I’ve already got the bracket analysis article up for everyone to churn over, but I have more thoughts coming … I want to expand upon the discussion of “protection” of top seeds, which seems to be generating a lot of debate, even within our own staff here. … I support what the committee, and I don’t think it’s that inconsistent with past practices, especially if only consider past practices to be back to 2003, when the new paradigm started. But I want to get more into that in the next couple of days.

More of a problem, to me, is the selection of Wisconsin over Minnesota State. That’s something I really want to get into critically. Not a committee bashing thing, because they did what they thought was right. But the committee had other options available to them — even if they “followed the numbers.” I don’t think the current committee members even realize this anymore.

Lastly, for now … how interesting that Denver has to play at Wisconsin. Someone had to do it, why not Denver? I’m sure the committee wasn’t thinking this way, but if you recall, Wisconsin had at least a tie taken from it when a goal was disallowed in a game at Denver. The WCHA apologized for the referee’s error in that game. Were that game a tie, this concern over whether Wisconsin deserves a bid would be moot. So lo and behold, it’s Denver that has to play Wisconsin. Perhaps that’s poetic justice after all.

Play our Bracket Contest.

Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 - 9:31 pm | Commentary