The analysis and insight that various posters provide at this time of
the season  is really helpful in understanding the whole selection and
seeding process. After reading all of what's been discussed the past
couple of days, though, it seems inconsistent that the tournament
committee is a 'slave to the numbers' when selecting the field, but then
downplays that when it comes to seeding, to the point of devaluing what
all the teams have accomplished over a 30-40 game season.
 
Some observations to illustrate the point:
 
1- Automatic bids/byes -- Presumably this is a case of escalating
rewards (RS champ=bid, tourn. champ=bid, both=bye). But (and please
understand, I'm not advocating or attacking any particular team, just
using this year as an example) such a formula can lead to bumping a team
out of a very advantageous spot that was earned over the course of an
entire season. Realistically, it's virtually impossible for the RS champ
not to be in the field of 12 anyway (I know, the MAAC scenario, but
since this has been thoroughly discussed already, let's take it as a
given that they're not in the mix), so there's really no reason to
assign an automatic bid. A bid to the conference tournament champs?
Well, it allows for the 'wild card' element that everyone seems to
enjoy. But the automatic bye potentially has far too much impact. My
opinion -- seed by the numbers.
 
2- Intra-conference match-ups -- so what? The tournament is about 12
teams competing to find out who's #1, not about how many new or
different opponents each can play. I expect that any of the teams would
rather be given credit for their season's performance by an appropriate
seed, than be concerned with who a future opponent might be. First round
match-ups can almost always be controlled by swapping 5&6 in each
region. As far as 2nd rounds go, after watching BU-UNH in Albany last
year, I don't see why this is considered a problem; that was arguably
the best game of the 4 ( a little of that good old 'familiarity breeds
contempt' intensity spices up any game!). My opinion -- again, seed by
the numbers.
 
3- Swapping regions -- certainly a good method for adding variety and
serving to avoid 1st round intra-conference match-ups. But why not have
a set formula: 3&4 stay put, 5&6 move. This gives value to the season
accomplishments of each team without  making the regional format too
parochial.
 
I guess what I'm saying is, let the 12 teams' play on the ice -- both
during the season and during the tournament -- determine who's #1,
without being influenced by any other agendas, be they  attendance or
intra-conference play or anything else.
 
In any event, Worcester"s gonna be great!
 
Rich
 
 
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand."
                                                    --   Homer Simpson
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.