Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | Kevin B. Powers |
Date: | Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:02:55 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Cory J Laylin wrote:
> I disagree with having 16 teams.. There are only what, 44 teams to begin
> with. I think 12 is a good number.
Good point. Compared to other collegiate sports (basketball and football),
hockey is alredy overloading. Hockey sends 12 of 44 or 27.3% of all
elidgable teams to the national tournement. Basketball sends 64 of 309
or 20.7% to the national tournement. Finally, football has approximately
15 or 16 Bowl games which means 30 of 168 teams or 17.6% (I may be a
bit light on this one) go to the post season.
The point being that hockey sends over a quarter of it's teams to the BIG
one. It's just a function of the low number of participating schools.
See expansion thread a month back.
> What I would like to see is the NCAA playoffs going back to best of 3
> series. I've always thought playoff hockey was meant to be played in a
> series. That way you can reward a team for playing a better series as
> opposed to maybe having one good game.
I believe that one reason it was changed to regional sites was to eliminate
the possibility of 3 weekends of excessive travel. One weekend for the
regionals and one weekend for the finals, and its done. Also the bye
WEEK may have favored the #1 and #2 teams more than just the 1 game BYE.
I liked 2 out of 3 for the round of 12 and quarter-finals.
Just an opinion
Kevin
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|