My apologies to any Golden Gaels (gotta love that nickname). In my defense, this is the same debate that is going on with Virginia Tech, Marshall, and the PAC10. "3/98 - Queen's beat Cornell U twice in a tournament, including the finals. Cornell overall that year was 2-7 vs. Queen's, no idea who was on the teams." The tournament focused on Canadiana, if I saw the right one. This result should not necessarily be rejected out of hand, however - it gives us a good basis for comparison. Cornell lost by ten points in the championship game. Queen's also lost once to MIT. This was on Canadiana questions. MIT was therefore better (or equal) on Canadian questions than Queen's was, and the Big Red were only slightly worse. Some 'question bias' arguments seem to disappear - if American schools can do well on a Canada-centered tournament, why can't Queen's duplicate the same results? Queen's has finished 15th (!) at 1998 NAQT Sectionals, 9th at Princeton, 2nd at Cornell, and 7th at 1997 NAQT Sectionals. They were ranked 53rd by NAQT. They've also continually lost games at CBI to non-active programs (Rochester, SUNY-Albany, Alfred). Even oweing to the fact that CBI heavily favors pop culture, this still seems not to indicate a great team. What's that? They played better teams? Doesn't seem like it. In the February 1998 poll only Cornell (6th), MIT (14th), Harvard (4th) and Yale (23rd) from the Northeast. Penn State wasn't ranked. How then does one explain such low finishes, particularly at NAQT Sectionals, if Queen's is a legitimate Top 25 team? Delaware has had similar finishes at tournaments, and I don't think that it has deserved any votes in the past. Queen's seems like a good team. Queen's' results over the past years, however, do not seem to merit approaching Top 25 status.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST