Poll (yay) 3/27

[ugarte]

[quote 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.[/quote]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.

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*

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.

[Beeeej]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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

[Scersk '97]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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!"

[DeltaOne81]

[quote 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*[/quote]

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

[KeithK]

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! :-D

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.

[Jordan 04]

[quote 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.
[/quote]

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.

[Beeeej]

[quote KeithK]Which is why I should just stop.[/quote]

How's that workin' out for ya so far?  :-)

Beeeej

[KeithK]

[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!  :-D :-P :-D :-P :-D

It's really all a question of aesthetics.

[KeithK]

[quote Beeeej][quote KeithK]Which is why I should just stop.[/quote]

How's that workin' out for ya so far?  :-)

Beeeej[/quote]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).

[ugarte]

[quote KeithK][quote Beeeej][quote KeithK]Which is why I should just stop.[/quote]

How's that workin' out for ya so far?  :-)

Beeeej[/quote]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).[/quote]I LOOOOOVE writing risk management plans, you cretin!

[David Harding]

[quote 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*[/quote]I'll up the ante.   ::twitch:: 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]

[quote David Harding]I'll up the ante.   ::twitch:: 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?[/quote]
Keep this up and you'll be an Ivy League president. ::nut::

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote David Harding]I'll up the ante.   ::twitch:: 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?[/quote]
Keep this up and you'll be an Ivy League president. ::nut::[/quote]

Or if that doesn't work out, a shoe-in for Union Pres.

[RichH]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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.

[Chris 02]

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..