In 1996, Michigan and Colorado College faced off for the Division I NCAA Championship in Cincinnati. To the casual college sports fan, it must have seemed like a typo – surely that’s got to be the University of Colorado, right?

Red Berenson, the legendary Michigan coach, remarked on the uniqueness of the game. I wish I could find the exact quote, but to paraphrase, Berenson noted the interesting situation that existed within college hockey in that a small school like Colorado College could not only reach the Division I title game, but that they would not immediately be dismissed, even against a school with the stature of the University of Michigan. Ultimately, the Wolverines would indeed claim the national championship… but not before the Tigers forced overtime.

How is it that Division III schools like Colorado College and Rensselaer have each won multiple Division I national championships? How can it be that Clarkson and St. Lawrence boast two of the highest all-time winning percentages in the history of Division I college hockey? How is it that RIT was playing Wisconsin in the Frozen Four this year? These are not questions that the ardent college hockey fan ponders. They understand the fabric of the game. They understand why Boston College and Boston University have the most heated rivalry in the sport, but are strangers in other sports. They know why Lake Superior State is a notable program. It doesn’t shock the college hockey fan when North Dakota beats Minnesota.

The college sports world revolves primarily around two sports – football and men’s basketball. Many of the same schools are dominant in one or both of those sports. But when it comes to college hockey, the smaller schools with the deep traditions have always been able to run with the best. To be fair, the top level schools are also quite dominant in college hockey. While there are only eight schools who compete in football’s six BCS conferences playing Division I hockey, five of them can claim national championships within the last 15 years, and all of them with the exception of UConn have made at least one appearance in the Frozen Four.

When one breaks the schools of the Division I college hockey fraternity down into the various subdivisions – the BCS, the remainder of the FBS, the FCS, the non-football D-I schools, Division II, and Division III, the largest single division is actually Division II with 16 different schools in that division “playing up.” And they’re no slouches, either. Lake State, Northern Michigan, and Michigan Tech have all claimed college hockey’s greatest prize. North Dakota’s seven national titles all came while the school was in Division II. Minnesota-Duluth and St. Cloud State are often among the best teams in the WCHA, arguably one of the best conferences in the nation. 2/3rds of the WCHA’s membership are Division II or Division III schools.

A big part of the reason for this unique aspect of the sport is the insulated nature of college hockey’s structure. With the exception of the Ivy League, which operates as something of a sub-conference of ECAC Hockey, there are no conferences that are anything more than “hockey only.” In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, a mid-major Division I conference, sponsored hockey, but it was a marriage of convenience only. The Big East, the ACC, and the Big Ten all have schools participating in college hockey, but they’ve never become directly involved themselves.

That could all change with the expected announcement tomorrow that Penn State will become the sixth Big Ten school to sponsor varsity hockey. As those of us who have watched the CHA’s soap opera come to its tragic conclusion know very well, six is the magic number for a set of teams to create a conference that can hold an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament.

What will become of college hockey’s unique status if that happens? Many pundits are fearing the worst. They fear that the creation of a super-conference made up of most of the sport’s largest and best funded schools will leave those smaller schools out in the cold. They expect that the decimation of the CCHA and the removal of the two of the bedrock schools of the WCHA will be bad for those remaining small schools, especially under the belief that these schools will not be able to compete with the larger schools anymore.

It’s true that there will be some drawbacks. Minnesota isn’t going to visit St. Cloud State if they don’t have to. Same applies for Michigan and Ferris State. Those bigger schools coming into town can often be a big draw for the smaller school. A Big Ten conference would be a natural invitation for the other six schools of the conference to potentially start a new program – Indiana has already been rumored to be following Penn State into the varsity ranks. Those new programs will have access to more resources than most of the smaller, traditional hockey schools.

But big schools joining the Division I ranks is no guarantee that they’ll start dominating anything. Look at UConn. They seem very content in running a varsity program with practically no resources allocated – most significantly, no scholarships. There’s no guarantee that these schools will commit the resources necessary to be successful. But there’s another aspect that people don’t often consider – one of the defining qualities of college hockey is that, with only a few exceptions, the sport is either the premier winter sport, or shares roughly equal billing with basketball. The overwhelming popularity of UConn basketball is one reason why the Huskies are relatively obscure in hockey. Even among the very best Big Ten teams like Michigan and Minnesota, hockey is popular enough to be one of the major draws of the winter. Ohio State, notably, lags in this category and has been unable to cement itself as one of the sport’s top programs. North Dakota, Boston University, and Colorado College may not be on the national level of the Big Ten, but their commitment and passion for the sport is unquestioned, and they regularly are among the top programs in the nation.

