the PWR

just noticed we climbed to 19th in the PWR.. but what kind of system is it that a team thats 8th in its league and 5 under .500 is 16th?? and the have allowed 20 more then that have scored?

upperdeck
just noticed we climbed to 19th in the PWR.. but what kind of system is it that a team thats 8th in its league and 5 under .500 is 16th?? and the have allowed 20 more then that have scored?

Since when were we 8th in our league?

Jacob '06

upperdeck
just noticed we climbed to 19th in the PWR.. but what kind of system is it that a team thats 8th in its league and 5 under .500 is 16th?? and the have allowed 20 more then that have scored?

Since when were we 8th in our league?

Read upper's posting again, a bit closer this time

Jacob '06

upperdeck
just noticed we climbed to 19th in the PWR.. but what kind of system is it that a team thats 8th in its league and 5 under .500 is 16th?? and the have allowed 20 more then that have scored?

Since when were we 8th in our league?

Since when were we 5 under .500 either? He's not talking about us.

Doh!

sorry.. minn duluth..

upperdeck
sorry.. minn duluth..

If you guys posted on USCHO more, you would know that the 10th place team in the WCHA would clearly still be the first place team in any other conference.

Duluth is done. They lost to Denver last night, so no more room for wins...and the rules for picking teams from the Pairwise state you have to be .500 or better overall.

"

Chris 02
Duluth is done. They lost to Denver last night, so no more room for wins...and the rules for picking teams from the Pairwise state you have to be .500 or better overall.

Maybe not: [www.uscho.com]

"For about six hours today, this exact blog space was occupied by a story reacting to what we thought was new legislation instituted by the NCAA men’s ice hockey committee that would require at-large teams in this year’s NCAA tournament to posses a record at or above .500.

Well, according to an email that USCHO.com received from the NCAA today, that was a misprint.

So go on with your life, Minnesota-Duluth. Your tournament life may still hang by a thread, but at least it doesn’t hang by your record."

jeff '84
"

Chris 02
Duluth is done. They lost to Denver last night, so no more room for wins...and the rules for picking teams from the Pairwise state you have to be .500 or better overall.

Maybe not: [www.uscho.com]

"For about six hours today, this exact blog space was occupied by a story reacting to what we thought was new legislation instituted by the NCAA men’s ice hockey committee that would require at-large teams in this year’s NCAA tournament to posses a record at or above .500.

Well, according to an email that USCHO.com received from the NCAA today, that was a misprint.

So go on with your life, Minnesota-Duluth. Your tournament life may still hang by a thread, but at least it doesn’t hang by your record."

Ridiculous. Even high school teams are required to finish at .500 or above to qualify for postseason tournaments.

The college hockey world should be rooting for Wisconsin to drop from serious PWR contention. I will be happy if Minnesota drops out also. 5 teams? Fine, but there's no need for the bottom feeding WCHA 6th and 7th teams, especially if and when they lose their quarterfinal series.

Scersk '97
The college hockey world should be rooting for Wisconsin to drop from serious PWR contention. I will be happy if Minnesota drops out also. 5 teams? Fine, but there's no need for the bottom feeding WCHA 6th and 7th teams, especially if and when they lose their quarterfinal series.

Of course, if they are 6th or 7th, they should lose their quarterfinal.

Al DeFlorio

jeff '84
"

Chris 02
Duluth is done. They lost to Denver last night, so no more room for wins...and the rules for picking teams from the Pairwise state you have to be .500 or better overall.

Maybe not: [www.uscho.com]

"For about six hours today, this exact blog space was occupied by a story reacting to what we thought was new legislation instituted by the NCAAmen’s ice hockey committee that would require at-large teams in this year’s NCAA tournament to posses a record at or above .500.

Well, according to an email that USCHO.com received from the NCAA today, that was a misprint.

So go on with your life, Minnesota-Duluth. Your tournament life may still hang by a thread, but at least it doesn’t hang by your record."

Ridiculous. Even high school teams are required to finish at .500 or above to qualify for postseason tournaments.

I'm not sure I understand what's so ridiculous. The team's RPI still has to be above .500 to be considered, right? And isn't the whole point of the RPI to account for balance of schedule? Minn-Duluth has played 4 games each against Denver, CC, and NoDak. Believe me, if there were any justifiable way to give it to those stuck up WCHA fans, I would.

