NCAA Tournament Expansion

Not sure if this a re-post, but the NCAA Tournament will most likely be expanded to 16 teams next year from 12, according to The Boston Globe:

[www.boston.com]

-eric

Hallelujah! I will be glad to get rid of the disadvantage of the teams having to play the play-in game while the other rests. New Hampshire this year and NoDak a few years back might have been Cornell wins without the play-in game bias.

Here's a slightly more detailed story: [uscho.com]

I still won't believe it till I see it, since we have been waiting so long, but it does look a little more likely now than before.

Article and a nice picture of what appears to be Sam's goal at:

[espn.go.com]

It's a pity that the caption reads "New Hampshire has its sights set on reaching the Frozen Four", though.

I still won't believe it till I see it, since we have been waiting so long, but it does look a little more likely now than before.

See it below!

From the Ann Arbor New:
[www.mlive.com]

I don't know how this passed under the radar . Does USCHO stop all article writing in the off-season or something? You'd think the near-guarantee of expansion finally coming to be would be worth 10 minutes of someone's time... oh well, whatever.

So all it needs is the "rubber stamp" from one more group (I can't keep all these councils/committees/etc straight). Let's hope it's that easy.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

Closer, but not yet entirely approved. (Was this the committee that killed it last year?)

It's at the same stage as it was weeks ago when USCHO first reported it. And they've been talking about it quite a bit since then. With the (outgoing) head of the NCAA holding an unprecedented news conference AT the Frozen Four, everyone assumed that was partly a symbolic nod that the expansion would happen. They spent an awful lot of time talking about it on the Pregame Shows and Town Meeting, as well. So... it seems to have passed under your radar, not their's.

Closer, but not yet entirely approved. (Was this the committee that killed it last year?)

It's at the same stage as it was weeks ago when USCHO first reported it.

I believe this was the committee that killed it last time, yes.

And, Age, I don't think that's true. The vote that the article talks about happened this past Tuesday (aka, 3 days ago) - " A proposal to increase the number of teams in each of those tournaments passed its biggest hurdle Tuesday when it gained approval from the NCAA Division I Management Council. ". The article was written Wednesday. I haven't seen any articles on USCHO since the Frozen Four, though I admit I could have missed it.

It's a three step process, this is the second step, only leaving the "rubber stamp" from the Board of Directors... " All it needs now is a review by the NCAA Board of Directors, which typically agrees with the Management Council's budget requests, for it to become effective."

I believe this vote is the one that was talked about at the press conference, so it's not completely shocking that it passed, but it is new news. So once again, yippee!

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

There has been considerable discussion of this on the USCHO message board -- more than 65 responses to the thread last time I visited. But thanks for bringing it to everybody's attention. Any positive news in this direction is welcome.

In an unrelated development, the Islanders made the playoffs and the Rangers made an early tee time. What's the ratio of their payrolls? 1:3? 1:4?

Get off your stinking high horse Greg. According to the Sporting News, Rangers=$57.3M, Islanders=$34.4M. The Isles are a far cry from the penny pinching cellar-dwellers of a few years ago. Incidentally, the Islanders are up more than $10M from last year. On the other hand, there's no excuse for the Rangers not making the playoffs (*cough* Low). Anyway, hopefully the Leafs will mop them up.

> Get off your stinking high horse Greg.

It's not a high horse. It's a goddamn relief after seven years in the toilet. (And I would have been a lot happier had the Rangers just gotten a tie in their final game.) A high horse is what I get on when I discuss the merits of the Ivies and the non-scholarship schools.

FYI....

Numerous sources (including Canada's TSN, and I certainly believe them when it comes to hockey) have the Rangers payroll this year as having topped $70 million.

Certainly higher than a low-balled $57.3 M.

Look, those are the numbers The Sporting News published in a list of every team this year along with their payroll from last year. Besides, even if it is $70M, it's still a far cry from the 3:1 or 4:1 Greg was claiming.

> it's still a far cry from the 3:1 or 4:1 Greg was claiming.

Actually, I was just trash-talking -- I had and have absolutely no idea what the payrolls are, though I know the Hair Guy has been getting on the Rangers' case for loading up on salary and then screwing the pooch.

What makes this even funnier is that I don't particularly dislike the Rangers. During the period when the Isles were (and apparently now are) good, the Rangers have been irrelevant, and vice-versa. Better the Rangers than the Flyers any day.

so to give part in the trash talking:
the playoffs start wednesday without the rangers. ok we all knew that, but boy do i love to say it
it is nice to have the isles in the playoffs and i hope for an isles-devils series down the line.
go devils!

ps
the 50 something figure for the rangers was for the start of the season. saw it on espnews last night. that does not include Bure and company

Article in today's Cape Cod Times--the newspaper of record-- uses $70m.

