Jeremy writes:
>WHY did they set it up so that an independent must get a bid? If you ask
>me (and you didn't, but hey, it's a public newsgroup), this makes all the
>independents into a conference, of sorts! Isn't that the whole point of
>being independent? So an independent team must try to outplay all the
>other independents to get the bid (although didn't both of the Alaska
>teams get a bid one year?). Doesn't really make much sense.
No independent made the Div I tourney until 1988, the first year that
the required bid was in place. Prior to 1988, eight teams made the
tourney, and in order to get enough support to increase the teams to
12, it was agreed that one of the teams would be an independent. The
independents had long argued that they weren't getting a fair shake
when it came to selecting teams and that there was a bias towards
conference teams.
There were also quite a few more teams that qualified as Div I Independents
than there are now. When the Div II tourney was abolished beginning
in 1984-85, teams that were formerly in Div II had to declare themselves
to be eligible for either the Div I or Div III tourney. Most teams,
like RIT, Union, Babson, etc. dropped down to III. The Alaskas,
Merrimack, UConn, Holy Cross, and several others moved up to Div I.
UConn, Canisius, Holy Cross, etc. played very few games against Div I
teams and never were serious contenders to make the tourney. There was
no requirement, as I believe there is now, that a team that declares itself
eligible for the Div I tourney must play at least 20 Div I games.
St Cloud was rapidly upgrading the quality of its program in preparation
to enter the WCHA, the Alaskas were playing better and better competition,
Merrimack was getting better - in essence, these programs came closer to
being able to compete with Div I schools than they had been before.
So Merrimack got the first independent bid in 1988 when they went 34-6,
much to the chagrin of people who thought their team should have made it.
Even I didn't think MC deserved to go (I was at Northeastern at the
time). And because of the way the seeding worked out, Merrimack was
seeded 6 West and got sent to play at 3 East - Northeastern, Hockey East
champion. Merrimack bounced back from an 8-3 total goals deficit late
in the second period of the last game to score the final seven goals and
win the series (groan). That got them a trip to the Soo to face CCHA
regular season champ Lake Superior (33-7-6), where Coach Frank Anzalone
took special care to explain to Merrimack head man Ron Anderson just which
route his club was planning to take to get to Lake Placid, site of the
Final Four. Well, Merrimack shocked the Lakers 4-3 the first night, but
a combination of LSSU buckling down and a broken leg to Merrimack star
Richard Pion produced a 5-0 Laker win that sent them on their way to the
NCAA Championship. The result was a vindication of Merrimack and the
independents (and Northeastern, with LSSU's loss), although neither of the
next two independents (St Cloud and Alaska-Anchorage) had anywhere near
the success Merrimack had - both, ironically, played at Lake Superior in
the first round and lost in two games.
I still believe that the independents should be lumped together with the
rest of Division I after the four automatic bids are awarded, and the
very best eight teams should then be selected. But NCAA politics dictates
that this is unrealistic. As it stands, there will very likely be one
deserving team that will be left home this year so that an independent
can go (probably Anchorage again, although anything can happen).
>Also, about the Hockey East: FOUR teams? At the expense of whom? The ECAC
>again?!!!
Well, I agree that four teams should not go from Hockey East, but not
necessarily because the ECAC would be slighted. There are at least six
teams from the West that look very strong right now, and Anchorage would
make seven. BTW, I believe that if it is determined that, for example,
three HE teams (in addition to the automatic bid) are ranked in the seven
remaining bids, then HE *should* get four teams (the same holds for any
other conference). But this is not likely to happen for the very
reason you hint at - the conference that gets slighted will make a big
fuss about it. As far as I am concerned, the national tournament is for
the best 12 teams in the country (although the way it is set up, it is
almost guaranteed that this won't happen), NOT to placate the four
conferences. Let me be blunt: if there is a year that only one ECAC
team is clearly among the top 12 teams in the country, then I think that
only that team should go from the ECAC. But I don't think that this
is a year like that.
BTW, these are the top 12 teams in Keith's TCHCR:
> 1 1 Lake Superior 20 3 3 100.00 62.06 10
> 2 5 Boston College 16 5 0 90.86 62.88 8
> 3 2 Northern Michigan 18 5 3 87.63 57.93 16
> 4 6 Minnesota 19 3 3 87.24 52.75 25
> 5 3 Michigan 18 5 3 87.22 60.17 14
> 6 9 Providence 13 4 1 85.70 56.15 20
> 7 7 Wisconsin 18 5 2 85.08 56.95 19
> 8 8 Boston University 14 5 2 83.16 57.22 18
> 9 4 Maine 18 5 2 82.54 53.72 24
> 10 10 Ferris State 16 5 5 74.38 52.11 26
> 11 11 Clarkson 12 5 1 74.27 52.11 27
> 12 13 New Hampshire 15 6 1 68.49 45.88 36
Only one ECAC team is in there (Cornell is 13). Of course, there are
many, many other factors that the committee uses in deciding the
teams that they will pick (much more than Keith includes in his
rating), but as an example, I believe strongly that if it was
determined that these were the top 12 teams in the country, then these
12 teams should go. When the other factors are considered, it is likely
that a different 12 would result - so while we can use Keith's rating
as another interesting way to compare teams, we can't rely too strongly
on it (just like the polls). So the fact that someone's team may be
ranked, say, 10th either here or in a poll doesn't mean that they
should go to the tournament.
This got a lot longer than I had intended...
- mike
|
