Ryan Robbins writes:
"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?"
[End of quoted material]
 
 
I don't agree.  I think it would be a great if the tournament was
expanded to include 16 teams.  The way I look at it, it would only mean
greater excitement and fan interest.  In other words, the more the
merrier!  If some people believe that "lowly" 7th and 8th seeded teams
don't deserve to play with the "upper echelon" then these people have
nothing to be afraid of since surely these teams should be eliminated in
short order.  On the other hand, if one of these teams is capable of
pulling a string of upsets on its way to the national championship, then
the title would be justly deserved.  By the same reasoning, any top seeded
team who would be eliminated by a "cellar dweller" wouldn't deserve the
championship.  What's wrong with giving the underdogs a shot?  Hey, its a
GAME, its supposed to be FUN.  "Why don't we just do away with the
regular season and have the tournament?" you ask.  Well, maybe it's
because the players and the fans enjoy the games.  Believe it or not,
there is a lot more to college hockey than just winning championships.
 
Tony Garcia