Harvard is without a doubt one of the top four teams in the country. Nobody on the team doubts that. Nobody who has ever watched Harvard play with any consistency should ever doubt that.

Likely the major factor going against Harvard's selection was statistics, not politics. That is what Halldorson believes.

"I think you have to look at record against common opponents and things like that," Halldorson said. "We performed well against a lot of the Eastern teams. We beat Brown, too."

Against common opponents, Harvard was 7-4-3. Minnesota was 12-3-0.

Considering the recent trend in college sports to overuse statistics to determine tournament fields (note the Bowl Championship Series in Division 1-A Football) it is fairly likely that the above statistic was a big reason why Harvard wasn't selected.

Another overly used, unreliable statistical measure is the Ratings Percentage Index, which the men's basketball and hockey selection committees use to make the NCAA selections and seedings in March. The RPI is calculated based on a weighted average of a team's record, the summed records of a team's opponents, and the summed records of a team's opponent's opponents.

When the AWCHA mentions picking teams based on "record and strength of schedule" it's a pretty safe bet that it is referring to the RPI.

For most of the season, Minnesota was ahead of Harvard in the RPI, despite trailing Harvard in the polls. In the final RPI tally, Minnesota was No. 2 and Harvard was No. 3.