Making the case for Minnesota State

Posted by: adamw

I’ve written a new article about the Minnesota State-Wisconsin controversy, and a way the committee could’ve done it differently — looking back on the process from a historical perspective.  Check it out.

Later, I’m going to address colleague Mike Machnik’s blog post, where he criticizes the committee’s decision to protect Miami-Michigan, saying it broke precedent. I’ll take a deeper historical look that backs the committee.

Comments Closed

to “Making the case for Minnesota State”

  1. jtwcornell91 Says:

    We saw this in the 2003 tournament as well; the troublesome business with two WCHA teams as 4-seeds was a result of St. Cloud being ranked below Ohio State on the basis of comparisons with teams that didn’t make the tournament. The problem I’ve always had with adding up comparison wins and ignoring everything else is that the pairwise criteria were originally instituted to decide between teams that were close in the RPI, sort of like a tie-breaker. You don’t order a league’s standings by performing pairwise applications of the tie-breakers and then adding up the comparison wins.