Our Ballot

Here's our ballot for this year's ECAC media poll. No apologies. Consider this the power ranking for October - our first power ranking typically comes out at the end of November, since half the league really hasn't gotten underway yet by the end of October.

1. Union - Won everything there was to win in the ECAC last year, went to the Frozen Four, and lose very little. Nuff said.

2. Cornell - Really shouldn't have to explain this.

3. Quinnipiac - They look stupid good on paper, and they have a knack for overachieving vis a vis preseason expectations.

4. Harvard - Showed lots of potential late last year but they have to stop living on the edge.

5. Yale - Scoring talent is still there, answering the defensive call could make for an elite squad.

6. Colgate - Possibly too optimistic here, they have a ridiculous amount of scoring to replace.

7. St. Lawrence - Young guns are going to have to be big for the Saints.

8. RPI - Have to prove they're ready to vie for a top end spot again through growth of younger players, trying not to be too optimistic.

9. Dartmouth - Offense is there, but considerable defensive question marks cloud the outlook significantly.

10. Princeton - Much like RPI, a team with a great deal to prove with the capacity to do just that. Possibly too pessimistic here.

11. Clarkson - Some good upside here, but as mentioned Wednesday, painfully young.

12. Brown - A serious case of "show me something first."

As always, there are certain "bands" that teams seem to fit in that could be somewhat interchangeable. I like the top three as the clearly defined top-tier, but to be honest the rest of the league could (and probably will) be a tossup. And of course once the puck drops I'm sure we'll learn things about those top three, too.

Choices for All-ECAC:
G - Andy Iles, Cornell - Always going against the grain with our preseason goaltender selections. Grosenick will be the choice, but Iles deserves respect for the season he had last year.

D - Danny Biega, Harvard - Crimson's MVP, power play quarterback and also an offensive driver.

D - Mat Bodie, Union - Probably the best two-way defenseman in the league right now.

F - Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence - Averaging a point per game in his first three seasons. If only he had stayed healthy...

F - Connor Jones, Quinnipiac - Poised for a big year with a juggernaut supporting cast.

F - Andrew Miller, Yale - For three years he's been a top supporting cast member, is it time for his star turn?

Honorable mention: G Troy Grosenick, Union, D Shayne Gostisbehere, Union, F Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac, F Kenny Agostino, Yale.

Our Ballot

As a member of the ECAC Hockey Media Association (and once again, thank you to EHMA head Ken Schott for including blogs as insightful league observers), we have a vote in the yearly pre-season media poll and post-season media awards. We always promise to be as fair as possible in the balloting process - no instant boosts for the team we follow, just because we follow them. Anyway, here's the ballot WaP submitted as part of this year's media poll.

1. Yale

2. Cornell

3. Union

4. Quinnipiac

5. RPI

6. Princeton

7. Dartmouth

8. Harvard

9. St. Lawrence

10. Brown

11. Colgate

12. Clarkson

That was sent about a month ago, so... if I had to do it over again, I think I've probably overvalued Harvard and undervalued Colgate... I'd probably swap the two, and maybe swap Princeton and Dartmouth too. Our Know Your Enemy series, I think, explains most of these placements - except, of course, for RPI.

I'm being a little pessimistic with the Engineers as opposed to where I think they can finish, but only because I think a significant part of the power from this team could come from the freshman class - and in preseason predictions, it's never a good idea to put too much stock in freshman performance, since you can never tell how they're going to adjust to the college game. Some would say I'm even being optimistic in fifth, since the Engineers lost more offense than any other team in the league from last year to this year - but this happy medium should be about right. That said, if RPI comes in fifth again this year... heart-ache.

At any rate, here's the actual media ballot, and the coaches' ballot as well (first place votes in parentheses). My top seven gel with what the rest of the media had, which is satisfactory.

