http://www.statenews.com I am not a fan of the job the selection committee did for this year’s NCAA hockey tournament. My lone complaint with the field is that Wisconsin made the postseason with a sub-.500 record. That shouldn’t be allowed, especially with other programs barely behind them with better records. en-us Foundry4 Mon, 12 May 2008 08:57:31 -0400 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:51:38 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13176/view I agree. MSU got the shaft as far as their draw for the NCAA tourney, but if any team’s proven to be resilient over these past couple seasons, it’s the Spartan hockey team. Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:37:04 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13176/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13184/view I agree, this was awful draw by the committee. But I’d like to clarify some points, as much as it sucks for MSU as the #3 seed (hopefully they can still pull it off, they did beat UM at Yost this year), what about New Hampshire. You’re a #1 seed and you could possibly play the #2 seed in their own rink?? That’s horrendous! CC should have been shipped off to another region. And as far as UM, they got the #1 overall seed, that’s what you get when you play that well throughout the season (as much as it pains me to say it). And Wisconsin making it is probably the biggest joke of them all. Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:23:18 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13184/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13185/view Of course Michigan got an easy route, they were terrific all year. It hurt to get upset by Northern Michigan. Some of your other gripes might be more legitimized but we did what we did. Third in the CCHA and no representation in the semifinals of the playoffs. So, in the end, we got what we probably deserve. Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:39:26 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13185/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13222/view Sense of entitlement or whatever it is, your thinking is flawed. Michigan was number 1 overall, not just “a” number 1. Cakewalk to the Frozen Four doesn’t exist, unless maybe you played Wisconsin every game, and probably not even then. Michigan State didn’t play well when it should have, and shouldn’t be rewarded. I agree that playing a Colorado team on its home makes no sense, but (since we’re looking at the “cakewalk” Michigan gets) Michigan didn’t get to play in Grand Rapids last year, and MSU did. Sometimes the scheduling is unfair, but MSU has never been the only team adversely affected, and MSU honestly probably didn’t earn anything better. Certainly I don’t think the team earned another early shot at playing Michigan, which I think you’re suggesting. Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:41:40 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/13222/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/14925/view Yes, going by the pairwise, it should have been MSU that was in the regional that Michigan was in. The NCAA chose to “protect” it’s top 2 seeds, especially Michigan. It didn’t work so well for the paper-champ RedHawks, but the committee DID try to give them the second easiest route. I prefer to think that protecting Michigan was just the committees way of making sure that 4 WCHA teams didn’t make the Frozen Four again. ;) Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:51:38 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/14925/view