You Are The Committee

[Josh '99]

[quote CowbellGuy]I understand your points, but I'm also in Germ's camp on this. It's not so much that they don't deserve to be there based on year-long performance, but if a team drops a pair in the tourney, they're probably not playing very good hockey and it's unlikely that they'd be able to reverse that trend against better opponents. I guess I'd rather see the spot go to a team that had a rough start, but got it going late in the season and has some momentum, rather than a team that started hot but had the wheels fall off down the stretch.[/quote]Then they should bring back L16 as part of the selection criteria.  That'd be fine by me.  :-)

[Josh '99]

[quote Trotsky]20-8-4 + 0-2-0 = 18-10-4 + 2-0-0.[/quote]= (3-22-4 + 2-0-0) + 2-0-0

[KeithK]

[quote Trotsky][quote Josh '99]If we go 0-2 for the weekend but the PWR still somehow says we deserve an at-large bid, then we deserve to make it.[/quote]

Here, here.  This is second only to "let the players decide it on the ice" as a meaningless playoff cliche.  20-8-4 + 0-2-0 = 18-10-4 + 2-0-0.

Deserve is what your record says it is.[/quote]
All depends on how you define "deserve".  If you don't agree with the current system for awarding bids then you can easily think a team doersn't deserve to go even if the PWR says they qualify.

For example, I'd be happy with an additional rule that disqualifies a team that loses in the first round of their conference tournament.  (But then I'd happy with... lets no rehash that argument.)

[nshapiro]

Cornell as a #1 seed, playing Miami (who just tanked in the playoffs) in Bridgeport:

# Hockey East Semifinal #2: Mass.-Lowell defeats Northeastern.
# Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston University defeats Boston College.
# Hockey East Championship game: Boston University defeats Mass.-Lowell.
# ECAC Semifinal #2: Cornell defeats Princeton.
# ECAC Semifinal #1: St. Lawrence defeats Yale.
# ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats St. Lawrence.
# ECAC Consolation game: Princeton defeats Yale.
# Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: RIT defeats Mercyhurst.
# Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Air Force defeats Bentley.
# Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Air Force defeats RIT.
# CCHA Semifinal #2: Michigan defeats Alaska.
# CCHA Semifinal #1: Notre Dame defeats Northern Michigan.
# CCHA Championship game: Notre Dame defeats Michigan.
# CCHA Consolation game: Alaska defeats Northern Michigan.
# WCHA Play-in #1: Minnesota-Duluth defeats Minnesota.
# WCHA Semifinal #2: Wisconsin defeats Denver.
# WCHA Semifinal #1: Minnesota-Duluth defeats North Dakota.
# WCHA Championship game: Wisconsin defeats Minnesota-Duluth.
# WCHA Consolation game: Denver and North Dakota tie.

Is there still a rule that a TUC must have a winning percentage of .500 or better, because when I replace Minnesota-Duluth with Minnesota,  the 25th team in the Pairwise list becomes

25 [IE] Minnesota State (Mk) 0 .5098

with a line through it.

If a .500 record is required, is TUC the .500+ teams in the RPI top 25 - which could yield a TUC list of less than 25 - or is it the top 25 .500+ teams in the RPI list?

[DeltaOne81]

I think the rule is that you're a TUC based on your RPI (regardless of your record), but you can't get an at-large bid if you're under 0.500 win %.

[Josh '99]

[quote DeltaOne81]I think the rule is that you're a TUC based on your RPI (regardless of your record), but you can't get an at-large bid if you're under 0.500 win %.[/quote]Metaphysically, how are you a "team under consideration" if you are explicitly excluded from consideration?

[KeithK]

[quote DeltaOne81]I think the rule is that you're a TUC based on your RPI (regardless of your record), but you can't get an at-large bid if you're under 0.500 win %.[/quote]
I don't think this is completely clear.  Whelan and I debated this a few weeks ago.  They definitely did change the rules to require a .500 record for an at large bid though.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81]I think the rule is that you're a TUC based on your RPI (regardless of your record), but you can't get an at-large bid if you're under 0.500 win %.[/quote]Metaphysically, how are you a "team under consideration" if you are explicitly excluded from consideration?[/quote]

You're under consideration until the point at which they look at your record? ;-)

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81]I think the rule is that you're a TUC based on your RPI (regardless of your record), but you can't get an at-large bid if you're under 0.500 win %.[/quote]Metaphysically, how are you a "team under consideration" if you are explicitly excluded from consideration?[/quote]
I guess it's just a nomenclature problem.  Kind of like an AQ that doesn't meet the standards for TUC isn't "considered" a TUC, even though it's been by definition not only "considered" but "admitted."  

This latter situation, IMHO, is a good thing, eliminating the former situation where the winner of the AHA tournament could influence who else would get in because it automatically became a TUC even though it otherwise wouldn't come close to being "considered" for the tournament.  [Apologies for that awful sentence.]

[adamw]

Yes - I think it's to the point now where "TUC" is a misnomer.  If they just change it to "Record vs. Top 25 RPI" then it solves the "problem" .... I think, therefore, it makes perfect sense to consider Mankato in that, and it's consistent, as Al said, with NOT considering the AHA tournament winner, for example (although this year, Air Force or RIT will be top 25 if they win it all)

[Trotsky]

[quote Josh '99][quote Trotsky]20-8-4 + 0-2-0 = 18-10-4 + 2-0-0.[/quote]= (3-22-4 + 2-0-0) + 2-0-0[/quote]

Nobody ever said an auto bid team was deserving.  ;-)

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote adamw]Yes - I think it's to the point now where "TUC" is a misnomer.  If they just change it to "Record vs. Top 25 RPI" then it solves the "problem" .... I think, therefore, it makes perfect sense to consider Mankato in that, and it's consistent, as Al said, with NOT considering the AHA tournament winner, for example (although this year, Air Force or RIT will be top 25 if they win it all)[/quote]
They ought to drop the TUC criterion altogether.  It's silly that one team gets beaucoup credit for being 3-1 against the #25 team while another team gets nothing for being 4-0 against #26.

[RichH]

*I* am the Committee??!!  Why didn't anyone notify me?  Sweet!!

OK.  I hereby select the following teams:

1. Cornell
2. American International
3. Bentley
4. UConn
5. U. Illinois-Chicago
6. Kent State
7. Cornell's Club Hockey Team
8. St. Ignatius School for the Blind
9. Maplecrest Senior Rest Home
10. Girl Scout Troop 11, Morristown, Tennessee
11. My friend Bill who only has one leg
12. Brown's Class of 1928

That's it.  12-team tournament this year, and all regionals will be held at the Hartford XL Center.  I probably won't be asked to be the committee next year after this, so I can bend the NCAA selection guidelines a little bit.

Wooo!!!  Good Luck to all the teams!

[Robb]

[quote RichH]10. Girl Scout Troop 11, Morristown, Tennessee[/quote]
Ok, since I grew up an hour from there, I'll bite:

(and why wouldn't they be chosen as the #11 seed?)

[RichH]

[quote Robb](and why wouldn't they be chosen as the #11 seed?)[/quote]

Ohhhh...Here comes the whining!

I went by a complicated, and super-secret mathematical algorithm I call "KRACHER."