the PWR

[Jim Hyla]

[quote PAthologicalLynah][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 [/quote]

Yes, you're right, they are. It's what makes this time of year fun.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote PAthologicalLynah]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.[/quote]
First off, pal, I never complained about UMD.  I said no team with a below .500 record should be invited to play for the national championship--regardless of who that team is.  I also made no statement about Cornell anywhere.  Try reading more carefully before mouthing off.

[And, for the record, there is no way on God's earth that Cornell should be invited to play in this year's tournament.  But I'm certain there are ten teams in addition to the six auto-bids that have .500 records or above that deserve that chance.  And, if there weren't, they should cut the field back to twelve.  I'll say it again:  It's ridiculous to invite a sub-.500 team to play for the national championship.]

[Give My Regards]

[quote KeithK]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.)
[/quote]

There is a slight problem with that idea, and the WCHA is a perfect example.  Unlike the ECAC, teams in the WCHA don't all play the same schedule; they play some league opponents twice and others four times.  So who would be more deserving of a bid -- a team that finished high in the standings but benefitted from playing some weak foes four times, or a team that finished lower but played some heavyweights four times?

As I recall, a similar scenario to the above came up in the WCHA in the mid-90's.  Colorado College won the regular-season title by a point or two but had played the two worst teams in the league four times each.  They also had a weak non-conference schedule, so when they lost in the first round of the WCHA playoffs, their strength-of-schedule was so low that they wound up missing out on an NCAA bid -- despite their good record and regular-season championship.

[Jacob 03]

[quote Give My Regards] Unlike the ECAC, teams in the WCHA don't all play the same schedule; they play some league opponents twice and others four times.  So who would be more deserving of a bid -- a team that finished high in the standings but benefitted from playing some weak foes four times, or a team that finished lower but played some heavyweights four times?[/quote]Obviously, the answer is a convoluted system in which the WCHA teams are compared using such factors as RPI, head-to-head record, record against common opponents (which, I guess, would be the entire WCHA), record against WCHA teams in the top-half of the standings, and possibly record in the last sixteen games played.  Then after a few years, we can start complaining that they should be using WCHA KRACH instead.

[ugarte]

[quote PAthologicalLynah]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.[/quote]
If you were more familiar with Keith's history, you'd know that he doesn't believe in playoffs except when they pit teams from near-exclusive leagues against one another. For example, he has been retroactively protesting the MLB playoffs ever since each league split into two divisions - and please don't ask him about the wildcard.

This might be a slight exaggeration of his actual position.

[ugarte]

[quote Al DeFlorio]First off, pal ...[/quote]
Do you think you could make that sound more hostile? I'm not sure I've got a handle on the depth of your outrage.

[RichH]

[quote ugarte][quote Al DeFlorio]First off, pal ...[/quote]
Do you think you could make that sound more hostile? I'm not sure I've got a handle on the depth of your outrage.[/quote]

Well, it is only the 2nd time he's started an angry condescending post that way in this very thread.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Jacob 03][quote Give My Regards]after a few years, we can start complaining that they should be using WCHA KRACH instead.[/quote]

Is that like the ECAC KRACH?

[jtwcornell91]

I've always considered the magical .500 cutoff a psychological criterion.  If there's sufficient disparity in strength of schedule, you might expect a deserving team to finish with a losing record.  (There are obvious strawman examples, like if the fourth best team plays all its games against the top three.)  If your way of accounting for strength of schedule is sensible (e.g., KRACH or perhaps Bayesian Bradley-Terry with a regularizing prior), an overall losing record shouldn't be an impediment to a team receiving a bid.  On the other hand, the NCAA's way of jury-rigging strength of schedule together with overall record is not very reliable, and you could believe that teams might get credit for the strength of their schedule alone.  (RPI drops "bad wins" from a team's rating, but does nothing about "good losses", and don't get me started about lacrosse.)

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[quote jtwcornell91]and don't get me started about lacrosse.[/quote]

I brought up lacrosse on a similar thread on USCHO.  Amazing how all discussions become the same at this time of year.

[KeithK]

[quote ugarte]If you were more familiar with Keith's history, you'd know that he doesn't believe in playoffs except when they pit teams from near-exclusive leagues against one another. For example, he has been retroactively protesting the MLB playoffs ever since each league split into two divisions - and please don't ask him about the wildcard.

This might be a slight exaggeration of his actual position.[/quote]
Maybe a little. But only a little.

[Beeeej]

[quote Give My Regards][quote KeithK]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.)
[/quote]

There is a slight problem with that idea, and the WCHA is a perfect example.  Unlike the ECAC, teams in the WCHA don't all play the same schedule; they play some league opponents twice and others four times.  So who would be more deserving of a bid -- a team that finished high in the standings but benefitted from playing some weak foes four times, or a team that finished lower but played some heavyweights four times?

As I recall, a similar scenario to the above came up in the WCHA in the mid-90's.  Colorado College won the regular-season title by a point or two but had played the two worst teams in the league four times each.  They also had a weak non-conference schedule, so when they lost in the first round of the WCHA playoffs, their strength-of-schedule was so low that they wound up missing out on an NCAA bid -- despite their good record and regular-season championship.[/quote]

The NCAA doesn't grant automatic bids to the tournament champions; the NCAA grants automatic bids to the conferences.  Each conference decides how the recipient will be determined.  It just happens that they have all decided their autobids will go to the tournament champions.  If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid.  They haven't.

See also "Colorado College Rule" and "Clarkson Rule" discussions in the archives.

[RichH]

[quote Beeeej] If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid.  They haven't.[/quote]

They instead award the regular season champion a comically oversized trophy.

http://www.universityrelations.und.edu/logoappeal/web_assets/NA%20PICS/large_images/large_pic_12.jpg

[upperdeck]

the leagues are better off giving the playoff champion the bye.. the best reason being what we are seeing this year. clarkson will be in and now they get at worst two teams in.. if clarkson got the bye for RS title there would be a good chance the winner this week might still not get in. they want the most teams in not the best.

[Beeeej]

[quote upperdeck]the leagues are better off giving the playoff champion the bye.. the best reason being what we are seeing this year. clarkson will be in and now they get at worst two teams in.. if clarkson got the bye for RS title there would be a good chance the winner this week might still not get in. they want the most teams in not the best.[/quote]

(A "bye" is a very different thing from a "bid" - and it was a very big deal when the tournament was twelve teams instead of sixteen.  You mean "bid.")

Yes, absolutely, there are plenty of good reasons the conferences choose to give the autobid to the tournament winner.  There just happen to be potential consequences to that choice, one of which is that the regular season champion might stay home.