WCHA Makes Waves With Odd Playoff Idea

Normally, I'm all for thinking outside the proverbial box. To me, a sports league can make good things happen by trying it, no differently than a sports team can.

(Yes, some ideas -- the A-11 offense, for example -- are almost examples of trying too hard. But at least it's outside-the-box thinking.)

The remnants of the Western Collegiate Hockey Association met this week in Detroit, with plenty of items on the agenda. Due to be discussed were, among other things, a playoff format, tournament site, expansion plans, the regular season schedule format once the league goes to nine teams, and other stuff.

The league put out a press release after the meetings were concluded (no, the press release wasn't put out a month after the meeting, at least as far as we know).

While I tend to disagree with a 28-game schedule format after talking to a bunch of people about the issue in the last 14 months, I can live with it. The eloquent Chris Dilks provides probably the best argument in favor.

I'd rather watch two games against league rivals competing for points to win a league championship than watch two teams that play once a decade fighting it out for hundredths of a percentage point in some convoluted math formula for a spot in a comically short postseason tournament. Non-conference games are never as hard-fought and entertaining as conference games.

I still don't think I agree from a logistical, "How can we get more teams in the tournament?" sense. But Chris is right when he says non-conference games aren't normally as much fun for fans.

The really controversial part of the WCHA plan was revealed later in the week. And, boy, did Bruce McLeod and company hit a home run if they were trying to irk his league's fans.

For this, we'll call on Jack Hittinger of the .Bemidji Pioneer

Bemidji State athletic director Rick Goeb Thursday confirmed that all nine of the league’s teams would make the playoffs and that the regular-season champion would receive a bye into the Final Five.

That much could have been gleaned from the press release the league released Thursday afternoon.

What wasn’t on the press release, however, was the fact that the Alaska schools would be playing each other every year – regardless of league finish – unless one of them got that first-round bye.

Yikes.

Minnesota State athletic director Kevin Buisman told my buddy Shane Frederick that "nothing is forever," and there are indications this plan is not at all a permanent solution.

We can only hope.

I'm not a financial expert, and I'm not one for telling other people how to spend their money. That said, if the decision has been made to maintain a hockey program and form this league, people need to understand that competitive equity matters. So does integrity.

And a nine-team league where the No. 6 team could get home ice advantage in the first round, while the No. 3 team is on the road ... well, that's not right. Or smart.

I certainly can understand the desire to save a chunk of money on plane tickets, but if money is that tight, the WCHA should stop looking at the XCel Energy Center for its postseason tournament. It's better off at campus sites until the league can gain some footing. It's the best way to sell tickets, right?

In all seriousness, cost-cutting is certainly key here, but the price being paid with this idea -- postseason tournament integrity -- is way too high.

I'm hopeful the league can work this out and create a situation where it can be financially viable and maintain a sort of competitive balance.

The other playoff proposal -- the top seed gets a bye to the WCHA Final Five -- is interesting. If I were a coach, I wouldn't be a huge fan of a weekend off before I play a Friday semifinal game that could decide my NCAA chances (I do believe there will be years where the WCHA is a one-bid league, and the top seed needs to win the tourney to secure its spot). Perhaps there's a way around it, like some sort of deal with the NTDP that allows the Under-18 team to play the league champion at least once on that off weekend?

(That's out of my mind, not anyone else's. I'd consider it if I were the WCHA, only because it would remove a bye week that could cause rust at a really bad time for rust. The bye week before the Frozen Four is different, because everyone has it.)

There's more to come. The WCHA is going to listen to Alabama-Huntsville, and with leagues now setting up at fewer than 12 teams, it'll be interesting to see if anyone outside the 58-school "fraternity" looks to add Division I hockey.

The WCHA could easily alleviate some cost concerns if someone in the upper Midwest adds the sport, because the more teams in the WCHA, the fewer that have to travel to Alaska twice a season. That would help reduce some cost. UAH could help, too, thanks to speculation it would help subsidize travel for the seven teams that would head to Huntsville during the season.

WIAA Passes Bad Idea This Time

A couple weeks ago, we noted that the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletics Association was on the verge of putting a bad idea in as a new statewide rule.

