Dick Tuthill writes:
 
>        Folks who dislike the current ECAC playoff format are missing the point.
>  It is designed to give a definite edge to the top ranked team remaining
>when they get to LP.   That Olympic ice has produced some unexpected
>results,  and the ECAC wants its top teams to get a solid shot at the first
>game bye in the NC$$ regionals.   For too long the ECAC has had teams
>playing at a disadvantage at the regionals (although last year was the
>exception to the rule).
 
        Personally, I think that is a warped set of priorities.  The
ECAC championship should be a goal in itself, and should not be
twisted in order to gain some advantage for the league in the NC$$s.
If the automatic bye was a factor in the ECAC's decision to go to a
<ptu!> Final Five format, that's a disturbing abuse of the NC$$
selection procedure.
 
        Besides which, it's a tradeoff: you increase the chances of
getting an automatic bye for the league, but you also decrease the
chances that an underdog will win the ECACs and get the league an
extra bid.  And this year Clarkson could very well get the second bye
just on the basis of pairwise comparisons.  Plus once the NC$$ field
expands to sixteen (which will probably happen sooner rather than
later if, as you relayed from the Boston Herald, the MAAC is supposed
to get an automatic bid in two years), there will be no first-round
bye.  I suppose the ECAC will drop the Final Five then.  (Actually, I
hope they drop it even sooner than that.)
 
        And I'm not sure how you can blame the recent upsets in the
ECAC tournament on the larger ice.  Cornell won in 1996 by giving up
only one goal in two games, and the 1997 team put forth a Herculean
defensive effort to hold Clarkson to one goal in the title game.
Granted, a lot of that was due to great goaltending, but you'd hardly
expect the olympic ice to help keep scoring in check.  First round
upsets of the one seed: Harvard frustrated Vermont with the trap in
'96 for long enough to keep the game close, and Princeton shocked
Clarkson in 1995.  You're hardly going to tell me Princeton and
Harvard had more team speed than Clarkson and Vermont.
 
>        Actually,  for the ECAC preliminary round of ten teams,  I still really
>like Richard's idea of two games,  total goals.   Only I would do it on
>Thursday and Saturday nights and make it home and home.   That works well
>in soccer oversees,  and guarantees two rabid sold out barns per pair of
>teams.   It'll never happen,  though.
 
        For one thing, you'd run the risk of a 6-1 Thursday game
rendering the Saturday contest meaningless, and for another you'd
eliminate the incentive to finish in the top five and gain home ice.
 
>        Also,  FWIW,  I personally don't think the ECAC will do well in the NC$$'s
>until they get off that big ice in Placid.   While everyone who goes to LP
>rave's about the ambiance,  the perfect size of the building,  and all the
>other Olympic village type of warm and fuzzies,  I think it instills some
>habits in the style of play that are not good when playing on NHL sized ice
>a week later.   That extra 7.5 feet of ice on each side of the rink really
>changes the game.   I would much prefer Albany for the ECAC finals if it
>really wants to do well in the NC$$'s.
 
        Or maybe Lake Placid should put in a regionals bid.
 
                                         John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                               <[log in to unmask]>
                      <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/joe.html>
 
        Learn about the NCAA selection process on the web at
       http://www.slack.net/~whelan/cgi-bin/tbrw.cgi?pairwise
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.