This being the hockey-l, I would not normally tell a story about Bobby
Knight, Indiana basketball coach for those of you who only follow hockey,
but since one of our favorite pasttimes here is to bash the greedy, money-
hogging, do anything for a buck NC$$; and since this also appears to be
one of Knight's favorite pasttimes, I thought you might enjoy:
I was watching SportsChannel yesterday, and they covered the press
conferences all around the country for the basketball tourney, and Knight
was classic during his moments at the mike. After listening to his
monologue, I can see why only cable channels carry these press conferences
live. Near the end of his time with the press he got thirsty and looked
around for something to drink, but there was nothing on any of the tables
in front of him. He asked the moderator if there was anything he could get,
or if the NC$$ was too cheap to provide beverages. The moderator and press
got a kick out of that, and the moderator responded that he'd have to drink
out of an offical "NC$$ cup", since he was on camera. More laughs.
When an attendant finally brought Knight a cup (and it was an NC$$ cup)
Knight looked inside and said, "Water! It figures the NC$$ would
be too cheap to get anything that would actually cost them money" This
got a roar of laughter from the press corps, and after that it was one of
the smoothest press conferences in Bobby Knight history. So I guess that
even when it comes to basketball, the NC$$ shows off its cheap side.
Speaking of the NC$$, does anyone have a ballpark figure of how much the
NC$$ is asking for the TV rights to the regionals of the hockey tournament?
I'm no economic genius, but it seems to me that they would want these games
on TV, and by offering a low price, they would have more stations who
might show interest in covering the games than currently (thus creating
more revenue for them), as well as expanding the audience of people who
will be able to watch the games. That would be a win-win situation, for
fans and the NC$$.
I have read a lot of posts this week about the selection process,
scheduling and the tournament process, and naturally, have to add my
two cents (You ever notice that you have to throw in your two cents
but only get "a penny for your thoughts"...someone is makin' a penny
Sorry, a little Steven Wright humor)
Anyway, about the selection process: Why does the committee look at
"Last 20 games" as an indicator? Yes, I know its done to determine a
team's momentum heading into the playoffs, but if that was their intention,
last 5, 10 or even 15 would be better. Most teams play 2 games/weekend,
and maybe one during the week, so 20 games takes a little over two months.
In the span of two months, teams can have players get hurt and fully
recover (and if its a UMaine defenseman: get hurt again :( ) You can also
have a hot streak, go cold, and get hot again in two months. "Last 10"
would be about a month, which is a better indicator of a team's momentum.
Another problem I have with Last 20 is this: For this scenario, lets say
Merrimack coach Ron Anderson looks at his roster and thinks he has a real
good recruiting class coming in, and thinks he can make a run for an NC$$
bid if his upperclassmen play up to their potential. Looking over the
selection process, Anderson notices Last 20 as a criteria, so he figures
he'll help his chances with scheduling. Looking over Hockey East's
rosters and recent past, Anderson concludes that the top 3 teams next
season will be BU, Maine and UML. Since Northeastern was able to get in
as the #4 team in HE, he figures he can finish a strong 4th and get in too.
So, being a smart coach, Anderson tries to schedule Maine, BU and UML in
October, November and December. That way, even if his team plays poorly
against the Big Three, they will be out of the way. Meanwhile, teams like
NU, UNH and PC will be stuck playing those teams at least twice in the
second half, or Last 20. Merrimack wins one or two games against the Big
Three, then cleans up against the lower HE teams and non-conference teams,
makes it to the Tournament Semis, and finishes 15-5 in their Last 20.
Meanwhile, UNH plays outstanding in the first half, playing lower rated
teams, but gets nailed by the Big Three, and suffers a 10-10 Last 20.
UNH and Merrimack have nearly identical records, say they went 1-1-2 HTH,
played nearly the same non-conference schedule, and finished tied in the
HE regular season, UNH edging out Merrimack because of total goals.
MC and UNH meet in the consolation game of the HE playoffs and tie.
UNH and Merrimack will have nearly the exact same rating, same schedule
strength, same OppOpp% etc, the only difference being that MC played all
their tough games in the fall, while UNH played the toughies in Jan and Feb.
The computer will say Merrimack gets the bid, because of the Last 20.
Is that fair? Maybe if it was only Last 10, you'd see a UNH upset of Maine
giving them a 7-3, while MC was upset by PC giving them a 6-4.
Am I making too big a deal of this? Probably. But if you say this won't
happen, I invite you to look at Providence's schedule the past few years.
The first two weekends of the year, they play Maine, and are done with UM
for the entire season before most teams have even played a game. I don't
have their schedule in front of me, but I'd wager that they also played 2
games against BU in November or December, leaving only 2 games against
the Top 2 for the second half of the season. No other team in HE
has had that luxury.
Hopefully the NC$$ will come up with a better way of selecting and seeding
teams...as one poster already pointed out, you can't plug all the stats
into the computer and determine who is worthy.
Another little gripe: I realize its very nice for RPI and MSU fans to have
their teams playing at home in the playoffs, and I don't want to cause a
riot by complaining, but...In most sports, home field/ice/court advantage
is a privilege, earned by playing well during the regular season, and
finishing at, or near, the top of your league/conference/division. Based
on the outcome of the regular season, do MSU and RPI deserve to have home-
ice advantage? Is it fair to teams like BU and Harvard, who finished at
the top of their leagues, to have to travel to another state to play in
RPI's backyard, especially if RPI defeats UNH (also wronged in this scenario)
and sets up a Harvard-RPI game. This also applies out west, where UML,
the most-screwed-over team in the field (IMHO) must play a "home" game
against Michigan State, on Michigan State's home ice. Should MSU beat
Lowell, Minnesota, #2 seed, would then have to play a "home" game in
MSU's building. Of course, at the same time, the tournament's
#1 seed in the west, Michigan, has to play their quarterfinal game in
a building that is less than friendly to them, likely against Lake State,
who they have already played 4 times this season. Of course, you also have
Western Michigan and Wisconsin traveling to Albany to play a game...is it
just me, or would it make more sense to have them play this game at a rink
somewhere in Michigan (gee, maybe East Lansing?) and save some gas?
Ok, enough complaining on my part, especially since my team is already
sitting at home trying to remember last year's glory (I must say that the
big gold rings make it easier to deal with whats been going on lately :-> )
Good luck to everyone, my bracket shows the trophy and gold rings headed to
Ann Arbor, but I wouldn't mind seeing another HE team bring home the title.
John Forsyth
-not too cheap to serve his guests actual beverages, instead of water
|