What right do I as a Cornell fan have to say they don't belong there when we've only seen 3 quality opponents all season (BU, Clarkson, and UML) and went 0-3-1 against them? Not only that, but got utterly embarrased in the BU game at MSG where we looked like a Bush league team? To me, THAT would be ridiculous.

PAthologicalLynah
...(BU, Clarkson, and UML) and went 0-4-1 against them?

FYP

Thx. Also, maybe I should include Sucks as a quality opponent. They hung 11 on Q the other night, and took BC to overtime in the beanpot.

PAthologicalLynah
Thx. Also, maybe I should include Sucks as a quality opponent.

Off with his tongue!

PAthologicalLynah
I'm not sure I understand what's so ridiculous. The team's RPI still has to be above .500 to be considered, right? And isn't the whole point of the RPI to account for balance of schedule? Minn-Duluth has played 4 games each against Denver, CC, and NoDak. Believe me, if there were any justifiable way to give it to those stuck up WCHA fans, I would.

What right do I as a Cornell fan have to say they don't belong there when we've only seen 3 quality opponents all season (BU, Clarkson, and UML) and went 0-3-1 against them? Not only that, but got utterly embarrased in the BU game at MSG where we looked like a Bush league team? To me, THAT would be ridiculous.

First off, pal, I never said boo about whether Cornell should be in the tournament or not, so that rant of yours is irrelevant.

In my opinion, it IS ridiculous that a team that can't win half its games should be invited to participate in a tournament to play for the national championship. I don't care whom they've played. If you lose more than half your games, you play golf in April.

Al DeFlorio

PAthologicalLynah
I'm not sure I understand what's so ridiculous. The team's RPI still has to be above .500 to be considered, right? And isn't the whole point of the RPI to account for balance of schedule? Minn-Duluth has played 4 games each against Denver, CC, and NoDak. Believe me, if there were any justifiable way to give it to those stuck up WCHA fans, I would.

What right do I as a Cornell fan have to say they don't belong there when we've only seen 3 quality opponents all season (BU, Clarkson, and UML) and went 0-3-1 against them? Not only that, but got utterly embarrased in the BU game at MSG where we looked like a Bush league team? To me, THAT would be ridiculous.

First off, pal, I never said boo about whether Cornell should be in the tournament or not, so that rant of yours is irrelevant.

In my opinion, it IS ridiculous that a team that can't win half its games should be invited to participate in a tournament to play for the national championship. I don't care whom they've played. If you lose more than half your games, you play golf in April.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you would deny a bid to a team that played 12 games against the top 5 teams in the country while allowing (insert team here) in that hasn't played a quality opponent all season, then boo to you.

Also, that whole "I never said anything about Cornell" is bunk. If Cornell lost to D last weekend, you'd still be complaining about Minn.-Duluth? Yeah, right.

PAthologicalLynah
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you would deny a bid to a team that played 12 games against the top 5 teams in the country while allowing (insert team here) in that hasn't played a quality opponent all season, then boo to you.

I don't care how tough your schedule is. If you can't win games you don't deserve a chance to play for the national title. Remember, that's what we're talking about here - a chance to play for the national title. It would be ridiculous if an under .500 was given such a chance.

(And yes, I think it would be ridiculous for an under .500 league tourney winner too, but at least that's an autobid.)

So you're saying that if you win your league tourney but are under .500, you don't get a bid?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I would much rather see the 16 "best" teams, by some objective measure, play than just go purely by W-L.

PAthologicalLynah
So you're saying that if you win your league tourney but are under .500, you don't get a bid?

What didn't you get from his post

Keith
(And yes, I think it would be ridiculous for an under .500 league tourney winner too, but at least that's an autobid.

You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

Sure they do. Its perfectly reasonable to believe that winning you conference tournament - as done is basically every sport - gets you into the tourney regardless of the rest of the season. But still that no team should be selected at large if they can't at least win as many games as they lost.

Not sure where I fall on that argument, but its not inconsistent.

OK, I read his post wrong, my bad. It didn't make sense that you wouldn't get a bid if you won your tourney.

But back to the original problem with allowing sub .500 teams in at large bids. With the current PWR, Wisconsin would not be eligible for the tournament since they are under .500, and would be replaced by....
Princeton.