The state's governing body for high school sports tried to push a bad idea on its member schools last year, but they were unsuccessful.

This time, the WIAA got its wish. It's board approved a proposed change to the football calendar, one that will start the regular season one week earlier than usual. Instead of starting the last Friday in August, teams will play Week 1 in the middle of the month.

It means teams in Wisconsin will have three games played before school even starts, and it has a lot of other bad parts to it.

• Coaches who are already not making nearly enough money for the work they put in will have to start their practices five days earlier than usual, meaning that much more work during what should be summer vacation. This is along with recent changes that allowed for organized team workouts for a period during the summer months.
• Teams will have to play in what is typically very warm weather -- at least by Wisconsin standards. Many times, games played early in the season are stopped for mandatory water breaks. Now, this will happen more often, slowing the pace of games and putting more players at risk for heat-related problems, whether it be in practices or games.

The basis for the move is somewhat understandable, as the schedule had teams playing three games in ten days should they advance to the second round of the Wisconsin playoffs. Instead of pushing the season back a week, and sending championship football teams more into an overlap with winter sports practice schedules, the board chose to possibly inconvenience football coaches a bit by having them start their season earlier.

Of course, as we noted when we first brought you this story, the state's coaches seemed split over whether the "three games in ten days" issue was really a problem to begin with.

Now, we'll see how they like starting earlier, and if it's worth a little less strain on the athletes in the late fall to make this switch with the calendar.

The WIAA's Annual Bad Idea

Last summer, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletics Association tried to implement what was obviously not a very good idea.

Their plan to realign the state's high school football universe into districts instead of conferences was voted down, but that didn't stop the association from doing more potential damage to the sport.

This summer's bad idea also involves football. The WIAA wants to find a way to take away the cluster of games that teams are stuck with as the playoffs begin. Currently, the state's teams play their final regular season games on a Thursday night, then open the playoffs on the following Tuesday. Second-round games are scheduled for Saturday of that same week, giving teams who reach the second round three games over a ten-day stretch.

Since they're high school-aged athletes, the WIAA thinks this might be too much. They're looking at a plan that would start the regular season one week earlier. While this might seem reasonable, it shortens the offseason for coaches who are already strained and stretched thin with the implementation of summer workouts for teams.

It also means one-third of the regular season will be played before Labor Day, and therefore before school starts in the state.

The state's coaches association is seeking a better solution.

The WFCA sent a letter to the state's high school sports governing body this week asking it to reopen discussions about how to change the football calendar to eliminate the 10-day stretch in which playoff teams play three games.

The communication comes in the wake of a Board of Control vote last week to move ahead the start of the season five days beginning in 2011, a decision the WFCA fears will cut into the numbers of struggling programs and possibly cause coaches to leave the business. The WFCA also asked for the opportunity to work with the WIAA to find another solution.

"We right now have the expertise of a large number of school administrators and WIAA people and coaches who are pretty darn sharp," WFCA executive director Dick Rundle said. "And to think that we couldn't sit down and come up with a better solution is unbelievable."

Down time for coaches in all sports has shrunk since the WIAA approved limited summer contact in all sports. For football coaches, summer vacation is even shorter because of summer conditioning and the start of practice, which eliminates August vacation time.

When the WIAA put this plan in place, they did it with a half-assed survey of the member schools. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article explains, the survey didn't thoroughly get an analysis of what schools were thinking about this situation.

This spring, schools were sent a survey with four options: start earlier, eliminate Week 9 and play eight regular-season games, move the state championship games back one week or cut the playoff field in half to 112 teams.

Instead of asking if there was a problem with the current schedule, the WIAA decided there was a problem with the schedule, without asking the football people around the state -- the coaches -- what they thought.

Thing is, the WIAA might be right. There might be a problem. In Minnesota, the state championship is one week later -- Thanksgiving weekend -- than it is in Wisconsin. This is due to their regular season being a week shorter, starting a week later, and the fact there is an extra round of playoffs before the title games (this is because all the teams make the playoffs, while half of the teams in Wisconsin do). They still have the issue of games scrunched together, but the last week of their regular season is played on a Wednesday, for the most part. That means there are three games in 11 days, which is a little more acceptable than three in ten days.

