March 23, 2008
Breaking Down the Brackets: UPDATE
Committee Chair Maturi Confirms Choice to 'Protect' Michigan, Miami was Logic Behind Placement
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor
Well, you could say the men's ice hockey committee threw us a couple of curves this year. But, once you break it down, it's logical.
The committee made a conscious decision to "protect" the top overall seeds in the tournament, by not placing them in regions where host schools had teams — i.e. Colorado College in the West, and Wisconsin in the Midwest.
(See brackets at right, and compare to our Saturday night analysis.)
Once that decision is made, slotting the four top seeds fell into place.
Joel Maturi, the chair of the men's ice hockey committee and the athletic director at Minnesota, confirmed that the thought process behind Michigan's move to Albany was to "protect" the top seeds.
In fact, Maturi said, the committee also wanted to protect No. 2 overall Miami from having to play in a regional where a host team was situated. So that left Miami to play in Worcester, which bumped out New Hampshire. And at that point, it was clear that No. 4 overall UNH may as well line up with No. 5 overall Colorado College out West.
"We believed it was appropriate for the No. 1 and 2 (overall) seeds not to go to the site of one of the host cities," Maturi said when reached by cell phone Sunday afternoon. "We've had a consistency in the committee of trying to protect the highest seeds.
"Somebody had to go to Madison and somebody had to go to Colorado Springs. We agonized over it, I can assure you that."
We have written extensively about this possibility in the past few weeks. We talked about how the committee would, and should, "protect" Michigan in that scenario, and not give the top seed in the whole tournament and unfair first-round game.
But we didn't think the committee would "protect" the top seed all the way through the second round. We didn't think it would be a factor once Wisconsin came down as a No. 3 seed.
But the committee decided to go that route anyway.
For what it's worth, I support the committee's decision — even though, alas, it plays havoc with the brackets predicted here at CHN.
We said all along that the committee had a few options, neither of which were right or wrong, necessarily. So, once the committee deviated from something we expected early in the process, it trickled down throughout the process.
After that, you have no option but to send New Hampshire out West somewhere ... so, at that point, you might as well preserve the 3-6, 4-5 pairings. That means New Hampshire (4) against Colorado College (5); while North Dakota (3) is left with the Midwest, where it's ultimately paired with (6) Denver.
Once we have that, the No. 2 seeds fall into place easily as well.
No. 8 St. Cloud is still matched up with No. 1 Michigan. It's 7-2 with Boston College-Miami. And it's 5-4, as we've already documented.
That leaves Denver to get the short straw, so to speak, and be matched up in a 6-3 scenario with North Dakota — which means, of course, that Denver winds up having to play Wisconsin in the first round. A tough matchup, but it also violates the policy on avoiding intra-conference first-round matchups. As we know, however, with five WCHA teams in the 2-3 seed slots, there was going to have to be a first-round all-WCHA matchup.
"If you solve one problem, you create another," Maturi said. "In the end, we feel that we realized there will be some questions, but I welcome anybody to give me the soluition to it."
Like Maturi said, two WCHA teams were going to play each other in the first round. It might as well be Denver — the highest remaining No. 2 seed after CC (which is locked into the West) — against the "lowest" No. 3 seed in Wisconsin.
What has been created, however, is the WCHA Invitational in Madison, with only Princeton spoiling the party.
Again, everything else fell into place from there ... except one little spot: Moving No. 15 Niagara away from Miami (the natural 2-15 matchup) and over to play Michigan instead. The only logic for this is that it saves Niagara a flight, and that swapping those two teams is not a big deal. We'll have to assume that's the logic for now.
"Part of our selection criteria is to improve the atmosphere of the regional sites," Maturi said. "Obviously, Niagara and Clarkson are two of the closer teams to that site."
In regards to attendance, however, this raises the question of moving New Hampshire away from Worcester. The committee has been consistent in recent years, though, that it will only worry about attendance when it doesn't severely impact "bracket integrity" elsewhere.
"All of those kinds of things were discussed, but at same time, if you put (New Hampshire in Worcester), where do you put Michigan? Where do you put Miami?" Maturi said. "We made a conscious decision to keep the No. 1 and 2 (overall) seeds away from host teams. I suppose you can argue with that, but that's the reason we went that way."
That leaves the final question — which those of us who follow the process know the answer to, but needs to be asked anyway: Why did a sub-.500 Wisconsin make it over Minnesota State. The answer, of course, is because Wisconsin had better Pairwise criteria — when all was said and done — than the Mavericks. But it does look funny to some. And should Wisconsin get in at under .500.
