Eric Burton writes:

<<I'll bite, Minnesota bid for the regional championship and they were awarded it, next season
everyone is going to be complaining about UND and them getting an unfair advantage, It happen to
DU and UND when we had to play the UofMich in Yost arean... >>

What you’re pointing out here is that for the western teams, it balances out.  But it doesn’t
balance out for the eastern teams.  If a western team gets shipped east, it will be to a neutral
site.  If an eastern team gets shipped west, it could be to a lower seed’s home rink.  I think
that the NCAA, rightfully so, prefers neutral sites.  But neutral sites don’t bid for western
regionals, so the NCAA has to do with what they can.

<<Some peoiple need to get over this, its a fact of college hockey. . . .>>

I agree that the debate every year is tiring, but I do think that it serves a purpose.
Preassigned home rinks are “a fact of life” but it’s not because they are a good idea per se.
It’s because they’re a necessary evil.  At some point, neutral sites may become practical both
east and west and that will be better for the sport. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of “doing it
that way because we’ve always done it that way.”

The big problem with the current system is that it can’t be rationalized on any kind of
competitive basis.  Some people will say that playing a preliminary round in a home rink of a
higher seed is the way it should be; that’s the way some (most? all?) conference tournaments are
set up.  But I can’t conceive of anybody suggesting, on a competitive basis, pre-assigning an
on-campus rink as a regional site irrespective of seeding, or having some regionals on-campus and
others at neutral sites.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/