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