Perhaps the "how many other than 12" annual debate would be different if
NC$$ hockey had "secondary" tournaments for "post-season" as in hoops and
football.
 
To illustrate:  I was speaking with a friend in New Jersey and asked her if
she thought Rutgers would be in the basketball round of 64 if they could
get to 20 wins.  Her reply was interesting:  it would be better for the
team this year if they were NOT in the NC$$ tournament, but made the NIT's
instead.  That way, they would get 1-2 home games, likely play more
postseason games, and make more $$.  This was opposed to being "on the
bubble" in the round of 64, and a likely 12-14 seed with the prospect of
being sent out of the area, and in a bracket against a team who could
easily send them home after one game.
 
In football, the proliferation of bowls almost guarantees a trip to the
postseason for any team with 8 victories in 1-AA.
 
Hockey's problem, and the reason why there is this annual wailing and
gnashing of teeth on HOCKEY-L is that if a team fails to make the round of
12, then that's the end.
 
Hockey's conference championships are really like more games in the season,
as teams know they will play those games, and have to factor them into
their annual game limits.  Since the seeding arrangements I have seen favor
the higher ranked teams so the "cinderella" factor is almost non-existent,
though.
 
I only wish there were somebody with the deep pockets to make a "hockey
NIT" feasible, but I think not.  If so, this annual thread would, I
believe, nearly go away.
 
 
 
Dan Doucette
 
***  Isn't it fitting someone named Garth Snow is playing  ***
***            for a hockey team in Canada   ???           ***
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.