I would agree that there does seem to be some sort of extra advantage=20
given to the bye team. The problem is, it is not that easy to=A0tell how=20
much of an advantage that is.
 
Here's what I mean:
 
The numbers over the last three years have been
1996 Bye 4, Non-bye 0
1995 Bye 3, Non-bye 1 (Minn. over Colorado College)
1994 Bye 3, Non-bye 1 (LSSU over Mich)
 
So, at least in those three years, the bye teams have a winning % of=20
.833. This seems high. But on the other hand, they are *supposed* to be=20
the better teams, and there has seemed to be a tendency in the past=20
years to be a considerable leap in the talent level of the top few teams.=
=20
Besides, there is supposed to be an advantage to teams that do well over=20
the course of the season.
 
What makes it even more interesting is the the two "upsets" in the last=20
three years have both been conference match-ups. I can only wonder if=20
the fact that the teams have faced each other multiple times in the=20
regular season has an effect on the outcomes of these games. In=20
particular, in both of the season series between the teams in question,=20
the team that *lost* had a winning record in games earlier in the season.=
=20
Michigan beat Lake State four straight times in the 1993-94 season,=20
including once in the CCHA championship. CC had a 3-2 record against Minn=
=20
in 1994-95, including an OT win in the WCHA championship. This may have=20
given the teams in the "underdog" position more of an emotional lift when=
=20
playing the game, which allowed them to excel despite any fatigue they=20
may have felt.
 
As for this weekend's West regional, I am not sure the extra game had any=
=20
negative effects on Minn performance (being a UMN season ticket holder,=20
Minn is the team I have the most familiarity with). This year especially,=
=20
since the WCHA, through a scheduling blunder, had the WCHA Final Five a=20
week in advance of the other three conferences, which means the two WCHA=20
teams (CC and Minn) had two weeks off. I think Minn really needed the=20
first game against Providence, a lesser opponent (no offense to=20
Providence meant -- I think most will agree they are inferior to=20
Michigan) to get the rust out of their system. In fact, the first period=20
of Saturday's UMN-PC match-up saw, in my opinion, some substandard Minn=20
play, which they corrected as the game went along.
 
Now, if they had gone in to play Michigan cold and had an off first=20
period, they would have been sunk, as Michigan dominated play in the=20
latter half of the game.
 
Of course, I guess you could argue that not being as tired, Minn would=20
have played better in the second half, and you may well be right. At any=20
rate, this particular argument hinges on the extra week layoff, which is a=
=20
rare occurrence. Nothing should be decided on way or another because of it.
 
Now we come to the question of what can be done about it (and I think=20
that something should). Some are suggesting going to a Friday-Sunday=20
format, so the winning teams have Saturday to rest. While this sounds=20
good, I am not sure (not being a hockey player myself) what effect one=20
day off has on fatigue.
 
What I would really like to see is this:
 
Reduce the NCAA Tournament to eight teams, or increase to 16. The=20
increase to 16 seems *very* unlikely, as the NCAA has rules about what %=20
of the overall population of schools can compete in the tournament, and=20
hockey is *already* over that limit. It is only because the twelve team=20
format was in place when the rule was enacted that allowed hockey to be=20
"grandfathered".
 
So drop the field to eight teams. The main argument against this is:
 
1) Only one game on the weekend, rather than two, which leads to
 
2) Decreased revenue for the NCAA.
 
Both of these complaints can be negated by going to a best of three=20
series between the teams, which seems more fair anyway. The only negative=
=20
I see to this is that instead of the current six teams in any regional,=20
there are only four, which could reduce the likelihood of getting a good=20
regional draw from a team near the site of the regional (e.g. MSU would=20
not have made it to the regional at Munn this year).
 
There is one more negative, I guess, and that is it decreases the number=20
of teams gaining oh-so-valuable post-season experience. Well, most teams=20
get post-season experience in their respective conference tournaments,=20
but this does not give them experience playing teams from other=20
conferences at the end of the season.
 
What I would like to see is *another* post-season tournament, similar to=20
the NIT for basketball. This tournament could take the next eight (which=20
covers the four that normally would have gone to the NCAAs, and four=20
others) and could do much like the NIT does: use regional sites to help=20
generate $$ and fan support for the respective teams.=20
 
It would also allow for teams not making the NCAA tournament to end their=
=20
season on a high note, playing against some stiff competition near the top=
=20
of other conferences.
 
Of course, all of this requires changes to the way that teams are=20
currently chosen for the NCAA Tournament: no courtesy bids for conference=
=20
winners, just the one automatic bid given to each conference bestowed as=20
they see fit.
 
This is the system that I would like to see, and surprise! it calls for=20
more hockey to be played. :-)=20
 
Now we just need to find somebody interested in organizing this other=20
tournament.
 
=09=09=09=09-Lee-nerd
[log in to unmask]
 
 
"It is not written in the stars that I will always understand what is
going on - a truism that I often find damnably annoying."
                                -Robert Heinlein
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.