Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 19 Mar 1993 14:02:55 EDT |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Some reasons why a 16 team field makes sense for college hockey:
1. A very definite (and becoming more inclusive) division of teams into
four leagues already exists. Each league has a clearly established
identity and following. This should be exploited with a parallel
pattern of four regionals leading to the final 4.
2. The most solid argument to counter the NCAA's concern about "watering"
down the tourney by letting in too many teams is that the level of
play throughout college hockey is MUCH less variable than say in
men's basketball. A middle level program is quite capable of holding
its own against some of the top teams. For example, consider some
potential seedings for a 16 team tourney this year - I'll pick a
team from each league although that certainly wouldn't be required.
We might have
Number 1 seeds: Maine Harvard Miami Minn-Duluth
Number 4 seeds: Lowell Brown West Mich. Northern Mich.
If you consider some of the possible match-ups for first round games
you'll probably find some attractive games - certainly more so than
some of the Indiana/Wright St. or Kentucky/Rider pairings that the
college basketball tourney offers. Sure, we sometimes see a Santa Clara
beat an Arizona - but that's considered a huge upset, much less likely
than Lowell over Harvard or Western Michigan over Minn-Duluth. Just
look what bottom (I think) seeded Wisconsin did last year.
3. Four 4-team regionals restores a level of symmetry and lessens the
significant advantage now enjoyed by the top two seeds.
4. Attendance at four well-chosen regional sites might be higher, particularly
with four extra sets of fans interested. Perhaps even go back to
on-campus (or near campus) sites hosted by the number one seeds in
each regional.
For an even more radical proposal which would really put some kick into the
league tourneys, suppose each conference tourney champion were to host a
regional...
Robin Lock
rlock@stlawu
|
|
|