JMB

Sure, for the player it's a great investment to have that money compounding year after year, rather than going to school and playing college hockey. But let's remember, pro contracts are a two-way street. A player can't just say "I'm going pro" and guarantee himself the contract he wants. If the club doesn't feel he's ready, they don't have to offer him a contract to sign - it's not as if they'd lose his rights. As far as developing in college, I would say that the majority of the players that play college hockey and do make it to the pros, significantly develop during their time at their chosen University. Since that is the case, with the current cash strapped NHL that we have in existence today, why wouldn't a club let a player develop for free in college? I agree with the notion that a player will develop more in AHL hockey vs. college hockey, but I don't think it's the extreme difference that were making it out to be. If it was, guys wouldn't succeed at all (at least at first) when they went from college to AHL hockey. The fact is, players who are good in college, tend to be good in the AHL, and players who are great in college, tend to be great in the AHL (at least before they jump to the NHL). Plus, how often do you really think the NHL coach and GM are actively watching games played by the AHL club? Probably no more than they watch games where there players are playing in college hockey. How many AHL games have you seen on TV lately? I know that more college games are aired than AHL games on an annual basis (at least in the Twin Cities).

By the way, what is Roy's problem with the national anthem? I've lost a great deal of respect that I used to have for Roy as a hockey player, since I notice he doesn't take his helmet off for the national anthem. I understand he's French Canadian, so it's not necessarily "his" national anthem, but the last time I checked he plays for a team that is in Colorado, and his salary is from American citizens paying for tickets, programs, concessions, etc. If it's that much of a problem to show some respect, then tell the f***er to go play hockey in Canada and never come back. BTW, I've never rooted as much for one team to lose as I am for Colorado to lose to ANYONE (but especially the Wild).

Mankato finished 2nd in the WCHA. Just because they lost 2 games in the Final 5 (one to a team that finished tied with them in the standings), doesn't mean you ignore the rest of the season and award a tournament berth to another team. Besides, the argument that St. Cloud and Duluth were fairly equal doesn't hold water. If Duluth played better at the beginning of the year, and played a better schedule, then they'd have an argument. The fact is they didn't, and they paid for it at the end of the year. Here's probably the best example of WHY strength-of-schedule is incorporated into NCAA selection process. Given the following three teams, who should make the tournament (only pick one): Team A: 22-13-1 (.625 winning %) Team B: 22-10-2 (.676 winning %) Team C: 20-8-9 (.662 winning %)

I can't see Riddle playing pro hockey right now. He needs to get more size before he's ready. He's shown his ability to skate and score, but for really only this last season. I think he comes back next year to play for MN.

I agree with your post regarding the use of KRACH vs. RPI and about Duluth. The only reason, IMO, that Duluth even deserved consideration was because of the way they played "down the stretch" compared to St. Cloud. But the argument by USCHO regarding Duluth and SCSU clearly indicates that they did not deserve to make the NCAA field. Just because Duluth was playing better the last few weeks of the season, doesn't mean that they were the better OVERALL team. Duluth did in fact win more head-to-head matchups (4-3) this season, but it's not like they beat them all 7 times. Here's the season series between UMD and SCSU (without the 1st round of the WCHA playoffs): 11/22/2002, St. Cloud State 3 @ Minnesota-Duluth 2 11/23/2002, Minnesota-Duluth 4 @ St. Cloud State 2 01/24/2003. Minnesota-Duluth 2 @ St. Cloud State 3 01/24/2003, St. Cloud State 1 @ Minnesota-Duluth 3 Before the playoffs, they split the games, then Duluth won the playoff series 2-1. Does it logically make any sense for us to consider these games less than we do the games in March? No, it doesn't. Fact of the matter is that those teams playing well down the stretch deserve no more consideration than teams that play well at the beginning of the year. The NCAA playoffs should be for those teams that play well ALL year, not just for part of it. And yes, Duluth played well all year (22-15-5), but their non-conference schedule included Notre Dame (twice), Lakehead, Bemidji State (twice), Union (twice) and Rensselaer (twice). In these games they went 5-3-1, so they didn't exactly "light 'em up" in non-conference play.