but it was not willing to flip the 13th team (St. Cloud-14th in KRACH) with the 11th (Ohio State-16th in KRACH) to protect Cornell<\/em>? Just because they were trying to preserve the band?<\/p>\nIt’s OK to switch 29 and 14, but not OK to switch 11 and 13? Just because 29 and 14 are in the same band, and 11 and 13 are not?<\/p>\n
Does this make common sense?<\/p>\n
What is worse, violating your banding principle and possibly slightly slighting OSU, or keeping it as is and severely negatively impacting Cornell?<\/p>\n
This is not about Cornell, per se. This is about the philosophy that says these “banding” principles are so strict, and so limiting, that we will not sway from them one iota in order to avoid an injustice.<\/p>\n
If this were a minor quibble, we move on. But this falls into the “major quibble” category.<\/p>\n
This strict adherence to the banding reared its ugly head in other ways as well. The committee was unwilling to shift UNH and Cornell, and thus avoid the potential second-round matchup between UNH and BU, teams that just played in the Hockey East tournament final. In the past, the potential second-round matchup between North Dakota and Minnesota also would have been easily avoided, at very minor expense.<\/p>\n
In the past, Maine would have stayed East as a reward for being the “better” No. 2 seed. Of course, the committee wanted to “protect” Cornell by matching it with the “worst” No. 2 seed, Boston College, but who would you rather play right now, Maine or BC?<\/p>\n
Finally, it’s worth saying that, while the Pairwise is good — and KRACH is better — the numbers aren’t precise enough to corner yourself with such strict adherence to them. The difference between No. 8 and No. 6 in PWR is minimal, and not worth boxing yourself into such an inflexibility.<\/p>\n
Broken Criteria<\/h4>\n All of the above becomes even more noteworthy when you consider that many of the criteria used to create this strict 1-16 ranking are flawed. As a result, you have the consequence of boxing yourself into corners with flawed numbers. That’s almost worse than being subjective.<\/p>\n
In fact, taking a look at KRACH, we see that Boston College is actually No. 5, and Mankato is No. 11. This gives Cornell the most difficult bracket — according to KRACH — of any other No. 1 seed.<\/p>\n
This doesn’t even take into account a Last 16 criteria. It, or some derivative thereof that rewarded better play late in the season or in conference tournaments, could have drastically altered the field and seeds. It was taken out of the selection criteria this year, because of the flawed nature of a Last 16 criteria based solely on winning percentage.<\/p>\n
Obviously, teams in much weaker conferences have better winning percentages down the stretch, which skewers comparisons. That’s why that criteria was taken out. However, some sort of “Down the Stretch” criteria is philosophically sound, and can be utilized so long as it’s KRACH-ified; i.e. normalized to account for strength of schedule.<\/p>\n
Without actually crunching the numbers, this most certainly would have kept St. Cloud State out of the tournament, made Maine a worse seed, and ultimately led to more “perfect” and usable numbers.<\/p>\n
Hockey fans and coaches don’t necessarily want the committee using subjectivity, so by reinserting a strong Last 16 (or something similar) criteria, you are getting common sense results in a completely objective fashion.<\/p>\n
The same is true for the Teams Under Consideration criteria, which now counts any team with an RPI of .500 or better. When you factor in that RPI is flawed in and of itself, then basing TUCs on RPI is flawed. At the very least, the committee needs to consider a TUC to be a team with an RPI over .500 AND<\/b> a winning percentage over .500.<\/p>\n
Better yet, scrap RPI and the constant tinkering of its weights, and use KRACH. And then use KRACH to determine TUCs.<\/p>\n
And most of all, let’s just stop monkeying around with all of these criteria, sit down with people who understand the ramifications of everything that’s done, and hammer out a process that works as best as humanly possible.<\/p>\n
The ultimate point here is, if you are going to be so strict to the numbers, and adhere to them so closely, then you better darn well make sure you are using GOOD numbers<\/em>! As it stands, the committee is not only painting itself into a corner with overly-rigid principles, it’s doing it with flawed numbers.<\/p>\nAn open proposal for a new system is forthcoming.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Division I men’s ice hockey committee made some changes to the selection process this year, both in the criteria used to compare teams, and the methodology used in selecting and placing them. Using a strict interpretation of its rules, and not budging from them, the committee selected and seeded the field in a mechanical […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":140328,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
What Should've Been Said on the Selection Show ... - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n