Bri writes: >>Maybe so...but that happened because the WCHA teams did not perform well >>enough during the reg season to get those byes. He has no right to >>complain, IMO. It was not unfair at all. Sounds to me like he is looking >>for an excuse. > >Perhaps, I might buy that (pun unintended) in another year. But, >the fact that two of the games were really close (Mich-Wisc went >to overtime and LSSU-UMD was one goal, I think) reinforces his (my) >argument. If you are looking to reinforce your argument, I'd think that using the results of the other two games would be better - those teams that lost (NMU/Minn) could just as easily claim that they'd have had a better chance to win had they not been forced to play back to back. Especially NMU. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Wisconsin and UMD had to play on only a day's rest vs Michigan and LSSU because they were deemed to have not done well enough to earn the rest. The outcome of the games only proves that some teams without the byes were able to play well with less time off. That doesn't mean they deserved an extra day between games - they were the lower seeds, after all. I'm not sure what you are suggesting, but why give more of an advantage to the teams seeded lower? >Perhaps they could strike a compromise like have one day in between >the first and second round, as someone suggested. That seems fair. This was what was done last year...it was blamed for poor attendance at both regionals, losses by higher seeds, and everything else except the extinction of the dodo bird. After witnessing what happened last year and this year, I am happier with the 1993 way of doing things. The underdogs still have a chance to win, and there is more of a balance between the team that has more rest and the team that is sharper because they've played more recently. >Well, I disagree. I think they do want parity. I don't think they want >everyone going into a series knowing that someone is going to win. Don't confuse parity with having the games be a tossup...if parity was REALLY the goal, Maine and BU would have been sent out West so as to improve the chances that they'd get beaten. In addition, if we really knew who was going to win every series beforehand, they would have never been played, and BU wouldn't have upset #1 MSU in 1990 in a best of 3, nor would UAA have upset BC in 1991. >I refer you to a letter sent to me >from Phil Buttafuoco (Joe's cousin? :) in which he stated that the >reason the best of 3, on campus format was dropped was because, "the >coaches felt that there was a tremendous disadvantage" for teams >without home ice. He referred to the fact that 14 of the last 16 teams >with first round byes (at the time it was written) advanced to >the final four. If they didn't want more parity, then why change it? Hmm, maybe we have different definitions of parity...to me, it is that both teams have an equal chance to win, meaning you stack the deck on the weaker team's side if necessary)...I still believe the goal was to decrease the length of the tourney, from things I'd heard, and perhaps then when deciding how to re-format the tourney, the issue about road teams having a disadvantage came up. Or maybe they were indeed given equal consideration...but I don't think that giving the road teams a better chance to win is equivalent to making each matchup a tossup. There will be upsets in every format. Finally, I think Phil might have made a better use of statistics to prove his point...the fact that 14 of 16 teams with byes made the final four from 88-91 does not indicate that road teams are at a "tremendous disadvantage" any more than the fact that Merrimack, BC and PC all failed to make the HE final four means that HE Catholic schools are at a disadvantage. The road teams were on the road because they were not good enough to earn the right to be at home; thus, as underdogs, we'd expect they would not win many more series than they did. On top of that, we have the fact that this year all four teams with byes made it to Milwaukee. If the goal is to keep trying to stack the tourney against the teams who earned higher seeds, then why not just seed the teams 1-16, kick the top 4 out and let 5-16 play? - mike (finally got a post through from here)