If, as most "experts" assume Wisconsin with a losing record gets an at large bid, it seems to me that there are two issues that the NCAA needs to look at, and we all know that the NCAA is like the IRS, having them look closely at something is not necessarily a good thing.? We all know that hockey has been slipping by the 25% rule for a few years, and?this may be used as an argument that the hockey field is too large (which would be bad).??Or this embarrassment might prompt the powers that be to look a bit more closely at the selection criteria (which would be good), allowing for a little latitude from a flawed formula that like all statistics has limits.? 

Perhaps just requiring a winning record for an at-large bid is all that is needed to improve the situation, but clearly there is a problem.

It is clear that the current PWR still puts too much weight on a relatively small portion of games leading to?not only the inflation of mid-level WCHA teams, but the?top?ranking of Miami and Michigan.? The latter two secured top rankings by winning a couple of games against WCHA teams and pounding the trash at the bottom of the CCHA.??But?switch the result of one or two of the?2007 games and the Redhawks and Wolverines fall down in the PWR.?I do not favor a "smoke filled room" approach for the committee, but I do wish the system allowed for some flexibility for the selection of the last few at large bids and the seeding of the teams.

I could also gripe about the lack of inter-conference road games for the WCHA, but that is a constant irritant of this system to the eastern teams that will not change, so let's address the things we can improve.

Just a few musings.

William Sangrey
Cornell '87&'94
Let's Go Red!!!