Mike M. suggested I put this question on the list:
For the NC$$ tournament (at least this year), how are "East" and "West"
defined? If in terms of actual geography, with the WCHA and CCHA con-
sidered "West" and HE and ECAC considered "East" (and the various
independents assigned one or the other on the basis of geography),
does the fact that 6 teams go to each regional mean that teams which
are *overall* ranked higher might be excluded? For example, suppose
all the ranking systems, including the NC$$ poll, indicate that 10
of the top 12 teams are in the West as we know it. Would this mean
that the Eastern Regional's field could include a number of teams
which ranked lower, by most measures, than a number of western teams
which are excluded from the tournament?
The NC$$ gets around this in its basketball tournament (at least at
Division I) by being highly arbitrary in its assignment of teams to
"regions"--in fact, as far as I can see, a team's actual geographic
location has nothing do with where it plays in the basketball
tournament. The committee clearly seeds the entire 64-team field and
balances all the tournament rounds to get the best pairings (i.e.
those which avoid as much as possible two highly-rated teams meeting
early in the competition).
> In the olympics, as in the NHL, you have to touch up for an icing.
> Also, in the ECAC at least, there is no two-line offside, while there is
> in both the olympics and the NHL.
>
Does "touch up" mean a player on the "receiving" team has to touch
the puck for icing to be called?
Also, what is meant by "the icing call is waved off"?
> I believe it is indeed 200'x100' (not in meters), which is 15' wider than
> the standard North American rink...in addition to the olympics, this is the
> standard size throughout Europe. With so much more room on the ice, a much
> higher premium is placed on skating and less on hitting, resulting in a much
> different style of play...this is the main reason why Europeans playing in the
> NHL are noted for their skating and not too often for their hitting.
>
Exactly!
> From Marquette comes some interesting hockey news, with NMU coach
> Rick Comley talking about a combined Western Collegiate Hockey
> Association (WCHA) and Central Collegiate Hockey Associate (CCHA).
> An 18-team league ([MTU] sports information director [and HOCKEY-L
> participant] Dave Fischer proposes calling it the Great Big Hockey
> League), with perhaps four divisions, could mean renewed rivalries
> with teams like Michigan State, more visibility for MTU's program
> in lower Michigan, and the ability to schedule a wider variety of
> teams. Talks are v-e-r-y preliminary.
>
This would be *great*, IMO.
>
I'd like to see Keith Instone's reply to Shawn Walsh's comments:
> Regarding the computer strength of schedule, there is definitely
> something wrong when the top 18 spots in the computer rating are
> occupied by the 9 CCHA teams and 9 WCHA teams right across the board.
> It is pretty obvious that what has happened is that all of the eastern
> teams have had to schedule their share of independents and therefore,
> their strength of schedule "suffers".
>
> To say that the top eighteen strength of schedules are the western and
> central teams totally skews the college hockey computer rating. The
> HOCKEY EAST, for example, has a .500 record against both the CCHA and
> the WCHA, and a significant winning record against the ECAC.
> Unfortunately, we haven't played enough games against the two western
> conferences to be able to decide whether that, indeed, is a barometer of
> each conference's strength. Rather, I think the best barometer of all
> conferences is to simply understand that all conferences have their own
> three or four strong teams. All conferences also tend to have some
> weaker teams who are not as strong as the others on most nights. One
> certainly can find three strong teams in each league and, in most cases,
> four teams. At the same time, one can also pick a team or two out of
> each league that is not particularly strong this season.
>
This particular question I asked last time hasn't been answered yet:
> On the question of overtimes (and their being settled by shootouts
> in the Olympics): Why DOES hockey settle for games ending in ties
> if the first overtime is scoreless? I find ties extremely unsatis-
> fying for all involved.
> Any one else out there getting annoyed with the coverage of CBS?
> i watched for an hour last night saw 6 interviews and special
> type stuff and one speed skating event. These people have the entire
> day to put us something together, I should be able to see non stop
> events from the morning in France, not all this bs. I finally
> got bored and went to bed. Now a hockey game and no coverage!
>
> Just A little disappointed
> Bob
Me too! I was griping about this with my wife last night. All that
talk and virtually no action! Maybe CBS figures we all get the results
earlier, so don't care about watching the actual events.
As long as we're complaining about the media (sorry, Mike!), I was also
griping about the wire service story on the 1st day of the Olympics,
at least the version which ran in our local paper. It made a big deal
out of how "disappointing" the U.S.'s performance was and how strangely
but positively surprising Austria's was. Who writes this stuff? I
thought it was common sense that countries like--and especially--
Austria excel at most of the sports featured in the Winter Olympics,
while the U.S. doesn't. What's the big surprise?
> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 13:19:17 EST
> From: Mike Machnik <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: USA 2, Germany 0 - USA now 2-0-0!
>
> Team USA just defeated Germany minutes ago in Meribel, 2-0. It is the first
> time since 1960 that USA has started off with two wins. We know what happened
> that year...
>
Thanks, Mike! Now I won't have to wonder for several more hours! (Not
being facetious, either! :)
With the coverage we're likely to get, we might not have heard anything
about hockey in tonight's CBS presentation!
***********************************
* Steve Christopher, NMU *
* "Go 'Cats!''Going for two in '92!" *
* [log in to unmask] *
***********************************
|
