Quote from: AO on March 02, 2015, 01:43:49 PMQuote from: carletonsid on March 02, 2015, 01:25:22 PMSure but "bad losses" aren't really a part of the criteria. Bethel had a much better resume than Buena Vista but was put below them due to 1 head to head matchup. Surely then St. Olaf who has a similar resume to Bethel (better WP but worse SOS and wins versus Regionally ranked) would be punished more heavily for losing 0-3 in the head to head? I think the West committee was nervous about getting bids and set Olaf up to be the first West team on the board believing that the committee wouldn't look past the win pct. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they just didn't apply the criteria themselves.Quote from: AO on March 02, 2015, 11:13:40 AMQuote from: GoldandBlueBU on March 02, 2015, 10:51:08 AMChasing around Bridge must have tired him out judging by his goose egg in the scoring column.
Interesting defensive strategy to put 6'6 Nord on either Wojta or Tusler most of the day...worked out mostly, there were a few times when they were just a step too quick for him, but he kept them in front of him for the most part.
Looks like the West committee really hated the Royals based upon early reports that the final secret rankings had them at #6 despite 3 wins over Olaf. Could have had 3 MIAC teams in the tourney if they don't bury Bethel in the rankings by selectively using the head to head criteria when considering Buena Vista but not St. Olaf.
I would have to add that Bethel's losses to Hamline and Carleton certainly didn't help either.
Why do you think the committee actually follows its own listed criteria?
