Nathan wrote: > The only good basic plan would be to combine the ECAC and new MAAC and > give them one, maybe two entrants (given the ECAC's 0-6 record over two > years, 0-3 this year, etc., etc., etc. Don't bother reiterating all the > excuses -- academics, finances, hidden bias aginst elitist, whatever -- > which are still nothing but excuses for the fact of having a weak league > producing few-and-far-between great (NCAA caliber) teams). EQUAL > representation from all leagues would dilute the QUALITY of the four > regionals. > I don't think its necessary to dis the ECAC this way. Whether they are or are not the weakest of the 4 current Div I leagues, they nevertheless field strong teams in the playoffs. The fact they typically do not make it to the final four is no reason to treat them with disrespect. Quality control issues will be difficult to deal with. I think we are best served by continually reminding ourselves that there are people with vested fan interest in all the teams, including the new ones. > Better yet, let every team in the nation into a pre-regional tournament > and make all of them play into the regional. That way, if the ECAC ever > does get good, then their teams can make it to the regional in numbers. > GuaranteeD numbers per conference drive me nuts, since about all they do > is protect the weak. > I have to disagree. Guaranteed numbers protect the strong, not the weak. The weak are not at the top of their conferences. The strong, however, might get bumped out by a very slightly stronger 3rd place team from another conference. However, I do agree that having a kind-of playoff system to get into an 8 team field would be a good idea. The difficulty with playoffs is there is a limit to how long you can extend a season. > And in this type of game, that is a losing strategy. Having some committee > decide which league or which team gets in "automatically" not only will > bring up tons of drivle when the 16 are picked, but whatever rules they > use to pick teams will leave out someone deserving. > Is this not a good description of the current situation? Drivel always has and will always continue to abound. Of course, one person's considered opinion is another person's drivel, but that's another subject. In the meantime, there is almost always someone "deserving" who doesn't get to dance. Years like this one where there was almost a consensus of who should make the 12 team field are a rarity. > Let them all play and let the playing teams decide who is deserving rather > than some closed-door committee. So what if that adds two or three weeks > to the season. I'd love it. > So where do you draw the line? 2 weeks? A month? I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I suspect we are already near a reasonable limit. These are college students, after all, not professionals. You ideas have merit, but implementation may prove quite difficult. Tom Rowe [log in to unmask] ==================================== Home of Division 3 National Champion Pointers 89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners Up 92 & 98 ==================================== HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.