, CC, and NoDak. Believe me, if there were any justifiable way to give it to those stuck up WCHA fans, I would.

What right do I as a Cornell fan have to say they don't belong there when we've only seen 3 quality opponents all season (BU, Clarkson, and UML) and went 0-3-1 against them? Not only that, but got utterly embarrased in the BU game at MSG where we looked like a Bush league team? To me, THAT would be ridiculous.[/quote]
First off, pal, I never said boo about whether Cornell should be in the tournament or not, so that rant of yours is irrelevant.

In my opinion, it IS ridiculous that a team that can't win half its games should be invited to participate in a tournament to play for the national championship. I don't care whom they've played. If you lose more than half your games, you play golf in April.

PAthologicalLynah · March 16, 2008, 08:58:17 PM

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote PAthologicalLynah]
I'm not sure I understand what's so ridiculous. The team's RPI still has to be above .500 to be considered, right? And isn't the whole point of the RPI to account for balance of schedule? Minn-Duluth has played 4 games each against Denver, CC, and NoDak. Believe me, if there were any justifiable way to give it to those stuck up WCHA fans, I would.

What right do I as a Cornell fan have to say they don't belong there when we've only seen 3 quality opponents all season (BU, Clarkson, and UML) and went 0-3-1 against them? Not only that, but got utterly embarrased in the BU game at MSG where we looked like a Bush league team? To me, THAT would be ridiculous.[/quote]
First off, pal, I never said boo about whether Cornell should be in the tournament or not, so that rant of yours is irrelevant.

In my opinion, it IS ridiculous that a team that can't win half its games should be invited to participate in a tournament to play for the national championship. I don't care whom they've played. If you lose more than half your games, you play golf in April.[/quote]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you would deny a bid to a team that played 12 games against the top 5 teams in the country while allowing (insert team here) in that hasn't played a quality opponent all season, then boo to you.

Also, that whole "I never said anything about Cornell" is bunk. If Cornell lost to D last weekend, you'd still be complaining about Minn.-Duluth? Yeah, right.

KeithK · March 16, 2008, 09:42:59 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah]
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you would deny a bid to a team that played 12 games against the top 5 teams in the country while allowing (insert team here) in that hasn't played a quality opponent all season, then boo to you.
[/quote]
I don't care how tough your schedule is. If you can't win games you don't deserve a chance to play for the national title. Remember, that's what we're talking about here - a chance to play for the national title. It would be ridiculous if an under .500 was given such a chance.

(And yes, I think it would be ridiculous for an under .500 league tourney winner too, but at least that's an autobid.)

PAthologicalLynah · March 16, 2008, 10:09:09 PM

So you're saying that if you win your league tourney but are under .500, you don't get a bid?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I would much rather see the 16 "best" teams, by some objective measure, play than just go purely by W-L.

Jim Hyla · March 16, 2008, 10:13:17 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah]So you're saying that if you win your league tourney but are under .500, you don't get a bid?[/quote]

What didn't you get from his post

Quote from: Keith(And yes, I think it would be ridiculous for an under .500 league tourney winner too, but at least that's an autobid.

PAthologicalLynah · March 16, 2008, 10:16:54 PM

You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

DeltaOne81 · March 16, 2008, 10:22:24 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah]You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.[/quote]

Sure they do. Its perfectly reasonable to believe that winning you conference tournament - as done is basically every sport - gets you into the tourney regardless of the rest of the season. But still that no team should be selected at large if they can't at least win as many games as they lost.

Not sure where I fall on that argument, but its not inconsistent.

PAthologicalLynah · March 16, 2008, 10:34:28 PM

OK, I read his post wrong, my bad. It didn't make sense that you wouldn't get a bid if you won your tourney.

But back to the original problem with allowing sub .500 teams in at large bids. With the current PWR, Wisconsin would not be eligible for the tournament since they are under .500, and would be replaced by....
Princeton.

To each his own, I guess.

Cactus12 · March 16, 2008, 10:41:01 PM

QuoteYou're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you would deny a bid to a team that played 12 games against the top 5 teams in the country while allowing (insert team here) in that hasn't played a quality opponent all season, then boo to you.

I can go out, find 5 other guys, put myself in goal, play against all the WCHA teams, and lose as well...

Yes I know it's a ridiculous statement, but there has to be a serious component of wins-losses in tournament qualification. The players can't control strength of an entire conference... they can either win or lose.

To address Duluth, they weren't exactly 8-0 out of conference (4-3-1). Furthermore, hockey can be a game of bounces. Even a lesser team, I believe, should pick up a win against a tough team if they play them four times. To me, that doesn't demonstrate that the lesser team is necessarily deserving of a NCAA bid.

KeithK · March 16, 2008, 11:01:42 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah]You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.[/quote]
I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

PAthologicalLynah · March 16, 2008, 11:12:23 PM

[quote KeithK][quote PAthologicalLynah]You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.[/quote]
I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.[/quote]

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.

Jim Hyla · March 16, 2008, 11:30:23 PM

[quote PAthologicalLynah][quote KeithK][quote PAthologicalLynah]You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.[/quote]
I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.[/quote]

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.[/quote]

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.::banana::

jtwcornell91 · March 17, 2008, 01:02:23 AM

[quote Jim Hyla][quote PAthologicalLynah][quote KeithK][quote PAthologicalLynah]You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.[/quote]
I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.[/quote]

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.[/quote]

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.::banana::[/quote]

Yeah, but we were 8 out of 17, so at least making the playoffs meant something back then.

PAthologicalLynah · March 17, 2008, 01:42:00 AM

[quote Jim Hyla][quote PAthologicalLynah][quote KeithK][quote PAthologicalLynah]You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.[/quote]
I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.[/quote]

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.[/quote]

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.::banana::[/quote]

Yup, them's the breaks, you lose an upset every once in a while, but I still think it's worth it. By that line of thinking, all conference auto-bids are worthwhile since Holy Cross beat Minnesota once