J. Michael Neal wrote:
 
> 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.
 
Sorry, but you remember incorrectly.  Vermont did not win the ECAC
tournament last year, Cornell did.  Therefore Vermont received the
second East bye because they were the second highest rated East team.
 This leads to...
 
> 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.
 
The selection committee has stated on several occasions that eastern
teams will receive the East byes and western teams will receive the
West byes.  I do not believe that this issue was "sprung" at the last
minute last year, but I may be wrong.  Last year the big debate was
who should get the byes, the top four teams overall, or the top two
eastern and western teams.
 
In 1995 I spoke against the automatic bye "Clarkson rule" and last I
was for the "East is East and West is West rule," altough I do not
remember if I posted anything to Hockey-L on the matter.
 
Sean Pickett            E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Go Terriers             1997 Beanpot Champions
BU Hockey:  http://www.tiac.net/users/spickett/hockey.html
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.