Of course they COULD define the selection criteria more definitively, but I've come to the
conclusion that they (and I don't mean just the WCHA, but anyone who picks an All-America Team,
the Hobey Baker selection folks, the Heisman selection people, MLB MVP voters etc.) operate under
the theory that "there is no such thing as bad publicity."

Every time one of these awards is announced, there are lengthy and often heated discussions, and
the lengthy discussions raise awareness of the award.  They can make the announcement of the
winner an event a la Hobey or Heisman, milking additional publicity for the award.

Leading up to the announcing of the awards, there's a lot of speculation and discussion, and that
raises the awareness of the award also.  Some awards, like Hobey and Heisman, add another layer of
speculation and controversy by adding an "narrowing down" step, so there's an additional layer of
contoversy over who got the shaft.

It's interesting how pretty much the same discussions happen every year; only the names change.

--- SCSU <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> . . . > I have not seen anyone define the criteria for the awards. Sometimes MVP
> voting is "best player in the league" and sometimes it is "most valuable
> player to his team." That is a big difference because the first definition
> favors a player on a good team, but the second favors a player on an average
> team. "Best" and "most-important" are two different things. What criteria
> the voters are applying for the WCHA teams can be very different than what
> people think they should be.
> 
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com