Yesterday, I responded to this message:
 
>I've always heard that the tournament champs were the champs, while the
>regular season champs got the modifier.  After all, the tournament champs
>always got the automatic bid, while the regular season champs just started
>getting one this year.  Any of you types who work for the leagues know what
>the rule is?  Or is there one?
>
>Kristen Robinson
>MSU '93, UK '95, somewhere... later
>LSSU '95 CCHA Champions
 
 
But meant to respond to this message:
 
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Correction: Michigan won the CCHA championship.  LSSU won the
>postseason tournament.  That makes LSSU the CCHA Tournament champions,
>not the CCHA champions.  It also is much less impressive to me.
>Winning the regular season means you have to play excellent hockey
>throughout the season.  Winning the postseason tournament means you
>have to get good/lucky for a very short period of time.
>
>-Alan Harder
>[log in to unmask]
> Go Blue!
 
 
So what I said makes more sense in this context:
 
>I don't agree.  If that were true, then why bother with the NCAA
>championships, the same thing applies.
>It becomes a problem when teams don't feel like they have anything to play
>for (like BU and Maine, maybe).  But this is the time of the year when teams
>should be peaking, and these tournaments *do* mean something.  They are a
>prelude to the big dance.
 
 
I stand by what I said and agree with Kristen.  It is also worth noting (and
I think that this is significant) that, at least in the WCHA, not everybody
has the same schedule.  Because the NCAA has cut back on the number of games
which a team can play, some teams  (at least in the WCHA) play against each
other twice, others play each other four times.  One person e-mailed me
directly and said I should stick to facts and not opinions relative to which
is the true indicator of a conference champion.  Well, it is a fact that
teams play different numbers of times.
 
BTW, since when is this board only facts?