Leigh Torbin sent me a reply to my post and made some good comments
that I thought deserved to be replied to on HOCKEY-L.
 
First, he made the lucid observation that:
 
>       I like the shootouts and agree that they add to the game, but they
>didn't increase attendance. UMass did.
...
>       In addition UMass' road games were generally well
>attended for two reasons. 1) the curiousity factor, people wanting to see
>the new guys. and 2) especially with the five Mass schools, UMass
>obviously has a large alumni population within the state, who might not
>live near Amherst. UMass drew sellouts at BU, Lowell, UNH, and attracted
>Maine's largest crowd of the year (5,492).
 
This is certainly a good point.  However, while UMass drew well in
some buildings, it seemed that they did not draw well in others.  And
if you take away the UMass games, I think many teams still saw an
increase in attendance - either in terms of avg fans/game or
percentage of capacity.  Lowell drew very well for all teams, not just
UMass.  Merrimack's worst games of the year crowdwise were the Air
Force series and the UMass game the following weekend.  And
Northeastern drew well early on, then tailed off at the end but may
have still finished ahead.  BU and UNH tended to sell out all or most
games, too, not just the ones with UMass.
 
But that's not to ignore the impact of UMass.  When you take all games
into consideration, including UMass, the effect is even greater.
 
Leigh also asks whether we want to eliminate the 8-9 teams from the
playoffs and possibly create more problems, such as a frustrated team
gooning it up when they have nothing to play for.  I would add that
besides the gooning, it is good for the development of a program to
have something to look forward to at the end of the year, and that
will benefit the league both immediately and in the future.  Leigh
points out:
 
>       I know that as UMass wound down the regular season with an
>extended losing streak, coach Mallen used the 8-9 playoff game to keep
>his kids focused and motivated.
 
On the other hand, some would say there's nothing that says you have
to be given something to play for, especially when you've had a lousy
season.  It's going to be interesting to see which way the coaches
view this.
 
How about this, borrowed from the ECAC:
 
* #1 gets bye into semifinals.
* #2, 3, 4, 5 get byes into quarterfinals.
* Tues after reg season ends, we have 9 at 6 and 8 at 7 in single game
preliminary rounds.  Give these middle ranked teams a chance to host
playoff hockey, and keep the bottom teams in the playoffs with
something to play for.
* Winners become the bottom two seeds in the quarterfinals, which
could be best of 3 like the ECAC.  I like the idea of playing no more
than 5 min OT the first two nights of the q-finals since it would
prevent long sudden-death games except when the series needs to be
decided.  (I enjoy those long games too, but coaches would likely
prefer not to have them take place except when absolutely necessary.)
 
This covers a LOT of bases:
 
* Regular season title is worth more (a rest & bye into the semifinals).
* Everyone gets to play and have something to look forward to.
* Two of the perhaps perennial second division teams can host playoff
games.
* Extended quarterfinal series reduces chances of a single game upset.
 
We'll see if this altered plan gets any support.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93