I've been pondering these questions a little, but first, to recap for those
who don't know, here are how the CCHA & WCHA playoffs will be run.
CCHA
All 12 teams qualify. UAF to be seeded somewhere from 7-12 by league. In
the first round, bottom 6 play at top 6. Six winners advance to CCHA
championships. Top 2 get bye while 6 plays 3 and 5 plays 4 in
quarterfinals. Winners play bye teams in semifinals the next night, and
semi winners play for the title the third night (actually 2 pm in the
afternoon).
WCHA
All 10 teams qualify. UAA to be seeded 10th. In the first round, bottom 5
play at top 5. 5 winners advance to WCHA "Final Five". 5 plays 4 the
first night, winner plays 1 while 2 plays 3 in the semis the second night,
and semi winners play for the title the third night.
One note: the CCHA plan stacks the deck against any team not seeded in the top
2 as they'll have to win three straight to win the title, while the WCHA
plan does this for any team not in the top 3.
The first question is what criteria the CCHA will use to determine where to
seed UAF; I suspect the outcome of their games vs other CCHA clubs will
play a big part in this. UAF plays six of the 11 CCHA teams this year -
hosting Miami, OSU, Ferris, and WMU for two-game sets, hosting BG for one
game in the Great Alaska Face-Off, and two games at MSU, for a total of 11
games (9 at home). Other CCHA teams play 30 games.
It seems obvious to me that both leagues decided they wanted to have as
many teams as possible make the playoffs - both to make it more interesting
for all teams in the league, and because it allows them to have the
affiliates compete in the playoffs. You can't very well have the
affiliates compete and not allow everyone to make it when the affiliates
are not playing a full league schedule.
We have the two leagues opting for different strategies in deciding where
to seed the affiliates. The CCHA's plan allows for UAF to possibly be
seeded closer to where they might have finished, thereby removing the
chance that the #1 team might have to host a better team than they would
have otherwise (if UAF had a great season but was automatically seeded
last). But there might be a controversy if UAF is seeded higher than a
league team who seems to have earned the higher seed.
The WCHA removes the controversy over the seeds, but allows for the chance
that the #1 team will have to host a better team if UAA has a great season.
This raises the question of whether a team might throw games near the end
of the season if there is a close race for first and they'd rather finish
2nd and get an easier draw. But then again, there is almost always this
possibility if it looks like the top seed will draw a weak team that
nonetheless gives them fits (i.e. BC drawing and losing to Northeastern a
couple of years ago in HE). I tend to think the prestige in finishing
first makes this an unlikely possibility.
I was wondering whether the WCHA might have considered seeding UAA 7-10
and having a first round like the ECAC where 7 hosts 10 and 8 hosts 9. But
the distances involved in traveling and having to extend the playoffs by an
extra week might have made this too much of a problem. With a mid-week
preliminary like the ECAC, a team would probably have to travel on Monday
to play Tuesday, then the winners fly a day or two later to play a
quarterfinal series - and if UAA is a winner, that means they miss a week
of school.
Just some thoughts. I don't have a problem with how either league chose to
handle the situation; I think there is the chance of controversy in either
system and I can't see a better way of doing it that would work.
---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.) *HMN*
|
