John, I liked the NCAA Quarterfinals being a two-out-of-three format
at the schools rinks.  I agree with you that with the lengthening of
the season by one week, this maybe should be looked at again.  More
games if nothing else.
 
----------
From:  John T. Whelan[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  Friday, April 04, 1997 10:07 PM
Subject:  Double elimination
 
        People (many clad in Maize and Blue) have pointed out how the
single elimination format for the NC$$s can be rather cruel to a team
that plays consistently well throughout the season, then has one bad
game.  This makes me speculate about how the NC$$ tournament could be
altered to require more than one loss to knock a team out.
 
        In the days before the regionals, the preliminary rounds were
two- or three-game series, as they are in the various conference
quarterfinals.  But this inverted from the way things are in most
sports; as you move further along, the series become longer, on the
assumption that, for example, a #1 seed is in less danger of being
upset by a #8 seed than by a #4 seed.  (But don't tell that to
Clarkson.)  So what if we left the regionals as is and made the
Frozen
Four double-elimination?
 
        Of course, that makes the tournament last three weeks rather
than two (as does the wackier double-elimination format I've
mentioned
a few times, most recently at the end of a message archived at
<http://www.aero.und.edu/~cbell/hockey/tourney/ranks.htm>).  But that
would fit in with the NC$$'s to have the finals take place a week
later than they do now.
 
        Okay, so you have four teams survive the regionals.  If there
are no upsets, they'll be E1, E2, W1 and W2.  In Week Two of the
tournament, you have two days, two games each.  The obvious pairings
for the first night are E1/W2 and W1/E2.  You could argue for any of
the possible sets of pairings the following night (winner/winner and
loser/loser to give the simplest double-elimination format, E1/W1 and
E2/W2 to maximize inter-region competition, E1/E2 and W1/W2 or
winner/loser to reward the high seeds or winners with the easiest
draw).  In any event, any team which is swept is eliminated, and two,
three or four teams will advance.  (If the second night pairing was
the standard double elimination scheme, the only possibility is three
teams.)  In the finals, if there are two teams (both 2-0), they play
a
best-of-three to decide the champion.  If there are four teams (all
1-1), it's a wash, and we revert to the current single-elimination,
three-game format, with the semifinal pairings pitting the pairs of
teams that did not face each other the previous weekend.  If there
are
three teams, the two that are 1-1 play in game one of the finals.
 The
winner must beat the team that was 2-0 two straight games to win the
title.
 
        This plan would give three weeks of tournament play:
regionals, frozen four, and finals.  Presumably, if the finals were
held at a western site, the frozen four would be in the east, and
vice
versa.  Of course, a simpler way to do this would be to make the
semifinals and finals simple best-of-three series (both semifinals
could be held in the same site to give the tournament atmosphere),
but this way is more fun. :-)
                                        John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                        <[log in to unmask]>
        <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/jshock.html>
 
Cornell Men's Ice Hockey: Back-to-back ECAC and Ivy League Champions
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information
to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.