Since Michigan State is not in the final four (much less...), I have been
thinking about this, instead.
If anyone cares,
*I LIKE*
o That effecitve with the 1992 championship the bracket be established
o as single-elimination
I just like single-elimination. It makes for more exciting
hockey, and usually *USUALLY* the best team wins. If they don't,
then let that be a lesson to them to play their best, all the time.
Flame away; I don't care. I don't like crybabies. Unless I am one
of them. Then it's OK, of course.
This, of course, makes it easy to play...
o b. The single-elimination and final would continue to be played
o the first weekend (Thurs. and Sat.) in April or last weekend
o in March, if March has five Saturdays.
I like this because it prevents the hockey season from
becoming long and drawn-out, like Pro Hockey, Pro Basketball,
and College Hoops have become. One fast and furious weekend
is sure to leave us spent and drained, but happy, IMHO.
o d. The independent team selected for the tournament will comete
o in a play-in against the 12th ranked team at the regional site
o representing the 12th ranked team unless: 2) if an independent team
o is ranked 1- 12 then a play-in will not be conducted; or b) if the best
o independent record is below .500, the the committee is not required
o to select an independent representative.
I have never thought ANYONE should get an automatic bid; It
usually turns out that the league leaders get a de facto bid, etc,
but these are obvious choices. Of course this year, AA beats BC
in the first round *heh heh*, but their record this year wuz .500,
so I squeak clean on this one (barely) - meaning that they would have
gotten to play North Dakota or whomever for a chance to be seeded 6th.
I can just hear it now:
"But maybe they wouldn't have gotten past (ND), and then the upset
wouldn't have happened, etc, etc" Yeah, but that misses the point.
Maybe (N.D.) would have gone on to beat B.C. (they weren't exactly
hot the last weeks), and maybe they wouldn't. Unpredictability is
what makes all this exciting (and keeps me in business :) ).
*I DON'T LIKE*
o with two regional tournaments determing the four semifinalists.
o a. Two, six team, single-elimination regional tournaments would
o be conducted at predetermined sites the Friday and Saturday prior
o to the semifinals and final.
Yeeech! TWO SITES? WTF? I think someone said earlier that
this would expose fewer fans to hockey, make it harder for more fans
to see their teams, etc. Well, actually, kind of alot has been said
about this lately. It works for BasketBall, but I don't think so for
hockey. *Do I smell T.V. here???*
*GENERAL*
o Should the number of teams selected from the regions be unequal, the
o lower seeded team(s) in the region with the higher number of teams
o selected will be shifted to the other region to equalize regional seeding.
This is pretty much the same as now, eh? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
o All of the above is to be discussed with athletic directors and
o coaches with recommendations forwarded to the NCAA Executive
o Committee for approval in May 1991.
WOW! This is pretty soon! How long has this been bouncing around??
Any Ideers?
I am sure mike(s), eric, carol et al will have alot to say;
I just wanted to put my $0.02 worth in before the rush.. ;)
*If anyone can put a tag on my name, my hat's off to them*
mike
| C. Michael McCallum Dept. of Chemistry |
| [log in to unmask] U-C Berkeley |
| |
| "Where there's water, "All science is either physics |
| there's oxygen." or stamp collecting." |
| Dan Quayle E. Rutherford |
| |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
