Tried to respond to this thread yesterday, but my system crashed. I'll
respond to Mark's post.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Mark Lewin wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly. Every team has an "off" night, even the
> nation's top teams. I have no problem with extending the tournament
> from 12 to 16 teams but one does want to reward the top teams for
> a good season. In the past, that reward has been a bye which I find
> is too much of a reward. But putting them in a one game elimination
> series with a team that's ranked 15th or 16th doesn't reward them at all,
> especially in a regional format when they play at a "neutral site".
> I favor the best 2 of 3 format at the home site of the higher seed.
> This, IMHO, provides an adequate reward for the higher seed (and their
> fans).
Why do the fans deserve a reward? Isn't it the players who deserve the
fairest possible tournament? Shipping the 9-12 teams off to home ice
venues is tantamount to dooming their chances of going further, certainly
more so than playing an extra game in the current Regional format. In the
big campus arenas, like Michigan's, the host team would be given a tune-up
for the next round. Witness last year's bath, North Dakota certainly one
of the top two teams in the country, got knocked off playing Michigan in
Ann Arbor.
Further, returning to campus venues depletes the marketing impact college
hockey has achieved in the last couple of years. Coverage of the sport
has increased, the CNN crawl for example, which I think is attributable to
the expansion of the sport and the increased exposure of the
championships. It would seem to be swimming against the tide to go back
to narrowly focused campus events to decide a national championship,
especially when the outcome were virtually pre-ordained.
But there is a problem with the Regional format. There are not enough
sites to sponsor truly neutral championships, particularly in the West.
Currently in fact the West Regionals have returned to campus sites, and I
see only two possible newcomers to the pool: Denver and Omaha. Actually
this is a two edged sword: even if the Tourney returned to campus sites
for the first round, there may be inadequate Western venues for a Regional
semi-final. In that case the ultimate anti-competitive scenario could
occur, for example Michigan hosting BOTH the first round and semi-finals.
The East could probably handle two rounds of a Regional format. In
addition to Albany, Worcester, Providence and Boston, you could probably
add Buffalo, perhaps Hartford, if the MAAC develops a fan base and
discounting the recent HE/ECAC debacle. Two rounds of Regionals would
probably enhance the growth of college hockey in the East, and give every
Easterner a chance to see a good match-up very close to their homes.
The West problem has to be con$$idered though. The NC$$ is
undoubtedly focusing on the problem, and that in itself should act as a
deterrent to a 16 team tourney. One additional problem is the structure
of the Regional tourney, since both the First Round Regionals and the
Semi-Finals would end up as three game affairs. Scheduling three games
instead of the current four reduces the number of fans attending to see
their teams playing, a figure which represents probably 50% of the
attendance base for the Knick in Albany, for example. I don't have any
solutions for the three game problem, and I doubt there is one.
Well I have only cited problems, and haven't mentioned the one major
positive: more teams, more marketing, more fans, more excitement. But one
should overlook the obstacles that will have to be overcome if college
hockey goes to a 16 team tourney.
*******************************************************************************
Brian Morris RPI Engineers--First in the ECAC
[log in to unmask]
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
