Jack C. Berenzweig wrote:
>
> Having said that I am amused by the following statements of Joe Marsh, in
> Adam's article:
 
The comments that Jack pasted here are NOT from Joe Marsh.  Note, they
do not have "quotes" around them. These are my explanatory paragraphs.
Not that I made it up, but it should be clear that these aren't quotes.
 
> >That philosophy (avoiding intra conference matchups) was instituted after
> >coaches came to the conclusion that it was unfair to bye teams. For example,
> >why should No. 2 North Dakota, a team that just defeated Minnesota in St.
> Paul >to earn the bye, have to play a conference rival again to make the
> Final Four? >The same philosophy holds true no matter which teams are
> involved.
> Joe Marsh further stated:
> >The idea behind avoiding intra-conference matchups is a protection to the
> bye >team. Why should North Dakota, the argument goes, have to play Minnesota
> >again, a team it just beat out in the regular season, and defeated
> practically on the >road, in overtime, to take the conference tournament?
>
> Obviously Joe Marsh and the committee went to great lengths to avoid a
> Minnesota - North Dakota matchup in the regionals since those two teams met
> in the WCHA Championship game. They should be commended for that. However,
> perhaps I am missing something, but didn't Michigan and Michigan State meet
> in the CCHA  Championship game?  Why wasn't that potential match-up also
> avoided?
 
I should have gone into that further - but basically, that was the least
of all evils. With only 12 teams and 4 conferences, it's almost
impossible to avoid everything.  First-round matchups are the utmost
priority, then second-rounders if possible.  The committee was willing
to take the gamble on the lowest-seeded team.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.