Rich Hungerford writes: > To paraphrase WTS: Hold on here guys. # 3?! Harvard just doesn't > have the players to justify this rating. You'll see. > Maybe someone will have realigned the warp drive during examination > period, but I just don't see the Crimson as that good a team. Many > ECAC teams have given them all they wanted. While looking at the whole strength-of-schedule issue re UML, I went to the archives and looked at Harvard's record and frankly if any team has strength- of-schedule questions to answer, it would seem to be Harvard. Based on Hockey-L ratings, Harvard has yet to beat a top ten team. Going to top 15, they have lost to #11 RPI (4-3) and gone to overtime twice against #15 Brown emerging with a win and a tie. (To be fair, they also beat Maine 7-6 on Jan 3 and Maine probably was still in the lower end of the top 15 at that time.) Still, 1-1-1 against top 15 teams doesn't exactly look like #3 in the country material. Which makes Monday's Beanpot game against BU a big game for Harvard's credibility and poll standing. My personal prediction is for a BIG BU win over Harvard, sparked in part by BU's frustration at losing not one but TWO games to UMass-Lowell, which leapfrogs them to #2 in the country. (Tongue in the general cheek area.) ***************************************************** ,-******-, * Dave Hendrickson "Robo" [log in to unmask] * *' ## '* * A Hockey Polygamist and Get-A-Lifer * *## ___##___ ##* * GO BROONS!!! Go Red Wings!! Go LA Kings! * * ##| ___ \## * * GO UMASS-LOWELL!!! Go Maine!! Go BU! * * | |___) | * * --------------------------------------------------* *######| ___ <######* * Although I can't remember ever having an original * * | |___) | * * thought, and am certainly parroting someone who * * ##|________/## * * actually has a brain, these opinions are mine, * *## ## ##* * not Hewlett-Packard's. * *, ## ,* ***************************************************** '-*******-'