In article <[log in to unmask]>, Deron Treadwell
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>
>Much has been said about the format for the regionals, but what about
>expanding the tournament to 16 teams with no teams having a bye?
 
Expanding the field to 16 teams would be a bad idea and set college
hockey back in its "quest" for notoriety; it would cheapen the value
of winning the championship, not to mention the value of reaching the
playoffs.
 
The playoffs are supposed to feature the upper echelon of teams.
While opinions may differ on what constitutes the upper echelon, I
don't believe allowing more than 33 percent of all teams to qualify
for the NCAA tournament would constitute the creme de la creme.
 
The NBA and the NHL playoffs are a joke because almost anybody has
a chance at making the playoffs. While some argue that Americans
love the underdog, I believe it goes too far when you can have a
team that doesn't deserve to play for the championship playing for
the championship. The champion is the one team that has outlasted
the others. Otherwise, why don't we just do away with the regular
season and have the tournament?
 
At the conference level, I have no problem with conferences
allowing all of their teams into their tournaments. That's the only
chance the underdogs should get.
 
And what if a season-long top-five team were to come in second in
its conference for the regular season and lose in the conference
playoffs? That stuff happens.
 
Having the field at 12 teams is stretching the credibility of the
championship; having 16 teams in the field would weaken the
credibility even more.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ryan Robbins               "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
University of Maine                                  -- Andy Rooney
_____________________________________________________________________
[log in to unmask] ____________________________________________