Cornell 4 St. Lawrence 3 (ot)

[Aaron M. Griffin]

The Clarkson Rule was relevant when there were 12 teams in the tournament, and the top four teams got a bye.  Any team which won its conference regular season and tournament titles automatically received one of the four byes, even if they were not in the top four according to the pairwise.  It was called the Clarkson Rule because they were the team most expected to benefit from it; actually it was named before it existed, in 1995.

I think part of the reason it was known as the Clarkson Rule was a carry-over from what happened to the Golden Knights in 1991.  That year, they won the ECAC regular-season title (ouch, even 21 years later) and the ECAC tournament, and wound up with a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney.  It was the first time in the 12-team-tournament era that a team that had won both titles had been seeded so low, and there was a lot of griping in certain ECAC circles about "lack of respect" or some such -- which clearly ignored the fact that the selection process at the time (mainly RPI, this was pre-PWR) clearly indicated that a 4 was pretty much where that team belonged.

The CC rule stated that the regular season champion from each conference was guaranteed an at-large bid if they didn't get an auto-bid.  It's named for Colorado College, who missed the NCAAs in the early 90s after winning the McNaughton Cup and being upset in the WCHA tournament.  I'm a little fuzzy on exactly when that happened, since it was just before I started following college hockey obsessively.

It was 1994.  CC lost their first-round series to the #10 seed, and that was just enough to drop them out of NCAA tournament consideration, which caused a whole lot of pissing and moaning, and eventually led to the CC rule.  I always found it hilarious that so much was made out of CC missing the NCAA tournament after winning the regular-season title when precisely the same thing happened to Harvard two years before (won the ECAC regular-season, lost in the first round to #10-seed RPI, left out of the NCAAs) and no one really cared.  Then again, it was Harvard, so why would they have?

BTW, CC's 1994 season is a perfect example of why I'm against auto-bids for regular-season winners that play unbalanced schedules.  In all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that followed CC's being left home for the 1994 NCAA tourney, no one bothered to mention that CC had won their title by one point over the second-place school (Minnesota, I think), and that thanks to the WCHA's unbalanced schedule CC had played the two weakest teams in the league four times each while the second-place team had played them twice each.

Thank you both for the historical background and perspective.

I find it odd that winning the regular season "championship" has no weight with the national postseason, but it is unfair to grant an autobid for regular season "champions" when conferences such as the CCHA and WCHA play unbalanced schedules. I would not have such an issue if every conference moved to playing balanced schedules. Otherwise, teams could load their schedule with arranging playing "rivals" who are of inferior quality to boost their point totals in their conference. (As an example, Michigan has played Michigan State five times this season and has received points for all those games while playing other teams in CCHA no more than four times). This problem will not go away anytime soon with NCHC playing unbalanced schedules in the future.

I do know that the B1G Hockey Conference will play a balanced hockey schedule. Each member will play every other member four times, two home and two away.

[mha]

Why wasn't Schafer coaching, by the way?  I noticed that the absurd announcers said it, but didn't know why.

Coach Schafer told us last week he was taking the night off to go up to Ontario for his niece's wedding. It was the first time he's voluntarily missed a game as head coach. I recall he missed one on an away weekend following an injury, and had been suspended for at least one.

[KeithK]

I find it odd that winning the regular season "championship" has no weight with the national postseason, but it is unfair to grant an autobid for regular season "champions" when conferences such as the CCHA and WCHA play unbalanced schedules. I would not have such an issue if every conference moved to playing balanced schedules. Otherwise, teams could load their schedule with arranging playing "rivals" who are of inferior quality to boost their point totals in their conference. (As an example, Michigan has played Michigan State five times this season and has received points for all those games while playing other teams in CCHA no more than four times). This problem will not go away anytime soon with NCHC playing unbalanced schedules in the future.

I don't think even Red Berenson has the pull to manipulate league schedules that way. The unbalanced league slates usually rotate in some pre-determined fashion.

If it's unfair to award an auto-bid after an unbalanced RS championship it's really only unfair to the other teams in that league who might have had a better chance to win if the playing field was level.  But they agreed to play that schedule so thems the breaks.  It only affects teams in other conferences tenuously (changing the rankings for at large bids).

I just hate the whole attitude that the RS doesn't matter once you have a tourney bid locke up or that finishing first is meaningless. It shouldn't be.