Does hockey have a prayer against basketball at Indiana? At Purdue or Illinois? It’s awfully hard to see hockey achieving levels there that it has achieved at Wisconsin or Michigan State. It’s not even a given that hockey at Penn State is going to be on par with their basketball program – time will tell.

Penn State is just one school. Granted, they are easily the biggest school to start a varsity program in the modern era, but they aren’t going to immediately start siphoning blue-chippers away from New Hampshire and Cornell. The small schools are already able to compete with the big schools, why would it necessarily be any different with most of them grouped in one conference? And bear in mind – a Big Ten conference would necessitate a new realignment of conferences that would encourage more schools to try their hand at fielding a varsity team of their own, and not just the big shots – plenty of the rumors of new programs over the years have been at the same type of smaller Division I and lower division schools that comprise the majority of the college hockey spectrum.

A Big Ten conference radically alters the landscape, and change is never easy, especially when the end result isn’t 100% clear. We may well lose some of the charm that makes college hockey a niche sport. But opportunities abound. This can be a positive for the entire college hockey world if it’s done right.

Comment on this Post ...

The comments today from Western Hockey League commissioner Ron Robison in the Regina (Saskatchewan) Leader-Post are a comedy of intentional naivete, with the newspaper allowing itself to be the co-conspirator.

Robison is responding to the recent comments and efforts from Paul Kelly, the Executive Director of College Hockey Inc. Kelly, of course, has been out and about, critical of the Canadian Hockey League’s practices (the CHL is the governing body of the Canadian Major Junior system). All of the issues were summarized in our recent article and Q&A with Kelly.

Kelly has been admittedly aggressive in his condemnation of many of the Major Junior leagues’ practices. It’s true that, to a large extent, the CHL is doing nothing wrong, and is simply winning the recruiting war. However, Robison “hey, don’t blame us” attitude, leaves out numerous specific things the Major Juniors did to hamper NCAA efforts, as the NCAA had begun making major inroads. Robison makes it sound like they’re just the better option, so of course players would go there.

Well, no.

“We have never attacked or been critical of their programs whatsoever. If (going to the NCAA) is what a player chooses to do, we respect that. Our position has been simply to continue to raise awareness to the fact that in addition to having a great development league we also have an outstanding education program.”

Yeah, that great “education program” has been torn to shreds. Is that what Robison means about just making sure players have the “right information?”

The paper writes:

“We’ve always been the leaders of the development area, the leading supplier to the NHL and the national team programs. Consequently, the appointment of Paul Kelly to College Hockey, Inc., is a response to the success the Canadian Hockey League is having.”

In other words, when you’re on top, there’s always someone trying to knock you down.

Yeah, so that’s why they implemented a transfer agreement with USA Hockey that essentially cuts off U.S. kids’ options? That’s why they changed the draft age in the WHL to 14 from midget? That’s why they changed the Jr. B and Tier II rules to cut off the NCAA’s supply lines?

C’mon.

The Regina paper should take a hint from Jeff Hicks, the writer at the Waterloo Record in Ontario, who is the only Canadian writer I’ve seen consistently present all sides of this issue accurately, with seeing things through Major Junior-colored glasses, or regurgitating the party line.

Comment on this Post ...

Recruiting is hard enough as it is. Especially in the Ivy League. But now Dartmouth has lost a prized recruit, late in the game, to one of the behemoth schools — Wisconsin.

Matt Lindblad “decommitted” from Dartmouth, and switched to the Badgers. Wisconsin has been hit hard by losses to the pros, and this fills a big need. But is it right? Of course, the online community is on fire over it. Most non-Badgers fans are enraged.

Still awaiting from comment from Dartmouth and/or Wisconsin. Ivy League schools typically can’t comment on players until they are enrolled in the school. And, the big problem is, they don’t give Letters of Intent. A LOI locks a player into a school — but the Ivies don’t use them. Had they used them, Lindblad wouldn’t have been able to go anywhere.

So the question is whether Wisconsin actively went after the player, or this was completely driven by Lindblad. It really seems seedy and unfair — but on the other hand, shouldn’t a player do whatever he wants to do? I don’t know. It’s a tough call. I think it depends on how vigorously Wisconsin was involved. I do think the player should’ve honored his commitment though.

