I've been pondering these questions a little, but first, to recap for those who don't know, here are how the CCHA & WCHA playoffs will be run. CCHA All 12 teams qualify. UAF to be seeded somewhere from 7-12 by league. In the first round, bottom 6 play at top 6. Six winners advance to CCHA championships. Top 2 get bye while 6 plays 3 and 5 plays 4 in quarterfinals. Winners play bye teams in semifinals the next night, and semi winners play for the title the third night (actually 2 pm in the afternoon). WCHA All 10 teams qualify. UAA to be seeded 10th. In the first round, bottom 5 play at top 5. 5 winners advance to WCHA "Final Five". 5 plays 4 the first night, winner plays 1 while 2 plays 3 in the semis the second night, and semi winners play for the title the third night. One note: the CCHA plan stacks the deck against any team not seeded in the top 2 as they'll have to win three straight to win the title, while the WCHA plan does this for any team not in the top 3. The first question is what criteria the CCHA will use to determine where to seed UAF; I suspect the outcome of their games vs other CCHA clubs will play a big part in this. UAF plays six of the 11 CCHA teams this year - hosting Miami, OSU, Ferris, and WMU for two-game sets, hosting BG for one game in the Great Alaska Face-Off, and two games at MSU, for a total of 11 games (9 at home). Other CCHA teams play 30 games. It seems obvious to me that both leagues decided they wanted to have as many teams as possible make the playoffs - both to make it more interesting for all teams in the league, and because it allows them to have the affiliates compete in the playoffs. You can't very well have the affiliates compete and not allow everyone to make it when the affiliates are not playing a full league schedule. We have the two leagues opting for different strategies in deciding where to seed the affiliates. The CCHA's plan allows for UAF to possibly be seeded closer to where they might have finished, thereby removing the chance that the #1 team might have to host a better team than they would have otherwise (if UAF had a great season but was automatically seeded last). But there might be a controversy if UAF is seeded higher than a league team who seems to have earned the higher seed. The WCHA removes the controversy over the seeds, but allows for the chance that the #1 team will have to host a better team if UAA has a great season. This raises the question of whether a team might throw games near the end of the season if there is a close race for first and they'd rather finish 2nd and get an easier draw. But then again, there is almost always this possibility if it looks like the top seed will draw a weak team that nonetheless gives them fits (i.e. BC drawing and losing to Northeastern a couple of years ago in HE). I tend to think the prestige in finishing first makes this an unlikely possibility. I was wondering whether the WCHA might have considered seeding UAA 7-10 and having a first round like the ECAC where 7 hosts 10 and 8 hosts 9. But the distances involved in traveling and having to extend the playoffs by an extra week might have made this too much of a problem. With a mid-week preliminary like the ECAC, a team would probably have to travel on Monday to play Tuesday, then the winners fly a day or two later to play a quarterfinal series - and if UAA is a winner, that means they miss a week of school. Just some thoughts. I don't have a problem with how either league chose to handle the situation; I think there is the chance of controversy in either system and I can't see a better way of doing it that would work. --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors (Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.) *HMN*