[I quoted a lot of Mike's article becausde I think it is important to
see his whole discussion -- david]
 
> There's an extremely important issue here that no one has picked up on yet,
> but Dave is pretty close.  The alteration of the bracket so as to allow the
> top 4 teams from each region to remain in their own region, has resulted in
> an extreme unfairness between the 3-4 and 5-6 seeds in a region.  And I think
> this was one of the concerns raised here back a year ago when we learned of
> the new format.
 
> Previously, a 5-6 seed had to beat the 3-4 seed from the other region, then
> beat the 1-2 seed from its own region.  Now a 5-6 has to beat the 3-4 from
> the other region and then ALSO the 1-2 from the other region.
 
> But since the teams must be seeded in their own region, if one region is
> much stronger top to bottom than another, the teams that cross over from the
> strong region have a much better chance of making the FFour than the teams
> that do not - they have to fight it out amongst themselves.
 
> For example, Wisconsin beat UNH, then had to beat SLU.  If this were last
> year, Wisconsin would have had to beat Minnesota instead of SLU.  Q-final
> matchups all-around would have been:
 
> 6W Wis-2W Minn
> 5W MSU-1W Mich
> 4W NMU-1E Maine
> 3W LSSU-2E SLU
 
At first I thought that this, combined with a strong West/weaker East,
helped explain why the East fot shut out of the finals this
year, but it doesn't (entirely). If the West is indeed stronger,
then NMU-Maine should be as good a potential matchup as MSU-Maine (4W or
5W vs. 1E). Of course, individual teams are better matchups
sometimes. Likewise, if the West is stronger (note the if), then
3W (LSSU) vs 2E (SLU) would be more of a tossup than 6W (Wis) vs SLU.
 
So, the cross-over part of the new format doesn't explain why the
East got shut out.
 
> So what I am suggesting is that a lower seed in the West had an easier time
> of it than it would have had in last year's format or if it were seeded
> higher so as to not crossover.  This is what will happen if one region has
> one strong team and the others don't match up to their corresponding seeds
> across the country.  For example, the 6W seed has an easier time than 4W
> because 6W has to beat 3E and 2E while 4W has to beat 5E and 1W, and this
> year, 1W Mich was rated much higher than 2E SLU.
 
Right -- it does explain why BOTH 5W and 6W advanced.
 
> The problem is that the format could encourage teams to lose games to get
> easier games early on in the tourney.  I'm not suggesting Wisconsin
> *intentionally* lost to NMU in the WCHA semis, but looking back, it was
> definitely to their advantage, especially if the Badgers had taken a long,
> hard look at the East and determined that it was indeed Maine and everybody
> else.
 
It was certainly noted. In fact, it was mentioned by Coach Sauer
a few weeks before the WCHA tournament. Wisconsin didn't set
out to lose the NMU, but there was some stange politicking at the
end.
 
Coach Sauer checked with Rick Comley (NMU Coach and member
of the NCAA Ice Hockey committee) thursday night, before
the WCHA Semi-finals. He was assured that Wisconsin was in the
NCAA tournament. He (Sauer) then let Derksen decide if he was
ready to play or not. Derksen felt that he wasn't sharp, since he
hadn't played in several weeks, and had only practiced that week,
and said he thought Michellizzi should play. Jon didn't play that
well, and Wisconsin lost (not just because of Michellizzi, but it
was a factor).
 
*THE NEXT DAY* Sauer was told that if they lost to CC (remember, this
was before NMU beat Minnesota for the WCHA Tournament Championship),
that they wouldn't be in the NCAA (and Providence would be).
Sauer was very upset by this news.  Derksen played, and the Badger's won.
 
That evening, NMU beat Minnesota for the WCHA Tournament
Cahmpionship, and NMU Coach and NCAA Committee Member Comley
openly lobbied for Wisconsin to be 5W and the Wildcats 6W. (That
sounds harsh -- I am not saying Comley did anything wrong -- it
was the circumstances that were wrong. Seedings shouldn't be
subject to political pressure).
 
So, yes, interested observers in the West did notice that 6W was
the easiest seed.
 
> I seriously think something needs to be done about this.  Eliminating the
> crossover in the quarterfinal, IMO, makes it necessary to get rid of the
> brackets and go to re-seeding for the quarterfinal.  I don't think that
> forcing the lower teams to travel negates this advantage that they receive;
> after all, it is still far for NMU to go to Detroit.
 
> Last year, it was suggested that the 3-4 seeds would travel and the 5-6 seeds
> would stay in their regions to preserve the old brackets.  And I said that
> this wasn't fair, it would make the higher seeded teams travel while the
> lower seeded teams stayed closer to home.  Well, I am starting to think that
> maybe this is how it should be done after all if the concept of brackets is
> to be maintained.  That, or start placing teams in regionals regardless of
> actual location like hoop does (sort of).
 
> Looking forward to thoughts on this subject.
 
The whole question of the purpose of the reginals, either single-site
or on campus has to be answered. The committee had the option,
but decided against, seeding the regionals after the cross-over
teams were selected (that is, possibly seeding Michigan State or Wisconsin
higher than 5 and 6 in the east regional. they would have still
gone east, since 1-4W stayed in the west).
 
	--david