Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by ebilmes
Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: ebilmes (---.0.127.207.adsl.snet.net)
Date: March 27, 2006 07:09PM
USA Today Only. I'd have loved to see us at 5 or 6. And CC moves up?
USA TODAY/American Hockey men's poll
March 27, 2006
USA TODAY/American Hockey men's poll
March 27, 2006
Rank, school (first-place votes) Record Points LW 1. Wisconsin (28) 28-10-3 504 2 2. North Dakota ( 4) 29-15-1 474 6 3. Boston College ( 2) 25-12-3 442 8 4. Maine 28-11-2 402 10 5. Screw BU 26-10-4 362 1 6. Michigan State 25-12-8 319 3 7. Cornell 22- 9-4 311 9 8. Minnesota 27- 9-5 276 4 9. Miami (Ohio) 26- 9-4 214 5 10. Sucks 21-12-2 162 7 11. Colorado College 24-16-2 156 13 12. Michigan 21-15-5 140 12 13. UHN 20-13-7 138 11 14. Holy Cross 27-10-2 107 NR 15. St. Cloud State 22-16-4 22 14 Others receiving votes: Denver 21, Nebraska-Omaha 13, Northern Michigan 10, Dartmouth 4, Bemidji State 2.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2006 07:10PM by ebilmes.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: March 28, 2006 07:47AM
God. Talk about irrelevant.
(The poll. Not the post)
(The poll. Not the post)
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Trotsky (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 28, 2006 05:12PM
Cornell finishes tied with the fewest losses in D-1.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 28, 2006 05:40PM
Jeff Hopkins '82
God. Talk about irrelevant.
(The poll. Not the post)
I doubt it's irrelevant to recruits...
It's nice to be ranked ahead of Minnesota.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 28, 2006 06:30PM
The thing I hate about this poll is that every year the top 4 teams are exactly the same four teams that make the Frozen Four. Just once I'd like the voters to recognize the fact that success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that you're the best team. Maine isn't necessarily a better team than MSU simply because they were victorious in the latest head to head matchup and the win certainly doesn't mean they must be better than BU. Otherwise Holy Cross should be ranked #8 and ahead of Minnesota.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 28, 2006 06:33PM
KeithK
Otherwise Holy Cross should be ranked #8 and ahead of Minnesota.
Hahaha... now *THAT* I'd pay to see. Ah, just the thought makes me happy
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: March 29, 2006 10:44AM
KeithK
The thing I hate about this poll is that every year the top 4 teams are exactly the same four teams that make the Frozen Four. Just once I'd like the voters to recognize the fact that success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that you're the best team. Maine isn't necessarily a better team than MSU simply because they were victorious in the latest head to head matchup and the win certainly doesn't mean they must be better than BU.
I find this an interesting comment in light of your impassioned statements that we didn't earn the right to play for the national championship. If simply having success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that Harvard is the best team in the conference, why should they be the only representative in the national tournament?
You may point to the Cleary Cup, but given the showing of Cornell v. Colgate during the year, and the Albany weekend, I don't think it's a very stable argument to say Dartmouth/Colgate earned that right as the best in the league either.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.rbccm.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 10:59AM
I just like seeing us ahead of Minnesota. Regardless of the source. Woof woof!!
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 12:04PM
OK, I'll explain again. My philosophy is win and move on, lose and go home. Winning the league championship (however it's defined) means you won and have earned the right to move on. It doesn't prove that you're the best team, but that's not exactly the point. I prefer to define the championship such that it's more likely to pick the best team. Thus my preference for RS championship over tournament. But regardless, win or go home.Jordan 04KeithK
The thing I hate about this poll is that every year the top 4 teams are exactly the same four teams that make the Frozen Four. Just once I'd like the voters to recognize the fact that success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that you're the best team. Maine isn't necessarily a better team than MSU simply because they were victorious in the latest head to head matchup and the win certainly doesn't mean they must be better than BU.
I find this an interesting comment in light of your impassioned statements that we didn't earn the right to play for the national championship. If simply having success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that Harvard is the best team in the conference, why should they be the only representative in the national tournament?
