Interesting article.  Thanks John for the post.  Putting aside the obvious
question of whether the NCAA would allow a 16 team tournament, I would comment
on a few items.
 
>Here's the scheme: Each league sends four teams, based on season
>and playoff stature. One team from each league goes to one of the
>four regional sites.
 
I don't think that would be fair.  I would prefer a method similar to the
basketball tournament.  Seed all teams first, award the top four seeds the #1
for each region, although not necessarily the same region that they reside in.
For example, taking last year's tournament, the CCHA would likely have ended up
with at least two #1's: Michigan and LSSU.  LSSU gets to stay home in Detroit,
Michigan gets moved out to Albany.  Despite my credentials as an ECAC fan, I
don't agree that every conference automatically deserves the same number of
tournament teams.
 
 
>At the ECAC site, let's say Albany, N.Y., the ECAC No. 1 seed plays
 
Yes, let's say Albany.  I couldn't certainly support that!
 
>The current playoff structure is ludicrous. Two teams enjoy byes,
>while four others beat their brains out in two games, then come
>right back to play the two rested teams in a one-game shot to go to
>the Final Four.
 
The problem is ensuring your top seeds don't get bumped off in the first round.
Assuming the top seeds would tend to be the big revenue producers like
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine (no I'm not going to make a cheap
joke) you'd want to encourage as much as possible their path through the
tourney.
 
>This year, the NCAA seedings might be more surprising than ever.
>Rumor has it, a gentleman's agreement has determined that each
>league shall get three teams to the final 12, which is a welcome
>change from the politicking that has accompanied the recent trend
>of downgrading the ECAC.
 
I know some may feel that way.  But I think history proves otherwise.  Last
year the team that got left out was Michigan State (not saying it was a wrong
decision).  Most RPI fans agreed they didn't deserve a bid.  Expanding to 16
teams would eliminate most inequities, but it's not necessary to allocate four
bids per conference.
 
>Consider the possibilities of switching to 16 entries by the above-
>mentioned formula. Look at the standings in each league and figure
>the top four, or the top three plus one hot league-playoff team,
>and then sort them out by your own rating and plug them into the
>formula.
 
So a team could be the third place team in a conference, but lose to every
non-conference opponent and make the tournament.  I think you have to have
some strength of schedule measure to ensure competitiveness.
 
>They only problem college hockey fans might have would be to decide
>which tournament they'd most want to watch. Each of the four
>regionals would reach out and grab new college hockey fans, and
>it's guaranteed they'd all want to watch the Final Four.
 
Wishful thinking.  It's hard enough to get fans to come to the Joe for the
current regionals, especially if it's scheduled against the b-ball tournament.
I think it would also be tough to garner sufficient attendance with two
Eastern sites.  Using the four examples, I would see Albany attracting maybe
5,000 fans max if another regional took place in Boston.  The NC$$ seems to be
very concerned with that attendance issue opting to return the West Regionals
to campus arenas for at least the next two years rather than risk a tournament
playing to an empty house.
 
Again the problem is exacerbated by allocating four slots to each conference.
When you go that direction you are obliged to pick regional sites which are
within each conference's territory.  The only conference I suspect that
wouldn't have a potential siting problem would be the WCHA.  The Hockey East
site would likely do OK, (choose from Shawmut Center, Providence, Worcester
Centrum) but would undoubtedly draw away attendance from the ECAC site.
 
I suppose you could return to campus arenas for all the regionals.  But I don't
like that solution due to fairness (LSSU, Clarkson, St. Lawrence et. al. could
NEVER hold a regional, but would have to play at their arch-enemies home ice)
and in terms of marketing college hockey, it represents a step backward.  While
you get a lot of tickets purchased by the students of the host schools, you
don't attract any new fans to the sport of college hockey.
 
Despite my criticisms, my hat's off to the writer.  It's good to have people
out there thinking up new ways to encourage the growth of hockey.  It's
certainly a lot more appealing topic than the mendacious mess that's been
discussed on the list lately.
                    _
            "NYS   // Hockey"
        Go 'Gate  //   Brian Morris
          Go RPI //      Albany, NY
          ______// [log in to unmask]
         (______/
 
Inaugural Route 7 Series: Beat Union.  On to Lake Placid.
North Country Shootout: Upset in 3?