Of course, this also happens to Wisconsin. They’ve lost players like Nate Hagemo and Patrick Wiercioch late in the game, when Minnesota and Denver, respectively, had holes they needed to fill. So turnabout is fair play. Although, the WCHA is supposed to have a gentlemen’s agreement (heh), and Dartmouth never did anything to anyone.

Meanwhile, the Badger fan blog, “60 Minutes,” says that a Princeton recruit may be in the process of doing the same thing.

Here’s Bruce Ciskie’s take:

Basically, Eaves took advantage of Dartmouth’s rules governing athletics, and its standing as an Ivy League school, to grab an important recruit for the 2010-11 class. He has to replace eight forwards off last year’s team, including Hobey Baker winner Blake Geoffrion and top playmaker Derek Stepan, and Stepan’s loss wasn’t expected.

That left the coach in scramble mode, and he did something that’s been done to him by WCHA rivals twice.

In this observer’s opinion, it just isn’t right. If a player’s commitment didn’t matter, we wouldn’t have players committing. And if it didn’t matter, the WCHA wouldn’t operate under a gentleman’s agreement.

Not only that, but most fans hate this type of thing when it happens to them, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Comment on this Post ...

After all these years, I still don’t understand calculus very much. But I have gotten a better handle on how I calculate which NHL teams to root for during the playoffs.

My favorite NHL team, the New York Islanders, hasn’t won a playoff series since 1993. They have only been to the playoffs four times since then, and — damn you Darcy Tucker — lost a seven-game thriller with Toronto in 2002. (Shawn Bates and Jason Blake were key players in that year.)

So generally speaking, when my team isn’t there, rooting interest comes down to this:

* other people in the organization, or on the team, that I know well
* teams with a lot of college players in general
* what’s good for hockey, in the sense of a) wanting the best players to play on the big stage; b) seeing teams that haven’t won before, or recently, win; c) seeing teams in non-traditional areas do well
* making a bold prediction and wanting to be proven right

Putting all that together, the Eastern conference is largely a yawn right now. Who cares if Montreal, Boston or Philadelphia win? And Pittsburgh, which is fun to watch, has already had plenty of success in the last 20 years. I blame Jaroslav Halak for this conundrum.

As purely a hockey fan, putting aside all allegiances, I feel like we were robbed of a Washington-Pittsburgh rematch by Montreal’s miracle run. I really don’t even blame Washington. I know that the Capitals have a bad history, and that people questioned all year whether they would be “playoff tough” despite having the NHL’s best record in the regular season. But after dominating three straight games of that series, I really think they just ran into a goalie and a team that got monumentally fortunate for three straight games. Jaroslav Halak took the proverbial phrase “stood on his head” and made it more pertinent than ever, and the team just didn’t make a mistake. Washington poured everything at the Canadiens, and dominated the territorial play. It wasn’t like the Caps went in the tank. They just ran into a one-in-a-million three-game stretch of unbelievable-ness.

So it will be easy to dump on the Caps, but as a hockey fan, I feel robbed of that Ovechkin-Crosby matchup.

Cornell graduate Douglas Murray and the Sharks are rolling in the Western Conference playoffs.

Yeah, yeah, I get the hate towards those guys, in the sense that, when you’re a fan of another team, you want so badly for them to lose. But stepping back purely as someone without a team in this hunt, it’s a delight watching those two go at it, and people who really believe that “Ovechkin sucks” or “Cindy Crosby’s a whiner,” are really just being ignorant, jealous or silly. And, yes, I know — I don’t like that Ovechkin acted like a punk at the 2005 World Juniors, and yes, I hate that Crosby scored the gold medal game winner against the U.S. this year. But those two constantly work their rear ends off, and are just brilliant — a treasure to watch.

So, consequently, I’m having to dig really hard to figure out what to do in the East.

My thinking right now is going like this — the only team that will be remotely interesting in the finals is Pittsburgh, so at this point, I guess I have to root for it to make the finals again. Even though Montreal has a Harvard guy (Dominic Moore) and a Cornell guy (Ryan O’Byrne) playing well, plus Brian Gionta (BC) and Mike Camalleri (Michigan) — who thinks he’s Wayne Gretzky all of a sudden — I’m having a hard time rooting for them. I think it’s a combination of the old rivalry with the Islanders for “dynastic supremacy,” combined with their Yankees-like history, and their fans’ booing of the U.S. national team in games vs. Russia. I don’t forgive easily.

As for the other series, I think I’m rooting for Philadelphia, just so it will get its butts handed to them by Pittsburgh in the semis. You see, I’d already been saying that Washington would crush the Flyers, but now I’ve been robbed of seeing that. And it will really bug Flyers fans to have Crosby do it to them again.

