I have to admit that I haven't read a lot about the new conference, so
I don't have any comment.  But as to the format of the NCAA
tournament, I am not sure what to think.
 
It seems (IMO of course-no flames please).....wait, let me say right
off the bat that I like the NCAA Regional format.  It has that
tournament atmosphere about it.  But I don't think that the NC$$
promotes it very well.  In fact, by their not offering press passes to
"online services" they are going out of there way to not promote it.
 
It is difficult to generate the growing support of the "possible fan"
out there, the fan who will like college hockey if given the
opportunity to see it at a tournament level of play, without the NCAA
pushing or helping it along.
 
For example, during the regionals this year, on Saturday afternoon,
both ESPN and ESPN2 were showing NCAA women's basketball.  Now if they
are going to do that, why couldn't the NCAA say to the deuce that they
would like some coverage of the NCAA tournament?  They shove women's
basketball down our throat, yet do nothing to assist another revenue
producing sport.  It makes no sense.
 
Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against women's basketball at all,
or the fact that it is getting coverage.  I would just like to see the
NCAA either push the hockey regional format on a national network  (in
addition to the other regional networks coverage) or maybe go back to
the on-campus quarterfinals and offer more games for the fans who
really love the sport.  (Then maybe Michigan would get beat in a 2-out
of-3 format :-) )
 
Open for discussion...
 
Terry
 
----------
From:  Greg R. Berge[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  Monday, April 07, 1997 10:49 AM
Subject:  just throwing cold water on new format / new conference
 
Idly flapping one's virtual jaws is always fun, of course, but I doubt
that
grandious plans for a new tourny structure nor the planned fifth
conference
will have any impact on college hockey.
 
As far as the new formats go, perhaps people should state what they
are
trying to accomplish or what problem in the current system they are
trying
to address before spinning their tangled web of choice.  I haven't
read
anything actually worth keeping from the various systems people have
proposed, though I love their creativity, and I think there *are*
flaws in
the current format.
 
As far as the new conference goes, I don't really think people were
being
vicious in their choices of acronyms (and I thought OYVEY was pure
genius... :-)   But I know I feel pretty dismissive about the new
conf.,
and suspect that most people on the list are as well, here at its
inception.  We are being asked to consider a coalition which hasn't
played
a game of schools most of us have never heard of which offer neither
scholarships nor superlative academic prestige (note I did not say
"worth"
-- anybody who's ever spent fifteen minutes with a Harvard man knows
the
difference) as even remotely likely to match the current
conferences in status and competitiveness.  Could that happen?  Of
course.  Will that happen?  Time will tell.  But is it likely to
happen..?
Seems to me that a measure of pig-headed, narrow-minded dismissiveness
is
in order.  :-)
 
- Greg
 
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.