Splitting a league into two divisions has nuances. I agree that a six team
league is supposed to be entitled to an autobid but a league with two six
team divisions probably does not. To call it a league implies that the two
divisions should compete at seasons end for a "league" championship, the
winner of which would get the autobid.
Cutting down on the at-large bids has good and bad points. One of the good
things about the autobid is that it gives a team who has not had a great
season but finds its groove and is building momentum at seasons end, to
qualify for the NCAA's by winning its championship. It gives more emphasis
to the league championships while the at-large system gives more emphasis to
the regular season record. The fact that it enhances the league revenues for
the championships doesn't hurt either.
The bad point of at-large bids is that it eliminates a team who has had a
good season but is bumped by a "lesser" team from a "lesser" league
(however you define this) because this lesser team has won a few games in a
row in the league championship.
Whichever way it goes, its better than the old days when the field was
determined in a smoke filled back room (unless it was YOUR guy in the back
room).
One of the good things that might come out of a group of 6 team leagues is
that it would allow a larger number of non-league games during the season.
This might be a small step towards normalizing the referee-ing philosophy
across leagues and should help with the accuracy of the RPI, PWR and other
rankings since teams would play against more opponents
As far as the fairness of determining which is the "best" team each year,
there is no good way. The only thing we can agree on is that the best
method of determining the best team is a method that emphasizes YOUR teams
successes and minimizes YOUR team's weakness. You can debate that forever.
Meanwhile, the best compromise is the one we have. Define the best team as
the one who wins the national tournament.
Sorry to ramble on like this. I think I really need a hockey "fix"
Mark Lewin
RPI 1969
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:32 AM, William Sangrey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A couple thoughts,
>
> I believe (i.e. correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think I am) that any
> league in any sport that has at least 6 eligible members is entitled to an
> auto bid in a tournament. So if the remaining WCHA, CCHA teams and UAH or
> members of AHA reorganize into two 6 team leagues, they would get two auto
> bids, period. Thus the net effect of creating the Big Ten in hockey may
> turn out to be fewer at-large (something that could become even more
> pronounced if the left out smaller western teams drop D-I hockey and the
> NCAA reduces the field size accordingly).
>
> Based on what has happened over the past few days and weeks, it seems that
> Notre Dame is the final piece of the puzzle (I wonder why they did not join
> the not-Big 10 western league - do they really think that HE wants them that
> badly?). I just hope that when the music stops we don't have any more
> programs like UAH who are left without a chair.
>
> Finally, why do people keep suggesting that the Ivy teams would want to
> leave the ECAC? The teams in the ECAC share many things in common and are
> very competitive with each other athletically and academically. The schools
> are geographically concentrated, and there are many strong rivalries both
> between and among the Ivies and non-Ivies. It is a league where anyone can
> beat anyone else, home or road (and often do), and over the long term (since
> 1983 split with HE) every team has had at least a time when they have
> realistically competed for or won league titles. I am probably naive, but
> shouldn't that be the goal of any athletic conference?
>
> William Sangrey
> Cornell '87&'94
> Let's Go RED!!!
>
|