Media

1. Yale (23)

2. Union (11)

3. Cornell (3)

4. Dartmouth (1)

5. RPI

6. Quinnipiac

7. Princeton

8. St. Lawrence

9. Clarkson

10. Colgate

11. Brown

12. Harvard

Coaches

1. Yale (9)

2. Union (2)

3. Cornell

4. RPI

5. Dartmouth

6. Quinnipiac (1)

7. Harvard

8. Princeton

9. St. Lawrence

10. Colgate

11. Clarkson

12. Brown

Both All-ECAC teams included:

G - James Mello, Dartmouth

D - Nick Bailen, RPI

D - Danny Biega, Harvard

F - Brian O'Neill, Yale

F - Andrew Miller, Yale

The media chose SLU's Greg Carey for the final forward spot and the coaches had Brown's Jack Maclellan.

My preseason All-ECAC picks, with explanations for the deviations.

G - Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac: The obvious choice here is Mello, but from our admittedly limited opportunity to see both Mello and Hartzell, RPI lit up Mello while struggling to score on Hartzell. Last year I rolled the dice with Dan Clarke over Kinkaid and York here, and obviously lost, so... yeah, this might be a shot in the dark too.

D - Nick Bailen, RPI

D - Danny Biega, Harvard

F - Brian O'Neill, Yale

F - Kelly Zajac, Union: Can't argue with the consistent numbers he put up last season. Kinkaid got a lot of the credit but it was guys like Zajac who, on nights their netminder wasn't on top of his game, put Union in the win column anyway.

F - Greg Carey, St. Lawrence: Could have gone with Union's Jeremy Welsh here, but Carey wowed the crap out of me last year and he's going to be a leader for St. Lawrence again this season. Figured he deserved some credit for doing what he did last year, but Welsh is a close fourth in my book.

EXCLUSIVE: Truth to Power

If you were at Saturday afternoon's matinee at Houston Field House, chances are good that you walked away from the building disgusted by what you saw take place. No, it wasn't a disgust that the Engineers had lost, per se, as they had the previous night to a last-place team. Instead, it was more likely a disgust with the way the game played out thanks to yet another instance of awful officiating decisions, something that ECAC fans, while certainly now accustomed to, are never quite willing to accept, especially when they cost your team a fair shot at earning some league points.

We are told that some of these things are matters of opinion. If that is true, than officiating itself is nothing more than the official's opinion - but we know that's not true. Cornell, on Saturday, was either intentionally trying to start trouble, or they weren't. They were either diving, or they weren't.

It's always a little easier to swallow awful officiating when your team comes out on top - look no farther than the RPI-BU game this past December. But things are now starting to reach a head. Jason Klump, who writes for College Hockey News, became part of the story when he sought comment from Paul Stewart, the ECAC's Director of Officiating, on Saturday's debacle, which led to the ugly sight of frustrated and angry RPI fans hurling towels and other objects toward the referees after the game, ultimately requiring Houston Field House to provide a police escort. We don't support that kind of reaction, but it is certainly telling. This goes beyond run of the mill bad officiating.

Instead, what transpired in the aftermath, not only in Troy but later that night in Schenectady, has to be read to be believed.

Klump wrote this piece for CHN, which understandably declined to publish it, not only because it is an opinion piece, but because Klump became part of the story due to the events that took place while he was writing it. These are his opinions, which are not endorsed by CHN, and which do not represent their views.

We are not constrained by rigid editorial guidelines. Since the very beginning, Without a Peer has melded news and opinion, hard facts and editorial. We also wear our bias on our sleeves - we are RPI fans. What you see is what you get, nothing more, nothing less.

After all, it's all just a matter of opinion - just like the officiating, apparently.

We offer Klump's account here as a look at the attitudes of the ECAC towards its officiating problems - and what happens when members of the media dare to speak truth to power.

You can contact Mr. Klump at jmklump@gmail.com.

---

In the final minute of Cornell's 4-0 loss to Union Friday night, the Big Red's Dan Nicholls decided it was time to pick a fight with Andrew Buote of the Dutchmen, who stood his ground and did not retaliate as Nicholls ripped off his helmet, shoulder pads, and sweater.