I do know that the B1G Hockey Conference will play a balanced hockey schedule. Each member will play every other member four times, two home and two away.

Figured that. But I forgot how many teams were in the NCHC. Eight teams makes home and home balanced difficult (it would eat up 28 of 34 possible games).

[French Rage]

If it's unfair to award an auto-bid after an unbalanced RS championship it's really only unfair to the other teams in that league who might have had a better chance to win if the playing field was level.  But they agreed to play that schedule so thems the breaks.  It only affects teams in other conferences tenuously (changing the rankings for at large bids).

That would be true if every conference got two guaranteed bids and could split them as they saw necessary, since how those two were parceled out would only affect those teams in that conference.  But in this case a team could get one or two bids depending on how things played out, so a weak team whose weak schedule hot them the RS title would essentially be stealing an at-large bid from a team in another conference.

[Jim Hyla]

So, an interesting post by Ken Schott. Pizza Hut revenge?

Virus strikes Colgate
There must be something in the water, or food, up in the North Country that makes visiting hockey teams sick.

A virus struck 11 members of the Colgate hockey team before Saturday's game at Clarkson. The Raiders requested to have the game postponed a day, but it wasn't because it was Clarkson's Senior Night. Colgate tried to play through it, but it dropped a 2-1 decision to the Golden Knights.

"We didn't have our energy tonight, clearly," Colgate coach Don Vaughan told the Watertown Daily Times' Cap Carey. "I've never had this happen. We had 11 guys come down with a really violent stomach virus. Our trainer had it. One of our assistant coaches had it, and we have some guys who are getting it."

The virus that struck Colgate brought back to mind a food poisoning incident with Cornell about 12 years ago up in the North Country. And I unfortunately, had a similar experience up there. It's not fun.

I wonder what we'd do if it was our "Senior Night"? I wonder what Casey might have done if he had been at Cornell when we went through it?

[KenP]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

[Al DeFlorio]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

Exactly how I look at it, Ken.  Two autobids per conference is one too many.

[ugarte]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

[Rosey]

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.

I prefer giving the trophy to a team that does well in tournament-style play, but the ECAC tournament should be a single weekend, played among the top four regular season finishers only: make the regular season mean something.

[ugarte]

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.

I prefer giving the trophy to a team that does well in tournament-style play, but the ECAC tournament should be a single weekend, played among the top four regular season finishers only: make the regular season mean something.

As if the E$A$ will ever do that!

[Rosey]

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.

I prefer giving the trophy to a team that does well in tournament-style play, but the ECAC tournament should be a single weekend, played among the top four regular season finishers only: make the regular season mean something.

As if the E$A$ will ever do that!

You mean the €¢£¢?

[KeithK]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

I know when I'm being mocked without footnotes.

But I appreciate the effort. :-D

[jtn27]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season. That would be like calling the team with the most wins in the regular season in the NFL the champion and then just playing the Super Bowl for fun. The auto-bid is the award, just like the Lombardi Trophy is the award in the NFL.

[jtwcornell91]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season. That would be like calling the team with the most wins in the regular season in the NFL the champion and then just playing the Super Bowl for fun. The auto-bid is the award, just like the Lombardi Trophy is the award in the NFL.

Actually, the Whitelaw Trophy is the award. :-) But there are some cases where the regular season winner is considered the champion, e.g., most Ivy League sports, the McNaughton Cup over in the WCHA, most European soccer leagues...  It's slightly unusual to use the standings of the regular season to seed a playoff and also consider the RS winner as the champion.  (E.g., in English soccer, the Premiership is a sort of RS title, and there's a simultaneous FA cup, which is seeded mostly randomly and played concurrently with the premiereship season.)

[Beeeej]

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney.  The question then is how to award the autobid.  If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship.  Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season.

Not that I don't think Keith is up to the task, but playing devil's advocate here, why not?  In a balanced schedule, winning the regular season demonstrates that you were consistently the best team over the course of the long haul.  You beat the other teams in the conference more often than any of the other teams did.  Winning the conference tournament could just mean you got hot enough to win two games out of three three weekends in a row - or even two weekends in a row.

I think you think it makes no sense just because it's not how we do it now.  But that's certainly how they do it in Ivy League basketball.  Finish the regular season on the top of the standings?  Boom.  NCAA auto-bid.