Brian Morris <[log in to unmask]> writes...
 
>Subject: USCHM article by John Gilbert
 
>>Here's the scheme: Each league sends four teams, based on season
>>and playoff stature. One team from each league goes to one of the
>>four regional sites.
 
>I don't think that would be fair.  I would prefer a method similar to the
 
...and later in the same post writes...
 
>The problem is ensuring your top seeds don't get bumped off in the first round.
>Assuming the top seeds would tend to be the big revenue producers like
>Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine (no I'm not going to make a cheap
>joke) you'd want to encourage as much as possible their path through the
>tourney.
 
     Is this your idea of fairness?  The NC$$ should "encourage as much as
possible" the "path through the tourney" of the "revenue producers"?  It's
consistent with "NC$$" but it hardly sounds fair to me.  Pity the good teams
that don't bring in big bucks.
 
>>This year, the NCAA seedings might be more surprising than ever.
>>Rumor has it, a gentleman's agreement has determined that each
>>league shall get three teams to the final 12, which is a welcome
>>change from the politicking that has accompanied the recent trend
>>of downgrading the ECAC.
 
     I'm not so sure this is recent, by the way.  It seems to me the
ECAC has just about always been downgraded.  I agree with Brian, though,
that there shouldn't necessarily be a quota of tournament bids for each
conference.
 
>I know some may feel that way.  But I think history proves otherwise.  Last
>year the team that got left out was Michigan State (not saying it was a wrong
>decision).  Most RPI fans agreed they didn't deserve a bid.  Expanding to 16
                                  ----
     Is the "they" here referring to RPI or Michigan State?  It may well
be true that most RPI fans agreed that the Engineers didn't deserve to make
the tournament, but I don't think that was reflected by the majority of posts
to hockey-l last spring :-).
 
>So a team could be the third place team in a conference, but lose to every
>non-conference opponent and make the tournament.  I think you have to have
>some strength of schedule measure to ensure competitiveness.
 
     Agreed.  However, it is difficult in college hockey.  Teams in the
ECAC, at least, have very few non-conference games and they are mostly
concentrated in the first half of the season.
     By the way, if the ECAC only gets two NC$$ bids this year (which I
think is possible judging from the way the polls have looked all season),
RPI and Clarkson would be on the bubble for the second spot.  Ignoring
what happens in the ECAC tourney, I would expect RPI to get the edge since,
even though they finished behind Clarkson in the ECAC, they have done better
against ranked opponents outside the conference (not to mention having the
head-to-head edge).  I think Clarkson has to win the ECAC to insure itself
of a bid.  Any comments?
 
>Despite my criticisms, my hat's off to the writer.  It's good to have people
>out there thinking up new ways to encourage the growth of hockey.  It's
>certainly a lot more appealing topic than the mendacious mess that's been
>discussed on the list lately.
 
     Well said.
 
 
Thanks,
-Glenn