Cornell coach Mike Schafer did express displeasure with Nicholls' specific decision, but not with the spirit of it.

"I talked to him after the game," Schafer said. "He decided to go after the kid alone. His response was, over the last bunch of games, we've had kids hurt...nothing ever seems to happen. There are no ramifications. I've told our players back in January that we need to start protecting each other. That was the only emotion we showed all night. Hits from behind, high hits, the silent slash to the hands — we've got to protect each other, and do it the right way. That wasn't the right way."

So, on Saturday, Cornell started gooning it up right from the drop, routinely mugging and instigating RPI players after whistles, once crashing into goalie Bryce Merriam at full speed. Not only that, it appeared to many in the press box that they also took more than a few dives throughout the night to lead to several of their eight power plays. Not sure if that is Schafer's idea of "the right way," but that is beside the point.

The point is that there was a perception that referees Peter Feola and Tim Kotyra let Cornell have its way with minimal repercussions while simultaneously allowing them to embellish their way into extra, timely power plays - all the while turning the game altogether into one big revolving penalty box door. The near capacity crowd thought it was so bad, the refs needed security to protect them from towels and other items being thrown as they left the ice.

This is an RPI fanbase that is still steaming from referee Bryan Hicks' now infamous wave-off at Messa Rink of the Engineers' would-be tying goal for phantom goalie interference. Hicks never received any discipline. Further, the ECAC offices refused to issue any comment on the incident, other than they were of course suspending RPI coach Seth Appert one game for violation of secret, unpublished rules (which they also refused to reveal) because he showed video of the play at the post-game press conference. Appert stated at the time that he "[thought] the refs should be worried about it." Apparently, they don't have to be worried. There is an obvious double-standard.

This story actually begins last weekend.

After the games had concluded last Saturday February 5, I emailed ECAC Commissioner Steve Hagwell to ask whether there was a new initiative to hand out more game disqualifications to crack down on rough play in the wake of the pro-style fight earlier this season at the UConn Hockey Classic between Princeton's Michael Sdao and Bowling Green's Max Grover, among other things.

His response via email was as follows:

"An initiative to hand out more game DQs? On what do you base your assertion? If your statement is based on the fact that five (5) disqualification penalties have been assessed in the last two (2) weekends, you are mistaken."

That is in fact the very thing on which I based my inquiry, so I don't think it was quite so far-fetched as he indicated.

He continued to explain, "the fact is that four (4) of those DQs have been assessed for facemasking. The NCAA ice hockey rules committee clarified the penalty for facemasking in the 2010-12 rules book as follows:

'Rule 6, Section 14 (Face Masks), Pages HR-64-65

c. A player shall not grasp and pull or twist an opponent’s facemask.

PENALTY—Disqualification for excessive roughness.'"

So at that point I took his explanation of facemasking being an automatic DQ at face value. That was until Cornell's Rodger Craig was called for a facemasking major Friday night at Union, but received only a game misconduct rather than a DQ. I emailed Hagwell again to see why there was this inconsistency, but received no response as of Saturday evening.

I knew there was going to be reaction to the officiating from the game participants in the post-game at Houston Field House, thus I asked RPI Associate Athletic Director for Communications Kevin Beattie if there was anyone from the league present as I had not seen anyone. He said that both Hagwell and Stewart were there, so I requested to speak to one or both of them.

Before I went to go speak with any players or coaches, Beattie came to me and said Stewart had agreed to speak to me. I was admittedly surprised as I had expected he and Hagwell to decline comment. Beattie led me into an empty room off the officials dressing room where only he, Stewart, and I were present (though this part is all recorded). Since I was about to speak with him about the quality or lack thereof of the officiating in the RPI-Cornell game, I asked Stewart first for clarification on the facemasking issue.