Two years ago, the Flyers were in control of the series against Pittsburgh when it decided to goon it up a bit. This thrilled the Flyers fans, who — along with the organization as a whole — like to live in the past, like it’s 30 years ago. And they sure got a hoot out of getting all over Crosby’s But all that fighting did was inspire the Penguins, who came back and swept the rest of the series. So, as someone who hates the goonery, and thinks the Flyers are doomed to keep falling short until they get out of their 1970s-era mentality, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing that all blow up in their face.

So I’ll enjoy seeing that happen again.

I used to have some affinity for the Flyers, but that has disappeared. Actually, no fan base bugs me more than the Philadelphia one, especially when I moved to the area in 1993 and got to see them up close. But I took an affinity to the Flyers for a while. First off, I can appreciate any fan base that are die hard hockey fans. For that, it’s a big thumbs up to Philly — though that passion has waned in recent years, but that’s another article. Second, when they traded for John Leclair and Eric Desjardins in the mid-’90s, I’d known LeClair from his Vermont days, and I always liked Desjardins. My friends didn’t think it was a good trade, I told them it was, and nothing is a better motivator for rooting interest than wanting to be right. I also always liked watching Eric Lindros play, and thought he was unfairly criticized. Third, I got a job in the Flyers organization in 1999. I had my ups and downs, pluses and minuses with that job, but I did get to know a lot of the people, especially John Stevens and Paul Holmgren. At the time, they were the AHL Phantoms assistant and the assistant GM to Bob Clarke, respectively. Later, Stevens became head coach (he was fired this year), and Holmgren is GM. I also have friends in the PR department, including one that I hired.

With Stevens fired and a lot of my favorites gone, it’s easier to root against the Flyers. Especially since the Phillies’ success has now made the Philly sports fan even harder to take. But I do want to see Philadelphia hockey continue to thrive, despite the corporate mentality of its Comcast owners trying to kill it, one marketing gimmick at a time.

And on the other side, we have a Boston fan base which has won far too much in the last 10 years, so boo on them. Tim Thomas, who I loved watching in college at Vermont, isn’t even playing. And warming up to Blake Wheeler isn’t exactly easy. There’s no one to love there.

For Philly, it has Hobey winner Matt Carle, plus Princeton grad Darroll Powe, who I’m still amazed made it to the NHL. Paul Holmgren upset me with comments he made about James van Riemsdyk deciding to stay at New Hampshire for a second year, and I am glad van Riemsdyk has proven me right for defending him, by jumping straight to the NHL this year precisely because he stayed in school one more season. And with injuries to Simon Gagne and Jeff Carter (yawn), the Flyers had to call up enigmatic former St. Cloud State Huskie Andrea Nodl, and Alabama-Huntsville grad Jared Ross.

The West is far more exciting, and the calculus is far easier — anyone but Detroit.

The Red Wings violate everything — great hockey town, they have some great old college guys, but they have won too many times, and they don’t need it. I do enjoy seeing Brian Rafalski, Jimmy Howard, Kent Huskins, Patrick Eaves and Justin Abdelkader, but that doesn’t overcome the other stuff. Especially because San Jose has plenty of college guys too, and is a market that I would love to see finally get some satisfaction after many close calls. San Jose also have former Badger Joe Pavelski (how can you not love that guy?), Dany Heatley, and my boy Douglas Murray, who I knew well when I was broadcaster during Cornell’s 2003 Frozen Four run.

How could you not love this series, though, with three Wisconsin products scoring in one game — Rafalski, Pavelski and Heatley — the first time that’s ever happened in the NHL? (And it was reported by a Wisconsin grad in the Versus studio, Brian Engblom.) Was happy to see San Jose move on.

The Vancouver-Chicago series is just fun to watch, because either way, it will be nice to watch that team advance. Chicago has former college guys like Jonathan Toews and Patrick Sharp, and American Patrick Kane, but Vancouver has other pluses in its column.

Did you know, by the way, this is the most goals per game scored in the postseason since 1996. The skill has been back for a few years, but it’s just exploding now. Great to see. The ’80s and early ’90s were the last heyday, and that was still a great time. But the game is ridiculously faster and more intense now.

Comment on this Post ...

Earlier today, College Hockey News named Marc Cheverie — Denver’s junior goaltender — its Player of the Year. Later that afternoon, the Hobey Baker Award committee announced that Cheverie was not among the top three vote getters.