To each his own, I guess.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you would deny a bid to a team that played 12 games against the top 5 teams in the country while allowing (insert team here) in that hasn't played a quality opponent all season, then boo to you.

I can go out, find 5 other guys, put myself in goal, play against all the WCHA teams, and lose as well...

Yes I know it's a ridiculous statement, but there has to be a serious component of wins-losses in tournament qualification. The players can't control strength of an entire conference... they can either win or lose.

To address Duluth, they weren't exactly 8-0 out of conference (4-3-1). Furthermore, hockey can be a game of bounces. Even a lesser team, I believe, should pick up a win against a tough team if they play them four times. To me, that doesn't demonstrate that the lesser team is necessarily deserving of a NCAA bid.

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

KeithK

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.

PAthologicalLynah

KeithK

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.

Jim Hyla

PAthologicalLynah

KeithK

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.

Yeah, but we were 8 out of 17, so at least making the playoffs meant something back then.

Jim Hyla

PAthologicalLynah

KeithK

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.

Yup, them's the breaks, you lose an upset every once in a while, but I still think it's worth it. By that line of thinking, all conference auto-bids are worthwhile since Holy Cross beat Minnesota once

PAthologicalLynah

Jim Hyla

PAthologicalLynah

KeithK

PAthologicalLynah
You're right, I don't get it. He's saying that no team under .500 should be in the tournament, but then says it's an autobid so that somehow makes it OK? Those two things together don't make sense.

I would greatly prefer that the league tournaments didn't let everyone in. Making the league playoffs should mean something. If the tourney were only 4 or 6 teams you wouldn't have much chance of an under .500 team getting an autobid.

In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

Lets just say I am resigned to the fact that an autobid could go to a sub .500 team but an at large bid should not.

I definitely agree about limiting the number of teams in the league tournament, if everyone makes it then the regular season games lose something.

So then take away our '80 ECAC. 8 beats 1,2,3.

Yup, them's the breaks, you lose an upset every once in a while, but I still think it's worth it. By that line of thinking, all conference auto-bids are worthwhile since Holy Cross beat Minnesota once

Yes, you're right, they are. It's what makes this time of year fun.

PAthologicalLynah
Also, that whole "I never said anything about Cornell" is bunk. If Cornell lost to D last weekend, you'd still be complaining about Minn.-Duluth? Yeah, right.

First off, pal, I never complained about UMD. I said no team with a below .500 record should be invited to play for the national championship--regardless of who that team is. I also made no statement about Cornell anywhere. Try reading more carefully before mouthing off.

[And, for the record, there is no way on God's earth that Cornell should be invited to play in this year's tournament. But I'm certain there are ten teams in addition to the six auto-bids that have .500 records or above that deserve that chance. And, if there weren't, they should cut the field back to twelve. I'll say it again: It's ridiculous to invite a sub-.500 team to play for the national championship.]

KeithK
In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

There is a slight problem with that idea, and the WCHA is a perfect example. Unlike the ECAC, teams in the WCHA don't all play the same schedule; they play some league opponents twice and others four times. So who would be more deserving of a bid -- a team that finished high in the standings but benefitted from playing some weak foes four times, or a team that finished lower but played some heavyweights four times?

As I recall, a similar scenario to the above came up in the WCHA in the mid-90's. Colorado College won the regular-season title by a point or two but had played the two worst teams in the league four times each. They also had a weak non-conference schedule, so when they lost in the first round of the WCHA playoffs, their strength-of-schedule was so low that they wound up missing out on an NCAA bid -- despite their good record and regular-season championship.

Give My Regards
Unlike the ECAC, teams in the WCHA don't all play the same schedule; they play some league opponents twice and others four times. So who would be more deserving of a bid -- a team that finished high in the standings but benefitted from playing some weak foes four times, or a team that finished lower but played some heavyweights four times?

Obviously, the answer is a convoluted system in which the WCHA teams are compared using such factors as RPI, head-to-head record, record against common opponents (which, I guess, would be the entire WCHA), record against WCHA teams in the top-half of the standings, and possibly record in the last sixteen games played. Then after a few years, we can start complaining that they should be using WCHA KRACH instead.

PAthologicalLynah
OK, I read his post wrong, my bad. It didn't make sense that you wouldn't get a bid if you won your tourney.

