Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | John T. Whelan |
Date: | Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:27:30 -0600 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I think people need not to get carried away in attributing the
unprecedented poor representation of the ECAC in the NC$$ tournament
solely to the quality of play. It is true that the league had an
exceptionally poor non-conference showing this year, but I don't think
things are significantly worse than they were in 1995, when the
highest ranked ECAC teams in the Ratings Percentage Index were
Clarkson at #8, UVM at #14, then Brown, Rensselaer and Colgate at
#17-19. Just as in this season, the ECAC had one team in the top 12
in the prevailing rating system (discounting Mercyhurst, Clarkson is
#12 in the PWR). The difference was then that the league got two
automatic bids to the NCAAs. And while the MAAC's NC$$ prospects are
looking up, that is less a result of their performance on the ice and
more a result of having "earned" an automatic bid by surviving for two
years as a D1 conference. Don't forget that despite some anecdotal
successes, the MAAC as a whole was still 2-12-3 against the ECAC.
(And 4-8 against Division I members of CHA, which was arguably a
stronger conference the past two seasons.)
John Whelan, Cornell '91
[log in to unmask]
http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
Enjoy the latest Hockey Geek tools at slack.net/hockey
|
|
|