>
> St Lawrence barely beats RPI and then has a tough time with Cornell.
> And anyone (including myself) who SAT THOUGH both Hockey-fest finals AT
> THE GARDEN couldn't help but notice a difference in the quality of play.
> The ECAC final was good hockey.  The HE final was spectacular.
 
So what?  Put Maine and UNH into double OT the night before and they
might not have been so spectacular.
>
> So what happens?  Here are the current "seedings":
>
>   (1) Maine
>   (2) St Lawrence
>   (3) BU
>   (4) New Hampshire
>
> Now for the twi-light zone.  St Lawrence gets the 2nd "seed".
> My argument AGAINST such a jump is simply this.
> The UNH/St Lawrence tournament "matchup" should have been
> a wash, leaving the rankings the same as the previous week.
A wash...what a great idea.  Since there has been very little
interleague play over the last two months, let's give each league the
same slots they held in mid-January and they can figure out which teams
to place in each slot.  That way all figurative "matchups" can be a wash.
> I don't
> want to penalize St. Lawrence for winning their league.
They'll be thrilled to hear that you are so lenient...
> I just
> don't think they need to be "rewarded" unneccesarily.
Gee, I never heard the Saints say they needed to be rewarded.
Luckily, it is unnecessary.
> by giving the nod to St. Lawrence, you not only give it 3rd but SECOND
> seed!  Bad news, guys...
Bad news always depresses me....
 
This is getting out of hand...all these teams will get a chance to show
what they can do on the ice.  We could argue about the ECAC's poor
non-league record, UNH's 1-2 mark (I think) against the ECAC's
semifinalists, etc. but it is justed wasted breath (OK, wasted typing).
Maine is the consensus #1 and deserves a bye.  Someone else less
deserving will also get one.  Everybody else will have to suffer and
show what they can do against a live opponent instead of a rating
scale...life goes on....
 
>
> Argue your way out of this one.  The only argument that you could
> could use that makes sense to me is that the PREVIOUS week's
> ranking wasn't correct!  I'm listening.
>
No you are not.  You've already decided what the right answer is and no
other argument is acceptable to you.
 
Jon Greene
RPI '82   Cornell '84
[log in to unmask]
 
Let the games begin..........