Is it so simple to fix this? Should Wisconsin move the last week of their regular season to Wednesday night?

How about cutting the playoff field? Do we really need a glut of 5-4 teams in the postseason because they finished 4-4 in league play and no one else was good enough to qualify? Even if you want to let more than 200 teams in the postseason, is it that bad to hold the state finals one week later? Yes, the games are played at an outdoor facility -- Madison's Camp Randall Stadium -- but does one week make that big a difference in the weather?

Probably not.

The state owes it to its member schools to listen to the concerns of the coaches. These guys are largely volunteers, only receiving a smallish amount of money to put in big-time hours during the season, and this move would increase those hours because it would elongate the season.

It's not necessary, and let's hope the WIAA listens. They did turn down the bad idea last year, and this bad idea needs to go by the wayside as well.

College Hockey Coaches Want to Fight the Good Fight

Late last week, a series of proposals approved for use in college hockey came to light. The proposals -- set for formal approval in July -- would change rules in college hockey that some say don't need to be changed.

It's not just fans who are upset about the proposed changes, which include teams not being allowed to ice the puck while shorthanded, and an increase in the minimum penalty for contact to the head. Some of the changes are agreeable. Others aren't.

According to WCHA media colleague Brad Elliott Schlossman, coaches are perturbed -- downright angry -- over the icing rule.

“I think it’s just a crime,” Bemidji State coach Tom Serratore said. “I’ve been in college hockey for 18 years and I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. It was almost unanimous for the entire coaching body. How can the committee overturn the entire coaching body? I think it’s sad, the lack of respect that the committee had for the coaching body.

“We didn’t spend any time even talking about it because it was so radical. We just voted 12-0 and moved on.”

Both Serratore and UND coach Dave Hakstol raised several concerns.

One is the safety issue. Since players are not allowed to change after an icing call, a player could be stuck on the ice for two or three minutes straight on a penalty kill.

Another concern is that the icing rule hasn’t been tried on an experimental basis to determine if it works. No North American hockey league uses it.

“It’s quite a shock,” Hakstol said. “I haven’t said much, but I’m going to speak my mind on this. I’m upset about us not having a say in it as a Division I coaching body. On a national basis, we were very strongly against it, if not unanimously against it.

“I’d be in favor of having some language that would allow us to experiment with a couple things in exhibition games. I’d like to be able to make some more educated decisions. But we haven’t tried these rules. They’ve never been tried at a high level. And if this change is made, it’s a two-year commitment.”

The NCAA is in a position to be a guinea pig for other hockey leagues, and that's not something the NCAA is known for doing.

The biggest issue here, to me, is what I brought up in my FanHouse piece.

What is this going to do to officiating?

Some fans have problems with the way games are called when they're late and close. That's not going to get any better when you add a tool to the game that will make power plays more dangerous and make power play goals more commonplace.

Officials will swallow their whistles, using the old addage of letting players decide the outcome of games, especially if power play percentages go up more than the five to ten percent I expect they will rise.

Schlossman heard from Hakstol on the contact to the head rule, too, but Hakstol -- who lost his captain to a concussion on a dirty, illegal, and embarrassingly mishandled hit in November -- didn't say anything notable there. Hakstol is right that we don't need to take hitting out of the game, and we have to be careful to do that.

Frankly, I'm more worried that we won't take the headshots out of the game, because mandating majors be called for those hits won't exactly encourage officials to call the penalty more often.

Monday, Schlossman posted on his blog about an effort to stop at least the icing rule from going into effect.

"We're trying to find out if, before it goes to the oversight committee, there's recourse or if there can be a re-vote based on the merits of the argument that we'd like to put forward," WCHA commish Bruce McLeod said. "Hopefully, we have some recourse."

McLeod said that if it can't be completely reversed, the commissioners are hoping that the icing rule can be changed to an experiment for exhibition games instead of a full-time basis for the next two seasons.

Schlossman reports that the coaches are also displeased about the rule that would allow a team that scores on a delayed penalty to still go on a power play. That rule is so dumb it barely merits mention.

