John Haeussler writes:
>Is this a fair system or does it seem bass ackwards?  It seems to me
>that Beagan just didn't have the balls to reach a decision, although
>that's merely speculation because I have no information as to what
>went into the decision making process.
 
IMO, this process seems to be a blatant attempt to fix the tournament to
ensure that none of the regular CCHA members get knocked off in the first
round by their associate member.  Any thinking coach will examine all the
UAF stats to see how his team stacks up against them, particularly head to head
competition.  This is the type of situation where some esoteric statistic can
have a major effect on outcome, e.g. (and I don't know if this is true) UAF
ranks eighth in penalty killing, vs. Miami's ranking first in power play.
Miami chooses UAF because their strength corresponds to a UAF weakness.  The
overall record of UAF thus becomes less important than the components which
comprise their overall play.  This is tantamount to "stacking the jury."  I
don't believe a team should be given the opportunity to choose an opponent on
the basis of how that team relates to the other's idiosyncracies.
 
In other words record, at least intra-leaguerecord, should be the primary
ranking consideration.  What is the purpose in bestowing upon UAF the title
of "associate member" if at the same time the tournament is adjusted to limit
their chances?
                    _
            "NYS   // Hockey"
        Go 'Gate  //   Brian Morris
          Go RPI //      Albany, NY
          ______// [log in to unmask]
         (______/