--- NE Hampton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

. . . The top 16 are the best by
> whatever formula says they are, we can then just argue over the components
> of the formula. But why not the top 12 or 16?
> 
> Nathan Hampton 
> 

With 12, there were squeals of protest from #s 12, 13,  . . ., and there were the detested byes.

There are not enough hockey teams to justify a 16 team tournament (in fact aren't there fewer
hockey teams now than there were when the 16 team tournament was instituted?).  The change to 16
was a compromise between the NCAA hockey people and the NCAA.

In other words, a 16 at-large tournament is not an option.  If it were I'd be with you 100%. 
Effectively, the tournament was expanded to 14 at large teams.  Isn't that better than 12 at-large
teams?
 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html