I think a problem with a one-game playoff format instead of the
two-plus-minigame format is that luck becomes a much bigger factor.  What if
the goalie is feeling sick that day?  What if the puck just bounces the right
way?  Consider the North Country at RPI weekend.  While RPI played well, they
got the lucky bounces to beat two excellent teams.  But do two well-timed
bounces (ie. what if they occured in playoff games) qualify them to, for
instance, become ECAC Champions?
 
To play more games is always better - just look at any week's CCHA head-to-head
and you'll see that there are few season sweeps over four games between any two
teams.  This implies that while on a given night, team A will beat team B, it
does not mean that A plays a consistently better game.
 
I can see where a minigame can be judged as not really fair, especially since
the winners of the second game might carry their momentum into the minigame
(and also, a minigame is more likely to be decided on one lucky bounce than a
60-minute game).   Nevertheless, IM(albeit worthless)O, it's better to gather
more information about the relationship between two teams, and playing two
games plus a mini is more information than just one game.  Recall the Bob Croce
logic that places Union on top of the NC$$ by only considering 2% of the N"AA
games.
 
(All this might actually be a defense for having no tournament and just giving
the championship to the team that finishes in first place.  But that's less
exciting and generates less revenue for the cash-lusting N"$$.)
 
Ross
RPI `91  Go go go you red red red!
--------
fountain of knowledge Mike M. says about all-time scoring leaders:
"National record is 23, but that's in 1944, `pre-modern.'"
premodern- yes, I see what you mean - any team that gave up 23+ goals in a game
is likely to become extinct quickly.  ;-)