>Cornell's excellent finish does count - to a point.  But should the
>entire selection and seeding process be based on *only* the last 20
>games?  Or even the last 4?
 
I think there would be some advantages to having the early season count
even less than the end of the season (the weighting of the last 20 games is
only one of many criteria now).  Pro leagues have a lot of exhibition games
so they can play around with gameplans.  Most college hockey teams only
have one.  I doubt that the advantages would be worth changing the current
system, but it's a neat idea.
 
>Two years ago, Boston College beat Northeastern and Harvard to win the
>Beanpot.  They proved they could compete well in a tournament.  Should
>they have been given an NCAA bid as a result?
 
That's a poor example because most Div. I teams don't have the opportunity
to compete in the Beanpot.  Almost every Div. I team competes in conference
tournaments (those that don't are at a huge disadvantage in getting bids,
for this and other reasons).  Another reason this is not comparable to
conference tournaments is that it isn't in close proximity timewise to the
national tournament.  That's where the tournament champ bid has the
greatest advantage.  It's awarding the team that's performing well *now*,
that now being at least 4 games.  That's all you need to win a national
title as well.
 
>If we only want to talk about postseason tournaments, then what about
>underdogs who make it to the championship game but lose, as Harvard
>and MTU did?  Should they have been given bids anyway, despite being
>under .500?  They seem to have proven that they can compete well in
>tournaments - at least, they have proven it more than the teams who
>were upset in earlier rounds.  Should we take away CC's bid and give
>it to MTU?
 
The regular season champ bid came about because of this situation.  In the
past this (a regular season title holder not getting a bid) was likely to
happen.  Now, a regular season champ can perform dismally in the conference
tournament and still go to the NCAAs.
 
Who would you rather see in a tournament, a team that did very well overall
during the year, or a team that was on a hot streak in the playoffs?  I
think that the hot team is going to make the playoffs more exciting.  If a
team doesn't perform well in a conference tournament, what does that say
about the likelyhood that they'll do well in a national tournament where
the competition is higher overall?  Some teams perform better under
tournament conditions than others, and if you had to chose between two
teams to represent your conference, wouldn't you chose the team that had
already proven itself under similar situations?  Apparently the conferences
did.  When there was only one automatic bid, it went to tournament
champions.
 
I have no problem with the way the selection process works now.  It gets
the tourney champs in there, and even with the regular season champs
getting auto bids, there's still four at large bids for other deserving
teams.  There's plenty of room to accomodate different tastes, which is
what this debate has turned into.  I'm not saying regular season champs
don't deserve bids;  I just think they deserve it a little less than
tourney winners.  However, think about this:  how do we crown a national
champion every year?  It's not by using regular season records.
 
Paulette Dwen
Cornell '89
Let's Go Red!
1996 ECAC Champions!
 
P.S.
 
Mike, it's fun debating with someone who not only puts forth a good
argument, but who also won't take any of it personally.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.