Well, as I'm sure there will be a flurry of comments and opinions on
the NCAA Tournament proposal posted yesterday by Coach Schaefer, I thought
I'd go on record early with *MY* $0.02 worth - Flame Away ....
> Effective with the 1992 championship, the playoff brackets will be
>established as single-elimination contests with two regional tournaments
>to determine the four semi-finalists. These would be conducted as follows:
In general, I'm in favor of this idea, with the following caveats:
>a. Two, six team, single-elimination regional tournaments would be conducted
> at predetermined sites the Friday and Saturday prior to the semi-finals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How (and when) would these sites be (pre)determined ?? Would they be
chosen BEFORE the regular season began (i.e., September/October) or not until
the conclusion of the Conference Tournaments and the selection of the 12/13
participating teams ?? Are on-campus sites the preferred venue, or will
neutral sites (eg. Providence Civic Center, Knickerbocker Arena, or Worcester
Centrum in the East) be required/considered ?? My concern is that if on-
campus venues are selected, the NCAA would obviously favor the rinks with
largest seating capacity (= BC and RPI in HE/ECAC) and thus give unfair
advantage to those few teams fortunate enough to be playing NCAA regional
games in their "home" rinks. This competitive advantage was an issue
several years ago in the NCAA Basketball Tournament, when Syracuse was
assigned a berth in the East Regional and played its first round games in
the familiar confines of the Carrier Dome (even so, Navy, with David "Mr."
Robinson almost beat them). Some would say that after this year BC would
prefer playing *AWAY* from Conte Forum :-) but, in general, I don't think
the "best interest of the sport" is served by favoring the school(s) with
the largest (and, not incidentally, the best media access) rinks. I don't
expect we'll see an Eastern Regional in Appleton Arena (SLU) any time soon,
but a future regional in Houston Field House (RPI) is not inconceivable.
>b. The single-elimination and final would continue to be played the first
> weekend (Thurs. and Sat.) in April or last weekend in March, if March
> has five Saturdays.
The current 2-day format is certainly a big improvement over the former
3-day set-up that so unfairly penalized the Friday semi-final winner, but
WHY must the Final [on ESPN] be scheduled in direct competition with the
NCAA B-ball semi-finals [on CBS] ?? Is the NCAA intent on perpetuating the
image of college hockey as a second-tier [I can't bear to write second-rate]
sport by *deliberately* playing into the hands of the TV networks ?? The
ratings for the hockey Final will undoubtedly be abyssmal relative to those
for the Hoop semi-finals, a fact sure to be mentioned by ESPN in negotiations
for future games. For an organization so pre-occupied with $$, I can't
understand why they continually "do the WRONG thing" when it comes to
promoting its second-tier sports. Why not schedule the Hockey semi-finals
for Friday night, and the Championship game for Sunday afternoon or evening ??
This takes the tournament out of direct competition with college basketball,
and leaves it to compete for viewers with the PBA and PGA. This seems such
an obvious move, that I'm sure the NCAA will cite me chapter and verse why
the whole idea is ABSURD ....
>c. Automatic qualification would be granted to deserving conferences with
> the remaining teams selected at-large.
Would the automatic qualifiers continue to be the Tournament Champs, or
the Regular Season champs ?? Despite the recent arguments on tournament
seeding [and the non-disclosure of the committee's "power-ranking" protocol],
it seems to me that the Regular Season champs should automatically be awarded
a first-round bye in recognition of excellence over the long-haul, and the
tournament champs seeded as at-large, guaranteed entries.
Incidentally, now that Eric has posted that the WCHA is reverting to
a three-day, single-elimination conference tournament, I'm surprised that
there's been no mention of a HockeyFest-like interlocking tournament between
the WCHA and the CCHA. From a fan's perspective, HockeyFest has been an
unqualified success, and I expect that similar success would accrue to a
joint WCHA/CCHA conference playoff alternating between Joe Louis Arena and
Bradley Center/St. Paul Civic Center. Keith, if you're reading this, have
there been any rumblings along these lines that you're aware of ??
>d. The independent team selected for the tournament will compete in a play-in
> against the 12th ranked team at the regional site representing the 12th
> ranked team unless: 1) an independent team is ranked 1-12 then a play-in
> will not be conducted; or b) the best independent record is below .500,
> a situation in which the committee is not required to select an independent
> representative.
This is a deft compromise that tells me that the NCAA *CAN* do the right
thing if it puts its mind to it. Cries from those "deserving" teams that
they've been excluded at the expense of a sub-0.500 independent are stilled,
as are those (perhaps same) voices from 3rd-4th ranked teams in "strong"
conferences that are bumped by an independent team with a decent record
compiled against weaker opponents. This is a win-win move -- Bravo !!
>Note: It has become increasingly apparent that the current 12 team format is
>not serving the sport well.
>a. The proposed format would be conducted in two weeks, whereas currently a
> team may be required to travel three consecutive weeks.
>b. The maximum number of games a team would play is four. Currently a team
> selected for the championship could play six games and as many as eight.
If the intent is to reduce the time athletes are absent from class [as
is implied by these observations] then the proposal is a good (and laudable)
one. This shouldn't be confused, however, with improving the "wellness" of
the sport. Michigan and Minnesota fans, whose teams rallied from close losses
in game 1 of this year's 3-game series, would probably *NOT* agree that a
single-game elimination selects the more deserving team. As an expatriot
UNH fan, I've recently seen it both ways: the 'Cats advanced in the 1990 HE
playoffs by winning the final two games of their 3-game quarterfinal match-up
with Providence; this year, PC rebounded to beat UNH convincingly in a single
game quarterfinal. IMHO, the 1990-91 squad was more experienced, had better
goal-tending, and probably deserved to advance more than the 1989-90 team
that played poorly in the weeks leading up to the tournament, but pulled out
a thrilling come-from-behind win in Game 3. Don't get me wrong, I favor a
single-game elimination format *AS A FAN* as it promotes exciting games (as
evidenced by this year's HockeyFest contests), but it does NOT necessarily
select for the best (however you choose to describe it) team. No system is
perfect, but one that encourages maximum effort throughout without having
to resort to Phyrric tactics [as in LSSU pulling their goalie quite early and
allowing 2 open-net goals vs Clarkson in Game 1 since they had nothing more
to lose] is to be preferred in my book.
> All of the above is to be discussed with athletic directors and coaches,
>with recommendations forwarded to the NCAA Executive Committee for approval
>in May 1991.
That's great - I hope someone close to the discussions (Coach Schaefer ??)
can keep us apprised as to how things are going .....
Cheer, Jim
Jim Love [log in to unmask] University of Maryland System, Solomons
|
