Ryan Robbins writes: "Expanding the field to 16 teams would be a bad idea and set college hockey back in its "quest" for notoriety; it would cheapen the value of winning the championship, not to mention the value of reaching the playoffs. "The playoffs are supposed to feature the upper echelon of teams. While opinions may differ on what constitutes the upper echelon, I don't believe allowing more than 33 percent of all teams to qualify for the NCAA tournament would constitute the creme de la creme. "The NBA and the NHL playoffs are a joke because almost anybody has a chance at making the playoffs. While some argue that Americans love the underdog, I believe it goes too far when you can have a team that doesn't deserve to play for the championship playing for the championship. The champion is the one team that has outlasted the others. Otherwise, why don't we just do away with the regular season and have the tournament?" [End of quoted material] I don't agree. I think it would be a great if the tournament was expanded to include 16 teams. The way I look at it, it would only mean greater excitement and fan interest. In other words, the more the merrier! If some people believe that "lowly" 7th and 8th seeded teams don't deserve to play with the "upper echelon" then these people have nothing to be afraid of since surely these teams should be eliminated in short order. On the other hand, if one of these teams is capable of pulling a string of upsets on its way to the national championship, then the title would be justly deserved. By the same reasoning, any top seeded team who would be eliminated by a "cellar dweller" wouldn't deserve the championship. What's wrong with giving the underdogs a shot? Hey, its a GAME, its supposed to be FUN. "Why don't we just do away with the regular season and have the tournament?" you ask. Well, maybe it's because the players and the fans enjoy the games. Believe it or not, there is a lot more to college hockey than just winning championships. Tony Garcia