Bill Fenwick writes (thanks for the great coverage):
>Kennedy also mentioned that the committee decided to put in a rule, starting
>this year, that no league will have fewer than two representatives in the
>NCAA playoffs. Even though this would probably benefit my favorite league,
>the ECAC, I don't think this is a particularly good idea.
I completely agree with you, Bill (surprise). There are so few bids
to give out as it is and with five of them virtually nailed down already,
that doesn't leave much to give out to the rest of DivI. I would
actually prefer that there be NO automatic bids and that the committee
would just choose the 12 most deserving teams. This isn't likely, so
I have to find a way to live with it.
> The NCAA should not shut out one of them just to give
>another league the magic two bids.
Absolutely correct. I would love to hear Mr Kennedy's rationalization
behind this decision by the committee. It is clearly a political move
and not based on any attempt to select the best and most deserving teams.
>According to Kennedy, last year the committee proposed to the NCAA that the
>hockey playoffs be expanded to 16 teams, and the NCAA turned them down
>immediately, because they felt that the ratio between the total number of
>teams and the number of playoff teams would be too low.
Yes, Arthur and I were discussing this at HockeyFest and he countered
with that very point when I suggested expansion to 16. I do understand
that the NCAAs should be something special, and that not everyone and
his brother should be allowed to get in. But it is not as if we would
see sub-.500 teams getting in. This year, for example, if the field
was 16 instead of 12, the extra 4 teams would probably have been UNH,
Ferris, SLU, and North Dakota - 4 teams that had been under serious
consideration to make the tourney anyway.
As things stand, with 12 of 45 making next year's tourney, that will
result in a ratio of 26.7% NCAA qualifiers. 16 of 45 would be 35.6%.
I don't know how many DivI basketball teams there are - does anyone
know, so we can see the ratio in hoop? It seems to me that the NCAA
is reluctant to go over the magic 1/3 ratio.
I see several huge advantages of going to 16 teams:
o The first round byes will be eliminated for the top four seeds. The
bye is a HUGE advantage under the current format, and it is clear that,
for example, BU did not really deserve a bye that much more than BC
did this season. In most cases, the numbers are VERY close between
#2 and #3. Why should such a huge advantage be given in that situation?
Let the "edge" be that #1 gets to host #8 from the opposite region
and then #4 if it wins. (I.e., 8E at 1W, winner plays winner of 5W at
4E *at highest seed*. Or just re-seed after each round.)
o $$$. More series means more revenue.
o The independent bid can be kept without people complaining that their
team lost out on a bid to an undeserving team. At least four teams
can make that complaint this year, although UAA's win over BC cements
the bid for at least the next few years. But I'm still not sure it's
right. Ideally, I think the independents should just be considered
along with the other teams for at-large bids. But when you look at the
history that led to the institution of the independent bid, it is not
likely that they will remove it. Chances are better that more teams
would be added to keep everybody happy.
o Four more automatic bids can be added to the winners of the regular
season as well as the tournaments. Again, this keeps everybody happy.
This also means that when a team wins both the regular season and the
conference tourney, it opens up a slot for another at-large bid to be
awarded. For example, this year automatic bids would have gone to
regular season champs Clarkson, BC, LSSU, and NMU, with one additional
automatic bid to BU for winning the HE tourney. Adding in Anchorage,
six bids would have been already decided with an additional ten left to
be awarded (i.e. Maine, PC, Cornell, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
SLU, FSU, UNH, North Dakota). If underdogs win the tourneys, then they
would still get their bids, but now the regular season champ is assured
of going too. Of course, the regular season champ is all but
guaranteed to go no matter what it does in the playoffs, but this will
make it official.
> Kennedy said the
>committee may propose to keep the current 12-team format but make the first
>round and the quarterfinals single-game affairs, and also have the games
>take place at one Eastern and one Western site. Personally, I'm in favor of
>the single-game idea (it has always seemed strange to me for college hockey
>to play a multiple-game series in its first two playoff rounds and then
>switch to a single game in the Final Four), but I don't like the two-site
>idea.
Both of these moves would be bad for the game, and I'll tell you why.
SINGLE-GAME
As I've said before, total goals allowed for the underdog to come up with
one good game or even one good period out of six, in the case of 1988
Merrimack, and win the series. Best-of-three means if the underdog wins,
there is no doubt they deserve it. Single-game still allows for the
possibility of the low-percentage upset to occur in that particular game.
But if you can pull it off in two games over three nights, the favorite
has no excuse ("we had a bad night" doesn't wash for BC when they did it
two nights in a row). They might have had a bad first game, but they
had a chance to get to know the opponent and adjust in game 2/3.
To put it simply, single-game favors the underdog. It also means less
revenue.
BTW, by the time you reach the Final Four, the factor of the huge
underdog is usually gone because they have usually been eliminated.
Both teams tend to be pretty equal, so there is no advantage in a
single-game over a best-of-three. It would be difficult to play
the Final Four in a best-of-three format, too. I think the Final
Four as it stands - four teams get together on one weekend to decide
the champion - is great with no changes. If there's anything that
I think could be potentially better, it would be a round-robin among
the four teams, but then you could end up with some weird tiebreakers
and some final games that mean nothing. There's also double-elimination,
but that could take a week or more to play.
And reverting to two game total goals is not even an option!
EAST/WEST SITES
As it stands, there are nine sites that get to host NCAA hockey. That's
great for the game. Teams earn home ice, they and their fans should get
to enjoy it. More fans get exposed to the game and college hockey grows.
It's not like basketball where all the games are on tv. (Plus, hoop
has many more teams and many more sites.) Changing to East/West sites
for the first round and then to a (presumably) different one for the
quarterfinals gives you only five sites, maybe only three if you keep
the same sites for the first two rounds. I don't think that's fair to
the fans who supported their team all throughout the year, to shut them
out of their team's biggest moment of the season. No, keep the current
format.
- mike
p.s. I would definitely be interested in hearing Mr Kennedy or any of
the other members comment on these possible changes and my arguments
for/against them.
|
