At 07:54 AM 03-26-01 -0600, Eric Burton wrote:
>No offense a "Bye" is given as a carrot for being a top team in the league
>as well as college hockey and is the result of having a good season. It is
>fair. Deal with it.

Would you say that it would be fair to limit the amount of time a team can
spend preparing for a game, simply because their PWR was a few decimals
lower than another?

While we're at it, maybe the NCAA should start forcing the non-bye teams to
sleep limited hours and alter their eating habits to resemble those of owls
and bats.

As stated previously, what I have a problem with is the fact that
back-to-back games provide an unfair advantage for the bye teams. This was
never more clear than watching CC and Maine running on fumes late in the
second period.

Both the NoDak-CC and BC-Maine games were 2-1 at the 10-minute mark of the
third period, yet both games ended with 2- or 3-goal victories.

Byes are not rewards for the best teams -- they're punishment for those
teams who have the fortune of playing in the most competitive conferences.

I would have no gripes at all if there was an off day in between games,
just as there is for the Frozen Four.

Tournament seeding is reward enough -- the best teams are rewarded with the
opportunity of playing the "worst" teams in the tournament.

As the team with the 5th-best PWR, Michigan was rewarded with a matchup
against the team with the second-worst PWR in the tournament.

Is it any surprise that the one non-bye team to get through was the team
facing the MAAC representative?

No offense to the smaller divisions and Mercyhurst fans, but when the
pairings were announced, Michigan sure must have been happy to be squaring
off against the Lakers in the first round, not to mention playing an NCAA
virgin (St. Cloud) the next day.

As others have said (and prayed), this could all be fixed with 16 teams.


greenie