Quest for #1 seed

[Robb]

Well, the other shoe (or was it the bottom) dropped last night.  Harvard's loss to BC puts us at a pretty solid 6th place in PWR with either the 3-2-1 or 5-3-1 bonus.  Very tough to see how we'll pick up any more comparisons from here on out.  My guess is that we're going to end up as a 6th or 7th seed (i.e. 2b or 2c).  Minnesota is actually looking somewhat secure in 4th, so 6/7 is not a bad place to be.  Let Michigan go to Mariucci!

[Trotsky]

I think we want to line up opposite BC.  i.e., 1:8, 2:7, 3:6, 4:5.  That would put us east against a team we have seen and will not be intimidated by.  We know we will not be getting Harvard in the Sweet 16 game, so that leaves somebody out of {BU, UNH, NoDak}.  Any of those match-ups would be a great game.

[nyc94]

Cornell moved ahead of Michigan in the PWR, up to #5 (without bonus and with 3-2-1 bonus).  It appears the Northern Michigan - Michigan Tech tie on Thursday night dropped Bowling Green from TUC status taking away two wins for Michigan.  Michigan Tech is a TUC with a 8-19-3 record.

[DeltaOne81]

Also note, that it makes Mich Tech a TUC (for now) and they beat Minn twice. Of course, Minn STILL doesn't fall. UAA is now only 0.0007 short of being a TUC and Minn is 0-2-1 against them.

[calgARI '07]

If I could choose which top tier team Cornell would play in the NCAA's it would definitely be Boston College.

[KenP]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 If I could choose which top tier team Cornell would play in the NCAA's it would definitely be Boston College.[/q]

Western Bias....::rolleyes::

[KeithK]

[q]Michigan Tech is a TUC with a 8-19-3 record.[/q]Ridiculous.  The .500 Win% cutoff several years back may have allowed weak teams to be "Under Consideration" by virtue of a weak schedule, but at least they had to win half of their games.  The current RPI cutoff for TUC further emphasizes the bias toward the stronger conferences that's in the RPI.  How about requiring both .500 record and .500 RPI?  That eliminates the chance of a crappy AH team being a TUC but also prevents a crappy WCHA team from being a TUC simlpy because they play a tought schedule.

[KenP]

agreed

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

That eliminates the chance of a crappy AH team being a TUC but also prevents a crappy WCHA team from being a TUC simlpy because they play a tought schedule.[/q]

How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule?

[nyc94]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Also note, that it makes Mich Tech a TUC (for now) and they beat Minn twice. Of course, Minn STILL doesn't fall. UAA is now only 0.0007 short of being a TUC and Minn is 0-2-1 against them.[/q]

Actually, their victory over 9-15-6 Minnesota State last Saturday is what put them over the top. ::rolleyes::

[KenP]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule?[/q]

I had a similar conversation with a coworker today re: squeakball.  He mentioned that Texas A&M  is 15-7 overall and 4-7 in the Big 12.  Their chances of getting an at-large bid are slim at best.  

SOS helps because it credits teams for good wins and acceptable losses.  But somewhere you have to draw the line.  I don't care how much they whine about a tough schedule, unless they win an autobid with an amazing post-season run, no team with a losing record should ever be considered for the NCAA tourney. (i.e. be a TUC)

[KeithK]

[q]How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule? [/q]The middling WCHA team that has a losing overall record shouldn't be eligible for the tournament.  That's what TUC means first and foremost - that the team is worthy of consideration for playing in the tournament for the national title.  If you can't win at least half of your games you don't deserve to play for the title.

Now I understand that there's no way that MTU is really in the hunt for an at large bid at this point.  But a middling WCHA team that happens to be under .500 might be.  Regardless, the strength of shcedule factor of playing MTU or that middling WCHA team are already incorporated into the RPI and thus PWR.  Why do we need to overweight games against losing teams?  Because that's what an under-.500 team is, no matter how tought their schedule is.

(Pre-emptive request: Let's leave auto-qualifiers out of this.  That's a separate discussion, which we've had multiple times.)

[DeltaOne81]

Cornell #3 as of right now!

It probably won't last the night, but its nice to see :-D

Harvard 12

Colgate 14 and Dartmouth 15

[jy3]

not including the fairbanks - miami game (dont think it will matter 1-1 tie)
3-2-1

Rk Team PWR Record RPI
Rk W-L-T Win % Rk RPI
1 Denver 27 4 22-7-2 .7419 2 .5915
2 Colorado College 26 2 25-6-3 .7794 1 .5935
3 Cornell 24 1 20-4-3 .7963 4 .5808
4t Boston College 23 8 19-6-5 .7167 5 .5807
4t Minnesota 23 14 20-12-1 .6212 6 .5774
6 Michigan 22 3 24-7-3 .7500 7 .5737
7 New Hampshire 20 5 22-7-3 .7344 9 .5673
8t Boston University 19 12 20-10-2 .6563 3 .5822
8t Mass.-Lowell 19 9 19-7-4 .7000 8 .5689
10 Harvard 18 10 17-7-2 .6923 11 .5629
11t North Dakota 16 22 16-12-3 .5645 12 .5581
11t Ohio State 16 6 23-8-3 .7206 13 .5560
13t Colgate 15 7 22-8-2 .7188 14 .5484
13t Dartmouth 15 20 15-10-2 .5926 18 .5331
13t Wisconsin 15 11 21-9-2 .6875 10 .5660
16 Northern Michigan 12 16t 16-9-7 .6094 19 .5302

guess they picked up comparisons

[billhoward]

Boy, PWR and RPI and KRACH really does make it clearer who's going to be where in the post-season.