We won’t know who wins this year’s Hobey Baker Award until April 9, but we now know it won’t be Cheverie. And that’s just OK with us.

It’s not the first time our Player of the Year was not selected among the final three for the Hobey. In 2006, we chose Minnesota’s Ryan Potulny as POTY. No other player since 1997 has had as many goals as him that season. The next year, we picked Michigan’s T.J. Hensick, who was probably harmed in the eyes of Hobey voters for an egregious penalty he took in mid-season that year. We didn’t consider that in terms of POTY.

The last two years, our POTY and the Hobey winner matched — Kevin Porter and Matt Gilroy. Although, personally, I thought Minnesota’s Ryan Stoa was the best player in the country — albeit he was hurt by playing on a team that didn’t make the NCAAs.

This year, our internal panel was really split down the middle. It wasn’t so much a heated debate as it was just a discussion on philosophy. Should Cheverie be discredited for having been a part of three straight losses to end Denver’s season? And should Geoffrion get a boost for playing hot down the stretch, winning the West Regional MOP, and leading the Badgers to the Frozen Four?

The answer to both questions is definitely yes, but by how much? We certainly wrestled with this question. I think if you asked who should win two weeks ago, then Cheverie would’ve won in a cakewalk. Certainly the postseason is important, but does a couple of games override the whole season? Why would Denver have been without him? The Pioneers saw a scary glimpse of that in November.

Personally, I love Blake Geoffrion. He is an inspirational player, a captain, great on faceoffs, a leader — he has improved tremendously, too, over four years. He is a living example of why staying in school makes sense for most players. He is so much better prepared now for the NHL than he was two years ago.

But in the end, we leaned towards Cheverie.

Comment on this Post ...

10:58 p.m. — OK, it’s time to check the main site for the final bracket projections, analysis and explanation. http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/03/20_bracket.php …. That’s all for this year’s live blog.

10:39 p.m. — North Dakota wins WCHA championship. The games are over. The field is set. Our bracket projection is on the way.

10:20 p.m. — Boston College wins 7-6 OT thriller. Vermont is in. The field is set. Waiting on North Dakota-SCSU for final seedings.

10:06 p.m. — Michigan’s win knocks out Ferris State. Assuming North Dakota hangs on in the WCHA, for the moment (no offense, Huskies fans), then it comes down to this: Maine wins, it is in obviously … Maine loses, Vermont hangs on.

9:46 p.m. — Alaska and New Hampshire are now in thanks to the results so far. Wins by Michigan and Maine would knock Ferris State and Vermont out.

9:40 p.m. — Cornell and RIT win. Cornell’s win helps the bubble teams. But UMD is out.

8:55 p.m. — RIT up 5-0 in the third. UMD, going to be eliminated.

7:56 p.m. — That RIT 2-0 lead is not making Minnesota-Duluth happy, but so far, the rest is OK for them.

5:52 p.m. — Miami wins the CCHA consolation game over Ferris State, and gets the No. 1 overall seed. Ferris State, as we noted in the earlier Bubble Analysis, is still OK if there are no “upsets.” New Hampshire is still OK without upsets. If Sacred Heart wins in the Atlantic, UNH is a lock, and it also helps Duluth jump over Vermont. If RIT wins, Vermont and UNH will be in if there’s no upsets. Remember, the bubble teams want Northern Michigan, Cornell and Boston College to win the championship games of their leagues.

5:35 p.m. — Wisconsin wins the WCHA consolation game over Denver. This locks the Badgers to the No. 3 slot overall. Denver will be No. 2 if Miami wins the CCHA consolation, No. 1 overall otherwise.

Saturday, 3:02 p.m. — Waiting for the consolation games to start. Here is a detailed Bubble Analysis just published for mass consumption.

Saturday, 2:42 a.m. — We’re still awake … and let’s see what happens if the “favorites” win out.

1 Denver
2 Miami
3t [AQ] Boston College
3t Wisconsin
3t [AQ] St. Cloud State
6 North Dakota
7 [AQ] Cornell
8 Bemidji State
9 [AQ] Northern Michigan
10 Yale
11 Alaska
12t New Hampshire
12t Vermont
12t Ferris State

In this scenario, Ferris State is the last team in. If this happens, I think it would produce a bracket that looks like this:

West Region, St. Paul: 4. Wisconsin vs. 13. Vermont / 5. St. Cloud State vs. 12. New Hampshire
Midwest Region, Fort Wayne: 2. Miami vs. 15. RIT / 7. Cornell vs. 9. Northern Michigan
East Region, Albany: 1. Denver vs. 16. Alabama-Huntsville / 8. Bemidji State vs. 10. Yale
Northeast Region, Worcester: 3. Boston College vs. 14. Ferris State / 6. North Dakota vs. 11. Alaska

The only intra-conference matchup that has to be avoided is 7-10, Cornell vs. Yale. And the committee could flip-flop 9-10, or flip-flop 10-11. It’s a total guess at that point as to which it would be. It could just as easily be Cornell-Alaska, Bemidji State-NMU, North Dakota-Yale.

