Mike Machnik and Adam Wodon have pulled apart my paragraph on the
strength of Michigan State to make it seem as if I mean something else
than I do.  My whole point was that an MSU victory is hardly
inconceivable, and would produce exactly the result the the NCAA seems
willing to contort into a pretzel to avoid.
 
Also, Adam Wodon mentioned that Minnesota is the only non-bye western
team not to at least tie Michigan this year.  Beyond questioning the
relevence, I would also point out that the game went to overtime, Miami
and Michigan State have each been blasted by Michigan at least once and
that both of them (along with North Dakota) have also lost to Minnesota
this year.  If we want to keep dueling with small bits of data, I'm sure
we can.
 
The point remains this: in search of a Holy Grail (no conference
match-ups) the NCAA decided to have a quarterfinal that is either a
conference match-up (oops) or pits the #1 & #4 overall seeds.
Obviously, when putting together the brackets, they have decided that
earning a high seed is the LEAST important criterion in putting together
the final pairings.  This is a philosophical position with which I am
wholly at odds.  I disagree with Greenie: this does not put together the
tournament that is best for the fans.
 
I got caught up in a long debate about the process of seeding which is
largely irrelevent.  I still stand by the opinion that, no matter how it
is done, the current system produces terrible results.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.