Just some brief thoughts to elaborate on earlier comments by Mike and Bill:
 
Mike's statistical analysis shows:
>1962-82: single elimination q-finals
>Visitor won 18 of 84 series, or 21.4%.
>3 visitors winning q-final won tournament.
 
   Note that these stats include the infamous "Black Tuesday" of 1982 (?)
when seeds 2-4 lost at home to seeds 7-5 respectively, meaning 16.7% of the
quarterfinal upsets occurred in the *same year*.  The only home-ice team to
avoid elimination that year was Clarkson, who defeated UNH 3-2 in a thriller
at Walker Arena.  [Bill or Mike - can you fill in the details ??].  As I
recall, there was quite a bit of discussion in the Boston media regarding
how "unfair" a single-game elimination tournament was (particularly since
BC (so what else is new ... ) was one of the "victims"), and I've always
wondered whether the shift to the mini-game format in 1983 had already been
planned or was nudged over the edge by the flurry of upsets in 1982.
 
Bill writes:
>I hear people say that the multiple-game series is supposed to benefit the
>favored team and make upsets less likely, but in the ECAC at least, it
>appears to have helped only the top two seeds.  In the single-elimination
>quarterfinals between 1962 and 1982, the first and second seeds had a record
>of 35-7 (83.3%) against the eighth and seventh seeds, while numbers 3 and 4
>went 31-11 (73.8%) against 6 and 5.
 
What's often overlooked in discussions like these is the impact the expansion
of the NCAA tournament field has had on the CONSEQUENCES to a high-ranking
team losing (in any format) in the early round(s) of its respective conference
tournament.  BC's upset loss to N'Eastern in last year's HE quarterfinals,
while shocking [ well, given the UA-A results, maybe not :-) ] was certainly
not as damaging to their NCAA aspirations given a 12-team field as would have
been the case in "Ye Olden Dayes" of the 8-team tournament.  Top-seeded New
Hampshire's 6-7 OT loss to RPI in the 1974 ECAC quarterfinals bounced the
Wildcats right out of the NCAAs, as I'd wager happened to other 1 or 2 seeds
who took it on the chin in those innocent days before $$$ and TV interests
boosted the tournament pool [ once again, I'm short on details - did any
other WCHA, CCHA or ECAC 1-2 seed lose in their respective conference
quarterfinals and STILL make the 8-team NCAA field ??  The BU-PC fiasco of
some years back rates a special mention - do you have the details Mike ?? ].
 
.... and continues:
>The teams which perform better during the regular season do deserve to have
>some advantage like home ice in the quarterfinals, but what is so wrong with
>a few upsets along the way?
 
  Under the current NCAA format, not a thing, since the losing team is still
all but guaranteed a spot in the NCAA tournament.  Securing a week-long bye
in the NCAA first round was certainly a valid incentive up to now, as will be
avoiding the initial Friday night game in the new regional format.  My
personal opinion is, given that a loss by a top-seed in a conference quarter-
final will not seriously jeopardize a team's participation in the NCAAs, and
since the entire NCAA format is now single-elimination, why *not* standardize
on a one-loss-and-you're-gone format to keep the pressure on throughout all
levels of post-season play.  I'm looking forward to some intense games in
this year's tournament, since *every one* is now sudden death - what a rush
to end the season .... May the *best* [ heh heh ] team win .... !!
 
 Jim Love <[log in to unmask]> Univ. of Maryland System / Solomons, Md (USA)