Remember, these rules are put in place for two years if they are passed. It increases the urgency for the coaches to stop the bad ideas from being implemented.

That's a long time to be stuck with someone else's crappy ideas.

The NFL Could Be Making A Mistake

Earlier this week, you probably read my thoughts on the decision Sunday by the Indianapolis Colts.

While I still think it was a stupid thing for the Colts to do, the NFL might be on the verge of trumping their stupidity.

It seems common sense that there will be teams who don't take Week 17 games seriously. It's happened for many years, and it's hard to think anyone would want to stop it. While the integrity of the sport is extremely important, so is common sense.

If you're, say, the Green Bay Packers, who have clinched a spot in the NFC's postseason tournament, why on Earth would you play starters deep into a game against Arizona that means nothing? The best Green Bay can hope for is the fifth seed in the NFC, which nets them a path to the Super Bowl that consists of road games. Same deal for the sixth seed. There is no tangible benefit, outside of the very slight chance to host the NFC Championship should the fifth and sixth seeds advance through.

This makes sense, right?

Then why would the NFL's Competition Committee look at somehow forcing teams to play healthy starters?

"This is an issue that we have reviewed in the past. The position of the competition committee, and affirmed by the clubs, when it was reviewed in 2005 was that 'a team that has clinched its division title has earned the right to rest its starters for the postseason, and that preparing for the postseason is just as important as protecting some other team's playoff opportunity.' That is the current policy," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

"We are aware of the fan reaction and that is a factor to be considered," he continued. "Some teams that have everything clinched, like the Giants and Patriots two years ago, choose to play all out to continue or gain momentum for the playoffs. We expect to continue to review this issue."

I'll save you the trouble.

Let teams do what they want.

I stand by my comments on the Colts. They threw a winnable game, and a chance to make history, so their starters could get some much-needed rest. The bottom line is that they decided the starters needed to come out of the Jets game in order for the Colts to stay on track for a Super Bowl title, even though they've lost in the divisional playoffs the last three times they procured a first-round bye and proceeded to half-ass one or more regular-season games.

It's just not something the league should intervene on.

If you don't want to be stuck relying on the Colts to beat someone to help you make the playoffs, win more games. It's not the Colts' problem.

In 2003, Vikings fans screamed bloody murder when the Broncos chose to half-ass a Week 17 game with Green Bay. We all know how that ended up for Minnesota, who needed to win because the Packers had won easily.



That's still an all-time classic.

Anyway, you should have heard Vikings fans on my radio show the next day. You would have thought Brett Favre and Mike Sherman had paid the Broncos off.

This wasn't a shot at the integrity of the game, nor was it a grand injustice against a team that started the season 6-0 and still managed to miss the playoffs.

The bottom line was that Denver earned the chance to rest starters before a road wild card game the next week. They did that by winning enough games to make the playoffs. The Packers have earned that right this week, and they should feel no obligation toward the Vikings, Dallas Cowboys, or anyone else on the planet. If they feel the need to bench Aaron Rodgers, Ryan Grant, or anyone else for any portion of the game -- or the whole damn thing -- it's fine.

And that's the way it should be.

Now, if you already have a first-round bye, it's pretty stupid to be sitting guys in Week 16. It locks that you're going to sit them in Week 17, and then they have a week off. Do you really want them screwing around for three weeks before a win-or-go-home divisional playoff game against a foe who won the week before and doesn't have any rust to shake off?

But, again, that's not the NFL's decision to make.

You can't legislate stupidity. That said, you can legislate stupidly. That's where the NFL might be going here. They need to tread carefully.

WIAA Concocts Bad Idea

Bad ideas happen.

Our lovely world is full of them.

Astro-turf. "The Bachelor". Governor Sarah Palin.

You can now add the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association's new "Football District Proposal" to the list.

You can classify this one as a well-meaning thought, but an attempt to fix something that isn't really broken.

