Rich writes:
>2. on NCAA: I believe in structuring the playoffs in such a way as to devote
>equal number of berths to the league. The only way to determine which league
>is the strongest is through playing in the playoffs, not voting by officials!
>Perhaps 2 teams per conference, plus the top two independents, then out of
>those teams, seed them so that #7 plays #10 and #8 plays #9 in a prelim.
 
	The NCAA berths are actually selected by a ranking system
	that takes into account team record, opponents' records and
	opponents opponents' records(we should really coin a new word
	for this awful phrase).  As I understand it, the members of the
	selection committee have little choice.
 
Bri writes:
>Let's say that the only East teams deserving of bids to the NC&& (two-
>team per conference and automatic bids notwithstanding) are BU and
>Maine...as determined by this magic science of sched strength.
>Thenhow is the tournament nothing more than a glorified WCHA-CCHA
>combined invitational?
 
	What's the problem with this.  Why should undeserving
	teams get in ahead of deserving WCHA or CCHA teams?
	Perhaps it is the "magic science" of the NCAA formula that
	bothers you.  IMHO, you should come up with a better
	formula or resign yourself to the fact that the ECAC has
	a really crappy non-conference schedule this year.
 
>As Rich says, the only way to prove it is is on the ice. That's why
>we have a tourn. and not a mythical ntnl champ.
 
	I agree that it should be proven on the ice.  Therefore,
	I don't think that the ECAC deserves two berths in the NCAA
	tourney since they haven't proven to have two teams in the
	national top 12.
 
>Personally, I prefer last years format where east teams played west teams
>in the early rounds. This is a good way to indicate which conferences are
>REALLY stronger. Even though the ECAC was supposedly weak, Clarkson
>defeated defending national champ Wisconsin and #1 in the nation Lake
>Superior...not bad for a rep from a weak league. Even though the
>west was supposedly stronger, the east sent three teams to the final
>four (it was legally called that then). Granted, NMU was #1 but Maine,
>BU and Clarkson were #2-4 not any west club. Let them settle it on the
>ice
 
	Gee Bri, who was ranked higher last year Clarkson or Wisconsin?
	Why do you make Clarkson out to be an underdog when it wasn't?
	Admittedly, Clarkson over LSSU was an impressive upset.  The
	more pertinent question relating to both last year and this
	year boils down to, is there a third ECAC member that deserves
	to be invited to the tourney.  Give some justification based
	on season records if it exists.
 
	On the subject of the way the seeded teams will be placed in
	the brackets, I have a theory.  As you know(or you should know)
	East seeds #1-4 and West seeds #5-6 will be in one half of
	the brackets and West #1-4 and East #5-6 in the other half.
	This seems rather strange to me.  One explanation is that with
	this setup the higher seeded teams in East and West won't have
	to make a long trip but instead the #5 and #6 seeds will.
	My alternative theory is that the NCAA would like to see the
	F#n@l F%$r balanced with East and West teams.  This setup should
	do that unless there are big upsets.  It will be tough for any
	of the #5 and #6 seeds to advance.  The NCAA would like a balanced
	finals since that will maintain interest among the fans and media
	across a wider area.
 
mark grassl
[log in to unmask]