>This may say more about parity in the WCHA than anything else (I'm not
>arguing that WCHA is stronger, top to bottom than others, just suggesting
>an alternative explanation).  Maybe CC needs to schedule Ohio State and
>Kent State next year to boost ITS winning %   :-)
 
Yea, I guess that was my point. There was TOO MUCH parity in the WCHA
this year. With all that parity, it is hard to separate the #1 team
from the #5 team, for instance. Therefore, you shouldn't argue that CC
gets in just because they finished atop a very equal pile of teams.
 
Here is a good guess at the next 6 teams and how the NCAA would have
seeded them:
 
13. Colorado College (definite--Comley said they were #13)
14. St. Cloud
15. Clarkson
16. Northern Michigan
17. Maine
18. Miami
 
So, in a 12 team field, the WCHA gets 2; in a 16 team field, they get
5!  A league with 4 great teams and X lousy ones will have a better
chance of getting 4 teams in the NCAAs than a league with 6
equally-good teams.  It is all part of the process of selecting "the
best".
 
It is hard this year to differentiate between the top 5 or 6 WCHA
teams.  Are they all good, bad or mediocre? If they had played more
non-conference games, then maybe it would be clearer.
 
TCHCR says they are all good. RPI says they are all mediocre. I sure
wish we had more data to know for sure.
 
It is not an indication that the WCHA is weak because they only got 2
in of 12. The line had to be drawn at 12, and the majority of their
teams fell just below that line. The fact that 5 WCHA teams are in the
top 16 is a sign that the league is still strong.
 
Keith