During the intermission between the first and second periods of Friday
night's Cornell-Michigan game (WOW!), the radio announcers interviewed
Cornell athletic director Laing Kennedy, who also chairs the NCAA Division I
hockey committee, and he shed some light on the process the committee went
through in selecting this year's bids.  First of all, when Cornell was
selected, Kennedy was not in the room.  The committee has long followed the
custom that committee members leave the room when the discussions involve
their team.  I would assume that Rick Comley was not present when the com-
mittee was talking about Northern Michigan (short discussion there), and
that Jack Parker was likewise out of the room when Boston University was
being talked about.
 
The selection criteria, according to Kennedy, are win-loss percentage in
Division I competition and "strength of schedule".  If there is no clear
winner in these two areas, the committee then considers head-to-head
results.  There is also a fourth criteria, which is record against "teams
under consideration".  Kennedy said Cornell got the #6 seed over St. Law-
rence due to the Big Red's 2-1 record against the Saints, as Cornell's
winning percentage was better than St. Lawrence's (0.638 to 0.614) while the
Saints had the stronger schedule (in addition, Cornell's record against
teams under consideration was 4-3-1 while St. Lawrence went 2-9).
 
Interestingly enough, Kennedy said he felt that Clarkson deserved the #3
seed going into the discussion, but upon looking at the criteria, the
committee put Boston College third and dropped Clarkson to number four.
Kennedy didn't provide any details, but this one probably came down to BC's
victory over Clarkson during the season, since Clarkson had the better
winning percentage and BC's schedule was stronger.  Maybe Clarkson fans
should thank the committee for seeding the Knights fourth and allowing them
to avoid that Alaska-Anchorage juggernaut :-)
 
Kennedy also mentioned that the committee decided to put in a rule, starting
this year, that no league will have fewer than two representatives in the
NCAA playoffs.  Even though this would probably benefit my favorite league,
the ECAC, I don't think this is a particularly good idea.  If there are four
or five teams in one league that deserve to get a bid ahead of the second
team in another league (based on the committee's selection criteria), then
they should get bids.  The NCAA should not shut out one of them just to give
another league the magic two bids.
 
According to Kennedy, last year the committee proposed to the NCAA that the
hockey playoffs be expanded to 16 teams, and the NCAA turned them down
immediately, because they felt that the ratio between the total number of
teams and the number of playoff teams would be too low.  Kennedy said the
committee may propose to keep the current 12-team format but make the first
round and the quarterfinals single-game affairs, and also have the games
take place at one Eastern and one Western site.  Personally, I'm in favor of
the single-game idea (it has always seemed strange to me for college hockey
to play a multiple-game series in its first two playoff rounds and then
switch to a single game in the Final Four), but I don't like the two-site
idea.
 
One other note:  check out Ron Fimrite's article about Hobey Baker in this
week's _Sports Illustrated_.  It's a pretty good, though somewhat roman-
ticized, account of Baker's life, and Fimrite even mentions, in passing,
that college hockey's highest individual award is named after Baker.  (I
often wonder about SI's coverage of college hockey)
 
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86
LET'S GO RED!!
 
"Some parents will film the firth of their child -- my wife and I filmed the
 conception."
-- Dennis Wolfberg