I think this just shows how good the Yankee management is. Everyone says it's just their bucks, but at least two other NY teams have proven that bucks alone are not enough. You have to have some smarts behind those bucks, and unfortunately some teams don't have it.

Oh, it's not purely the money. The Yankees have some real talent both on the field and behind the benches. That said, they're still the spawn of Satan

I'd say it took some smarts for that other New York team to get a future Hall of famer in his peak years in exchange for a WSo'S.

don't forget about the Redskins.

yeah, we noticed!

but what good would a tie have been?

It's official: 16 teams are in next year in both men's hockey and lacrosse.

The release is at [www.ncaa.org]

YES!!!

Word on the USCHO is that they're planning on going to four four-team regionals, and that therefore two of next year's regionals will be up for bid this summer. Any chance that if a lot of people write to them and suggest it, Athletics will bid to host one, maybe at the OnCenter?

Josh Herman '99 wrote:

Any chance that if a lot of people write to them and suggest it, Athletics will bid to host one, maybe at the OnCenter?

Well, it would mean we'd know where we were playing if we made the NC$$s, but taking the four teams out and shooting three of them at random might be preferable making them play in the War Memorial. (Sorry Jim.)

Well, we could tell the world the games are starting at 6pm and then play them at 1.

Where is the one set east regional -- Worcester? Albany? Providence?

I don't think it would be too much of a stretch for Cornell to host a regional at the Knick. Too bad Lake Placid is too samll a facility to be considered.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if smaller facilities became viable for regionals now that there are four of them. How does the capacity in Placid compare to Yost or Van Andel?

Not sure, but I think it's a lot smaller (say, 7k v. 14k?)

Alright, I've been trying to figure it out since you posted it Greg, and I give up. What the hell is a WSo'S?

I know, I know.

WSoS = wet sack of sh*t

As in the late night WFAN caller who thinks the Mets should trade Darryl Strawberry for a WSoS. (Sorry I couldn't think of a more current example. I don't listen to sports call-in shows of my own free will.)

Where is the one set east regional -- Worcester? Albany? Providence?

Worcester - as usual

JTW wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if smaller facilities became viable for regionals now that there are four of them. How does the capacity in Placid compare to Yost or Van Andel?

No guarantees that these data are right:

Xcel Energy Center    St. Paul           18,600
Pepsi Arena           Albany             13,941
Centrum Centre        Worcester          12,239
Van Andel Arena       Grand Rapids       10,834
1980 Rink             Lake Placid         8,000
Yost Arena            Ann Arbor           6,603
War Memorial          Syracuse            5,444
CoachUSA Center       Elmira              4,100

Lake Placid's definitely viable in terms of seating, but I'm sure the NCAA has a problem with the location. If we were hosting one, I'd vote for CoachUSA, but I suspect both it and the War Memorial are too small.

How about the Rochester War Memorial?

Blue Cross Arena at the War Memorial, Rochester = 11,215. Incidentally, a surprising, almost creepy, number of these medium-to-large arenas are run by one company called SMG.

Binghamton Vet Memorial: 7,200.

According to the Jackals' home page, the Coach USA Center has a capacity of 3,900, not 4,100. Might as well have it at Lynah in that case...

Doesn't Lynah not have enough locker rooms to host a regional? Or did they fix that in the last renovation?

Despite a wide range of numbers on the web (3200-4900) Coach USA was one of the few I'm sure of. They added 200 seats at the beginning of the season.

OK... Silly me, I should know by now not to believe everything you read on the web.

Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena (Binghamton) = 4,680

Coach USA Center (Elmira) = 4,100 (broken up between 3,800 seats + luxury box seating)

> Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena (Binghamton) = 4,680

According to their homepage, they have 7,200 for hockey. (No idea whether that's right.)

Not unless they expanded it since my last visit there two weeks ago for a UHL playoff game. That 7,200 figure is what I assuming they squeeze in there for concerts.

There is talk of state money coming in with the new AHL team this year ('02-'03) and they are looking to expand hockey capacity to 6,000 with luxury boxes as well.

New AHL team?! Where? Binghamton? That'd be nice for them, but the 90s killed that dream last time, so I'm slightly skeptical - then again, if places like St. John's, Hamilton, Hershey, etc can prove themselves, I wish Binghamton the best.

(I was a Hartford Wolf Pack diehard before I came to Cornell, so I still like to keep up 'my' old league)

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

(Edit: okay - I found it - [theahl.com]
neat... 28 down, 2 to go I suppose ).

The Hartford Wolfpack, huh??? Do you know their lineage??? They were the former Binghamton Rangers in the "A" before the local owners had much money dangled in front of their noses by MSG...locals take the money...MSG now has a team to move and fill 40+ dates at the newly vacated Hartford Civiic Center (Whalers to Carolina that spring)...many Binghamton fans heartbroken over loss of the second best hockey league in the land...forced to suffer with the low level UHL for the past 5 seasons...

