I disagree with the argument that players in the WCHA should be ranked on
points per game rather than on overall points for two reasons:
 
        1) I am a CC fan and my players do better based on overall points
 
        2) What makes a player good is how much he contributes to his team
throughout the season.  If you were a coach would you choose a player who gave
you 30 points and played 18 games, or a player who gave 39 points and played in
all 28 games of the season? If a player has 10 points in the first 12 games, but
then gets injured for the rest of the season, he has not contributed to his
team as much as a player who has played all 36 games and gotten 20 points.
Even though Justin McHugh has a slightly higher ppg than Jay McNeill (1.67 vs.
1.36) he has only given his team 30 points and McNeill has given his team 39.
Minnesota and CC have played roughly the same number of games, so clearly
the player with the most points (using points as an indicator of contribution)
has given more to his team.  Therefore, if the teams have played the same # of
games (which they have in the WCHA), then what matters is a player's overall
contribution to his team.
 
Jeff Brune