--- NE Hampton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
. . . The top 16 are the best by
> whatever formula says they are, we can then just argue over the components
> of the formula. But why not the top 12 or 16?
>
> Nathan Hampton
>
With 12, there were squeals of protest from #s 12, 13, . . ., and there were the detested byes.
There are not enough hockey teams to justify a 16 team tournament (in fact aren't there fewer
hockey teams now than there were when the 16 team tournament was instituted?). The change to 16
was a compromise between the NCAA hockey people and the NCAA.
In other words, a 16 at-large tournament is not an option. If it were I'd be with you 100%.
Effectively, the tournament was expanded to 14 at large teams. Isn't that better than 12 at-large
teams?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html