You may point to the Cleary Cup, but given the showing of Cornell v. Colgate during the year, and the Albany weekend, I don't think it's a very stable argument to say Dartmouth/Colgate earned that right as the best in the league either.
Relating that to the poll, I think that the poll should be about the determination of "best" team. However that's defined. It's a subjective measure and thus well suited to judging this very subjective question. I find it hard to believe that people really think that Maine is the 4th best team in the country after spening weeks and weeks around #10. The voters are simply trying to mirror the FF field. If you're just doing that then why have a poll? (Of course, they shouldn't bother having polls at this point in the season, but that's a different question.)
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 12:41PM
KeithK
OK, I'll explain again. My philosophy is win and move on, lose and go home. Winning the league championship (however it's defined) means you won and have earned the right to move on. It doesn't prove that you're the best team, but that's not exactly the point. I prefer to define the championship such that it's more likely to pick the best team. Thus my preference for RS championship over tournament. But regardless, win or go home.
Now, I'm not going to disagree with you strenuously here (or, really, even at all), since I agree with you that the NCAAs are overpopulated with teams that really haven't done anything but do reasonably well in difficult leagues (UNO, UNH, CC, maybe [gulp] us?), but isn't part of the fun of organized sports the possibility that, even towards the end of a reasonably unsuccessful season, you can put it all together and make a run at a championship, whether league or NCAA? I think sometimes that we have to remember that the whole thing is being played for the benefit of the players as well as the fans. What would Yale have to play for at the end of the season, or even midway, had there been no tournament berth for them? Tournaments at the end of seasons keep things lively and fun.
That being said, perhaps, even with the current instability regarding the CHA, it's time to go back to giving automatic bids to regular-season "champions" as well as tournament champions for *all* the leagues. Who says Niagara or Dartmouth (or Colgate) didn't deserve to be in the tournament? I'd even like to see the Clarkson rule come back. The seedings are artificial anyway--I don't need them to reflect team strength so much. Why not a #1 seed for Holy Cross? With the small sample space of non-conference games involved, were they ever proved to be that undeserving?
I don't know, make the Clarkson rule only apply to conferences with 8 teams or more or something, but a team that pulls off a "double" championship should see a reward, 'cause we all know exactly how difficult that is.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2006 12:46PM by Scersk '97.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Liz '05 (---.pn.at.cox.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 12:49PM
I feel like I should know this, but can you define "the Clarkson rule"?
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Rich S (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 12:51PM
Have you talked to recruits and asked them what went into their decision? I have yet to hear a single reference to polls.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 12:57PM
Liz '05
I feel like I should know this, but can you define "the Clarkson rule"?
[www.uscho.com]
(May as well check out the Colorado College rule right above it too)
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 12:57PM
It came about because Clarkson got screwed with an awful seed in the 1991 NCAA tournament. Even though they had turned a double, they had to face Wisconsin in the first round at Walker Arena in Potsdam and then Lake State (very powerful at the time) on the road in the second round. Frankly, I think they just ran out of gas at the Frozen Four, ending up getting crushed by a very good BU team.
When the tournament moved to the unholy two regional arrangement, involved byes and rests for the top two seeds in each regional, Clarkson ironically never was able to take advantage of "its" rule.
When the tournament moved to the unholy two regional arrangement, involved byes and rests for the top two seeds in each regional, Clarkson ironically never was able to take advantage of "its" rule.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2006 01:01PM by Scersk '97.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:00PM
[q]Now, I'm not going to disagree with you strenuously here (or, really, even at all), since I agree with you that the NCAAs are overpopulated with teams that really haven't done anything but do reasonably well in difficult leagues (UNO, UNH, CC, maybe [gulp] us?), but isn't part of the fun of organized sports the possibility that, even towards the end of a reasonably unsuccessful season, you can put it all together and make a run at a championship, whether league or NCAA? I think sometimes that we have to remember that the whole thing is being played for the benefit of the players as well as the fans. What would Yale have to play for at the end of the season, or even midway, had there been no tournament berth for them? Tournaments at the end of seasons keep things lively and fun.[/q]No, the fun of organized sports is the fun of organized sports. I can easily enjoy a game thoroughly at the end of a season when my team is well out of contention. (Case in point: I started watching Cornell hockey in the 92-93 season.) There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.
Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before. Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.
This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*
Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before. Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.
This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: ugarte (---.z065105093.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:06PM
I think professional athletes (and high level amateurs) tend to be less romantic than this, even if they act all weepy and sentimental on camera.KeithK
There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.
Don't despair and don't take that as evidence. Those decisions are usually driven by less graceful considerations than purity of accomplishment. I still disagree with your extremism but my line drawing would come well short of the current state of affairs in the major pro sports leagues. I could very well be called an extremist myself.
I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Beeeej (38.136.58.---)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:07PM
Scersk '97
When the tournament moved to the unholy two regional arrangement, involved byes and rests for the top two seeds in each regional, Clarkson ironically never was able to take advantage of "its" rule.
I was, at the same time, disappointed for them and vaguely satisfied about it.
Did Colorado College ever get to take advantage of "their" rule in the eight or so years it was in effect by winning the WCHA regular season but not tournament title again, either? I should know where to find the information, but I can't at the moment.
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:14PM
KeithK
No, the fun of organized sports is the fun of organized sports. I can easily enjoy a game thoroughly at the end of a season when my team is well out of contention. (Case in point: I started watching Cornell hockey in the 92-93 season.) There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.
Hey, I agree. I was the co-captain of my school's 2-13-1 soccer team my senior year. It was still fun. But it was a lot more fun the year before when we actually had a slight chance of making sectionals late in the season. Your mileage may vary.
Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before.
Also agreed. I disliked it when the ECAC went to 10 teams, and I like the 12-team tourny less.
Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.
This point is where you lose me and I think you lose a lot of people. Baseball involves a season of, what, 132 games? I don't care enough about it to know, but it's *long*. Other pro sports involve similarly long seasons. It's a sampling issue. I don't think a home and home series vs. every team in the league, over a space of a couple of months, involving inconsistencies such as practice starting times, extra games, recruiting issues, and injuries, chooses the best team in a league like the ECAC. It chooses one of the best teams, but the tournament does a similarly good job in choosing one of the best teams.
This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me.
I think part of the problem you're having is seeing people as having the opposite opinion to your own. My opinion certainly doesn't represent a diametrically opposed viewpoint, but you've responded like it does. There are shades of goodness and meaning here. I agree that the proliferation of wild cards in sports is bad, but I'm not willing to say that conference tournaments as selectors are bad in college sports. That's somewhere on a continuum between "only regular-season champs" and "let 'em all in!"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2006 01:14PM by Scersk '97.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:17PM
KeithK
This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*
I understand and respect your opinion - but, like most people as you admit, disagree with it.
I think your point is crystal clear. I just think its a matter of priorities and preferences.
I - and apparently most people - would rather see the best teams in the tournament. It seems most "fair" to most people that the best teams from the season as a whole get to play for the national title. And that the group be big enough to include teams that may not have been the best all year long, but are good enough to get it together at the end and prove that they can be the best.
Your philosophy would certainly leave out teams who are the cream of the crop for teams that simply are not (note: this is different than current auto-bids, as I think its pretty hard to argue that Dartmouth, DU, and the other just-missed teams were the cream of the crop).
While some people may be mad that DU and Dartmouth were left our for Bemidji and Holy Cross, it would be a much harder pill for people to swallow if (using regular season championships) Wisconsin, CC, and Harvard were left out for Holy Cross, Niagra, and Dartmouth.
Don't you think, that in order to have something that you can legitimately call a national championship, that you need to do your best to represent the spectrum of the best teams in the nation?
The auto-bids are then added to give everyone something to play for at the end of the year, and to make sure that all leagues are represented. Its weird, Keith, the auto-bids are essentially communist... making sure that everyone gets an equal shot, yet here you are promoting a system with only the autobids
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:41PM
I know I'm very much an extremist on this issue. The extremism is what gets me frustrated. I realize that but I'm also convinced that my own brand of extremism is right!