"In all honesty, that's a disucssion for the summer and our AHCA coaches meeting," Maturi said. "But the reality is, these are the directions we've been given (to follow the numbers). It's something the college hockey coaches have always wanted. It really takes it out of the hands of the committee as to who makes the field. As a result, there was no extensive discussion about it.
"As challenging it might be to explain how they got there (to those unfamiliar with the process), how hard would it be to explain how they didn't get there when the numbers say they should. ... And I should mention, (Wisconsin) hosting had absolutely nothing to do with it."
As I said earlier, for what it's worth, I think the committee did a good job. And once again we have great matchups, and no smokey back rooms.
"In my time on the committee, with the guys here, there's the real sense of always trying to do the right thing for the right reasons," Maturi said.
Adam,
I only have one though on your logic.
I think it probably started by protecting Michigan from Madison even through the 2nd round. Then by logic went to Miami and did the same. Once that happed UNH was out of Worcester and then the 4 vs. 5 was logically preserved.
This seems to be a change from 1 - band the seeds, 2 place #1 close to home starting with #1 overall... etc... Your right it also mean money is no concern - this tourament is more expensive to run with all the extra air fair and potentially less profitable in the east regions - which have been pretty full in recent years - UNH and the traveling fans helping that.
It seems to me like they need to figure out how to get those west regionals off campus sites.
It is also ironic that Michigan is protected from what they have done to teams at Yost over the years.
Mar 23 2008, 12:52 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Michigan has the easiest bracket by far. I really thought UNH might be in Worcester. I wonder if they had won Hockey East that they might have gotten the home ice. Other than Michigan I think the other brackets are up for grabs. BC is also coming on strong as they often do this time of year. I still think one of the CCHA or WCHA teams takes the title.
Mar 23 2008, 1:40 pm by Matt Needham MA
The #1 should have the easiest bracket. I have no issue with that.
If UNH had won Hockey east they would have maxed out at #3 and been in Madison. Once Miami and Michigan one the CCHA semi's they were locked #1 and #2.
Mar 23 2008, 1:50 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
I like how the brackets shaped up. I understand if some fans have issues but as Joel Maturi, the NCAA Tournament Committee Chair, said, "If you solve one problem, you create another." I do have a problem with a sub-.500 team making the field; Pairwise criteria be damned.
Mar 23 2008, 1:53 pm by Kevin, Chicago, IL
My only issue is the problem they solved at the beginning I dont' think they have ever seen as a problem before.
I can almost see protecting #1 from a first round with Wisco but an unlikely 2nd round as Wisco just squeeked in?
Mar 23 2008, 2:04 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Still don't understand why UNH has to Fly.
The committee states they want to protect the number 1&2 seeds. What would have happened if three Host teams made the field.
Mar 23 2008, 2:25 pm by Ollar,dover
Historically Maturi is full of crap!
2006: They sent #2 overall Minnesota to Grand Forks when North Dakota was a 3 seed. Under the rationale he mentioned, Minnesota should have been sent to Albany and Michigan State to Grand Forks.
2004: Boston College was the #2 overall seed and were sent to Manchester with host New Hampshire. Under this rationale, BC should have gone to Albany or Grand Rapids and Minnesota or Maine gone to Manchester.
2003: #2 Colorado College was sent to Yost in the same regional as host Michigan.
2002: Denver is placed in Ann Arbor with Michigan.
Mar 23 2008, 2:30 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Joe ... I have to go back and look, but I think there were other factors involved in those examples you mentioned. ... Also, anything before 2003 is irrelevant. Everything changed then - not only the change to 16 teams, but the entire perspective of how the committee handles things.
Mar 23 2008, 2:45 pm by CHN Editor
Joe in Deerfield nailed it. Now the committee is picking and choosing which "rule" to follow on a year by year basis. MN got boned in 06 having to go to North Dakota, and UNH gets boned this year. I totally disagree with what they did. UNH should be in Worcester, and no amount of justification by the committee should change that. BC should be playing in Madison or Colorado, not UNH. No rewards for finishing in the top 4, I guess. I get the Pairwise, I just don't get where they are putting teams.
Mar 23 2008, 2:52 pm by Ron, Minneapolis MN
I just wish the WCHA teams had been spread out more evenly. Putting three into one regional is not optimal. However, I understand there were other considerations.
