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