The other question is whether Denver would be in St. Paul, or take the “flight is a flight” and move it to Albany, leaving Wisconsin in St. Paul with St. Cloud State. You would just flop the whole bracket at that point.

Now — can we really call Michigan an underdog at this point? If Michigan wins, Yale and NMU flip-flop, which is basically no big deal, since it changes nothing. What happens here is that Ferris State drops out, New Hampshire goes to 11, Michigan to 12, Alaska to 13, Vermont to 14. Then you have:

West Region, St. Paul: 4. Wisconsin vs. 14. Vermont / 5. St. Cloud State vs. 12. Michigan
Midwest Region, Fort Wayne: 2. Miami vs. 15. RIT / 7. Cornell vs. 10. Northern Michigan
East Region, Albany: 1. Denver vs. 16. Alabama-Huntsville / 8. Bemidji State vs. 9. Yale
Northeast Region, Worcester: 3. Boston College vs. 13. Alaska / 6. North Dakota vs. 11. New Hampshire

The only intra-conference game to avoid here would be BC-Vermont, so Vermont is flip-flopped with Alaska, which is a no-brainer vis-a-vis flipping Vermont with RIT.

Take the same scenario, but instead Sacred Heart wins, and Vermont drops out with Ferris State going back in.

And then there’s a ton of other scenarios, and not enough time or space to do them all right now. So play around with You Are the Committee.

11:40 p.m. — Well, as mentioned earlier, the late games had little bearing. Here’s what we know … If things stay fairly according to form — i.e. Northern Michigan, Cornell and Boston College all win — then the last teams in will be Alaska, and either Vermont or Minnesota-Duluth. And for that, it depends on whether RIT or Sacred Heart wins the Atlantic Hockey game. If RIT loses, it is no longer a TUC — and that helps UMD. If RIT wins, UMD is out and Vermont is in. … Ferris State is pretty much still in, even if it loses the CCHA consolation game, unless teams like Maine, Michigan and/or Union win the other leagues. Alaska is in the same boat. … These are a lot of ifs, however.

Who is in …

Denver
Miami
North Dakota
Boston College
Wisconsin
St. Cloud State
Bemidji State
Cornell
Yale
Northern Michigan

If there are no “upsets” … then these teams are also in:

Alaska
Ferris State
New Hampshire

That’s 13 … Slots 15-16 are the Atlantic champ and Alabama-Huntsville. That leaves slot 14 to go to Minnesota-Duluth or Vermont.

With upsets … explore at your own peril.

8:53 p.m. — Waiting on those late game results. With Cornell, BC, RIT already winning, so far, that’s what matters for those on the bubble. The late games won’t have much bearing anymore — for today.

7:30 p.m. — OK, looks to me like Duluth needs RIT to lose — that helps a little. And also needs Ferris State to lose the consolation game in the CCHA. Ferris would still make it, but it would allow UMD to win the FSU comparison, and thus jump over Vermont — because UMD has a better RPI than Vermont. But this doesn’t work unless RIT also loses. UMD needs that extra little bit. There may be another scenario though.

7:25 p.m. — Northern Michigan wins in OT. I think this hurts UMD. Will report back soon.

7:05 p.m. — Just had the pleasure of informing both Cornell and Yale officials that they were in.

6:19 p.m. — Cornell wins 3-0, locks up the NCAAs.

6:13 p.m. — RIT wins 4-0. That just basically shores up its spot as a TUC. That comes into play because if RIT lost, UMass would re-become a TUC, affecting some things — namely taking away a comparison win from UMD, and helping BC.

6:00 p.m. — Cornell goes up 2-0, looking to salt away its NCAA bid.

5:42 p.m. — St. Cloud State wins 2-0 over Wisconsin. This doesn’t directly affect the Pairwise much. If SCSU wins tomorrow, or Wisconsin loses again, then it could move the needle. Right now, it’s status quo — Wisconsin still in position for a No. 1 seed. But remember, Wisconsin will play either Denver or North Dakota in the consolation game — certainly no easy task.