Mar 23 2008, 3:21 pm by Chris Haake, Grand Forks
Why did a sub-.500 Wisconsin make it over Minnesota State? What is pairwise criteria? excuse my ignorance.
Mar 23 2008, 3:26 pm by Mark, Clinton, CT
Mark, go back to the home page and click on the "Pairwise Explained" link.
Mar 23 2008, 3:34 pm by Garrett, Woodbury, MN
Mark,
There is an excellent pairwise explaination on this site. There have been great articles on why wisco made it including last night. Both those article will explain the answers far better then I can in 1000 words.
Mar 23 2008, 3:36 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
It's hard to look at this bracket and not conclude that 2005 played a big factor. Three WCHA teams in one regional is inexcusable. The North Dakota-Princeton and Miami-Air Force matchups should have been switched. One could argue that Miami and Michigan have been protected all year by their much weaker schedules while the WCHA clubs have beaten each other up. The committee should take a cue from the basketball committee which purposely splits up the top three from each conference. This is a national tournament and that should be the priority, rather than slavishly trying to follow seeding perfectly.
Mar 23 2008, 5:29 pm by
Joe, I think the "protection" of Michigan and Miami is a logical extension of the directive to place them "close to home". In each case, the idea is that the top seeds have earned the easiest route to the Frozen Four.
If only one of the host schools were in the tournament, then I'd guess New Hampshire would have stayed in Worcester, though I suppose it still might not have happened if protection were extended to the #3.
Note that the committee has never claimed to be bound by historic precedence. Although there's a hard and fast rule for tournament selection (Pairwise) and another for seeding (host schools stay at home), the rest is left open, and we bracketologists are always guessing about what the committee's priorities are going to be in a given year.
Mar 23 2008, 7:29 pm by Craig, South Bend
It makes sense how they protected Michigan from a potential road game by placing them in Albany. It looks like the commitee tried to protect Miami as well, but do you think that a potential second round matchup against BC in Worcester is better than a second round game against Wisconsin?
Mar 23 2008, 8:05 pm by Tim, Eden Prairie, MN
It makes sense how they protected Michigan from a potential road game by placing them in Albany. It looks like the commitee tried to protect Miami as well, but do you think that a potential second round matchup against BC in Worcester is better than a second round game against Wisconsin?
Mar 23 2008, 8:09 pm by Tim, Eden Prairie, MN
Joe in NH... you may forget that in 06 No body could protect The Gophers from the Crusaders of Holy Cross.....Yes the Sioux won the region but they did beat the team that U 0f M could not to get there. By the way they went to Worcester and beat BU & BC in 05. Final point, No Dak has ended Michigans season the last two years.... this will be the third, this time it just will be in the National Chamionship game!
Mar 23 2008, 8:40 pm by Curt, Maple Grove, MN
They're 'protecting' Michigan by placing them against Clarkson essentially at home? Let's go tech! Beyond my bias, I am glad that CU got Albany and it is a HUGE bonus for a 3rd seed. Can't wait to see it go down!
Mar 23 2008, 8:54 pm by Albany, NY
I agree with Joe, the regionals need to be played at non campus sites. I also feel the host team should be sent to another region if they are not a 1st or second seed.
Mar 23 2008, 10:10 pm by Joe, Augusta
So bacially Miami beat NO-ONE that is good and gets an easy path to the frozen four, but they still have to play B.C. which will probably end up bouncing Miami out of the tourney anyways.
Mar 23 2008, 11:27 pm by Melvin, GF ND
Melvin, Miami did have a pretty soft schedule, but they also did beat some pretty good teams.
Mar 24 2008, 1:02 am by Chris Haake, Grand Forks ND
Miami swept the #3 team from Hockey East (Vermont), beat St. Cloud, swept Michigan State in East Lansing, and took 2 of 3 from Notre Dame. Really, outside of getting dominated by Michigan, Miami was dominant against good teams. 5-1 against NCAA tournament teams other than Michigan is pretty darn solid.
Also, it's ironic that you bring up BC. Compare Miami's results to those of BC. BC also got beat by Michigan, and BC's overall record vs. tournament teams was 2-5-1, with their only tie in a shorted game and one of their two wins vs. Air Force. Really, until they beat UNH, BC hadn't done a single impressive thing all season outside of consistently beating up on the dregs of a down Hockey East.
