I'm not sure I count as an impartial observer, being from an
ECAC school, but I'm going to buck the tide as say that giving byes to
teams that win their conference RS and tournament titles is a good
idea.  Combined with the automatic bid, it gives everyone something to
play for this weekend, from the NC$$ standpoint.  Clarkson was already
assured of a bid; without the "Clarkson rule", they would have no
particular incentive to win the ECACs from the point of view of the
NC$$ tournament.  Each of the other three teams can gain a berth by
winning the ECACs; if they don't, they almost certainly won't go to
the NC$$s unless Clarkson wins, and in that case the RPIs are close
enough that none of the three can feel assured of the berth.  On the
Hockey East end of things, before the "Clarkson rule" was announced,
Maine and BU were both assured of an NC$$ bye, regardless of how they
did this weekend.  Now, though, only the HE tournament winner can be
confident of a bye independent of what Clarkson and CC do.  Yes,
winning the conference tournament should be an important enough goal
in itself, but it makes sense to me that the NC$$ should reward it as
well, especially when the national championship is so important to
some schools.
 
       On the subject of how many teams should be eligible for the
postseason, I've seen every viewpoint here, from support for every
team in a league making the conference tournament to a claim that they
should eliminate the tourneys altogether and send the four RS
conference champions to the NC$$s.  I'd like to stake out the middle
ground here, and the debate reminds me of a conversation I had with an
English sporting enthusiast over the merits of the FA Premiership
(awarded to the team with the best record) and the FA Cup (awarded to
the winner of the playoffs).  It came down not so much to the cultural
differences between England and America as to the fact that,
primarily, he was an athlete and I was a fan.  He was in favor of the
Premiership, since it rewarded the best team, the one that won the
most games throughout the season.  As a fan, I find sports more
interesting if the "best team" doesn't always win.  I believe that
some games are more important than others; that it's more important to
beat your archrival than to win three other games; that the season
should end with two teams deciding it all, regardless of how they got
there.  Perhaps it's more fair to simply reward a team for consistent
good play, but playoffs are a lot more exciting than watching a team
coast after they've got the title wrapped up.  I saw Cornell win two
Ivy League co-championships, and in each case it was extremely
frustrating not to have a playoff to decide the issue.
 
        On the other extreme, the CCHA is the most absurd example of
what I think is wrong with the NBA and NHL playoffs.  If you send
every team in the league (and one that's not!) to the tournament,
there's much more opportunity to coast, as no one is playing for their
lives.  You should have to earn a berth in the playoffs, so that good
performance in the regular season is rewarded.  As a rule of thumb, I
think that no more than half the teams in a league should make the
playoffs.  That said, I have nonetheless been convinced that the ECAC
system is a good one, even though ten of the twelve teams make the
playoffs.  As was pointed out here, every two positions in the
standings give a concrete advantage in terms of byes, home ice, and
playing tired teams.  There is thus no reason for anyone to coast, and
indeed this year everyone had something to play for on the final
weekend.
 
       Note that although much of this logic about producing drama in
sports could be applied from the $$$ point of view, it appeals to me
solely as a fan.  I saw plenty of drama in amateur baseball in my
youth, and I can assure you no one was getting rich off of that.
Sports to me is not just an arena to prove one's skill nor an
entertainment industry; it is one of the highest dramas, since the
outcome is never certain.
 
       My philosophy that some games are more important than others,
and particulary that playoff games are more important than the regular
season and conference games are more important that nonconference
flies in the face of most of the criteria for selecting the "best"
teams in the country to make the playoffs.  Again, I think the NC$$,
for whatever reason, has struck some sort of balance here: give
courtesy bids/seeds to conference RS and/or tournament winners, and
fill the rest of the spots based on overall accomplishments (as judged
by the RPI or whatever).  I do agree wholeheartedly with Bill, though,
that the selection committee should lay out a set of criteria before
the season and stick to them.  And the busine$$ of applying
intangibles in order to bring up attendence is patently unfair.
 
       Of course, I'm a bit dubious about the concept of naming a
national champion in college athletics at all.  What should be
important at the collegiate level is winning your conference and
beating your rivals, not being the best team in the country.  In
division I-A football, rather than establish a playoff system, I think
the NC$$ should get rid of the concept of national champion
altogether, and let schools focus on local objectives.  By this
standard, the Rose Bowl was the one last pure season resolution; two
league champions play each other for a traditional crown.  (I'd love
to see a "Grey Stone Bowl" between the Ivy League and Patriot League
champions.)  Of course, the cynicism of Minor League Football had
already invaded the Big-10 and Pac-10 before the Rose Bowl went
coalition; when the desire to play non-conference opponents to
establish a national ranking supercedes the need to play everyone in
your conference, something is very wrong.
 
        All IMHO, of course.