+ On Wed, 20 Jan 1993 10:58:11 EST, [log in to unmask] said:
[stuff deleted to save space]
+ 2. SLU snubbed in 1991? How about RPI snubbed in 1990?? We finished SECOND in
+ BOTH regular and postseason play, and were "hot" especially in February and
+ March", even beating ECAC#1 Colgate 6-2 and previously second place Cornell
+ 6-5 IN THE SAME WEEKEND! However, 3rd place Clarkson got to go insteadl.
+ There should be a set formula to be stuck by. For example, Top two
+ teams in each division, plus top two third place teams according to highest
+ win percentage + top two independents. I'm a vicious opponent of VOTING for
+ team selection. It's like rolling craps off the rink!!
I would have to disagree with this. What should be considered is not
how well you did in the ECAC, but how well you did overall. It is the
NCAA tournament that you are getting a bid for, not the ECAC
tournament. So, if RPI had a better overall record than Clarkson, or
about the same record, they would deserve the bid over Clarkson. If
you win every game in your conference but lose every game outside your
conference, unless you win the conference tournament, your bid would
not be a shoe-in (though it would be likely given the number of
conference games played).
In general, the selections over the last few years have been
understandable when examined using the rules that the NCAA selection
commitee outlined for their selections. I think the most difficult
decision over the last few years was last year in the ECAC, with all
of the teams near the top being so close.
Any other opinions?
+ What I have seen outside of "normal":
+ ICING- icing called ON OCCASION when the puck is shot JUST OUTSIDE of
+ the opposing team's zone and not from the offending team's zone.
Icing is when the puck is shot into the opposing team's zone from
before (or with some referees, even at) the center red line. You
likely saw a border-line icing call that could have gone eithe way.
Of course, I'm not an expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
adam
BU '89
|
