Roger That

As mentioned last night, it turns out that there never was a rule about needing to have a .500 record to be considered for an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Now, in one sense, I suppose there are some benefits to not having such a rule. I can see some teams, being concerned about a .500 record, taking it easy in the non-conference schedule to compensate for a tough conference slate, and one thing I think we always want to see is non-conference games between top teams.

On the other hand, a team with a sub-.500 record making the NCAA tournament as an at-large selection doesn't sit right with me, and here's why:

You may or may not remember a former president of Union College by the name of Roger Hull. Dr. Hull - who happens to be a Dartmouth alum, class of 1964 - was president at Union College from 1990 to 2005, a period that included the 2004 vote on Prop 65. Prop 65, as you may recall, would have forced RPI, St. Lawrence, Clarkson and Colorado College to stop offering scholarships (along with other D-III schools that play up in a single sport, like Johns Hopkins and Hobart lacrosse).

Anyway, an amendment passed that would allow the D-III schools in question to keep their scholarships for the Division I teams, but ol' Roger voted against it, and afterwards, offered this comment, which Adam Wodon quoted in a column for USCHO (Hey, remember when Adam and the USCHO folks got along?):

“Let me tell you of my idea of being competitive: fielding a team that has a reasonable chance of winning every time it steps on the ice,” Hull said. “And when they got to 40 percent [winning percentage] , I was proud, and when they reached nearly 50 percent a few years ago, I was tremendously proud of them.”

Now, Dr. Hull does some excellent work, and is the founder of the Help Yourself Foundation, which helps underprivileged children prepare themselves for college. Dr. Hull deserves a world of commendations for that important work. However, he was roundly mocked for his comments on Prop 65, and rightly so. I think a Union fan on the USCHO board still uses the quote in his signature.

A sub-.500 record is nothing to be "tremendously proud" of. You can be proud improvement to get to that point - as Minnesota Duluth should certainly be, in light of losing Mason Raymond and Matt Niskanen - but I doubt you could get Scott Sandelin to say, "We are tremendously proud of our 12-14-6 record."

I know the WCHA is great. It's far and away, top to bottom, the best conference in college hockey right now. However, I don't think that means that you can justify an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament based on a sub-.500 overall record without getting very close to Dr. Hull's theory of competitiveness.

Now, the truth is this: Minnesota Duluth won't make the NCAA tournament with a sub-.500 record. Either they'll get it over .500 between the Minnesota series and the NCAA tournament, or their bubble will burst. Ditto anyone else who's hanging around the .500 mark, whether it's eastern teams like Providence and BU (who meet this weekend) or western teams like Minnesota and Wisconsin.

However, I like the idea of writing it into the rules: a winning record, or no at-large bid for you.

In other news, I got my Tanner Glass replica jersey delivered today. I tried it on briefly, but the only NHL attire I'm wearing right now is my Rangers Bluephoria t-shirt, although I may go to the hat as well when the puck drops on the Island tonight.