I think people need not to get carried away in attributing the
unprecedented poor representation of the ECAC in the NC$$ tournament
solely to the quality of play.  It is true that the league had an
exceptionally poor non-conference showing this year, but I don't think
things are significantly worse than they were in 1995, when the
highest ranked ECAC teams in the Ratings Percentage Index were
Clarkson at #8, UVM at #14, then Brown, Rensselaer and Colgate at
#17-19.  Just as in this season, the ECAC had one team in the top 12
in the prevailing rating system (discounting Mercyhurst, Clarkson is
#12 in the PWR).  The difference was then that the league got two
automatic bids to the NCAAs.  And while the MAAC's NC$$ prospects are
looking up, that is less a result of their performance on the ice and
more a result of having "earned" an automatic bid by surviving for two
years as a D1 conference.  Don't forget that despite some anecdotal
successes, the MAAC as a whole was still 2-12-3 against the ECAC.
(And 4-8 against Division I members of CHA, which was arguably a
stronger conference the past two seasons.)

                                          John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                                 [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/

Enjoy the latest Hockey Geek tools at slack.net/hockey