I can't stay out of this any longer.
 
Arthur Berman writes...
 
>Despite all of the games counting for NC$$ seeding, I think teams have
>a tendency to let down a bit in nonconference games.  This may be the
>reason for the ECAC record against HE this year.
 
     I'm not sure what is being suggested here.  The ECAC will finish
with roughly a .500 record against HE, pending the outcome of Harvard's
last Beanpot game.  This is the best the ECAC has done against HE in
a long time.  So, am I to assume it is being suggested that HE teams
"let down a bit" in their games against ECAC teams whereas the ECAC
teams do not suffer any similar "let down", and that somehow this
phenomenon happens to be occurring to a greater extent this season
than before?  If so, I'd like to see some evidence for such a claim.
 
     Other posters have argued that although the ECAC has a record of
roughly .500 or better against the other conferences except the WCHA,
the ECAC is still weak because teams are "inconsistent" (RPI,
for example).  The fact that all the ECAC teams appear "beatable"
has been used to denigrate the quality of the conference (no doubt if
the conference had one or two awe-inspiring teams, the response
would be "yeah, but they have no depth").  Well, when judging a
conference as a whole, the overall record within the conference
is .500 by definition, and since the ECAC's non-conference
record is near .500 as well, an appearance of "inconsistency" may
be ineviteble.  Furthermore, since when is having an "unbeatable"
team a requirement for being a good conference?  There are NO
"unbeatable" teams in the NC$$ this year; even Maine has two losses
(one of which was to an ECAC team) and most of the top ranked teams
have several losses.  As for the claims that no ECAC team is good
enough to make the Phinal Phour this year, we'll have to see.  Maybe.
Maybe not.
 
     Others have suggested that the ECAC appears to be having a good
year only because the quality of players in the NC$$ as a whole has
declined, and there are fewer great teams and players.  Perhaps the
quality of players has declined somewhat and been diluted by more
teams, but does this a reason to brush off the success of the ECAC
this year?
 
     There seems to be some sort of mental block among hockey-l
people (with the possible exception of Mike Machnik and some others)
against recognizing the ECAC.  Perhaps there is a fear that the
conference might actually get four NC$$ bids this time around.
This mental block necessitates the sort of contorted arguments
we've seen when the ECAC appears to be doing reasonably well.
I'm certainly not saying it's the best conference.  Maybe next
year it will again have a lousy record against the other conferences.
But is it so much sacrilege to admit that maybe, just this once,
relative to the past, the ECAC is having a GOOD YEAR?
 
Thanks for your indulgence,
-Glenn
 
P.S.  I'm leaving the frozen North Country for a while, so any
flames or other replies to the above (unless received before about
4 pm today) won't be seen for about ten days.