Mar 24 2008, 1:58 am by Will, Ann Arbor
I'm not sure why WCHA fans are whining about the way their teams were allocated. I've heard multiple WCHA fans claim that this bracket was designed to "prevent 2005", i.e. prevent an all-WCHA Frozen Four. Seems like an odd argument considering each region has a WCHA team, and the WCHA has basically been guaranteed a rep out of the Madison region. The only reason we ended up 3-1-1-1 instead of 2-2-1-1 is because they swapped Denver and BC for attendance reasons. Hardly conspiratorial.
Mar 24 2008, 2:07 am by Jim, Washington DC
Jim ... BC was not swapped for attendance reasons. BC is No. 7 overall - so they matched up with No. 2 Miami. ... Denver is No. 6 overall, so they matched up with No. 3 North Dakota. ..... Also, the idea that anyone was trying to prevent "another 2005" is wrong. The numbers dictated the brackets then - and they dictated them now.
Mar 24 2008, 2:15 am by CHN Editor
BC looked good this weekend although UNH let them off the hook. They have a freshman goaltender who occasionally has lapses. Vermont was not a strong team overall in my opinion. a real counterpunch team that waited to take advantage of their limited opportunities. UNH did well beating CC 2x and splitting with North Dakota. I think only teams from the east with a shot are BC or UNH. ECAC teams just not strong enough. UNH will be at home on that big ice surface out there and have some very skilled players. might be ablessing in disguise for them.
Mar 24 2008, 10:37 am by Matt Needham MA
Jim -- nobody was whining, but some of us were dissatisfied. There is a difference. I'm sure if you take the time to think about why we would want our own league represented more evenly, even you might see why.
Mar 24 2008, 11:54 am by Chris Haake, Grand Forks ND
I agree. BC (or MN) is going to bounce the soft Miami team right back to Ohio.
The committee must love the double-dipping of UNH and BC fans in the worcester regional. UNH was looking to head there for weeks, their fans bought a lot of tix because of that (stupidly), and now the NCAA can get BC into the mix as well and sell more tix. The crowds will be average but I bet it sells a solid amount of tix.
Michigan did get a very sweet setup but they earned it. I think St. Cloud is finally going to get that first NCAA win. Clarkson is going fold like the ECAC teams always do (not that they were that good to begin with).
Mar 24 2008, 12:06 pm by Johnny, Utah
Still don't understand how a sub .500 team makes the tourney, unless it wins its playoff title. Mankato got hosed because Wisconsin is hosting a regional and the NCAA wants the Kohl Center packed for a game. It's a joke. Mankato had a better record head to head vs Wisconsin, better record vs tourney teams, and still doesn't get in???? Something doesn't add up here.
Mar 24 2008, 12:18 pm by Craig, Upper Michigan
No conspiracy here, Craig. Read about Wisconsin winning due to the total PairWise numbers. This was predicted long before the announcement by columnists who have nothing to do with the committee but DO understand the PWR system.
Mar 24 2008, 12:25 pm by Chris Haake, Grand Forks ND
I'm tired of all the "Campus Sites" chatter. The bottom line is that out east, there aren't alot of campus sites that could host a regional. Besides, would it really be less of an advantage for Minnesota to host a regional at the Xcel, for Denver or CC to host at the Pepsi Center, for Wisconsin to run one from the Bradley Center or Resch Center, for Michigan to host one at Joe Louis Arena? Attendance would be virtually the same and the cost would be far more. Maybe the NCAA could solicit bids for regionals from the arenas rather than from the schools themselves and then make their decision and assign a host school.
Mar 24 2008, 1:39 pm by
To-"Campus Sites"-Anonymous,
I agree with you on the East regionals, in fact, I think the West should hold 3 of 4 regionals. I think the NCAA will be looking at bids by arenas hopefully in the future due to the NCAA/UND lawsuit, and REA. As we all know in Hockey the best place to play is THE RALPH. By far the grandest of all arena's. And I think they should appoint host schools at these venues like the WCHA is going to do for the "Hotdish" Minnesota Beanpot tourney or whatever its called. I think because the WCHA is so dominant, and fans are so loyal they should have at least 6 teams in every year. Sorry to all the other conferences, but lets face it, the talent, facilities, and fans are above the rest. Their really is only 3 other teams that came close to WCHA attendence records. Oh and who holds the West Regional Attendence record?? Is it the glorious Ralph Engelstad Arena in '06? Just my opinion I'm sure someone has a better idea though
Mar 24 2008, 7:35 pm by Brett B, St Louis MO
"The Ralph" may be the best rink in college hockey. no argument here. Remember some college teams out east are in more metropolitan areas where there are more sports choices so saying fans out west are better is a bit much. I would agree that the better teams in recent memory have come from the west but Maine, UNH, BC and BU and even Cornell have had very competitive teams over the last decade.
