Mike writes:
 
>Expanding to 16 teams won't solve anything.  The controversy would just switch
>to being between #16 and 17.  Some said that expanding from 8 to 12 would
>eliminate the controversy then, and it is clear that it hasn't been
>eliminated at all.  So this is not a good reason for going from 12 to 16
>teams, IMO.
 
I agree that expanding to tournament to 12 teams has resulted in no greater
happiness.  I think that we should forget seeding altogether and send the
four regular-season champions to the tournament and NO ONE ELSE.  No team
can win its league without being strong enough to compete in the tournament.
Of course, any second place team can argue that it is stronger than the
champion of another league, but that argument would be irrelevant.  You
win your league or you're out.  The same setup seems to work well enough
for major league baseball.  The remaining independents would need to be
assimilated into leagues, but as this process is well underway I don't see
it as a problem.  The league playoffs could be dropped or retained as each
league prefers, as they would have no reason for existence other than as
fundraisers.
 
I see this as a way of avoiding creeping NHLism from ruining college hockey
by expanding the number of teams that make the playoffs.  The NHL regular
season is a farce because teams have no particular incentive to finish
high than fourth in their divisions.  One of the reasons that college hockey
is so entertaining is that every game is played as though it matters.  I
would hate to see that change.
 
-- Erik