Hi -

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Greg Ambrose wrote:
> After Sept. 11 I do remember the NCAA talking about reducing travel for
> both hockey and basketball come tournament time .... [It was mentioned
> recently] that even if UNH was third or fourth in the PWR they could be
> shipped out to Michigan ...The UNH AD representative [noted] that it
> would not necessarily be so this year because of the NCAA's effort to
> reduce travel ....

  In response, Alton Hollingsworth <[log in to unmask]> points us to:

> It looks like the NCAA Championships & Competition Cabinet will be dis-
> cussing this issue during their meeting on February 5-7.  It is agenda
> item #8 during their meeting; the agenda is posted here:
>
> http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/docs/champ_cabinet/
> 200202_d1_ccc_meeting/Feb_02_Cab_Agenda.htm

  Having just now read this document, it's not clear how/whether this will
impact on the Top Four PWR seeds .... The stated 'Policies for Fall Cham-
pionships 2001' (approved 15 September, reviewed 1 Nov. with no changes)
includes this order of business:

1) "Seed the number of teams the sports committee has the approval to seed,
    not to exceed a 1:4 ratio based on sport sponsorship" .... For DivI
    hockey, I interpret this to mean no more than 4 seeded teams, as was
    the case for Div1AA football this past autumn ....

 2) "Seeded teams will be placed in the bracket first.  If there are too
    many seeded teams from the same region, seeded team(s) may be moved to
    another region to balance the top seeds .... The first priority is to
    move to a neighboring region and not more than one time zone" ....
    Since hockey has only two regions, both in the same time zone, I
    don't see how/why the Tournament committee would/could act to disrupt
    their oft-stated goal of (barring upsets) matching (overall) Seeds 1-4
    and 2-3 in the FF semi-finals.  This means PWR teams #1 and #3 would
    be seeded in one bracket, #2 and #4 in the other, to cross over in the
    FF.  If PWR #1 Denver gets slotted in the West, it's bye mate would be
    PWR #3, a spot I'm hoping UNH can avoid to ensure playing in Worcester
    vs. Ann Arbor ....

 3) "If there is a currently approved policy to avoid conference match-ups,
    this policy will remain in place for the first round only" .... I ex-
    pect this will be the easiest of the NC$$ 'rules' to keep intact, how-
    ever attractive from a fan/competition viewpoint it's been to move teams
    around to face unfamiliar opponents.  With four, 4-team regionals on
    the horizon for as soon as next Spring, I suspect the enjoyment I've
    had watching 2-3 unfamiliar, 'out-of region' teams (eg. SCSU) is now
    sadly a thing of the past, especially if:

 4) "The remaining teams that have been selected (by the regular selection
    criteria for automatic qualifiers and at-large) will be placed in their
    most proximate geographic region" ....

Greg goes on to say:
> I felt last year that the NCAA's efforts to reduce regionalism was ri-
> diculous.  The margins between most of the top four teams are negligible,
> and it's a disservice to the fans of these teams to have them either
> miss the game entirely or have to make last minute travel plans in order
> to get to see them play.

  I'd tend to agree, and given the NC$$'s current preoccupation with
'proximate geographic placement' it may soon be a moot point anyway ....

  Cheers from the Chesapeake - Jim