4:57 p.m. — And we’re here in Albany, awaiting the first wave of results from the semifinals, to see how things shake down.

Friday, 10:14 a.m. — It’s been written elsewhere that UMD is eliminated. This is not true. While I also thought the same thing Monday, that one loss would mean the end of UMD, after seeing what happened with last night’s result, I see that’s not the case (as explained in last night’s post). … Using You Are the Committee (isn’t everyone?), here is one scenario where UMD gets in — plug this in, and you’ll see UMD at No. 14, tied with Vermont but winning the comparison because of RPI — EVEN THOUGH it’s Vermont’s win over UMD earlier this season that is basically causing the Bulldogs’ precarious situation to begin with.

• Hockey East Semifinal #2: Boston University defeats Maine.
• Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Vermont.
• Hockey East Championship game: Boston College defeats Boston University.
• ECAC Semifinal #2: St. Lawrence defeats Union.
• ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Brown.
• ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats St. Lawrence.
• ECAC Consolation game: Union defeats Brown.
• Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Sacred Heart defeats Air Force.
• Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: RIT defeats Canisius.
• Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Sacred Heart defeats RIT.
• CCHA Semifinal #2: Ferris State defeats Northern Michigan.
• CCHA Semifinal #1: Miami defeats Michigan.
• CCHA Championship game: Miami defeats Ferris State.
• CCHA Consolation game: Michigan defeats Northern Michigan.
• WCHA Semifinal #2: St. Cloud State defeats Wisconsin.
• WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats North Dakota.
• WCHA Championship game: St. Cloud State defeats Denver.
• WCHA Consolation game: North Dakota defeats Wisconsin.

I believe this relies upon Northern Michigan losing two games. UMD then takes that comparison, even though NMU would stay ahead of UMD in the overall Pairwise. Obviously, this also relies upon BC and Cornell winning their respective tournaments.

11:35 p.m. — In the last Bracket ABCs article, we wrote that UMD would immediately lose comparisons to three teams, including UNH, with a loss. However, somehow, UMD is actually hanging by a thread. If you go to the Pairwise Comparisons Grid page, you’ll see that UMD is still edging UNH in the comparison. RPIs are showing as exactly tied — .5335 — but UMD must be up by some minuscule margin. It had appeared UMD would drop below UNH in RPI, and thus lose that comparison. But because it is hanging by that thread, it is also hanging by a thread in the Pairwise — in the 14th and final slot at the moment.

10:47 p.m. — North Dakota wins 2-0. Minnesota-Duluth, as expected, subsequently drops into a tie for 14th in the Pairwise. That’s the final spot, but other things have to happen this weekend, and it will conspire to knock out the Bulldogs. Check out You Are the Committee and see if you can keep them in.

Thursday, 9:41 p.m. — We’re here a day early, just to give a reminder that Minnesota-Duluth will be all but officially eliminated with a loss at the Final Five. That game is 0-0 headed into the third. UMD is the only team of the five in St. Paul that doesn’t already have an NCAA spot locked up.

Check back here to follow the fluctuations of the Pairwise in real time, throughout conference tournament championship weekend.

It starts Friday, March 19. See Tournament Watch for details.

Comment on this Post ...

I was part of the group asked to submit a ballot for the ECAC All-Decade Team. These were my selections:

G – Yann Danis
G – David McKee

F – Marc Cavosie, RPI
F – Jeff Hamilton,  Yale
F – Andy McDonald, Colgate
F – Dominic Moore, Harvard
F – Lee Stempniak, Dartmouth
F – T.J. Trevelyan, St. Lawrence

D – Drew Bagnall, St. Lawrence
D – Doug Murray,  Cornell
D – Grant Lewis, Dartmouth
D – Noah Welch, Harvard

By the way, these are not listed in any order, within each position. The most interesting thing, at least to me, was leaving off David LeNeveu and putting on David McKee. Both Cornell goalies were Hobey finalists, as was Danis. LeNeveu was probably better for one season, 2003, the year Cornell went to the Frozen Four. But McKee had three strong seasons. Just like with the criteria we used to select CHN’s All-Decade team, that was a big factor for me.

For laughs, here was my picks in 2000, for the previous decade, as seen in this old article (look towards the bottom).

Comment on this Post ...

In my article from yesterday, I mentioned that, for one of the few times I can really remember, I was extremely proud of a team I was rooting for, despite them losing. This is not because I am one of those “all or nothing” kind of people, and I’m not saying I’ve ever unfairly ripped my favorite team for not winning a championship every year.  I just mean that, emotionally, in the aftermath of a tough loss, I usually don’t feel pride.

