Lets look at East vs West based on 1st and 2nd place finishes.
Before 1981 (?) there were only 4 teams in the tournament 2 East
and 2 West so the only on ice test was only to make the final two.
Post 1981 the tournament expanded so looking at only the final two
is a higher hurdle but adding the final 4 doesn't change the look of
things much.
Old Days 1948-1962
15 years
2 Eastern Champions (BC & RPI) and 6 seconds
East 8 of 30 possible
Happy Years 1963-1972
10 years
4 Eastern Champions (2 each Cornell & BU) and 6 seconds
East 10 of 20 possible
Dark Decade 1973-1982
10 years
1 Eastern Champion (BU) and 1 second
East 2 of 20 possible (OUCH !)
Current Decade 1983-1992
10 years
2 Eastern Champions (RPI & Harvard) and 6 runners up
East 8 of 20 possible (6 of 8 ECAC)
Current Decade Looking at final 4
8 top 2 finishes
9 semifinal finishes (2 of 9 ECAC)
East 17 of 40--Like I said doesn't change the look much
I guess I can't to dismayed with this year in historical perspective.
What does the future hold? If the ECAC can continue at the level
they have been at for the decade and if HE can produce a couple of
champions the next decade can be better for the east. Unfortunately
these are non-trivial ifs.
In the ECAC (my real interest) this year I could see enough talent in
the league but perhaps to well distributed. For example if Harvard
or Cornell (good defense and goaltending) had the fire power of Yale
or Colgate you might have had a really strong team. The Clarkson
and SLU were perhaps just short one or two impact players from
being really strong teams. They were close but to my eye they really
did not look like final four teams.
My conclusion the CCHA had three very strong teams this year (boy
do I have a keen grasp of the obvious or what). Minnesota and Maine
got fat in leagues that didn't test/prepare them for the playoffs.
The ECAC didn't really have a dominate team like the WCHA or HE.
Wisconsin got to the final four because they have been a great March
team for a long time as someone else observed.
-_Steve Rockey
