I'm going to have to contradict Mr. Whelan on this.  1995 was not the
last time we heard about this rule; it came up last year.  Apparently
Shawn Walsh's complaints only succeeded in delaying the implementation
of the "Clarkson Rule" by one year.  I know that it was discussed on the
list when we talked about the seeding last season.  Further, if I
remember correctly, Vermont only received a bye last year because of
this rule.
 
My contention at the time (I was disgruntled by the fact that Minnesota
was higher rated than Vermont and not only didn't get a bye, but would
have to beat Michigan to make it to the Final Four) was that I didn't
mind if the NCAA came up with guidelines like this, but that they
shouldn't spring them at the last minute.  I was not on the list in the
spring of 1995, so it must have been discussed more recently than that.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
John T. Whelan wrote:
>
>         I've been meaning to say something ever since we learned that
> the NC$$ has decided to give a bye to any team that wins both the
> regular season and tournament titles in their conference.
> Unfortunately, I've been very busy this week, but it has also given me
> a chance to look up the details in the archives from two years ago.
>
>         The last time we heard the NC$$ mention this was in 1995.  The
> situation was as follows: according to the ratings system used at the
> time, four eastern teams were in the top 12: #1 BU, #3 Maine, who were
> Hockey East regular season champions, #5 UNH, who had already been
> eliminated in the conference quarterfinals, and #8 Clarkson, RS champs
> in the ECAC.  (These were the final rankings, so the exact numbers may
> have been different in the week before the conference tournaments,
> when the discussion arose, but the qualitative setup is the same.  No
> matter who won the ECAC tournament, a second ECAC team would have to
> be added to meet the conference minumum.)  Rick Comley, chair of the
> selection committee mentioned in a conference call that the committee
> would give an automatic bye to any team that won both titles in their
> league.  This was allegedly after pressure from Clarkson, who would
> have had the opportunity to oust either BU or Maine from one of the
> top two seeds in the East, and was known as the "Clarkson Rule".  A
> lot of people went more or less ballistic (check out the HOCKEY-L
> archives for the weeks of March 14 and 21, 1995) about how unfair it
> was that a team like Maine, who earned the bye due to their play all
> season, could have their bid stolen by Clarkson.  But what presumably
> turned the tide was a chat that Maine head coach Shawn Walsh had with
> Comley, who recanted, allegedly in writing.  (Clarkson lost in the
> ECAC semis anyway, so it was all irrelevant.)
>
>         Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot.  Two ECAC teams
> are in a position to receive the two byes, but the "Clarkson Rule" has
> been re-introduced, giving BU and chance to displace one of them
> (leaping over the third-ranked team in the East, UNH, in the process).
> Never mind whether fans are complaining about how "unfair" it is that
> BU should get the bye over Vermont, I'm surprised that UVM coach Mike
> Gilligan, who doesn't strike me as a meek fellow, hasn't raised a
> stink.
>
>         Two years ago I defended the Clarkson Rule, and I still think
> the NC$$ should reward tournament winners, although I'm not sure this
> is the best way to do it.  For one thing, it means that a team from
> conference A can suffer because of what happens in conference B's
> tournament.  This is already the case with the automatic bids for
> tournament winners, but in that case it's the "bubble teams" that
> suffer, and their claim to the last few tournament spots is tenuous
> anyway.  (This includes my team; Cornell would have been displaced by
> Providence last year had they not won the ECACs, and I wouldn't have
> minded seeing them lose their berth if they didn't get the job done in
> Lake Placid.)
>
>         But at any rate the best objections raised then still apply:
> whatever the rules are they should be laid out ahead of time.  I'm not
> aware that this rule was adopted *after* the 1994-5 season (which
> would have been a reasonable thing to do), or that there was any
> inkling of it until this week.  If I'm right about that, the fact the
> automatic byes have been brought back now, after it was rescinded
> under similar circumastances with the conferences reversed two years
> ago, seems a little fishy.
>
>         A slightly more inflammatory version of these observations can
> be found in my ECAC hockey report at
> <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/ecac.970312.html>.
>
>                                         John Whelan, Cornell '91
>                                         <[log in to unmask]>
>         <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/jshock.html>
>
> Cornell Men's Ice Hockey: 1996-7 Ivy League Champions,
> ECAC regular season runners-up.  WE WANT MORE!  WE WANT THE ECACs!
>
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.