>Also, Comley stressed that they are committed to the regional concept,so
>they are doing everything they can to make it work. "Rewarding" MSU an RPI
>with home ice is one part of this process.
 
OK with all the talk about RPI and Michigan State being awarded home ice, let's
pose the fundamental question:  Why does the NC$$ continue to move out the five
and sixes from each region?  I thought the original idea was related to the
historical dearth of quality teams from the East, permitting the West to get an
additional team in, but at the cost of having that team travel out of region.
This probably isn't right.  Perhaps it has to do with evening up the
competitiveness at each regional site?
 
Anyway, here's Rick Comley expressing the NC$$'s support for the "regional
concept".  I'm not going to note that the "concept" has already been prejudiced
by the return to campu$ $ite$ in the West, but I will call into question his
reasoning.  Let me make my point: there was nothing wrong in allowing RPI and
MSU to play at their home or near-home arenas.  What was wrong was
gerrymandering the tournament to accomodate them!
 
This year the Committee picked the top 12 teams in the nation.  Those 12 teams
were nicely split with 6 teams residing in the East and 6 teams residing in the
West.  I didn't do an "average RPI" for each region but I would suspect
they were close.  Certainly the top four teams are evenly divided, as well as
the bottom four.  So why the manipulation?  What was the raison d'etre for
sending Wisconsin to the Knick, and the Chiefs to Munn?
 
Had the Committee simply put seeded the teams in order, you would arrive at
6 teams in the West and 6 teams in the East with neither region's draw
perceptibly easier.  Attendance would not be affected since the Knick looks to
be booming, even without the Engineers, and Munn would sell-out with the
addition of M-State, not to mention Michigan.  Tiny Lowell would get to play
within  a 3 hour's drive and RPI fans would be able to fill the remaining upper
deck seats.
 
True, a conference could bomb out.  But I don't think that's any different
than the current situation.  The top 2 seedings would remain unchanged in each
region, and I can't think of any situation where they would be disadvantaged
by having all 6 teams play in their own region.  And if one region does have
more good teams than another, than send the 7 or 8 seeds out of region, and
re-seed the other region to accomodate them.  But don't send out teams to a
hostile regional site simply because they are the 5th or 6th seedin a region.
 
So, once again, why the 4-2 split for each regional site?  The alternative
seems obvious.
                    _
            "NYS   // Hockey"
        Go 'Gate  //   Brian Morris
          Go RPI //      Albany, NY
          ______// [log in to unmask]
         (______/
******************************On to St. Paul!******************************