I have to admit, I am getting a little annoyed about the garbage that has
been filling up this wavelength the past few days since a somewhat
inexperienced person made an ill-advised insult/attack.
Talk of which league is best, if it occurs at all, should be based on FACTS,
not just, "well, I've seen my league, and my league is awesome (why, some of
the teams in my league can even beat MY team!!!), so that's that."
What makes a league the "Best" one?
Let's take last year for example:
criteria #1: Who won the national title.
Well, IMHO, this means #@$&% towards deciding what league is the strongest.
The only thing I can say is that some people were downing a certain league
as "obviously being weak" since a team had not won the BIG one. So, does
Maine winning it all make HE the best?!? I doubt it. This would say that if
Montgomery had slipped on his rush up the middle in per 3, the CCHA would now
be the best league. One team does not make a league.
criteria #2: Winning percentage of entire league versus the other leagues.
Although this is one of my personal favorites, it too has its weaknesses.
most prominent of them is that every team from every league does not play
every team from every other team. An extreme example of what could be wrong
with this approach: If the military schools played Union College, Ferris St,
Ohio State, and, oh, I don't know, maybe Cornell (please don't be offended by
any of these selections :-)), they could wind up (maybe) with a winning % vs
the ECAC and the CCHA without having to face any of the tougher teams. Would
the military schools now be able to claim top 10 status?!? No.
criteria #3: Number of top teams.
What is a "top" team? Make the NCAA tourney... Ranked top 10, make the final
eight? What about which league puts the most teams into the Phinal Phour?
We all have our different definitions of "top." Although I am very proud
that Hockey East has put two teams into the final four three out of the past
four years, it does not automaticly indicate that Hockey East was the best
without doubt, and that makes any losses my team suffers OK, and I will get
a better job, a bigger house, and a better (sorry for sexism) girlfriend.
criteria #4: Which is the most "fun" to watch.
This is completely subjective, and, in my humble opinion, I JUST LOVE
WATCHING ALL COLLEGE HOCKEY!!! I think ALL of it is fun. If it was not, I
would not be such an avid hockey fan. I think HE is the most fun because I
watch HE the most. If I was in Wisconsin, I would love the WCHA. The only
thing I can say for certain is that I love COLLEGE hockey over an other kind.
criteria #5: Academic standards.
Sorry, but the ECAC, with the Ivy League teams, can beat any conference in
the world in this category. (My opinion)
criteria #6: Which conference my local team plays in.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the most popular criteria lately. It's a
no-brainer and just cheerleading. As those who have seen me at the games,
I am probably one of the most psycho fans there. I am even the former Ogre
of Boston University. But the bottom line is that, although I am a BU fan,
I try to maintain some semblance of objectivism when I discuss hockey.
Please note: When MOST people state at the end of their posts what their
loyalties are, they brag about their school's or leagues accomplishments.
MOST people do not end their posts with something like:
Billy Bob Smith ESU '91
ESU, their better than those #$%*@ bums out in California!
------------------------------
Please do not get me wrong though, I do like educated discussion about the
different leagues (we're not going to be P.C. and claim that all leagues are
exactly alike), but discussion based on facts, seasoned with one's personal
observations. Please, hold off on the attacks and generally wrong statements
like "well, that's why the Chicago Bears can never win in the playoffs."
(I chose a non-Hockey team to save on any specific reprise :-))
Thank you
Tony BU'92'93
Former Ogre
|
