Let me weigh in on two disparate threads.
 
First, for all those in favor of campus sites for the regionals--please
explain this weekend's results.  Does anyone think it was fair that
Michigan managed to beat the defending national champions in front of
8,000 screaming Wolverine fans?  Don't tell me Michigan outplayed UND,
more skill, more desire etc.  Of course they did, but wasn't that perhaps
motivated by playing in front of a home crowd?  In my mind this is a
significantly more biased arena than even a local team playing in a large
regional arena, like RPI in the Pepsi, or even Michigan at Joe Louis.
Campus arenas are going to be filled by students and people at the campus,
and the home field effect is going to be overwhelming.
 
Did anyone think Michigan State was harmed playing at Michigan?  I would
think the crowd must have been nearly 100% pro-Ohio State, since all the
campus people view Michigan State as the farmers from the dark side.
Again an unfair disadvantage for the Spartans.
 
I think it is extremely unfortunate that the NC$$ has given up on the true
regional venue out West.  While the turn-outs at Albany this weekend were
down considerably from previous regionals, I think that is a product of
the weather and to a certain extent the lack of ECAC participants.  The
RPI effect can only explain the extra people for one game,  and all the
previous regionals outdrew this weekend's.  But my point is that the East
has managed to develop a relatively stable set of Regionals which is
neutral ice for the participants.  The fact that the West does not
strongly skews their outcomes.
 
Also,the old ECAC is weaker than yours argument.Believe me, this has been
especially troubling for me.  But I would like to put forward a theory:
lately the ECAC has largely been a defense-first conference.  Their
difficulty in scoring goals in the NC$$ playoffes is a consequence of the
majority of their teams playing defensive styles which don't lead to a lot
of goals.  And in turn their recruiting of recent years has favored
defensive style players rather than the purely offensive-minded goal
scoring types.
 
If you look at the coaches in the ECAC, especially the newer ones, you see
a group which favor defense-first systems.  Odd man rushes in the ECAC are
few and far between.  Defenseman who carry the puck down low are an
endangered species.  One member of every line is a defensive type who
cycles back to the blue line to guard against 2-1's and 3-1's the other
way.  I would cite only Mark Morris of Clarkson (ironically) as one who
builds on an offense-first system.  This season Clarkson's defense was
much stronger than the offense so even there as a team there weren't a lot
of goals scored.
 
Other ECAC coaches are undeniably defense-oriented: Ron Tomasonni (sp?) at
Harvard, Tim Taylor at Yale, Mike Shafer at Cornell, Dan Fridgen at RPI,
etc.  These coaches teach offense comes from your defense, and don't allow
a lot of improvisation in the offensive end.  It may be true that the
recruiting of goal scorers had been down the last couple of years in the
ECAC, but some of that may be explained by what the coaches are looking
for.
 
Finally in the useless trivia department--New Hampshire now sports the
winningest record in Albany's Knick Arena with a sparkling 3 wins and one
loss over four years, especially strange since UNH's home ice sports
Olympic dimensions, and the Knick plays to standard NHL dimensions.  And
does anyone else wish the Knick would lay down an Olympic sheet for the
playoffs, if only to understand see why they spent all the extra $$$
originally to be able to do so?
***************************************************************************
Brian Morris                RPI Engineers--Wait Until Next Season
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.