I wasn't going to get into this, and I don't really care to discuss the
numbers, as I did NOT in my column advocate changing anything, nor did I say
that either Ron Mason or Red Berenson was correct--nor did I give empirical
evidence, as I make clear when I say that the information given is
completely inconclusive.
 
But I now feel the need to defend my professional reputation.
 
This comment by John Whelan is misleading and disturbing:
 
"I'm very disappointed to see the ill-informed and self-serving
bellyaching contained in the USCHO article coming from a serious
journalist and two Division I head hockey coaches.  Typically, this is
the domain of the ignorant fan (for example, those who have
complained, utterly without justification, that the ECAC should have
had a third team in either of the past two tournaments)."
 
What bothers me is the selective reading of the column in question.  I wrote
many things in that column that have been conveniently overlooked by those
who take issue with it and me.
 
For example:
 
"What does all of this say? Just about anything you want it to,  really. If
you were pro-CCHA, you might argue that the five titles since the tourney
expanded to 12--in spite of the conference's overall win percentage since
then--says something about how tough the league is, top to bottom.
 
"Or, if you're pro-CCHA, you could hope the league doesn't look at NCAA win
percentage by conference, since by itself, yours does nothing for you."
 
And, in a section entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," I conclude:
 
"For all the league's complaints about seeding and lack of respect, if these
two teams bow out early, the crow should be served heaping on the plate, and
cold."
 
Paula C. Weston
CCHA Correspondent
USCHO
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.