If you were more familiar with Keith's history, you'd know that he doesn't believe in playoffs except when they pit teams from near-exclusive leagues against one another. For example, he has been retroactively protesting the MLB playoffs ever since each league split into two divisions - and please don't ask him about the wildcard.

This might be a slight exaggeration of his actual position.

Al DeFlorio
First off, pal ...

Do you think you could make that sound more hostile? I'm not sure I've got a handle on the depth of your outrage.

ugarte

Al DeFlorio
First off, pal ...

Do you think you could make that sound more hostile? I'm not sure I've got a handle on the depth of your outrage.

Well, it is only the 2nd time he's started an angry condescending post that way in this very thread.

Jacob 03

Give My Regards
after a few years, we can start complaining that they should be using WCHA KRACH instead.

Is that like the ECAC KRACH?

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

I've always considered the magical .500 cutoff a psychological criterion. If there's sufficient disparity in strength of schedule, you might expect a deserving team to finish with a losing record. (There are obvious strawman examples, like if the fourth best team plays all its games against the top three.) If your way of accounting for strength of schedule is sensible (e.g., KRACH or perhaps Bayesian Bradley-Terry with a regularizing prior), an overall losing record shouldn't be an impediment to a team receiving a bid. On the other hand, the NCAA's way of jury-rigging strength of schedule together with overall record is not very reliable, and you could believe that teams might get credit for the strength of their schedule alone. (RPI drops "bad wins" from a team's rating, but does nothing about "good losses", and don't get me started about lacrosse.)

jtwcornell91
and don't get me started about lacrosse.

I brought up lacrosse on a similar thread on USCHO. Amazing how all discussions become the same at this time of year.

ugarte
If you were more familiar with Keith's history, you'd know that he doesn't believe in playoffs except when they pit teams from near-exclusive leagues against one another. For example, he has been retroactively protesting the MLB playoffs ever since each league split into two divisions - and please don't ask him about the wildcard.

This might be a slight exaggeration of his actual position.

Maybe a little. But only a little.

Give My Regards

KeithK
In fact, I'm on record as saying that I'd prefer to give the autobid to the RS winner since that's a better judge of conference champ than a tourney. (Please, let's not have that argument again.)

There is a slight problem with that idea, and the WCHA is a perfect example. Unlike the ECAC, teams in the WCHA don't all play the same schedule; they play some league opponents twice and others four times. So who would be more deserving of a bid -- a team that finished high in the standings but benefitted from playing some weak foes four times, or a team that finished lower but played some heavyweights four times?

As I recall, a similar scenario to the above came up in the WCHA in the mid-90's. Colorado College won the regular-season title by a point or two but had played the two worst teams in the league four times each. They also had a weak non-conference schedule, so when they lost in the first round of the WCHA playoffs, their strength-of-schedule was so low that they wound up missing out on an NCAA bid -- despite their good record and regular-season championship.

The NCAA doesn't grant automatic bids to the tournament champions; the NCAA grants automatic bids to the conferences. Each conference decides how the recipient will be determined. It just happens that they have all decided their autobids will go to the tournament champions. If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid. They haven't.

See also "Colorado College Rule" and "Clarkson Rule" discussions in the archives.

Beeeej
If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid. They haven't.

They instead award the regular season champion a comically oversized trophy.

the leagues are better off giving the playoff champion the bye.. the best reason being what we are seeing this year. clarkson will be in and now they get at worst two teams in.. if clarkson got the bye for RS title there would be a good chance the winner this week might still not get in. they want the most teams in not the best.

upperdeck
the leagues are better off giving the playoff champion the bye.. the best reason being what we are seeing this year. clarkson will be in and now they get at worst two teams in.. if clarkson got the bye for RS title there would be a good chance the winner this week might still not get in. they want the most teams in not the best.

(A "bye" is a very different thing from a "bid" - and it was a very big deal when the tournament was twelve teams instead of sixteen. You mean "bid."

Yes, absolutely, there are plenty of good reasons the conferences choose to give the autobid to the tournament winner. There just happen to be potential consequences to that choice, one of which is that the regular season champion might stay home.

Beeeej
If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid. They haven't.

I don't think the fact that the bid is given to the tournament champion implies they think the tournament winner is more deserving. If the tournament winner didn't get a bid the tournament would mean much, much less. It would be more like a post-season exhibition. Since the tournaments make money for the leagues there's a great incentive to award the autobid to the winner.