Cannot wait for the Wolfpack to make their first visit to Binghamton this year. Their reception should be interesting to say the least!

Yeah, yeah, I completely know their lineage. At the same time, the old Greensboro AHL team (the monarchs, I believe?) were forced out of there and moved to New Haven as the New Haven Beast, who folded a few years later after they couldn't find the required affiliate - Carolina dropped them, don't remember why.

I guess I was under the impression the team had been struggling in Bingo, as I've heard AHL fans call the city. Between that and the Binghamton Mets (I'm an NY Mets fans) I've always felt a connection to the city. Then I took Shortline through downtown... eeeww, and I thought Troy was bad .

Oh, and just to prove that I really know the lineage... do you know what they were before the Binghamton Rangers (you very well might)? The Binghamton Whalers. Then Hartford moved their affiliation to neighboring Springfield and the Rangers stepped in and saved the team. So the Hartford Whalers leave and are replaced by another ex-Whalers. The circle of hockey, I suppose .

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

P.S. The biggest travesty in pro hockey was still the Minnesota North Stars, IMHO, but I guess that one's been atoned for.

Actually, they aren't (weren't?) the New Haven Beast, they're the Beast of New Haven. It's kinda like the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, only not as catchy.

Actually, I don't know how you choose to trace lineage, but the Binghamton Rangers could be traced to the previous Rangers affiliate, the New Haven Nighthawks, rather than the Binghamton Whalers. This would bring in a Cornell connection, since both Darren Eliot and Duane Moeser played a few games for the Nighthawks

But can you link them back to Kevin Bacon?

Actually, I don't know how you choose to trace lineage, but the Binghamton Rangers could be traced to the previous Rangers affiliate, the New Haven Nighthawks, rather than the Binghamton Whalers. This would bring in a Cornell connection, since both Darren Eliot and Duane Moeser played a few games for the Nighthawks

I was under the impression that the ownership in Binghamton, and hence the franchise itself, never changed during the Whalers/Rangers switch over. Many (though not all) AHL teams are independently owned, and can switch affiliations several times while still being the same team (take a look at the Springfield Falcons of a couple years ago who changed their secondary affiliate probably 3 times in 3 years).

Of course, then you have situations like Hershey who has always had a team named the Hershey Bears for, what, 50 years now? But, if I remember correctly, the franchise is not the same. A couple years ago the team moved to become the Philadelphia Phantoms. At the same time the Quebec Nordiques (sp?) moved to Colorado, so they transferred their franchise from Cornwall, Que to Hershey, keeping a team there.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote:

Of course, then you have situations like Hershey who has always had a team named the Hershey Bears for, what, 50 years now? But, if I remember correctly, the franchise is not the same.

Sorta like the Cleveland Browns?

NO PROBLEM...

Darren was a teammate of Luc Robitaille with the LA Kings in the mid 80's...

Luc was in D2: The Mighty Ducks with Emilio Estevez...

Emilio was in St. Elmos Fire with Demi Moore...

Demi Moore was in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.


Ask me a hard one.

Sorta like the Cleveland Browns?

Sorta, except there was never a year without a team - so if you looked back at standings or something through the years, you'd have no reason to think anything ever happened... pretty good timing, I'd say.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

No, not really like the Cleveland Browns, at least according to the offical NFL line. According to the league, the Cleveland Browns franchise never left for Baltimore. They just lost all of their players to a new Baltimore franchise, stopped playing for a couple seasons and had a replenishment draft when they began play again.

I'm not really joking here. This was part of the final agreement when Modell left town. The official NFL recordbooks list a single Browns franchise that stopped playing for a couple years but still has all-time records, etc. dating back to the early days of the league.

So, Modell gave the franchise to the league in exchange for an expansion franchise in Baltimore with all his players and staff? That's frelled up.

So I guess it's more like the Dallas Texans or Washington Senators, a team that periodically forms and then moves someplace else and changes its name.

I think the idea that the records belong to the city (and its fans) is a good one. Los Angeles has no call on the records of a certain team in Brooklyn, nor another in Minneapolis, nor another in Oakland (although that has been atoned for, if that's the right word for anything to do with Al Davis). For that matter, the Chicago Black Hawks shouldn't be able to take credit for the first US challenge for the Stanley Cup (the beloved Portland Rosebuds).

The Browns situation was weird -- franchise moves are almost always an a**f***ing, but rarely does the league admit it as honestly as the NFL did. Generally speaking, I believe records should rest in peace after the MBA's get done looting.

But, for the sake of the Brown's fans, you have to be happy that they kept those records. After all, can any NY Giant fan conceive of Jim Brown's records being transferred to Baltimore?

