PLAYOFF PONDERING by John Gilbert
Forget the CBS-inspired quick-elimination format. Adopt a round-
robin, regional NCAA tournament with 16 teams.
from U.S. COLLEGE HOCKEY MAGAZINE [5 March 1994]
 
It's almost playoff time again, time to make another attempt to
coax the NCAA into expanding to an equitable, 16-team national
tournament.
 
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.
 
At the Hockey East site, let's say Boston, Hockey East's No. 1 seed
plays the No. 4 CCHA seed, while the ECAC No. 2 seed plays the No.
3 WCHA seed.
 
At the ECAC site, let's say Albany, N.Y., the ECAC No. 1 seed plays
the No. 4 WCHA seed, while the Hockey East No. 2 seed plays the
CCHA No. 3 seed.
 
At the CCHA site, say Detroit, the CCHA No. 1 seed plays ECAC No.
4 team while the WCHA's No. 2 seed plays the Hockey East No. 3.
 
And at the WCHA site, say St. Paul, the WCHA No. 1 seed plays the
Hockey East No. 4, while the CCHA No. 2 faces the ECAC No. 3.
 
The winners of each game play the winners of the other bracket for
the decisions on which teams advance to the Final Four. If one
league happens to be superior in a given year, it might get two or
even more teams to the Final Four. But the top two Eastern seeds
would stay at home or close to home, and the top two Western seeds
would do likewise.
 
An even better idea would be to revive the intrigue of a true
Olympic round-robin style tournament. Remember when the Olympic
hockey tournament was decided by round-robin, instead of a CBS-
inspired quick-elimination tournament that plays down to a final
game?
 
The above scenario would be improved, and determine the best teams
at the Final Four, if each site consisted of a three-day round-
robin tournament, wherein each team played each other. Three
doubleheaders, three days of capacity crowds, and no team would
make the Final Four because of a one-night-stand type of upset.
 
Then, of course, once at the Final Four, the four finalists would
again play a three-day series of doubleheaders to determine the
champion. In almost every case, a final game would decide the
champion. But if it came down to an actual tie, the tie-breaking
procedure would be clear, concise ... and it would certainly draw
national attention to the hockey tournament. Something that has
been sorely lacking.
 
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.
 
It is simply unfair to the four teams at each regional that must
play two games in a row, and it CAN be unfair to the team that sits
idly with the bye while another team gets warmed up to the NCAA
tournament pressure and comes in with a different pace.
 
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.
 
But the occasional rankings by the NCAA hockey committee have not
been published, because there are so many other ratings around the
country. So nobody will know, until the finish, how the NCAA
committee thinks the teams stack up.
 
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.
 
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.
 
...end quoted material...
 
I don't agree with many of Gilbert's comments, but I do like the
foundation of his tournament plan. Using regular season standings,
this year's tourney could look like this:
 
     at BOSTON
     Boston Univ, Clarkson, Wisconsin, Western Michigan
 
     at ALBANY
     Harvard, UMass-Lowell, Michigan State, St Cloud
 
     at DETROIT
     Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Brown
 
     at ST PAUL
     Colorado College, Lake Superior, RPI, Northeastern
 
Sure sounds like fun.
 
 
 John H
 U Mich