"It's a judgment call based on the officials' evaluation on the ice," he answered, clearly contradicting the Commissioner's previous response. "We've reviewed the call and looked at the tape and we support the call. We don't feel by comparison with regard to some of the other facemasking calls that there was [as much pulling on the mask.] There is a degree of latitude that comes under the term 'judgment' so as much as we want to review the tape, we also have to understand the referee is four feet from it."

Fair enough, but I don't see where the words "judgment" or "latitude" appear in the rule cited by Hagwell, nor do I see how his explanation indicated there was any such discretion. It seems like two inconsistent explanations to explain inconsistent calls.

I then got to the immediate focus of my discussion with Stewart and asked if he had a comment on the officiating of the present game.

"I think it was outstanding," was Stewart's response. "We had the hit from behind [by Cornell's Greg Miller on RPI's John Kennedy late in the 3rd] which was a vicious play and its sad because those types of things can injure players. And it's ironic how sometimes things happen and then they happen again. Interference pick at the blue line by the RPI player going backwards and then vice versa by Cornell."

Stewart was mistaken because both of those identical interference calls first late in the 3rd period and then in overtime to lead to the game-winning goal were against RPI's Bryan Brutlag, part of one of the more controversial sequences in the game. It even got mentioned by Brandon Thomas of the Ithaca Journal in his story.

But since he was choosing to discuss the most obviously non-controversial call and being otherwise evasive of what he likely knew was the basis of my inquiry (which is fine, I like when people make me do my job), I asked him more specifically why it appeared Cornell was allowed to goon it up all night with no repercussions other than a few matching minors.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion," he began. "And I don't know what...I don't keep track...I don't have a ball or a box of marbles to decide who, you know..."

Realizing it is actually his job to "know what..." is going on, to "keep track..." of it, and to "decide who..." is worthy of officiating in the league, he switched gears mid-sentence.

"...but I would stake that my 38 years in pro hockey and officiating and playing would probably overshadow your experience. Not to belittle your experience, but I watch the game without cheering. I have no provinciality regarding it. I just look at it from the point of view of the ability to enforce the rules fairly and consistently and I felt that these two fellas who have worked Olympic hockey, have worked the Frozen Four..."

"As a linesman," I interjected, to indicate that my experience was enough to know Feola had only called offsides and icing in the 2010 Olympics.

"Regardless," he continued. "Have you ever been to the Olympics yourself?"

"No."

"Well, that answers that. They have experience and they work Frozen Fours and NCAA Championships and ECAC Championships. So I would, if I were a writer with any integrity, I would never question the integrity of an official. That's what you're doing. And I don't appreciate that. OK? End of discussion." He then walked away without shaking my outstretched hand.

After I spoke to Stewart, the participants took a different (and unprovoked) view.

"Yeah, I think that's the way they like to play and any time they can try and get our guys in the box, they're gonna do that," said RPI's Chase Polacek, never quick to denigrate his opponent, when asked about Cornell's tactics. "They try to play a rough style and try to be tough, but sometimes when they're diving around out there, it shows how they really aren't that tough."

"I guess if we would fall down and dive more, we would get more calls," echoed RPI coach Seth Appert. "I find it odd that Cornell falls down so much. It was like an aquatic center out there. A lot of diving. Lot of diving. I get frustrated when Jeff Foss gets called for interference when their guy has the puck. I think by definition you can't have an interference call when the player has the puck. Now, was it a cross-check? Maybe. Was it a dive? Probably. Was it interference? No. If a player has the puck, it cannot be interference. It's not why we lost. It's not why we lost."

Schafer of course saw it the other way. "It was a game where I thought the referees did a great job," he said in his opening statement, completely unprovoked. "They called all the calls that needed to be called all night long. It seemed like the officials, and I'd love to see more of this, they called everything. And I think players will start to respond by being more disciplined."

