Mike M asks "If there is *any* way someone can prove to me why this
[arbitrarily sending 2 teams from each div to the NC$$ tournament] is fair,
please do!"
 
I propose this just for the sake of argument; it could just be a
rationalization of politics, nevertheless, please parouse the following
thoughts...
 
assumption - the small number of interleague games makes the ability to really
rank teams at least a little bit suspect.
 
assumption - it is a moderate fluke or some perversion of normality when a very
lowly ranked team pulls off several upsets to win a tournament.  A Cornell fan
conceded that in regards to their 1980 ECAC tournament win after being seeded
#8.
 
It has been proven by a season full of games that there are at least three
teams in division A better than the team in fourth place (call them A4).
Namely, A1, A2, and A3.  The only thing you can say with assurance about the
second place team in division B (B2) is that there is one team in division B
better than it (B1).  Thus, with the small number of interconnections between
leagues, is it fair to exclude B2, against whom it is only genuinely proven
that one team is better, in lieu of a team with three proven superiors?
 
This logic in selecting the tournament participants helps to combat the
subjectivity of the polls.  Even if A4 is ranked higher than B2 in the polls,
you cannot assume that if B2 played full time in league A, it would place lower
than fourth place.  So you must select B2 in a "lesser of 2 evils" tradeoff.
 
I think this makes sense, I don't know if i agree with it, but i think it makes
sense.
 
Ross
Go B10!  errr. . . go RPI!