For example, in the NFL, the Jets went on a great run this year — in the playoffs at least. No one expected that. The loss to Indy in the AFC Championship game was crushing. True, no one expected them to get there, but I was still crushed. I don’t blame them, they lost to the better team — but my immediate emotional reaction was not one of pride.

For some reason, this was different last night. As explained in my article, I only felt pride, despite the crushing defeat.

To add some more to my ramblings about college players in those games, it should not be overlooked as well that the tournament’s top scorer was also a product of college hockey — Jonathan Toews, who like Zach Parise, went to North Dakota. There was also Dany Heatley, Dan Boyle and Duncan Keith on the Canadian squad.

I also wanted to respond to people who have called this the greatest hockey tournament they ever saw. I would agree, on one level, that, because there were 8 or 9 teams that were at least pretty competitive, and so many games were thrilling, that this was an awesome tournament overall.

But the best series I ever saw, was the Best-of-3 Canada Cup finals between Canada and the Soviet Union at Copps Coliseum in Hamilton in 1987. This was when, of course, pros didn’t play in the Olympics, so the occasional Canada Cup series — an offshoot of the original 8-game Challenge Series between Canada and the Soviets, 4 games in each country — was played every few years in the ’70s and ’80s. (It was later changed to the “World Cup,” which the U.S. won in 1996.)

The 1987 Canada Cup took the cake. Most of the other countries weren’t on par yet with these two superpowers, but man did they put on a show. All three games were decided 6-5. The first two were decided in OT. In Game 3, Canada fell behind 3-0, but rallied to tie, then won it — 6-5 — on a goal in the last minute by Mario Lemieux.

Which brings me to another point. Thankfully, the Canadians crowd showed some class in cheering Ryan Miller for winning the tournament MVP award. But throughout the Olympics, and really, for the past 14 years, Canadian fans have taken to booing the U.S. Not just in games against Canada, but in games against anyone. Vociferously. And not just in games against anyone, but even in games against Russia. RUSSIA!

What ever happened to Canadian humility and class? This is the reason why hockey is so great, and it emanates from a country with such great culture, and friendliness. I get that it’s become a great hockey rivalry. But there’s no reason — George Bush notwithstanding — to show such venom towards the U.S. hockey team all the time.

But the reason this bothers me so much, and why I take it as a big, personal insult, is that I grew up supporting Team Canada with all my might in every major International competition, including the 1987 Canada Cup. Back then, Canada was representing OUR collective way of playing hockey, and our lifestyle, against the dreaded, hated Soviet machine. I grew up loving hockey, loving NHL hockey, and loving the culture of Canada as a result. I poured my heart and soul into rooting for Canada.

To boo us now, when we play the Russians?!!? That’s just extremely offensive to me.

Finally, taking two weeks off from NHL play is not the greatest thing for the NHL, obviously. In an ideal world, we would still have the World Cup, and that would be the place where all the best players in the world would compete every four years for World supremacy in hockey. But the Olympics are something the whole world focuses on, and places major emotional importance on. It’s hard to generate that on a world-wide basis for something like the World Cup of Hockey. So, despite the problems with it, I think that for the sport of hockey as a whole — and not just the NHL — and for the fans, the pros need to keep playing in the Olympics.

And if you want to see amateurs, then wake up the American public to the awesomeness of the World Junior tournament.

Comment on this Post ...

Boy, the Olympic hockey has been great, and it’s not breaking news to say that here. You can read all about it on other sites that are more devoted to this subject — although clearly we have a vested interest in following it here because of all the former college players on Team USA, just like the World Juniors.

But in the mean time, check out this link at BroncoHockey, which is simply linking out to somewhere else, talking about Mike Milbury’s dumb comments from last night’s Canada-Russia game. Not that dumb comments from Milbury is anything new (he’s an embarrassment to the U.S. and Colgate University), but this took the cake.

http://broncohockey.blogspot.com/2010/02/mike-milbury-said-what.html

Russia did not show much heart last night, that’s for sure. But Milbury’s well-worn, tired, anti-Russia bias came shining through. Any wonder why he stunk as a general manager?

The you can check out our story on whether college players will be returning to the Olympics in 2014.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/02/25_college.php

Comment on this Post ...

Bruce Ciskie’s take on the US winning gold at the World Juniors….

via Team USA Finds Their Way — NHL FanHouse.

Comment on this Post ...