In Wisconsin, high school football playoffs are not automatic for every team. Schools must qualify by having a record of .500 or better in conference play. Instead of going through with the idea of having everyone qualify for the playoffs (any fan of Minnesota high school football that is tired of seeing 58-0 running-time blowouts in the first round of section playoffs would understand why this is being avoided in Wisconsin), a plan to divide the seven-division state further into districts was hatched.

The basics:

* The 64 largest schools would be played in Division 1, then those schools would be divided geographically into eight districts.

* Teams would start the regular season with a non-district game against an opponent of their choosing, followed by seven games against other teams in their district.

* For teams finishing in the top four in their district, Week 9 would become a playoff week (Level 1). Two districts would be paired together, with the first-place team in one district meeting the fourth-place team in the other, and so on.

* For teams finishing in the bottom four in their district, Week 9 would become a final regular-season game, scheduled after Week 8 by the WIAA and pairing each team against a non-qualifier from a neighboring district, based mostly on geography.

* The earlier start of first-round playoff games would change two scheduling quirks: a) Teams would no longer play Week 9 games on Wednesdays and Thursdays; b) The traditional Tuesday round of Level 1 play would be eliminated.

* Each playoff-qualifying team would play one fewer game overall, due to the shift of Level 1 playoff games to Week 9. Non-qualifiers would still play nine games.

The WIAA website outlines the positives of such a plan.

• Schools would be in districts based on enrollment.

• Groupings would be developed using criteria similar to that applied to other sports.

• Week one games can be used to schedule traditional or historical games.

• Schools will only be required to find one non-district game, which is the common week one.

• All games during the season would be played on Friday or Saturday with some exceptions when travel may be a consideration.

• Schools would have nine games with seven district games and a week nine game guaranteed.

• Competition levels in week nine games would be comparable and competitive.

• Coaches would know ahead of time who their playoff opponents might be.

• Travel costs can be reduced by scheduling non-varsity games within a region and having eight district games.

I'm all for finding ways to reduce travel costs. Everyone is facing that reality in today's world, especially school systems.

However, eliminating chances for kids to compete at a high level and test themselves is not the way around this.

Not only does this district proposal do away with the traditional conferences that dot the state, but it also encourages programs to be lazy and not push themselves. I know it's just high school athletics, but Wisconsin football didn't gain national legitimacy by housing a bunch of lazy programs.

Are there teams that "play down" to a league with a ton of lower-division teams? Sure. No denying that. There are also numerous teams (hi, Rice Lake!) that "play up" to a league with higher-division teams. In Rice Lake's case, they're generally competitive in the Big Rivers, which is a great thing for them.

I'm a huge fan of conferences, and I'm a huge fan of mixing things up for section playoffs. One of the rules of WIAA playoff bracketing (as it stands now, that is) prohibits conference foes from meeting in the first round.

If the WIAA wants to help teams fill scheduling holes, they should do a better job of encouraging teams to play a full nine-game schedule, and to work with in-state schools to fill scheduling holes. Kids who sign up to play and put in the time in a football program deserve the most that can be offered. If the best a program can offer is that they'll play the full nine games every season, then so be it. But they should at least do that.

I don't like potentially taking away traditional conference (and non-conference) rivalries. I don't like making teams choose which non-district opponent they're going to keep.

It's simply not a necessary move, and I hope the WIAA votes this down.

Favre Mania in Twin Cities

At this point, the fine towns of Minneapolis and St. Paul would probably be inclined to throw the guy a ticker-tape parade the day he shows up.

For the time being, however, they choose to fellate Brett Favre through the media.

By reporting on him practically every day.

Here's the latest. Bear in mind that this comes from Charley Walters, who would probably be lucky to hit .500 on his "scoops". If true, it shows just how much of an idiot Brad Childress really is.

Latest word is that 40 percent of the Vikings' playbook is being customized for the pending signing of quarterback Brett Favre.

You read that right, fans. The Minnesota Vikings are catering to a 40-year-old, noodle-armed quarterback who has thrown 84 interceptions over the last four seasons.

(Of course, since the Vikings playbook consists of "Run AP left", "Run AP up the middle", "Run AP right", "throw long", and "punt", they're only customizing two plays. That's not a big deal, I guess.)

Good luck with that, Purple People.