-- [ From: Kepler * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
 
> a nutshell it says that the NCAA Championship Cabinet will vote next week
on a
> proposal from the Ice Hockey committee to expand the tourney and go to
four
> regional sites for the 2000 tourney.
 
So, evidentally that body is composed of representatives from schools
without hockey.
 
Interesting couple of paragraphs, especially the contention (quoted from
Marsh of SLU) that there's unanimity among the coaches for a sweet 16.  One
might think that the perpetual top 10's would want to keep things the way
they are.
 
Wonder if they might throw in consies to up the attendance?  It might be fun
to see two quality teams play with nothing but pride on the line -- and
showcasing for the scouts.
  But either way, regionals (and 16) would be a lot of fun, if it passes.
 
Why wouldn't it?  Let's say you're the UNC rep on the committee.  The only
ice you've ever seen is in your drinks, and you couldn't care less if the
hockey tourny is 16, 12, or 0.  Skirting the issue of why you're voting at
all, what would be the rationale for not simply accepting the hockey
schools' consensus, whatever it was?  There's obstinacy I suppose, but I
would think the political log-rolling instinct would be far stronger.
 
 
 
 
--
 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
*  Greg Berge
*  Portland, Oregon
*  [log in to unmask]
*  www.spiritone.com/~kepler
*
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.