Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.
I would agree that there does seem to be some sort of extra advantage=20 given to the bye team. The problem is, it is not that easy to=A0tell how=20 much of an advantage that is. Here's what I mean: The numbers over the last three years have been 1996 Bye 4, Non-bye 0 1995 Bye 3, Non-bye 1 (Minn. over Colorado College) 1994 Bye 3, Non-bye 1 (LSSU over Mich) So, at least in those three years, the bye teams have a winning % of=20 .833. This seems high. But on the other hand, they are *supposed* to be=20 the better teams, and there has seemed to be a tendency in the past=20 years to be a considerable leap in the talent level of the top few teams.= =20 Besides, there is supposed to be an advantage to teams that do well over=20 the course of the season. What makes it even more interesting is the the two "upsets" in the last=20 three years have both been conference match-ups. I can only wonder if=20 the fact that the teams have faced each other multiple times in the=20 regular season has an effect on the outcomes of these games. In=20 particular, in both of the season series between the teams in question,=20 the team that *lost* had a winning record in games earlier in the season.= =20 Michigan beat Lake State four straight times in the 1993-94 season,=20 including once in the CCHA championship. CC had a 3-2 record against Minn= =20 in 1994-95, including an OT win in the WCHA championship. This may have=20 given the teams in the "underdog" position more of an emotional lift when= =20 playing the game, which allowed them to excel despite any fatigue they=20 may have felt. As for this weekend's West regional, I am not sure the extra game had any= =20 negative effects on Minn performance (being a UMN season ticket holder,=20 Minn is the team I have the most familiarity with). This year especially,= =20 since the WCHA, through a scheduling blunder, had the WCHA Final Five a=20 week in advance of the other three conferences, which means the two WCHA=20 teams (CC and Minn) had two weeks off. I think Minn really needed the=20 first game against Providence, a lesser opponent (no offense to=20 Providence meant -- I think most will agree they are inferior to=20 Michigan) to get the rust out of their system. In fact, the first period=20 of Saturday's UMN-PC match-up saw, in my opinion, some substandard Minn=20 play, which they corrected as the game went along. Now, if they had gone in to play Michigan cold and had an off first=20 period, they would have been sunk, as Michigan dominated play in the=20 latter half of the game. Of course, I guess you could argue that not being as tired, Minn would=20 have played better in the second half, and you may well be right. At any=20 rate, this particular argument hinges on the extra week layoff, which is a= =20 rare occurrence. Nothing should be decided on way or another because of it. Now we come to the question of what can be done about it (and I think=20 that something should). Some are suggesting going to a Friday-Sunday=20 format, so the winning teams have Saturday to rest. While this sounds=20 good, I am not sure (not being a hockey player myself) what effect one=20 day off has on fatigue. What I would really like to see is this: Reduce the NCAA Tournament to eight teams, or increase to 16. The=20 increase to 16 seems *very* unlikely, as the NCAA has rules about what %=20 of the overall population of schools can compete in the tournament, and=20 hockey is *already* over that limit. It is only because the twelve team=20 format was in place when the rule was enacted that allowed hockey to be=20 "grandfathered". So drop the field to eight teams. The main argument against this is: 1) Only one game on the weekend, rather than two, which leads to 2) Decreased revenue for the NCAA. Both of these complaints can be negated by going to a best of three=20 series between the teams, which seems more fair anyway. The only negative= =20 I see to this is that instead of the current six teams in any regional,=20 there are only four, which could reduce the likelihood of getting a good=20 regional draw from a team near the site of the regional (e.g. MSU would=20 not have made it to the regional at Munn this year). There is one more negative, I guess, and that is it decreases the number=20 of teams gaining oh-so-valuable post-season experience. Well, most teams=20 get post-season experience in their respective conference tournaments,=20 but this does not give them experience playing teams from other=20 conferences at the end of the season. What I would like to see is *another* post-season tournament, similar to=20 the NIT for basketball. This tournament could take the next eight (which=20 covers the four that normally would have gone to the NCAAs, and four=20 others) and could do much like the NIT does: use regional sites to help=20 generate $$ and fan support for the respective teams.=20 It would also allow for teams not making the NCAA tournament to end their= =20 season on a high note, playing against some stiff competition near the top= =20 of other conferences. Of course, all of this requires changes to the way that teams are=20 currently chosen for the NCAA Tournament: no courtesy bids for conference= =20 winners, just the one automatic bid given to each conference bestowed as=20 they see fit. This is the system that I would like to see, and surprise! it calls for=20 more hockey to be played. :-)=20 Now we just need to find somebody interested in organizing this other=20 tournament. =09=09=09=09-Lee-nerd [log in to unmask] "It is not written in the stars that I will always understand what is going on - a truism that I often find damnably annoying." -Robert Heinlein HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.