On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Cory J Laylin wrote:
 
> I disagree with having 16 teams.. There are only what, 44 teams to begin
> with.  I think 12 is a good number.
 
Good point.  Compared to other collegiate sports (basketball and football),
hockey is alredy overloading.  Hockey sends 12 of 44 or 27.3% of all
elidgable teams to the national tournement.  Basketball sends 64 of 309
or 20.7% to the national tournement.  Finally, football has approximately
15 or 16 Bowl games which means 30 of 168 teams or 17.6% (I may be a
bit light on this one) go to the post season.
 
The point being that hockey sends over a quarter of it's teams to the BIG
one.  It's just a function of the low number of participating schools.
See expansion thread a month back.
 
> What I would like to see is the NCAA playoffs going back to best of 3
> series.  I've always thought playoff hockey was meant to be played in a
> series.  That way you can reward a team for playing a better series as
> opposed to maybe having one good game.
 
I believe that one reason it was changed to regional sites was to eliminate
the possibility of 3 weekends of excessive travel.  One weekend for the
regionals and one weekend for the finals, and its done.  Also the bye
WEEK may have favored the #1 and #2 teams more than just the 1 game BYE.
I liked 2 out of 3 for the round of 12 and quarter-finals.
 
Just an opinion
 
Kevin
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.