According to some messages I got from some people who have been covering the ECAC far longer than I, Stewart often cops this "how dare you question me" attitude when reporters ask about the officiating. I don't think I had to actually be at the Olympics to realize that the IOC only felt Feola was qualified to act as a linesman at that level and not a referee. The AHL felt the same way, as a matter of fact. I guess the ECAC has lower standards.

So, I figured that was that and packed up my stuff for the short trip west along Route 7 for my second game of the day, made possible by a separation of the start times in Troy and Schenectady.

When I arrived at Messa Rink for the Union-Colgate game near the end of the first period, Stewart was in the press box and I was still willing to let by-gones be by-gones, so I approached him quietly behind everyone as he was leaving at the end of the period just to clarify that I was not questioning the referees' "integrity."

"I was never questioning anyone's integrity," I said. "I don't believe that either Feola or Kotyra did anything they believed to be wrong or biased. I suppose what I am questioning is their ability to officiate a good game."

At that point, he immediately decided to raise his voice and draw the attention of everyone else in the press box as he accused me of "giving opinions instead of asking the right questions" and failing to be impartial. That was again after he had run through the irrelevant list of qualifications for Feola and Kotyra all over again, all the while making a scene and drawing the attention of everyone away from the game. He then started to walk away, but turned back unprovoked to shout more insults in my direction and to add some finger-pointing.

Honestly, telling me that a bad referee (and I am not saying either is bad, per se, though they were today) has officiated in the Olympics, Frozen Four, or ECAC Championship makes it even worse.

The kicker was that, as he turned back from heading down the stairs, he shouted that I was "being like Appert" and "using the refs as a crutch for why they lost." I won't comment on that part. Enough others already have.

Unfortunately, the spontaneous and impromptu nature of this one-sided confrontation means it was not recorded. It was, however, witnessed by a number of other media figures. Ken Schott of the Daily Gazette wrote in his blog that he feared it would get physical, though I never felt that way. Union SID Jeff Weinstein said he was not going to wait much longer before getting involved to quell Stewart's rage.

Unbeknownst to me at that time, Stewart had apparently already asked Ken Schott at the beginning of the game, asking him "what official are you going to grill next?"

I would like nothing more than to sit down and review the tape of yesterday afternoon's game with Stewart himself while he attempts to justify the calls made or omitted, but his lack of professionalism and propensity for bullying make that unlikely at this point.

Look, Mr. Stewart, I know what you have accomplished in your life, but the fact is you are bad at your current job. I suppose I could write that about a lot of people, but most of them are too classy for me to have any true desire to do so. Heck, I am bad at a lot of things. I was bad at being a law student, mostly because I have no patience for bad laws. But none of the things I am bad at are my job.

The quality and consistency of officiating in the ECAC has been going downhill ever since you took your current position, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. What's more, there is absolutely no transparency or accountability. When Bryan Hicks waved off that goal without cause on November 12, he received no suspension. When that happens in the WCHA, refs get fired. The ECAC demands no less if it wants the integrity of the games to be upheld.

I suppose someone in the media had to be the one to say something publicly about the officiating in the ECAC eventually. And I know I am not the only member of the ECAC media who holds my opinion. It can't be left solely to coaches like Seth Appert, because they face suspension for speaking the truth and showing video to back it up, so they will never go as far as they really want. Someone who does not have to fear repercussions, other than maybe the most famous NHL official ever trying to intimidate you, needs to be the one to start the discussion. Unlike Mr. Stewart, I also welcome those with dissenting opinions, for I enjoy civilized discussion.

Media Pitstop #1: Adam Wodon

As the season gets closer, we're going to sit down with some media personalities from around the college hockey universe to get their takes on the offseason that has been and the season that will be. Our first sucker volunteer is Adam Wodon. Wodon is the Managing Editor of College Hockey News (CHN), and he's been covering college hockey since 1988. He's a former play-by-play man in the ECAC, having served in that role for Cornell and Princeton over the years, and in the mid-2000s was an occasional college hockey analyst for ESPN and was a regular color man for college broadcasts on CSTV. Before starting CHN - considered one of the "Big Three" news sites for college hockey on the Internet - in 2006, he was a senior writer at USCHO.com for nine years. Basically, he knows what he's talking about.