They might also think that the tourney winner is most deserving. But I think that would be secondary.

KeithK

Beeeej
If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid. They haven't.

I don't think the fact that the bid is given to the tournament champion implies they think the tournament winner is more deserving. If the tournament winner didn't get a bid the tournament would mean much, much less. It would be more like a post-season exhibition. Since the tournaments make money for the leagues there's a great incentive to award the autobid to the winner.

They might also think that the tourney winner is most deserving. But I think that would be secondary.

I didn't say they did, now did I?

Beeeej

KeithK

Beeeej
If the WCHA feels the regular season champion is more deserving by virtue of that reasoning, they can decide at the beginning of the season that the regular season champion will get the autobid. They haven't.

I don't think the fact that the bid is given to the tournament champion implies they think the tournament winner is more deserving. If the tournament winner didn't get a bid the tournament would mean much, much less. It would be more like a post-season exhibition. Since the tournaments make money for the leagues there's a great incentive to award the autobid to the winner.

They might also think that the tourney winner is most deserving. But I think that would be secondary.

I didn't say they did, pal.

FYP.

PAthologicalLynah
[Also, that whole "I never said anything about Cornell" is bunk. If Cornell lost to D last weekend, you'd still be complaining about Minn.-Duluth? Yeah, right.

Crap like this is why I'm "hostile." My point was that a sub-.500 team--any team; who cares about UMD--should not be invited to play for a national championship, and I "complained" about nothing. Disagreeing with that is anyone's right, but to write uncalled-for, snotty garbage like that quoted above based on some bizarre assumption does make me "hostile."

Sorry if you don't like it, Charles. You're likely the last one on this planet who should call someone else "hostile."

Al DeFlorio
Sorry if you don't like it, Charles. You're likely the last one on this planet who should call someone else "hostile."

Second to last, by my math.

ugarte

Al DeFlorio
Sorry if you don't like it, Charles. You're likely the last one on this planet who should call someone else "hostile."

Second to last, by my math.

Jerk.

PAthologicalLynah
Also, that whole "I never said anything about Cornell" is bunk. If Cornell lost to D last weekend, you'd still be complaining about Minn.-Duluth? Yeah, right.

To be fair to Al, yes, I think he would. One of the things I like about this forum is the win-or-lose presence of many of the regulars. Sure, this place empties out quite a bit after the final game of the season, but there's a pretty decent group here that sticks around and cares about the national scene (and trebuchets.) Al is one of them. He can be just as grumpy post-season towards other teams as he is in mid-season.

KeithK

ugarte

Al DeFlorio
Sorry if you don't like it, Charles. You're likely the last one on this planet who should call someone else "hostile."

Second to last, by my math.

Jerk.

Typical.

ugarte

Al DeFlorio
Sorry if you don't like it, Charles. You're likely the last one on this planet who should call someone else "hostile."

Second to last, by my math.

Actually, I'd think BRA would be particularly qualified to speak about hostility...

It looks like UM-Duluth is out of the NC$$ picture, but it has been replaced by Wisconsin. According to Adam Wodon's article on CHN, the Badgers could get in to the tourney with a sub .500 record, and even better, home ice due to being a regional host.

"13-14. Minnesota State, Wisconsin

In all the scenarios I can come up with, the Mavericks stay ahead of Wisconsin. So if Notre Dame stays put, that means Wisconsin is out. Minnesota State would only be bumped out if BU or Vermont wins Hockey East, and one of them will be in the final, so it's possible.

But both Wisconsin and MSU can still get in, putting seven WCHA teams in the tournament, including one that would be under .500 (Wisconsin). The committee confirmed in a conference call today that, if Wisconsin qualifies with a sub-.500 record, it will still get in the tournament. All Wisconsin needs is two Notre Dame losses and a couple of other bounces.

This would throw things into upheavel, with Wisconsin needing to host its regional. Miami or Michigan would go to Madison if they are both No. 1 seeds, but if two WCHA teams are No. 1 seeds, it makes things really problematic."

If this does happen, will the NC$$ hockey committee come up with a "Wisconsin Rule" that states that unless you win your conference's tourney/autobid, no team with an under 500 record can be eligible for an at large bid.? This seems like a "no-brainer" to me, but ....