HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:54:50 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
I apologize for instigating a question merely to abandon the discussion,
but I was still controlling my urge to head for the West Regional this
afternoon.  Now I'm the owner of tickets and need to float my car out of
Fort Worth and onto some high ground pointing toward Ann Arbor.

The reason I asked was because I understand how the old procedure was a
historically necessary one when there was no other way to funnel teams
toward a national playoff.  The PWR or better methods, to the extent they
can be relied on, can do away with the need for either the regular season
conference record or the conference tourney to identify participants, if
the goal is to identify the nation's "best team".  Frankly, I suppose they
could eventually eliminate the distinction of conference play and need for
a national tournament.  I can see reasons we might want to retain automatic
bids just to keep the process interesting and keep teams from feeling
they've been eliminated too early.  I see pros and cons.  Just wondered
what others felt.

OK, get ready Oklahoma, I'm crossing you first.  As for Tony, if he ain't
willing to walk to Worcester, screw 'im.

boB


"John T. Whelan" wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Craig Powers wrote:
>
> > Bob Griebel wrote:
>
> >> Just curious.  If the PWR or its improved successor ever reaches
> >> the hypothetical state of scientific perfection, does anyone feel
> >> there will be a continuing justification for automatic bids?
>
> > Of course.  Automatic bids are more about providing opportunities for
> > participation than they are about selecting the best teams.  It's the
> > at-large bids that are used to get the best teams.
>
> I beg to differ.  Automatic bids are about rewarding teams for winning
> championships; at-large bids are about rewarding season-long
> performance.  The two do not always go hand in hand.
>
>                                           John Whelan, Cornell '91
>                                                  [log in to unmask]
>                                      http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
>
> Enjoy the latest Hockey Geek tools at slack.net/hockey

ATOM RSS1 RSS2