> I wasn't going to get into this, and I don't really care to discuss the
> numbers, as I did NOT in my column advocate changing anything, nor did I say
> that either Ron Mason or Red Berenson was correct
 
However, statements like "the NCAA showed the CCHA what cold is all
about. Seed #5, East and West," and "to have both teams seeded fifth
seems a bit of a slap in the face," certainly seem to me like
complaints that the CCHA received a raw deal.  (As opposed to
elsewhere in the article, where that opinion is merely attributed to
"a few people in this here neck of the woods".)
 
> --nor did I give empirical evidence,
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical evidence", but I count seven
paragraphs worth of factual but dubiously relevant data at the
beginning of the article (from "Not once in the history of the NCAA
Tournament..." to "...with a record of 18-10-7."), containing
statements which I challenged on around four different grounds in my
rebuttal.  Since I posted, I've learned that most of that information
comes from a CCHA press release, which makes a little more sense,
given that leagues tend to be pretty selective in what information
they highlight (e.g., when the ECAC goes 2-13 in non-conference play,
and the resulting press release reads something like "Colgate and
Clarkson victorious in non-league weekend").  But repeating that
information in your article certainly implies you find it relevant in
this context.
 
> as I make clear when I say that the information given is
> completely inconclusive.
 
What you say is inconclusive is the data on conference performance in
the NCAAs.  I was challenging not only the relevance of that data, but
the dubious statistics used in the first part of the article to
support the "slap in the face" conclusion.
 
> But I now feel the need to defend my professional reputation.
>
> This comment by John Whelan is misleading and disturbing:
>
> "I'm very disappointed to see the ill-informed and self-serving
> bellyaching contained in the USCHO article coming from a serious
> journalist and two Division I head hockey coaches.  Typically, this is
> the domain of the ignorant fan (for example, those who have
> complained, utterly without justification, that the ECAC should have
> had a third team in either of the past two tournaments)."
>
> What bothers me is the selective reading of the column in question.  I wrote
> many things in that column that have been conveniently overlooked by those
> who take issue with it and me.
 
And here I thought I would get in trouble for quoting too much of the
article.  I stopped quoting at the beginning of the discussion of past
performance in the NCAAs, because I believe, for reasons detailed in
my original message, that this is completely irrelevant to the
question of this year's seeds.  The three quotes you give below, which
were indeed not included in the section I quoted, relate to the
outcome of such analysis.  What I was found fault with on your part
(as opposed to the part of the coaches quoted in the article) were the
statements, quoted above, that seem to me to express the sentiment
that the CCHA was mistreated by the NCAA, the slanted comparisons to
Hockey East teams, and the irrelevant belittling characterization of
the CHA.
 
> For example:
>
> "What does all of this say? Just about anything you want it to,  really. If
> you were pro-CCHA, you might argue that the five titles since the tourney
> expanded to 12--in spite of the conference's overall win percentage since
> then--says something about how tough the league is, top to bottom.
>
> "Or, if you're pro-CCHA, you could hope the league doesn't look at NCAA win
> percentage by conference, since by itself, yours does nothing for you."
>
> And, in a section entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," I conclude:
>
> "For all the league's complaints about seeding and lack of respect, if these
> two teams bow out early, the crow should be served heaping on the plate, and
> cold."
 
All of which implies that if the CCHA's record in NCAA play were
better, the arguments in the first part of the article would be valid.
What I was complaining about was the weakness of those arguments in
the first place.
 
One minor correction on another topic in retrospect; later in the
article, you say:
 
" You don't see billboards for any other championship tournament in any
" other championship city. You don't see banners advertising the
" tournament hanging in the streets, as you do in Detroit
 
I don't believe I saw a billboard for anything in Lake Placid, but I
can say for a fact that Main Street was lined with ECAC Tournament
banners.  And a number of shops had signs mentioning the ECACs.
Obviously you weren't making a comparison between a city the size of
Detroit and a small town like Lake Placid, but I just wanted to
mention LP's welcoming atmosphere, since it's come up in discussions
of whether the ECACs should be moved to a more easily accessible site.
 
                                          John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                                 [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.