Speaking of Jim Brown...does anyone think he was the greatest lacrosse player ever?

YES

I want to start by saying that I wasn't even born when Jim Brown played lacrosse at Syracuse.

So, while Al and Jim both could've theoretically attended lacrosse games featuring the Jim-Brown-led Orangemen, and thus they could theoretically provide eyewitness accounts, I am unfortunately too young to have 1st-hand knowledge... sorry...

Going strictly on 2nd-hand knowledge, therefore...

I've heard conflicting accounts on Jim Brown and his place in lacrosse history (duh). I'm sure there are others among us who are more qualified to comment, but it seems that there are two "camps" of opinion on this:

------------

1.) The Gait brothers were the best. They raised the sport to a new level. They were the "twin Gretzky's" of lacrosse. Jim Brown is "over-rated" because he relied strictly on power. (He'd supposedly use his stick to trap the ball against his chest (apparently still a legal maneuver in the mid-'50's) and just steamroll his way to the goal.) Very effective use of football running-back power in another sport, but not necessarily an indicator of lacrosse skill. (So they say.)

------------

2.) The standard, party-line ("you-don't-really-know-lacrosse-history" answer to anyone who "foolishly" claims Gait supremacy is that Jim Brown was the real "best-ever" lax player. Countering the Gait argument with the Brown argument has the added benefit of giving one instant credibility as a "true lacrosse fan" (i.e., someone who knows the "real story" and is, therefore, more than just a superficial follower of modern lax hype).

Since only a tiny handful of really old fogeys are capable of making a 1st-hand-knowledge-based rebuttal to the Brown-is-best claim, it's usually a safe bet to play the "Brown card".

I'm unfamiliar with the specific arguments used in favor of Brown, or how this camp refutes the other camp's anti-Brown argument. I will add, however, that I've read that, in the opinion of a "supremely knowledgeable" old-timer lax wizard (who has seen both the Gaits and Brown play), Brown was "definitely" the best ever. Tough to counter that.

------------

I personally haven't a clue. Perhaps the two eras (30+ years apart) are simply too different for us to ever be able to settle this debate. But, hey, that's OK -- debates that are settled cease to be fun!

Great post!

My solution:

a) Brown was the best athlete to ever play lacrosse

b) The Gaits were the best lacrosse players ever*

(to be fair, having guys like Lockwood and Marachek on the same squad didn't hurt.)

c) Petro is the best *defensive* player ever, as evidenced by his performance against Gary Gait in the '89 title game.

Thanks, John. I like your "solution"!

(OK, that's it -- the debate is officially settled!) )

P.S. -- If anyone's interested in exploring the "who's the greatest lax player of all time, Jim Brown or someone else?" debate, then do the following search at the LaxPower Forum: "Jim Brown" (exact phrase / all dates). Let's just say that there've been some discussions on this matter...

Since only a tiny handful of really old fogeys are capable of making a 1st-hand-knowledge-based rebuttal to the Brown-is-best claim, it's usually a safe bet to play the "Brown card".

Come-on now. Either you should put a smiley face by this, or you really don't understand demographics, or you really mean it.

I'll choose the first option, thanks.

Hee-hee. I figured it was a sure thing that either you or Al would offer some commentary on my characterization of the (remaining) pool of potential Jim Brown lax witnesses. Mission accomplished.

OK... now I've atoned for my naughtiness -- Option #1 has been duly implemented.

(BTW, I was merely going by AARP membership requirements!) )

I hadn't read this thread in a while, Al, or I would have responded sooner.

Thank you, apple, for taking it as it was intended--tongue-firmly-in-cheek.

According to this blurb on USCHO, the NCAA capacity requirement for a regional venue is now 4,000.

[www.uscollegehockey.com]

I'll bet on Rochester. Far enough away from Worcester and close to that other Western NY city, who is hosting the Frozen Four.

Does anyone know whether we might be the host school for that Rochester bid? I can't imagine it's Niagara or Canisius, given that they're co-hosting the Frozen Four... Seems to me it has to be either us or Colgate.

It could be an eastern Michigan school or a North Country school, but I just assumed it was Niagara/Canisius -- the only schools anywhere near Roch.

Note that the hockey committee is meeting in San Francisco. Now that's what I call taking any excuse for a cool roadie.

I believe any school can be the host. Most schools obviously prefer to tie in with venues close to their fan base, but it's not a requirement. (See Anaheim.) The bid is a package deal - both host school and venue as a predetermined pair - yes?

Obviously the same travel factor used for the regionals wasn't applied to the location selection for the hockey committee's boondoggle!

I would've suggested one of the North Country schools as well, except that I assumed that one (or both) of them was involved in the Lake Placid bid.