PLAYOFF PONDERING by John Gilbert Forget the CBS-inspired quick-elimination format. Adopt a round- robin, regional NCAA tournament with 16 teams. from U.S. COLLEGE HOCKEY MAGAZINE [5 March 1994] It's almost playoff time again, time to make another attempt to coax the NCAA into expanding to an equitable, 16-team national tournament. Here's the scheme: Each league sends four teams, based on season and playoff stature. One team from each league goes to one of the four regional sites. At the Hockey East site, let's say Boston, Hockey East's No. 1 seed plays the No. 4 CCHA seed, while the ECAC No. 2 seed plays the No. 3 WCHA seed. At the ECAC site, let's say Albany, N.Y., the ECAC No. 1 seed plays the No. 4 WCHA seed, while the Hockey East No. 2 seed plays the CCHA No. 3 seed. At the CCHA site, say Detroit, the CCHA No. 1 seed plays ECAC No. 4 team while the WCHA's No. 2 seed plays the Hockey East No. 3. And at the WCHA site, say St. Paul, the WCHA No. 1 seed plays the Hockey East No. 4, while the CCHA No. 2 faces the ECAC No. 3. The winners of each game play the winners of the other bracket for the decisions on which teams advance to the Final Four. If one league happens to be superior in a given year, it might get two or even more teams to the Final Four. But the top two Eastern seeds would stay at home or close to home, and the top two Western seeds would do likewise. An even better idea would be to revive the intrigue of a true Olympic round-robin style tournament. Remember when the Olympic hockey tournament was decided by round-robin, instead of a CBS- inspired quick-elimination tournament that plays down to a final game? The above scenario would be improved, and determine the best teams at the Final Four, if each site consisted of a three-day round- robin tournament, wherein each team played each other. Three doubleheaders, three days of capacity crowds, and no team would make the Final Four because of a one-night-stand type of upset. Then, of course, once at the Final Four, the four finalists would again play a three-day series of doubleheaders to determine the champion. In almost every case, a final game would decide the champion. But if it came down to an actual tie, the tie-breaking procedure would be clear, concise ... and it would certainly draw national attention to the hockey tournament. Something that has been sorely lacking. The current playoff structure is ludicrous. Two teams enjoy byes, while four others beat their brains out in two games, then come right back to play the two rested teams in a one-game shot to go to the Final Four. It is simply unfair to the four teams at each regional that must play two games in a row, and it CAN be unfair to the team that sits idly with the bye while another team gets warmed up to the NCAA tournament pressure and comes in with a different pace. This year, the NCAA seedings might be more surprising than ever. Rumor has it, a gentleman's agreement has determined that each league shall get three teams to the final 12, which is a welcome change from the politicking that has accompanied the recent trend of downgrading the ECAC. But the occasional rankings by the NCAA hockey committee have not been published, because there are so many other ratings around the country. So nobody will know, until the finish, how the NCAA committee thinks the teams stack up. Consider the possibilities of switching to 16 entries by the above- mentioned formula. Look at the standings in each league and figure the top four, or the top three plus one hot league-playoff team, and then sort them out by your own rating and plug them into the formula. They only problem college hockey fans might have would be to decide which tournament they'd most want to watch. Each of the four regionals would reach out and grab new college hockey fans, and it's guaranteed they'd all want to watch the Final Four. ...end quoted material... I don't agree with many of Gilbert's comments, but I do like the foundation of his tournament plan. Using regular season standings, this year's tourney could look like this: at BOSTON Boston Univ, Clarkson, Wisconsin, Western Michigan at ALBANY Harvard, UMass-Lowell, Michigan State, St Cloud at DETROIT Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Brown at ST PAUL Colorado College, Lake Superior, RPI, Northeastern Sure sounds like fun. John H U Mich