At 10:49 AM 3/12/01 -0500, Joe LaCour wrote:
>John
>
>Another wonderful job with the scripting.

I concur. Excellent work!

>(a)  1 ECAC team makes it.  There is no way Clarkson can make it.  Sorry,
>guys we had our shot and blew it.

Certainly not by the numbers, at least. Any chance the committee can be
forgiving and give Clarkson a bid based on the fact they won the ECAC
regular season, even though they lost to the #10 seed in the quarters?
OK, maybe I just answered my own question...   ;-)

I disagree with the way the automatic/guaranteed bid has changed this
year. I would rather see the "Colorado College rule" in place (believe me,
I didn't just think of this after last night's Vermont-Clarkson result). I
just feel that this gives more credit to a team that worked hard all year
long than one who got hot in March.

Does Vermont (if they win the ECACs) "deserve" a bid more than Clarkson?
Maybe you can say so based on their play this weekend, but over the course
of the season, Clarkson has shown (in my opinion) they are the better team
and would be more "deserving" of a chance to play for the national
championship.

There's obviously nothing we can do about it, since the existing rules are
the way they are. I'll happily accept them (not that I have much choice)
and root for some exciting games in Lake Placid.

-Andy

P.S.  I use the term "deserve" quite loosely. Take that to mean whatever
you like, but it all depends on what your own interpretation of the word
means. I don't mean to slight anyone, of course (especially UVM).