Mar 24 2008, 9:37 pm by Matt Needham MA
I must respectfully disagree with Matt in Needham, MA. MIAMI has the easiest bracket. Assuming chalk holds, I think St. Cloud will be a significantly more difficult 2nd round opponent then either Minnesota or BC (Michigan is 2-1 this season against those two combined with the loss to Minny by 1 goal in St. Paul).
As for bracket assignments they should be a true seeding without concern for intraconference matchups and no host team playing at home. Set the brackets then assign the sites. At one time the committee probably needed to concern themselves with protecting the gate but the game has now grown to where that is no longer necessary.
Mar 25 2008, 7:57 am by Joe, Milan, MI
Miami has the easiest bracket? Are you serious? They have BC and Minnesota in that bracket. Miami is the 3rd best team in the NE regional. Michigan has the easy bracket, as they have a nice 1st round matchup as the overall #1 seed and have a team that has never won an NCAA game (SCSU) against a terrible Clarkson team that lost in the 1st rd of their conference tourney and lost in the 1st rd of the NCAAs last year to UMass (this is the best the ECAC has, though). Anytime you get SCSU and an ECAC team along with a mid-major, you're in the best bracket.
Mar 25 2008, 8:22 am by Johnny, Utah
No Doubt Michigan has the easiest bracket. Anyone at first glance would not be scared by teams in that bracket other than MI. Miami, BC and MN can beat anyone in one game. North Dakota and Denver are absolutely contenders to win it all and UNH, MSU and Colrado College are all tough teams. Only bracket you can pencil in Frozen Four participant is Michigan's right now. Miami? come on. They beat Air Force and probably play BC who is peaking right now but beatable. I would much rather play winner of Clarkson/SCSU over BC/MN . I am a UNH fan but to me that's the hardest first round matchup for any #1 seed.
Mar 25 2008, 1:43 pm by Matt Needham MA
No matter how much integrity is attributed to the Committee for following the rules, this is still a ridiculous draw and it badly fails the eye test. Let's see, we have a completely undeserving team (Wisc) playing at home. We have 3 teams from the same conference in the same region, two of whom just played each other last week in a grueling conference semifinal. The winner of that game, DU, is #4 ranked in the nation but has to play a road game against the #17 ranked team. UNH, a top seed, is moved 2000 miles west and will have to play a road game against CC if form holds in the first round. This draw fails on so many levels. Once again, college hockey just looks bush league. They have got to do something about it. The tournament has just become such a sham. The big culprit is insisting that host teams get to play on their home ice. This underlying principle is just killing the draw year after year. The list in inequities just grows longer every year.
Mar 25 2008, 4:11 pm by Steve, Denver
I have a problem with the host school concept in general. It will help only a few dozen teams, while the rest of the teams in the tournament get screwed, mostly the teams that don't live near a major metropolitan center. For example, every time Albany gets the bid to host the East regional, either RPI or Union will get the host. In Rochester, RIT gets the host. However, some of the better teams in that area, Cornell and Clarkson, will always get screwed, since they aren't close enough to these centers. It used to be important when college hockey was not as popular of a sport. With how popular college hockey has become, there needs to be no protecting of regionals. I can give the committee a little leeway when they take a team tied in the pairwise (like this year sending Clarkson to Albany to draw in more people), but teams should not have a guarantee since they are "host schools". Get rid of this system now. It has outlived it's usefulness,and leads to major headaches at selection time
Mar 26 2008, 12:05 am by
Clarkson was not sent to Albany to draw more people. Best off to read up on how things were done. In fact, Clarkson ain't gonna draw squat because the game's at 4 p.m. on Friday. ... And there's nothing stopping Cornell, etc.., from hosting a regional in Rochester.
Mar 26 2008, 12:09 am by CHN Editor
If you got rid of the rule where host schools play at home if they get in, then you'd see a drastic drop in the number and quality of bids. The host school has to guarantee the NCAA a certain amount of money, and they can often only expect to get that if they think they have a good chance to make the tourney as their fans will buy tickets to watch them play at home. The hockey tourney just isn't at the point the basketball tourney is, where it's almost a guaranteed sellout no matter who plays there. I agree it's less than ideal, but it is one of the factors that allows us to have a four site regional system like we do.
