Thanks for the news, Bill.
 
There are two big differences between the approved new format and what Keith
reported a few weeks ago.  One of my complaints was that each regional
was slated to contain the #1, 2, 5, & 6 teams from that region plus the #3 &
4 teams from the other region.  I didn't think it was fair to make higher-
ranked teams travel while lower-ranked teams got to stay within their region.
That has been fixed, so I applaud them for that.
 
Also, I see no mention of the Independent, so I assume that nothing has
changed in that area - i.e., there will still be an automatic Independent bid.
Keith had suggested that the Independent might be seeded 7th in either
region or perhaps not even selected at all if there was no Independent
worthy of a bid.  If something has changed, I hope someone will post it.
 
I am still against the regional site format because whatever site is
selected, it makes it more difficult for most fans to travel and see
the games.  And for teams that make it to Albany, it means fans must
travel two weeks in a row.  Sure, they had to before if their team was
a visitor, but even if your team is a #1 seed you've got to travel just
like everyone else.  Maine could be seeded first and their fans have
to travel to Albany, for instance.
 
In addition, I am of the belief that a best-of-three is likely to produce
as a winner the better team than a a single-elimination.  I do not buy
the argument that only two of the 16 teams seeded #1 or 2 were knocked off
prior to the Final Four.  Look at who they were playing - teams that were
not considered to be as good as they were.  That the underdog does not
win is considered a flaw in the system?  Amazing.  Wouldn't you think that
a system in which an underdog was winning too often, like - hey - the
pre-1988 tourney, would be one that needed fixing?  First the underdog
wins too often, now the favorite wins too often.  What will they be
satisfied with?
 
I guess I'm also against it for the selfish reason that I've been able
to go to seven series in the past four years, at Harvard, Northeastern,
BC (2) and BU (2).  It might be difficult to get time off to go to
Albany two weekends in a row.
 
Now we have only three sites in the country that will be having NCAA
hockey, as opposed to 9 this season.  There will be 11 total NCAA games
played; there were 22 in 1991.  At least this means Florida and Syracuse
will probably be getting less revenue from Division I hockey than they
did this season.  I wonder if all four games at each regional will have
separate admissions.
 
I'd like to add Worcester, Mass. as a site that should be considered for
the Eastern regional.  I don't know how many the Centrum holds for hockey,
but the Bruins play a number of preseason games there.  It's as central
a location as you can get in the East along with Albany.  But assuming
Albany is out because it is hosting the Final Four (an assumption I am
not going to make, but having the same site host both seems a little odd),
Worcester would be a great location.
 
 
- mike