Some comments on the suggested new format:
 
Coach Schafer writes:
>3. If the 12-team single-elimination bracket would have been used
>in 1990, the following sample is provided using Boston College as
>the East regional site, and the University of Wisconsin as the
>West regional sitte:
 
(please see his mailing for further reference)
 
    This means that the teams traveling to Wisconsin & BC would be:
 
    Wisconsin                            BC
    ---------                            --
    1W MSU                               1E BC
    2W Wisconsin                         2E Colgate
    3E Maine                             3W Lake Superior
    4E BU                                4W Minnesota
    5W North Dakota                      5E Clarkson
    6W Bowling Green                     6E Michigan
                                         7E Alaska-Anchorage
 
    Anyone else think it strange and unfair that the 5th & 6th ranked teams
    within their own regions get to stay at home while the 3rd & 4th ranked
    teams have to travel across the country?  That's unfair to both the teams
    and to their fans.  It could also lead to some teams losing games so they
    could be ranked lower and stay home within their region (not VERY likely,
    but any format which could even remotely encourage teams to lose games is
    not a good one).
 
    Here, Bowling Green fans only have to go to Wisconsin to support their
    team, but Minnesota fans have to go to Boston.  And Minnesota was ranked
    higher.
 
    I'd be inclined to suggest that all teams stay within their own regions
    except for the bottom teams if they have to be shifted, but that's not fair
    if, say, one region has three fantastic teams one year - one will not go.
    It could make the Final Four almost anticlimactic.  No, it's good to have
    the regions play each other in the first round or two.
 
    So, that's another problem I see with the regional idea (which I cannot
    support as of yet, although that may change).
 
>1. The proposed format  would be conducted in two weeks whereas
>currently a team may be required to travel three consecutive
>weeks.
&
>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.
 
    That means there would be at least two weeks off between the end of the
    conference tourneys and the start of the NCAAs.  I don't think it's good to
    make everyone wait to start the NCAAs.  With the season now being cut short
    by four more games and more conferences possibly going to single-
    elimination tourneys, it could be even longer a wait.  I agree with Jim
    Love that the tourney should be moved up or the days it is played on
    changed so that it is not in conflict with hoop.  I would be amazed if a tv
    contract is behind these ideas since even the NHL can't get a national tv
    contract.  The best college hockey can probably hope for is to have the
    entire Final Four shown on ESPN again, though the idea of ESPN covering the
    whole tourney as in-depth as they did with hoop is one that intrigues me.
    But it's not likely.
 
>f. Two predetermined regional sites will be designated to represent one of the
 f
>our playing conferences, and the two top-ranked teams from each
>region will be assigned to the respective site representing
>their region.
 
    If the sites are off-campus, like St Paul, The Joe, Knickerbocker, or
    Boston Garden, they would need to be set far in advance.  But if they are
    on-campus like BC, then what is the difference as far as revenue goes?
    I think the potential for revenue is higher with the current format.  In
    the example Coach Schafer gives, the five games at BC would be:
 
    Michigan-Alaska
    Lake Superior-Mich/Alaska
    Minnesota-Clarkson
    BC-Minn/Clark
    Colgate-LSSU/Mich/Alaska
 
    I'll tell you right now the first two are not going to fill half of BC's
    Conte Forum.  Minn & Clarkson may bring a couple thousand each, so that
    would give us 50% capacity.  The BC game will sell out, and the Colgate
    game may get around 50% or less.  So we are talking about at the most,
    three games' worth of tickets will be sold if you do not force fans to
    buy a package.  That is no different from a three-game series that goes
    three games and sells out (which BC-Minnesota did last year).
 
    In contrast, if BU and Maine come instead of LSSU & Minnesota, then
    with the following matchups:
 
    Michigan-Alaska
    Maine-Mich/Alaska
    BU-Clarkson
    BC-BU/Clark
    Colgate-Maine/Mich/Alaska
 
    chances are good that four of the five games would sell out or come close
    to selling out.  But I don't like the idea of simple regionals for the
    reasons I gave above.  Cross bracketing is good.
 
    That is the problem with sending teams somewhere else to play.  Many of
    the fans in the Boston area, for example, don't care about LSSU, and
    that's just the way it is.  Sad, but true.  Local teams are bigger draws
    by a longshot.  They should be allowed to play at home or at least
    closer to home.  Cross bracketed regional competition is a huge risk
    at the gate and is unfair to the middle-seeded teams.
 
    I do like the independent proposal.  It is a good, solid compromise between
    what we have now and the suggestions I've made that the independent be
    simply considered along with all other teams.
 
    I may have some other comments later, but I wanted to throw out these since
    they are my two major concerns with the proposal.  Comments are welcome,
    but I think list discussion would benefit everyone and perhaps someone
    could voice these concerns to the committee.
 
 
    - mike
 
    p.s. crystal ball says today/tonight: Maine 4 NMU 3 (ot), BU 5 CU 2.