Believe it or not, we did not photoshop his picture. He should probably be thankful, although we should probably point out that the picture is almost five years old and he's no longer in his mid-30s. (Happy birthday, Adam.)

Without a Peer: It seems like with this so-called "World Hockey Summit" coming up in Toronto that the CHL/NCAA war is ready to heat up even more. What's your take?

Adam Wodon: Well, originally we'd been told that (College Hockey Inc. President) Paul Kelly hadn't been invited, which is true, except that Tom Anastos of the CCHA was invited.

WaP: Is that really a good substitute?

AW: There may be more to the issue than meets the eye. I don't know if it's personal between the people involved, but to me, Tom is as good of a power broker as anyone. Theoretically, Paul Kelly is supposed to be that guy, but I'm sure Tom will get the job done as well as anybody could. Whether that will actually accomplish anything... I don't know if anyone could accomplish anything.

WaP: Bruce Ciskie had a commentary yesterday talking about how the CHL is whining about Paul Kelly doing essentially the same thing they've been doing for 15 years.

AW: Well, it's true. Obviously, we're all biased from our point of view, and they have the right to sell their product, so to speak. I just think it's unfortunate that so much of it is propaganda, and I think that's what really upset people. I don't really know what you can do about it, but a lot of it is misleading and really, it's a disservice to the kids that are involved. From that standpoint, what Paul Kelly is trying to do as far as education is great. That's only going to go so far unless the NHL steps in to do something, and they haven't shown any inclination to do that. I don't think you're going to get anywhere getting the NCAA to change its rules and regulations, so the only option is to hope the CHL plays nice. Otherwise, the only thing that might fix it is if the NHL were to lay out some sort of restrictions on things the way its done in other sports.

WaP: Supposedly there was some hope that the two sides could come to an agreement whereby neither side would poach the others' commitments, even though it's fairly one-sided in that CHL teams are poaching NCAA commits well more frequently.

AW: From what I understand, they've changed a lot of the rules, where you can't play junior A unless you're 16, and there's only a few 16-year-olds allowed on a junior A team. They've eliminated the holding areas for those guys, so they're pumping them into major juniors faster in order to get them wiped off the NCAA radar before NCAA teams even get the chance to recruit them. That's one of the "dirty tricks" out there. It's not illegal, but it's a disservice to the kid, forcing them into those ranks that way, before they have a chance to get educated or really decide what they want to do. We can debate this all day long, but I steadfastly remain behind the idea that (major junior) is not a faster route to the NHL for 99% of hockey players.

WaP: Especially specific types of players that might be better suited for the college route.

AW: Unless you're among the elite of the elite, and even then, I don't believe the NCAA hurts your progress whatsoever. Just look at (Jarred) Tinordi right now, he's a great example. They tell him, "oh, it'll be a faster route to the NHL." Please. It'll still be two or three years. The same thing could have happened going to college for two or three years and then jumping to the NHL. The fact of the matter is, the guys who play four years of college often are then ready for the NHL, whereas guys that leave early spend two or three years in the minors quite frequently. There's so much evidence out there that supports that, but the myth continues. They've certainly won the propaganda war, that's for sure. Ultimately, what are you going to do? They're not going to stop doing that.

WaP: With almost 40 underclassmen that have left to sign pro contracts, what kind of effect is that going to have on the level of play this season?

