if we win....

[Beeeej]

Personally, I blame the Vicodin.  ::nut::

Beeeej

[ugarte]

Greg, I'm begging you to start using Threaded View, or at least clicking on "reply to this message" to give a break to those of us who do.   All of your posts end up clustered at the bottom, disconnected from what they are responding to.

[Al DeFlorio]

It would be interesting to find out just when the term "regular season champion" came into being in the ECAC.  I'm sure it didn't exist prior to the Hockey East divorce.  There was no balanced schedule until after that occurred, so there'd be no way to declare a "champion."  Teams played differing numbers of games against a different mix of ECAC opponents, and, in the '60s and '70s, even holiday tournament games against ECAC foes were included in determining the winning percentages used for tournament seedings.  

Speaking only to my experiences, I don't recall anyone using such a term until the NCAA began giving an automatic bid to the "regular season champions" of the four leagues in the '90s (the unfortunate "Colorado rule").  Claiming to have won a "regular season championship" prior to the divorce would be downright meaningless.  No one at the time would have given it a thought.  Claiming such a thing after the fact would be nonsense.

While the trophy was given the name "William J. Cleary Cup" this year, I seem to recall some people posting (on the Round Table, I believe, where they think this is important) that a trophy (same one without the Cleary name?) had been presented to the top seed during the mid-to-late '90s.

I'd welcome any insights from other "veterans" here.

[jtwcornell91]

The RS champion can at least be unambiguously defined as the #1 seed in the playoffs, though, right?

[Al DeFlorio]

I think you can say that for 40 years there has been an unambiguous top seed for the ECAC tournament.  I think calling anyone a "regular season champion" prior to the divorce just makes no sense, given the uneven scheduling.  

What I can't say is when the ECAC began recognizing the top seed as a "regular season champion."

[jtwcornell91]

Sorta like designating the team that gets the top seed in the NCAAs the "NCAA Regular Season Champion"?

[Al DeFlorio]

To me it's interesting that in no other sport (at least that I'm aware of) has the NCAA given two automatic tournament bids to a league or conference, as they did with hockey for eight or nine years.  

There was a time--in the deep, dark age of my youth--when only one team from a league could be invited.  This made for interesting post-season tournaments--for example, only the ACC basketball tournament champ could go to the dance.  Sorta the ultimate implementation of Keith's scenario.B-]

[ugarte]

Of course hockey had only 4 significant conferences, so it was possible to give out up to 2 autobids without any real jeopardy of keeping out a team that "deserved" to be in the tournament any more than, say, Colorado College. With the addition of CHA and the MAAC (and the gulp decline of the ECAC) guaranteeing up to 2 autobids is as untenable in hockey as it is in basketball.

[Keith K]

I would absolutely love it if they make the tournament open only to teams that won their conference title.  But that would mean fewer teams and less money so it'll never happen.

[Greg Berge]

I'll reply to message, just for you.  

I won't use threaded view -- it makes reading through the thread way, way too much work.

[nshapiro]

I agree that the threaded view is a pain....I only wish that the
  (new)   indicator showed up next to each message in the
flat view.