Reason for Best-of-Three?

So why is it that we have best-of-three matchups in the first round and quarterfinals, but semis and finals are just one game each? I mean, I understand the point of a best-of-three is to try to ensure that it's not a fluke and that in fact the "better team" wins... but wouldn't it make more sense to have it in semis and finals, when the matchups are purportedly closer -- rather than in the first two rounds?

That would be a fun weekend, six games instead of 2 for each team. I really could watch 12 hockey games over a weekend, not sure the players could play 6 though.

Primarily it's because the early rounds of the playoffs are individual match-ups, at campus sites, where it's far easier and more convenient to contemplate best-of-three sets over the course of a weekend. No classes for the players, no work for the fans.

If you were to gather four teams in Albany and play up to ten games (I can't imagine anybody thinking best-of-three is a good idea for the consy) to determine the ECAC championship, you'd interfere with far more classes for the players, and sell far fewer tickets to people willing to stick around for six or seven days.

As for the fluke-prevention aspect, well... would you rather have a tournament that whittled 12 teams down to 4 and then worried about flukes, or one that tried to prevent flukey teams from making it to that group of 4 in the first place?

Beeeej



Post Edited (03-11-03 23:53)

The immediacy of single game elimination works great for the neutral site tournament. In the QF round, they still want to give the home team every advantage to advance to reinforce the meaning of the RS. Also, Harvard got knocked out as a #1 the only year they reinstated the single game QF (1993), and it disappeared literally the very next meeting of the ECAC.