John Whelan writes...
>        On the other extreme, the CCHA is the most absurd example of
>what I think is wrong with the NBA and NHL playoffs.  If you send
>every team in the league (and one that's not!) to the tournament,
>there's much more opportunity to coast, as no one is playing for their
>lives.  You should have to earn a berth in the playoffs, so that good
>performance in the regular season is rewarded.  As a rule of thumb, I
>think that no more than half the teams in a league should make the
>playoffs.  That said, I have nonetheless been convinced that the ECAC
>system is a good one, even though ten of the twelve teams make the
>playoffs.  As was pointed out here, every two positions in the
>standings give a concrete advantage in terms of byes, home ice, and
>playing tired teams.  There is thus no reason for anyone to coast, and
>indeed this year everyone had something to play for on the final
>weekend.
 
You're quick to criticize, so how about giving us an opinion
on a different structure.  All the CCHA teams are in the postseason
as a result of Alaska Fairbanks' affiliate status.  Winning the
CCHA tourney is likely UAF's only opportunity to make the
NCAA tourney, since the NCAA abolished the independent
bid.  And, excluding a full member from the postseason would
be unfair, given that UAF is in.  So, all teams are in.  The current
plan for 1995-96, UAF's first season as a full CCHA member,
is for an 8-team postseason (3 teams eliminated during the
regular season).  Sounds great, IMO.  And, it's closer to the 1/2
rule of thumb than the ECAC system is...which you admittedly
like.  Would you prefer that UAF was simply left out in the
cold?  (Figuratively, of course, since they literally are out in
the cold.)
 
 
John H
U Mich