The Superiority of the 16-Team Tournament

From 1992 to 2002, the format in which the top two teams in each regional were well rested while played a team that had played the night before gave a huge advantage to the top two seeds. It seems that the top two seeds always prevailed in the regionals unless a lower seed was playing at or near its home rink or Clarkson was a top two seed. (I know this is an exaggeration, but my point still stands.)

The current 16-team format has taken away the advantage for the top seeds, and it has leveled the playing field. That doesn't make this weekend's upsets inevitable, but it makes them possible.

And, this has been a phenomenal NCAA Tournament so far.

cbuckser
And, this has been a phenomenal NCAA Tournament so far.

Holy crap, my head is about to explode with its phenomenalness.

Another win tomorrow, and then I'm going to need about 10 days to calm down.

That doesn't make this weekend's upsets inevitable, but it makes them possible.

And fun, too. I agree, this has been an amazing tournament. Part of it was having three ECAC teams in. Part of it is that Cornell won. (I'd be off moping until tomorrow if they'd lost.) Mostly, there have been very few blow outs, three overtimes, and I can't remember when coverage of so many of the games have been available.

cbuckser
It seems that the top two seeds always prevailed in the regionals unless a lower seed was playing at or near its home rink or Clarkson was a top two seed. (I know this is an exaggeration, but my point still stands.)

Is it really necessary to kick us while we're down?

Dpperk29

cbuckser
It seems that the top two seeds always prevailed in the regionals unless a lower seed was playing at or near its home rink or Clarkson was a top two seed. (I know this is an exaggeration, but my point still stands.)

Is it really necessary to kick us while we're down?

Yes

We only tease you because we like you.