With all the selection-criteria threads, we've established that avoiding
conference matchups was a main criteria in putting the brackets together.
 Can someone PLEASE explain to me why this is an issue?  I'm having a hard
time figuring out why a team's conference should have ANYTHING to do with
how the pairings are set up.  Seed the teams based on merit.  I dislike
the host-teams-stay-at-home rule, but I can accept it.  The
teams-from-the-same-conference-can't-play-each-other rule just has me
flabbergasted.  To me it's about as substantial as saying that teams with
clashing uniform colors can't play in the first round.
 
 
 
Tim Newman wrote:
 
> I would like to suggest that if the concern is drawing high attendance,
> then the NCAA should abandon its experiment with regional sites and
consider
> going back to campus sites for games prior to the Final Four.
 
> It has never been completely clear why the NCAA abandoned campus
> sites in the first place.  They seem to offer the advantage of lower
> travel costs as well as potential full houses at most of the host sites.
 
I've strongly agree with what Tim wrote.  When the regional format was
first introduced I was intrigued.  It hasn't shown me anything since.
Women's basketball, whether you like the sport or not, handles their
tournament the right way.  They know that they're not strong enough to
fill "neutral" sites with first and second round games so they hold them
on the campus of the top seeds and get packed houses.  The hockey
tournament would have to be "tweaked" a bit to do this (i.e. does it go to
three weekends instead of two), but I believe it might be a better system.
 
  - Steve
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.