ECAC SINGLE-ELIMINATION: Thumbs up
These are all the same arguments that were bandied about when HE went to
single-elimination and when the NC$$ did it too, and many of them have some
validity.  Yes, it is true that this format favors an underdog more than
the others.  However, the important thing is that whatever format you play,
there is no possible excuse that the loser can give.  You know what the format
is going in.  Here, the favorite knows it has to get up to play that one game,
and if it can't, then it simply doesn't deserve to go on.
 
Were it my choice, I would rather see best-of-three, probably because I have
seen some exciting best-of-threes in the short time it was held in HE in 1990.
NU @ BU: Huskies win first behind Cole; then Joe Sacco scores all five to beat
NU in Game 2, 5-0 - papers read "Joe Sacco 5, NU 0"; BU wins by one in game 3
to advance.  Merrimack @ BC: BC gets outshot 17-3 in 3rd of G1 but holds on
to win by 2; MC gets fastest HE playoff hat trick ever by Andy Heinze to
shock BC in G2, 6-3; Marty McInnis scores 5 48 hrs after Sacco did it to beat
MC, 8-5, with ENG icing it.  And who can forget UNH @ PC.  PC pounds UNH in
G1, but goalie Pat Morrison tells Bob Kullen to "put me in again for game 2
and I'll shut them out."  G2 Final: UNH 2, PC 0.  G3, PC leads late, then
UNH gets 4 goals in final few minutes to shock Friars, 7-4.
 
The HE change led the way for the NC$$ and ECAC changes, but HE faces a unique
problem that all of the other tourneys do not face.  In the 1990 HE best-of-
threes, despite attempts to stagger the games (some on Thur night, some on the
weekend afternoons, one on Monday night), there were three games competing
for the fans' dollars in the Boston area on Friday night and two on Saturday
& Sunday nights, and overall if you wanted to see all of the Boston-area games
that you could that weekend, you'd have paid to see 7 games.  Great for
someone like me, but not everyone wants to do that.
 
Notice that this weekend, the four HE games will be played such that none of
them overlap, while I believe all four ECAC games are scheduled for the same
night.  HE can thus get all the games on tv (in 1990 they missed several of
the best games because they had to guess which ones to cover), and fans can
see live at least three games easily (UML-PC, BC-BU, NU-UNH) if they can get
tickets.  The ECAC doesn't have to worry about fans skipping one game for
another or ignoring one game to stay home and watch another on tv.
 
NO MINIGAME
So, I understood the reason for the change in HE and I believe I announced
these two factors (tv, attendance) as the reasons for the change last season.
I'm still not sure exactly why the ECAC went to single elimination in the
quarters, although there are several possibilities.  At any rate, I like it
better than the old format.  No one has advocated total goals so I won't rail
against that again.  But I hated the minigame format.  I am completely against
any format that forces a team to play differently than it might have played
in a normal game.
 
A perfect example came last year when RPI was at Harvard.  RPI got crushed in
the first game and then had a tie late in G2.  But that wasn't good enough
since Harvard would win the series 1-0-1.  So, RPI had to pull its goalie
despite being tied on the scoreboard!  Normally, a tie would be good enough
to get you into overtime where you might be able to pull out a win and tie
the series.  Sorry, the minigame format was no better than total goals in
my view.  Good riddance to it.
 
BTW, in my mind there is no such thing as "lucky bounces" in the playoffs.
If the favorite ends up in a situation where it takes such a lucky bounce
to decide whether it wins or loses, then it simply hasn't proven itself over
the prior course of the game to earn a win.
 
Finally, it seems clear to me that the move to single elimination has come
about chiefly because of the national movement towards fewer games.  I don't
know if this was a reason why the ECAC did it (hmm, seemed hypocritical to
play more playoff games than HE while allowing fewer regular season games,
didn't it!).
 
TWO TEAMS FROM EACH CONFERENCE INTO NC$$S: Thumbs down
As I said before, forget it.  I support sending the 12 best teams across the
country, so I have to oppose this.  To those who say it's necessary because
we don't have enough information to distinguish between teams from different
conferences, I ask you then, how do you propose to seed the teams?  You still
have to order the teams somehow.  By the typical way of selecting teams, the
seeding can be done along with awarding the bids - take the best team and
give them the top seed, and so on.  Now, you are saying that Team X *would*
have gotten a seed, but, well, we've got to take another team from Conf Y
even though they're worse than Team X.  Sorry Team X, you stay home this year.
If there is *any* way someone can prove to me why this is fair, please do!
 
Leagues are different and of different strengths.  One league's 4th-best team
may be better than another's 2nd-best team.  Teams that deserve to go should
not be kept home because of politics...but it is going to happen anyway.
 
It is simple.  The criteria for selection are known to each and every school
throughout DivI.  You know what you have to do to get in, and you see how
you are rated as every week goes by.  What has happened is that a certain
conference has become concerned that it will get fewer and fewer teams in
the tourney, so it has been deemed better to change the rules and force two
teams to be selected.  I would have rather seen them change the criteria if
they think that is not fair, and they do have more than adequate representation
to work on getting this done.
 
I have heard it said that this is for the better of college hockey.  Nothing
could be further from the truth.  If the goal is to do something for the
better of the game, i.e. letting more teams have a shot at the title, then
do what the Massachusetts HS hoop tourney did and create an open tournament
where anybody who wants to can declare themselves in the tourney.  I have
always thought that the goal was to fairly and reasonably determine a national
champion.  Awarding a bid to a team that does not deserve it over another
that does, runs counter to that goal.
 
 
- mike