Yes, there is a wide spectrum between the guy on the USCHO board who seemingly in all seriousness suggested we have a 59 team tournament and my position. I guess I see most of sports and general opinion moving in the "everyone gets in" direction. I don't have any real power to stop this (until I make a few billion and start buying sports leagues) so I simply rail against it. Effective? No. Satisfying? Occasionally, but usually no. Which is why I should just stop.
Yes, there is a wide spectrum between the guy on the USCHO board who seemingly in all seriousness suggested we have a 59 team tournament and my position. I guess I see most of sports and general opinion moving in the "everyone gets in" direction. I don't have any real power to stop this (until I make a few billion and start buying sports leagues) so I simply rail against it. Effective? No. Satisfying? Occasionally, but usually no. Which is why I should just stop.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:42PM
KeithK
A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.
And conversely, the Augusts and Septembers of Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Philadelphia, etc. would have meant nothing.
("As they should have," you might say). Either way, you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2006 01:53PM by Jordan 04.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Beeeej (38.136.58.---)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:48PM
KeithK
Which is why I should just stop.
How's that workin' out for ya so far?
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:48PM
[q]("As they should have," you might say). Either way, you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.[/q]IT'S PO-TAY-TO, YOU CRETIN!
It's really all a question of aesthetics.
It's really all a question of aesthetics.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 29, 2006 01:50PM
I think my previous post responding to Jordan shows I've moved away from arguing the point and into silliness. That at least is cathartic (and more fun than writing risk management plans).BeeeejKeithK
Which is why I should just stop.
How's that workin' out for ya so far?
Beeeej
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: ugarte (---.z065105093.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 02:43PM
I LOOOOOVE writing risk management plans, you cretin!KeithKI think my previous post responding to Jordan shows I've moved away from arguing the point and into silliness. That at least is cathartic (and more fun than writing risk management plans).BeeeejKeithK
Which is why I should just stop.
How's that workin' out for ya so far?
Beeeej
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: David Harding (---.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 09:02PM
I'll up the ante. Why do we have post-season tournaments at all? Who benefits? Crown the regular season champions and then everyone goes home. Why the obsession with a national champion?KeithK
[q]Now, I'm not going to disagree with you strenuously here (or, really, even at all), since I agree with you that the NCAAs are overpopulated with teams that really haven't done anything but do reasonably well in difficult leagues (UNO, UNH, CC, maybe [gulp] us?), but isn't part of the fun of organized sports the possibility that, even towards the end of a reasonably unsuccessful season, you can put it all together and make a run at a championship, whether league or NCAA? I think sometimes that we have to remember that the whole thing is being played for the benefit of the players as well as the fans. What would Yale have to play for at the end of the season, or even midway, had there been no tournament berth for them? Tournaments at the end of seasons keep things lively and fun.[/q]No, the fun of organized sports is the fun of organized sports. I can easily enjoy a game thoroughly at the end of a season when my team is well out of contention. (Case in point: I started watching Cornell hockey in the 92-93 season.) There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.
Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before. Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.
This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 09:18PM
Keep this up and you'll be an Ivy League president.David Harding
I'll up the ante. Why do we have post-season tournaments at all? Who benefits? Crown the regular season champions and then everyone goes home. Why the obsession with a national champion?
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2006 09:56PM
Al DeFlorioKeep this up and you'll be an Ivy League president.David Harding
I'll up the ante. Why do we have post-season tournaments at all? Who benefits? Crown the regular season champions and then everyone goes home. Why the obsession with a national champion?
Or if that doesn't work out, a shoe-in for Union Pres.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: RichH (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 30, 2006 12:12AM
KeithK
Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.
Ah. I was waiting for this before jumping in. I am, have always been, and most likely always will be a staunch opponent of the Loser Card...I mean...Wild Card in baseball.
