So how come Eastern teams have so much trouble winning the last game in March?
 
I've been thinking about it, putting my ugly, bloated Western bias aside for a
moment. I have a couple of theories.
 
1) Wide Open Spaces - Rinks come in different sizes and teams tailor their
   talent to their ice sheet. Now I may be wrong about this, because I never
   bothered to get the file out of the archives with rink dimensions, but I've
   always been under the impression that Western teams, on average, have larger
   rinks. I do know that almost all the WCHA teams skate in large rinks. Since
   the last couple of games are played in big arenas with large ice sheets,
   teams used to smaller rinks are at a disadvantage.
 
2) Strength of Schedule - When I started following college hockey in the early
   80s, the WCHA was a six team conference. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North
   Dakota accounted for 9 of the 11 titles between 1973-1983. Denver and
   Duluth also produced some fine teams, leaving CC as the only breather on
   the schedule. This meant you were facing pretty tough competition every
   weekend. Playing a title contender was a common event. So by the time you
   got to March, tight games against tough teams was something you had
   already experienced several times, almost weekly. My theory is that this is
   a big reason for all those titles, and one of the reasons that Maine can't
   seem to hang a banner in spite of the fine teams Shawn Walsh has produced.
 
   In most years, with this one being no exception, the Western conferences are
   stronger top to bottom. They also play fewer games against indies, who tend
   to be weaker opponents. I think this gives Western teams a slight edge in
   tight games against tough teams, the ones that build character.
 
Just my opinion.
 
Bob Schwartz
[log in to unmask]