Andy Weise wrote:
> With all due respect, I don't know if this is the time to complain 
> that the WCHA doesn't have enough
> teams in the tournament. Wisconsin probably loses their case with two 
> losses to BC and one to Clarkson,
> all in Madison. CC loses out likely because of two losses to UNH, one 
> to Bemidji State, and a first-round
> exit from the WCHA playoffs to Michigan Tech - all of these losses on 
> their home ice, as well.
>
> Speaking of Tech, their  results probably make the best case for a bid 
> (2 wins at Vermont, 2 wins at
> North Dakota, two wins vs Wisconsin, and a first-round series win at 
> CC, but losses to Michigan and
> Harvard at the GLI). Just looking at those results vs TUCs, Michigan 
> Tech would get my vote for a
> 4th WCHA team. I just can't explain why they're that low in both 
> ratings - KRACH & PWR.
>
> Miami's case is made with wins vs Denver, Michigan in Ann Arbor, and 
> SLU in Canton, though might
> be hurt by a loss vs Vermont,  loss & tie at Alaska, and swept by LSSU 
> in the CCHA...this may explain
> why they're on the bubble, too.
>
> So, in a sport where the WCHA has dominated over the past several 
> years - 5 straight national champs
> and 6 out of the last 7 - why is it such a big deal that they don't 
> get more than 3 teams this year, when
> the results from Wisconsin and CC seem to show that they didn't win 
> when they needed to?
>
> As far as the tournament selection process goes, I don't think we're 
> ever going to have a foolproof
> system or formula that will make everyone happy. Every year, 1 or 2 
> teams might feel slighted that
> they weren't picked or upset with their draw if they were picked at 
> all. I think we should just be thankful
> that we have a system at all (see: Division I football).
>
> In addition, many of us ECAC fans are frustrated year in and year out 
> that the ECAC gets 1 team in
> and fortunate when 2 teams are selected. I wouldn't be surprised if 
> many of us across the country were
> rooting for Quinnipiac to beat Clarkson to allow a 3rd team in. IMO, 
> the reason the conference is perceived
> as "weak" is because every team is capable of beating each other (and 
> has done so), thus knocking down
> the ratings of its top teams. To me, this makes for an extremely 
> competitive and exciting hockey season and
> even more of a reason that we should see more ECAC teams in the 
> tournament. I'll take this year's top 5
> teams (SLU, Clarkson, Dartmouth, Cornell, and Quinnipiac) and put them 
> up against any other team in the
> country and like their chances.

You have done a fabulous job of cherrypicking through teams' records for 
only the data the supports your position, while ignoring everything 
else.  Did Wisconsin lose to BC and Clarkson?  Yes, they did.  They also 
won two games in Grand Forks, beat Minnesota, St. Cloud and Michigan 
State.  Did Miami beat Denver, Michigan and St. Lawrence?  Yes, they 
did.  They also were swept at home by Lake Superior State in the 
playoffs, dropped three of four points to Alaska, and lost to the same 
Clarkson team that Wisconsin did.  If I'm allowed to pick only the games 
that make them look good, I can build a case for Minnesota-Duluth making 
the tournament.

Taken as a whole, I find Miami's season to be a lot less impressive than 
Wisconsin's.




-- 
J. Michael Neal
http://idonotlikeyoueither.blogspot.com/

"Tonight your beauty burns into my memory
the wheel of heaven turns above us endlessly
this is all the heaven we got, right here where we are in our shangrila."

-Mark Knopfler