Mar 26 2008, 12:10 am by Mike Machnik, CHN
Mike Machnik said "If you got rid of the rule where host schools play at home if they get in, then you'd see a drastic drop in the number and quality of bids. The host school has to guarantee the NCAA a certain amount of money, and they can often only expect to get that if they think they have a good chance to make the tourney as their fans will buy tickets to watch them play at home. "
Then they should drop the guarantee $$$ requirement. Oh, I'm Sorry, I forget, we are talking about the NC$$!
Mar 26 2008, 7:05 am by Joe, Milan, MI
CHN Edtior - regarding your comment "Jim ... BC was not swapped for attendance reasons. BC is No. 7 overall - so they matched up with No. 2 Miami. ... Denver is No. 6 overall, so they matched up with No. 3 North Dakota.
According you your own website's pairwise comparisons it shows BC and DU tied at #6 with BC winning the comparison. Due to that BC should be in Madison, not DU.
Mar 26 2008, 11:25 am by Hans, Grand Forks
Hans ... ties are not broken with the individual comparison. Ties are broken with RPI. Many other places get that wrong. If you read all of our articles dating back years, and leading up to this year, we have always pointed out that ties are broken with RPI.
Mar 26 2008, 11:28 am by CHN Editor
What bothers me about Mankato not getting in is that they lose the comparison against Princeton based upon the tie breaker of better RPI. I can understand using that if the two teams being compared had not played each other during the season. However, Mankato won the head to head match up 1-0. I would argue that head to head should be the first tie breaker and then better RPI. If that had been done it I believe it is quite likely that Mankato would have gotten into the NCAA tournament.
Mar 26 2008, 11:30 am by Hans, Grand Forks
CHN Editor....Point taken regarding the RPI breaking the ties. However I think the NCAA relies upon the RPI far too heavily. It doesn't make any sense to me to compare all the team, have a tie for a spot and break it with RPI and not the actual comparison between the two teams. But it is the NCAA, so what can you expect.
Mar 26 2008, 11:35 am by Hans, Grand Forks
Like so many others, I think assigning home ice to a so-called Host team is one of the primary problems. There should at least be some criteria for a team to qualify for hosting, not just arbitrarily reward a team, which is what happened this year with Wisconsin (a team under 500 gets to play at home while UNH gets to play 2000 miles away).
Mar 26 2008, 12:45 pm by David, Nashua, NH
UNH is going to win the tournament
Mar 26 2008, 3:01 pm by
To whomever said that UNH is going to win the tournament. Please send us all some of whatever you are smoking. It must be darn good stuff!
Mar 26 2008, 5:03 pm by College Hockey Fan, MN.
fwiw-UNH beat CC 2x although early in the season...split with UND and beat BC 3x prior to the HE playoffs. They can beat anybody in the tournament but do have a history of not coming thru in big games. Kevin Regan might be the best college goalie in the country so if he's hot they can win it. Still think MI wins but I am hopeful for the cats
Mar 26 2008, 9:26 pm by Matt Needham MA
This was one of the worst pairings yet. UNH ending up out West while BC plays in their backyard as a 8 seed is borderline ridiculous. The rationale of protecting Mich and Miami is a little absurd as you would think these teams would be able to counter by playing closer to home and drawing their own fans. Mich should be in Madison and Miami in Albany and UNH in Worcester.
Mar 27 2008, 6:00 pm by Jason, Newburyport, Ma
no comment
Mar 30 2008, 2:53 pm by
This is Michael from Jackson, MI and after reading people's comment's I believe only the best team in the nation should be protected and everyone should agree that is Michigan and they have the most National Title's 9 also. Someone said that Michigan and Miami have the easiest schedule's and I cannot comment on Miami but Michigan play's the #1 scedule each year and especially this year with 12 Freshmen Michigan still played the only other 2 team's that were #1 when we played them and we beat them Boston College and Miami(3 time's) the the showcase we play every year against Wisconsin and Minnesota which we beat Wisc and tied Minn plus the CCHA is considered the best conference with 3 team's in the top 10. If protecting a team is mandatory then there is no question that Michigan is #1 and the best college Hockey team.
Mar 30 2008, 8:02 pm by Michael, Jackson, Michigan
Comment on this Article
