It gets a little old.

Did anyone notice that the CCHA apologists are getting a little defensive about people questioning the strength of their league? While no one is questioning the fact that there are three to four decent teams in the CCHA, the jury is still out on Notre Dame. It has become very apparent that the media pundants can't seem to see past the eastern time zone.

Paula Weston has this rant last week during her weekly picks. Classic.

How to Announce Your Presence with Authority in One Easy Step So, you’re playing in a league that some people call fluffy because the conference name doesn’t begin with a “W” and you rarely play regular-season games in New England.

Even though your fourth-place team from a year ago took the national championship. Even though your two first-place teams are Nos. 1 and 2 in the nation. Even though four of your top teams grace the top 10 nationally.

What’s a top team in such a conference to do?

Beat who you’re supposed to beat. Crush ‘em if you can.

The CCHA’s top three teams swept their competition last week in most convincing ways. Collectively, Michigan, Miami and Michigan State outscored Notre Dame, Lake Superior State and Ohio State 27-5.

Except for Michigan beating Notre Dame (8th RPI), I can admit that was remotely impressive, I am not impressed with them beating the likes of LSSU (45) and OSU (46). Infact the bottom feeders of the CCHA are sitting just below the likes of hockey powerhouses, RIT, RMU and Air Force. If you break this down even further the 10th place team in the WCHA is still ranked ahead of the 5th place team in the CCHA. How can that be if the CCHA is such a powerful league. Talk about stuffing your scheudle with a bunch of cup cakes. One could actually make the argument for the EZAC being more balanced than the CCHA.

Elliot Olshansky goes off on the WCHA fans for even thinking about questioning the strenght of the paper tiger the CCHA.

A few thoughts before I start with the Rankings for this week: I'm getting sick and tired of certain people - and by "certain people" I mean fans of certain WCHA teams - using strength of schedule as a reason why a CCHA team shouldn't be No. 1 in the country. They say it as if poll voters merely look at results, records, and statistics when filling out their ballots, so that the argument for Miami or Michigan is easier to assault. "Well, sure Miami has the top offense in the country. Look whom they've been scoring on!" "Of course Michigan has only lost three times this season. They haven't played anyone!" I'll you this, folks: I drove past a lot of farms during my travels in Ohio earlier this month, and those farms would have a fine use for thinking like that: fertilizer.

It's not just whether a team wins or loses, but how and why they win or lose. Records are nice, but it's the talents, abilities, and discipline that produced those records that determine what kind of a team it is and just how good it is. That's what I look at when I watch teams to determine the Rink Rat Rankings, and I'd imagine it's what a number of the poll voters look at, too. And based on my evaluations of the teams - NOT THEIR RECORDS - this is how I see the Rink Rat Rankings.

I could fertilized most of the farm land in North Dakota and half of South Dakota with some of the stuff I have read from self appointed hockey experts. It is a two way street.

Jim Dahl from Siouxsports points out an interesting fact about Miami's strenght of schedule and how it affects their RPI.

Combined with the extension of the negative win exemption to the regular season, the easiest path to the top of the RPI seems to be schedule creampuffs and beat them. Miami currently has a comical 8 games thrown out of their RPI calculation for being negative wins, and 6 of the remaining 8 would currently be thrown out if won.