The early game in Albany is probably the worst idea ever. (Full Disclosure: I’m a Clarkson Alum) If you’re going to make decision like putting Clarkson in Albany based on attendance, wouldn’t you make that game as accessible as possible?  For some reason the scheduling here is different than all of the other brackets, and they put made the 2-3 game the early tilt.

A slight disadvantage for Michigan no doubt as most teams prefer the early game for that bonus rest and to watch the competition, but a huge disadvantage for attendance. Why? Because the local Clarkson fan base is probably at WORK. Heck, so are most of the local Albany fans on a Friday afternoon.

A good start would be to move the start time’s up to 5:30 and 8:30 like the Hockey East and Beanpot and at least give people a chance to show up at the arena after work. A better idea is to start holding regionals in the East at better hockey tourist destinations so people are willing to set aside a few days regardless who is playing. The ECAC tournament attendance in Albany was a generous 5,000 fans (lots of fans that looked like seats) compared to 5,600 for the D-III Semifinals in Lake Placid the same weekend. Last year’s attendance for Clarkson / UMass in Rochester was 3,887. Both Lake Placid, Agganis Arena spring to mind as an ideal locations for a regional. Great arenas that could be filled with a lot of atmosphere, and a lot of things to do for the weekend. I may even toss the Gutterson Fieldhouse into that mess. How about a location in NYC? Give me a reason for the trip regardless of who is playing!

Brackets for the Division I tournament were announced today, and there’s no question they’ve sparked a lot of discussion. Adam has analysis here, with some comments from committee chair Joel Maturi (Minnesota AD) confirming the decision this year to protect the top two seeds overall, Michigan and Miami, by keeping them away from the two venues where the host team will play — Colorado College (No. 2 seed) and Wisconsin (No. 3 seed).

The decision to protect top seed Michigan wasn’t a big surprise.

The real surprise was the protection of Miami as the second seed overall. In fact, as others have noted, this goes against decisions made by other committees when the second seed could have been protected but wasn’t.

You can really only look at the brackets since the tournament expanded to 16 teams in 2003 for a reasonable comparison, but just in the five years of that setup prior to this year, you can find three examples where #2 was not protected.

In 2003, Colorado College was sent to Ann Arbor, where No. 3 seed Michigan was hosting. CC was beaten in the regional final by the Wolverines that year.

In 2004, Boston College was the second seed overall and went to Manchester, N.H., where New Hampshire was a No. 3 seed. Although Manchester isn’t UNH’s home arena, it’s sort of their second home, as they have played one or two games a year there since the arena opened. And the rink was filled with a majority of Wildcat fans. As it turned out, UNH was eliminated by Michigan in the first round, and BC topped the Wolverines in the final to advance to he Frozen Four.

And in 2006, Minnesota as the second seed went to Grand Forks, N.D., with North Dakota as host and a No. 2 seed. That was the year, of course, that Holy Cross upset the Gophers and was then beaten by the Sioux the next night.

Those precedents made it surprising to me that the committee would choose to protect Miami as well this season. The committee isn’t bound by precedent, of course, but it seemed that the precedent was so strong in recent years, that a decision like this only opens a new can of worms for the future.

If you’re the second ranked team next year or the year after, you’d certainly seem to have a reason to complain if you aren’t afforded the same protection.

And if you’re Colorado College, well, it’s all water under the bridge now, but don’t you wish you had this committee in place five years ago?

For the record, I agree with Adam that protecting the top seeds (note plural) is not necessarily a bad thing. But I think what we have all come to expect from the process and appreciate about it, is the consistency that we’ve almost always had. You’d like to be able to look at decisions that were made and say, I understand that, because in similar situations before, they’ve done the same thing.

I just don’t think you can do that this year. And it leads me to wonder what will happen in the future. Will a different committee follow the precedent this one set? Or will they go back to what was done a few years prior?

Perhaps the answer is to put it in writing. Currently it’s just an unwritten rule, that the top seeds will be protected if possible. Let’s make it official as one of the steps the committee will follow.

Then everyone will know, and there won’t be any surprises. At least until the next unwritten rule comes to the forefront…

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.

Weird weekend for Miami. Not only did the RedHawks not score a goal in the first 59 minutes of each game it played, but they got zero goals from forwards. Alec Martinez scored twice, and Mitch Ganzak once.

The Hobey finalists were named and this year’s group is strange. It almost seems like everyone realizes that Kevin Porter is the runaway winner, so the committee just threw a bone to a few other players that it likes. No offense to Michigan State’s Jeff Lerg, who is a very good goalie and tremendous competitor, and a national champion; by where is Miami’s Jeff Zatkoff and CC freshman Richard Bachman? Bachman just won WCHA Player of the Year. When is the last time a WCHA POTY was not a Hobey finalist?

Then there’s T.J. Oshie on the list. No doubt this North Dakota star is an exceptional talent, and he will have a good pro career. But his season, this year, just isn’t there start to finish. Where is CC forward Chad Rau, one of the best two-way players in the country? How about Boston University forward Peter MacArthur, a spiritual leader who has carried that team on his back at times? Porter’s linemate Chad Kolarik? It’s always a weird dynamic when two high-scoring players are on the same line – because their numbers look more gaudy because they compound on each other. But it never stopped the committee before from putting, for example, Marty Sertich and Brett Sterling both on the list.
Putting Princeton’s Lee Jubinville on there is a stretch, but he was just named ECAC Player of the Year, and I like him … so that’s a nice bone I have no problem with.

What a phenomenal article by Kate Crandall of the Colorado Springs Gazette, finding out the names of details of all the particulars involving the situation that led to the suspensions of CC players Cody Lampl and Derek Patrosso. Patrosso is now back. The article says Lampl will indeed return to CC when his suspension is up next year.

I’d heard rumblings of this being a sexual escapade of some sort. The article describes the circumstances leading to a three-way with Lampl, a 19-year old girl, and an 18-year old recruit. Lampl contends everything was consensual, and the punishment excessive. The girl never pressed charges, and his claim is believable.

But this brings up much bigger issues, such as the on-campus culture when it relates to athletes, and in particular recruiting. … Backing up, the whole idea is just not right, for any of the students involved. I’m far from prude, and I cannot say that I’d never have wanted to in college participate in these things if I were a popular athlete. But, really, it’s not right – for anyone involved, including the girl.

But putting aside that moralizing, it’s more of a concern because of the campus culture and how it relates to athletes feeling privileged, and the whole recruiting environment. How many football programs have gotten in trouble because the coaching staff either turned a blind eye or actively encouraged showing recruits a “good time” as a way of wooing them to the program. In no way, shape or form am I accusing CC coach Scott Owens of this. I don’t doubt for a minute that he had no idea. But CC is right to protect itself against the appearance of such a thing being possible.

So Lampl may have cause to complain and be concerned that he was harshly treated. But, even if there was no crime, the school did the right thing to send a message about this kind of wide open behavior.