John Whelan wrote:
>
>Greg Berge writes
>
>> 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.
>
>I assume the reason they'd vote against it would be that 16/52 is still above the
>NC$$'s official maxmum for percentage of teams in the tournament.  You know,
>"the rule of law" and all that.
 
I found some pertinent information on the NCAA website at
 
http://www.ncaa.org/news/19980427/active/3517n02.html
 
>The (Division I management) Council also received reports from the other three cabinets, including a request from the
>Championships/Competition Cabinet to support bracket expansion in baseball, women's volleyball, women's soccer, women's
>softball and men's and women's cross country.
>
>The Council agreed with the cabinet's position that increasing the number of opportunities for student-athletes should receive
>the Business/Finance Cabinet's highest priority during its review of discretionary funds within the Association's 1998-99
>general operating budget.
>
>The Council also encouraged the cabinet to continue reviewing the possible expansion of brackets in other sports based upon
>the consistent application of objective criteria.
 
 
The second paragraph should be encouraging for the supporters of expansion; the third should be
rather discouraging.  When I checked last year, hockey had the highest percentage of teams
making the tournament of any Division I team sport.  The Management Council and the
Championships/Competition Cabinet have not shown any indication that getting rid of byes is a
high priority (the expansion in women's soccer was from 32 to 48, I believe).  On the other
hand, most requests for bracket expansion from a sport's committee (the Division I Hockey
Committee in this case) seem to be granted.
 
 
On a similar note, Edward N. Moller wrote:
 
> History shows us that accepting the hockey schools' consensus is hardly a
> given.  It is the UNC's of the world that have placed a limit on 18 scholarships
> for hockey while allowing basketball to have a limit of 15 scholarships.  It
> just shows how little they understand our game, and they have absolutely no
> desire to develop any understanding.  The 18 scholarship limit is surpassed if,
> as most teams do, you skate four lines of forwards, three lines of defense, and
> carry two goalies.  Meanwhile, how many NC$$ basketball teams go more than five
> deep on their bench?
 
Well...the reduction from 20 to 18 scholarships was part of an across-the-board reduction of
men's scholarships by 10%.  Football was reduced from 95 to 85; Basketball from 15 to 13 (and
later raised to 14 after John Thompson vehemently objected); Baseball was cut from 13 to 11.7
scholarships, even though most competitive teams carry about 35 players and travel with a
minimum of 22.
 
The 10% across-the-board reduction was during one of those periods when the university
presidents wanted to appear to be "doing something" to improve college athletics.  It was about
the same time that there was a move to limit playing schedules (Baseball from 70 to 56; Hockey
from 38 to 34, etc.)
 
 
 
 
Alton Hollingsworth
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.