AW: I'd already thought in the last couple of years that it had leveled the playing field quite a bit. Look at all the teams in the last few years that have made the NCAAs and advanced. It's not just RIT and Bemidji State, but Northeastern a few years ago, and Yale recently. There have been teams in the NCAAs that hadn't even been there recently, like Northern Michigan and Alaska for the first time last season. St. Cloud State won a game! So the playing field had already started to become more level in the years leading up to this even though we haven't seen a team come from nowhere to win the national championship that's never won it before. The funny thing is, it's like, how many more guys could it possibly be? We've set a record this year. The trend has always been growing, but it just keeps happening. Either (the NHL) is digging even deeper to get guys, or the recruiting has improved and they're just taking them faster. It's a shame when RPI and Harvard lose guys, because they don't have much margin for error. RPI in particular, that was a bad one, but unfortunately, Harvard's going to have a huge drop off.

WaP: Well, hopefully you don't have to feel too bad for us.

AW: They should still be OK, but obviously, D'Amigo's a big loss. He wasn't really lights out for (the Engineers), but he was certainly on his way to becoming that for them. He was going to probably be one of the elite players in the nation this year. But overall, the trend is definitely leveling the playing feels. To some extent, you might say that's good looking at it from that standpoint. We did have the feeling in the late 1990s and early 2000s that the rich were getting richer. It does help in that regard, but it helps in a way you wish it wasn't helping for the overall picture.

WaP: Turning to the ECAC... who's going to beat Yale?

AW: Well, I thought it was going to be RPI!

WaP: Do we still have a shot?

AW: I was talking to Ken Schott, and I probably still would have picked Yale regardless. He was saying "oh, who's the favorite now," and I hadn't been aware that RPI was to begin with, but they'll be contenders. If (Yale) gets any semblance of goaltending this year, they'll be fine. If they'd had any to speak of last year they would have been in the Frozen Four.

WaP: How about Boston College? Can anyone beat them nationally?

AW: It's so easy to say that the national champion is going to be the team to beat, but we were talking about it on the way back from Detroit last season, thinking about the top 10 for this year and (BC) was so clearly number one. They have so many players coming back that they're heads and shoulders. But we've seen before that things don't necessarily play out like that. There have been years where teams that have seemed to be so clear-cut number one all year long have something happen and they dive bomb at the end. There are no foregone conclusions, but you'd be crazy not to pick them number one if you're doing a ranking.

WaP: They're so far ahead just in Hockey East, and then you look at some of the other elite teams around the country and they're far ahead there too.

AW: Michigan State loses three underclassmen, Michigan has been losing guys to the NHL and major junior, Notre Dame's had a rough offseason and then Tinordi bails out. Wisconsin got hammered. North Dakota's probably in the mix, though. At this point you just have to thumb through the top programs and find out who's lost the least. Going back to the ECAC, though, I would not overlook Cornell. They will take a step back and I'm not sure they're going to make the NCAA's but they're not going to plummet or anything.

WaP: They're Cornell. They're never that far from the top even when they're having a down season.

AW: The key is their new goalie (Andy Iles). He put up better numbers on the Under-18 team than Jack Campbell did last year. We'll see what happens. He's 5'8" which is practically unheard of at Cornell, but he's a local guy (from Ithaca). If he does anything, they'll be fine. They're not going to compete as well nationally. But do you know who my dark horse is nationally this year? Merrimack.

WaP: Merrimack?

AW: (chuckles) Yeah. My dark horse to make the NCAAs.

WaP: Bombshell. How do you think the WCHA realignment is going to play out?

AW: Obviously, Bemidji State will instantly have rivalries and whatnot. Nebraska-Omaha's a little bit outside that scope, but with (UNO coach) Dean Blais coming back into the league they'll find their way into the mix pretty quick. It only makes the WCHA stronger, as if they really needed to be stronger, so it's a little crazy, but now they've got even more teams to beat each other up with. It remains to be seen what kind of effect that has for them on the national level, whether it helps or hurt them. I'm more interested to see how the three new coaches in the CCHA (at Bowling Green, Ohio State, and Western Michigan) work out. We won't be able to tell this year, but Western and Bowling Green, if they can get their act together and start competing for the same types of players Miami is getting, we might see the CCHA have some more compelling races. They've been a pretty top-heavy league for a number of years.