To address Jordan 04:
[Q]the Augusts and Septembers of Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Philadelphia, etc. would have meant nothing.[/Q]
I firmly believe that's incorrect. Whenever people bring out that argument, they neglect to take into account the old four-division setup. If you go back over the past 10 years and reconstruct the standings using the old divisional alignment, we have missed out on some epic, incredible, and historic pennant races. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that the playoff expansion has LESSENED the late-season excitement, when you consider the number of times the Wild Card safety net has come into play.
Example: late '90s Indian teams strolled to the Central division title. "oh, but now the White Sox and Twins have something to play for! They're 10 games out of the division in August!" Reconstruct the records, and the Indians aren't running away with the AL East, but in HEATED races with the Yankees and Red Sox. Examine 1999. The White Sox and Twins, already blown out of the Wild Card race anyway, are actually closer to the division leaders in the West.
The other argument: Wild Card teams win world series. Well sure, but I still think that those teams didn't deserve a shot at it in the first place. The playoffs become a crap shoot, with a combination of skill and luck (see many historic upsets in NCAA bouncyball, G. Mason excluded). "And we miss out on so many great Divisional series." Well great. Let's end the season in August and have tons of really great playoff series then. Division winners earned the right to the playoffs. The losers don't, in my book.
Now you have weak 4-team divisions being rewarded for mediocrity. There's a reason 162-game season is significant. In the NFL, playing 16 games is NOT significant, and not even balanced in schedule, so expanded playoffs and multiple wild cards make sense. Not in baseball.
But you know what it comes down to? An extra round of playoff $$ for twice as many owners.
It's for this reason that I'm going to step out and support Keith here. I'm not on the extreme side of his argument...color me a few shades of lighter gray. I don't suggest going back to pre-1981 days of a 4-team tournament. There are too many teams deserving of a shot, and too many smoke-filled-room politics that happened back then. 12 teams felt right as far as quality and difficulty making the NCAA field. I hated the concept of a bye, so I'm perfectly fine with 16, and letting the emerging conferences get a taste helps the entire sport.
Oh, and of course, an 8-team ECAC playoff field, please.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Chris 02 (---.aere.iastate.edu)
Date: April 10, 2006 04:19PM
For completeness, here's the final poll
USA TODAY/American Hockey men's poll FINAL POLL — April 10, 2006 Rank, school (first-place votes) Record Points LW 1. Wisconsin (34) 30-10-3 510 1 2. Boston College 26-13-3 475 3 3. North Dakota 29-16-1 435 2 4. Maine 28-12-2 401 4 5. Boston 26-10-4 363 5 6. Michigan State 25-12-8 318 6 7. Cornell 22-9-4 312 7 8. Minnesota 27-9-5 276 8 9. Miami (Ohio) 26-9-4 214 9 10. Harvard 21-12-2 161 10 11. Colorado College 24-16-2 158 11 12. Michigan 21-15-5 142 12 13. New Hampshire 20-13-7 135 13 14. Holy Cross 27-10-2 108 14 15. St. Cloud State 22-16-4 22 15 Others receiving votes: Denver, 22; Nebraska Omaha, 13; Northern Michigan, 10; Dartmouth College, 4; Bemidji State, 2..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2006 09:55PM by Chris 02.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: ebilmes (---.0.127.207.adsl.snet.net)
Date: April 10, 2006 04:36PM
Gained two points on MSU.
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: ugarte (---.z065105093.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net)
Date: April 10, 2006 05:00PM
As stupid as a post-tournament poll is, in light of the QF games, I'm surprised we ended up as low as 7th.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Beeeej (38.136.58.---)
Date: April 10, 2006 05:00PM
ugarte
As stupid as a post-tournament poll is, in light of the QF games, I'm surprised we ended up as low as 7th.
Them pollsters loves 'em some offense.
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Poll (yay) 3/27
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: April 10, 2006 11:03PM
Cornell finishes in the top 10 for the 4th time in the last 5 years:
2001: 17th
2002: 9th
2003: 3rd
2004: 20th
2005: 5th
2006: 7th
2001: 17th
2002: 9th
2003: 3rd
2004: 20th
2005: 5th
2006: 7th
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.