At 9:27 PM 2/4/96, Karen Ambrose [actually Greg] wrote: >My wife asked the question based on the format of last year which was a one >game elimination. Now that it has been cleared up that HE is going back, yet >again, to 2 out of 3, I want to know why. It's beginning to appear as though >HE switches back and forth depending on the perceived overall strength of the >league. If a one game elimination was good last year (and as a UNH fan I >don't think it was), why is it not good this year? I asked Bob DeGregorio about this last year. The reason for single game in the q-finals last year was a fear by the league of oversaturating the market with the NCAA East Regional scheduled to be played in Worcester and the NCAA Championship in Providence, as well as the HE Championship at the Garden. They were already asking Boston area fans to come out and support three straight weekends of college hockey (HE finals through NCAA finals). They feared that 2 of 3 in the q-finals would really have been pushing it. I seem to remember Bob saying back then that the q-finals would be changed to best 2 of 3 this year, and sure enough, they were. As far as I know, all games will be played to a completion, i.e. sudden death, no ties. >Secondly, if we are to >have 2 out of 3, considering the proximity of the schools involved, why not >make the odd game be played at the lower seeds' rink? This is how multi- >game playoffs are arranged in other sports. I'm with you. I like the idea of everyone having a chance to host a playoff game. Back in 1990 when Merrimack upset BC in the second game of the q-finals to force a third game, I remember a discussion among MC people about what it would mean to the school if by winning that game the team had earned the right to host the third and deciding game. This isn't by itself a good enough reason to change the format, but I do like the idea of letting more teams host games. On the other hand, the underdog only has to win once in the opposing rink and then it gets to host the deciding game. Logically, it makes more sense to me that the higher seeded team should host all three games. If the format was best of 5, you could probably make a stronger case for allowing the underdog to host one or two games. But from a marketing standpoint, I can certainly see giving the underdog one game to host. >I just wish the higher ups would >decide on a format and stick with it instead of confusing the fans, even >knowledgable ones like us. Agreed...it is confusing. Best of 3 has been my favorite format, both in the HE tourney and the NCAA tourney. I don't expect the NCAA to change back to it, but I'd like to see HE stick with it. The third games of best of threes have been some of the more exciting games I can remember...for one reason, both teams have won recently and have reason to think they can take the series. The buildup is always great. An advantage to single elimination was that HE could schedule the four games on separate nights and get them all on tv. This year, how do you decide which games to show? Maybe you select a matchup that looks good on paper, i.e. #4 vs #5, but then #8 upsets #1. There's bound to be a good or memorable game that winds up with no tv coverage, like in 1990, the UNH-PC 3rd game and the Merrimack-BC 2nd game. --- --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] *HMM* 11/13/93 >> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System << ***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: ***** ***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html ***** HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.