Someone asked about St. Lawrence's reaction to the NCAA selections.
 
I think Mike Zak summed things up pretty well.  Disappointment for SLU
fans, but I think one could make the case either way between SLU and
Cornell.  People around here are still VERY irritated about the Clarkson
seeding (even allowing for deep seated rivalry between Clarkson and SLU),
the general lack of respect for the ECAC, and the sense of entitlement
afforded Hockey East. I believe it's been several years since a Hockey East
team made it to the championship game (if not I'm sure to hear about it
soon!) - perhaps two byes (and the next best thing to a bye for BC) will
give them a better chance this year.
 
A few questions (perhaps these should have been directed to Keith)
 
1. How long has the current 12 team format been used for the NCAA playoff?
Any possibility of expanding to 16?  The current system seems to give a
substantial advantage to those top two seeds.
 
2. Under the current format, has any other team:
 
(a) Won its conference regular season and conference tourney and been
seeded as low as fourth?
 
(b) Failed to win its conference regular season, failed to win its
conference tourney and been seeded number one?
 
3. What if Northeastern had won its overtime game against Maine in the
Hockey East semifinals, then gone on to beat BU in the final?  I would
assume if the NCAA committee were consistent, either Cornell or Wisconsin
would be bumped to make a place for the FIFTH Hockey East team. Anyone want
to guess which would have gone?
 
4. Does anyone have data on the seedings over the past few years and how
the tourney eventually played out each year?
 
Finally, a few opinions:
 
1. The tournament is clearly NOT for the best 12 college hockey teams -
otherwise there would be no automatic bids for tourney champs and
independents.  Despite opinions to the contrary - it's a very tricky
business to accurately compare teams between different leagues,
particularly when teams play such different numbers of games with such a
variety of nonleague possibilities.  I would favor a policy that says one
league should not get more than three representatives to the tournament,
except under the unusual circumstance that a "dark horse" wins the
conference tourney and three other teams are obviously more qualified than
others in the field. (For example, if Northeastern had prevailed this year,
one might still send BU, Maine, BC - but I don't think the case is so
strong that Providence is overwhelmingly superior to Cornell, SLU, North
Dakota, Ferris St,...). Thus the philosophy would be more like "let each
league send their top three teams and we'll see who's left when the dust
settles".
2. Either the selections should be completely determined by a formula which
is public and agreed upon by the participants before the season starts OR,
if an element of judgment is necessary (as I believe it should be), the
selection committee should certainly NEVER include members whose schools
are in serious contention for slots in the NCAA tourney.  The apparent
break given to BU is even harder to swallow when BU's coach is part of the
seeding process.
 
Guess that's enough for now - I'll save my TCHCR bashing for another time.
 
Robin "Poe" Lock
rlock@stlawu