i come up with a simple solution to something that's definitely a problem

As per tradition…okay, maybe not tradition. As per recent trend, I’m updating my annual NCAA Hockey Tournament Proposal/Discussion to fit this season’s tournament announcement. If you’ve missed the last couple of years, you can read them here and also here. The second one sparked quite a debate in the comments about a number of different options. It’s worth a quick parsing. Also, this is my first real foray into the Pairwise Rankings and matchups since I didn’t write any Rooting Guides this season. Honestly, Michigan didn’t win enough games to get into the Top 20, so it seemed a bit secondary.

Notes: Individual Scoring, Absent Teams, #1 Seed Punishment

• Scoring: Heading into this tournament, only two players have 50 points, and one of those players got eliminated on Saturday and the other is in the NHL right now. Granted, there are still 15 games to be played for players in the mid-to-high 40s, but I think anyone getting to 55 is a stretch. That seems low. I looked back at the previous five seasons or so (lol the CCM line year) and the number of players to reach 50 points were: 6, 13, 10, and 9. Maybe it's just me, but scoring seems more spread out this season. There also might be a lack of high end scorers? Anyway, it caught my attention.
• Absent Teams: Six schools have at least five National Championships. Five of those six missed the tournament (Denver is the exception). Those teams are: Michigan (boo), North Dakota, Wisconsin, Boston College, Boston University, and Minnesota. All three schools with three National Championships missed the tournament. The three with three aren’t quite as prominent or have not been as good recently: Lake State, Michigan State, and Michigan Tech. Either college hockey is reaching some extreme parity or this was a weird year.
• Minnesota State is the #3 overall seed and they are playing a road game at #14 Providence. Literally a road game. Come on. Also, Minn-Duluth is the #2 overall seed and are going to Allentown, PA (why? why is this even an NCAA Tournament location?) to “host” the Arizona State Ice Devils. If this doesn’t reinforce my coming points, I can’t help you.

[After THE JUMP: replicating the first couple days of the basketball tournament, this year's home-site matchups, Frozen Four locations, and the ways to make it all work]

[Ed-S: NastyIsland=David Nasternak=our hockey beat guy and general doer of things.]

(Patrick Barron) It might look decently filled in, but the entire upper ring is tarped off

Did you watch any of the NCAA Hockey Tournament last weekend?  Maybe.  Probably not.  Did you attend one of the Regionals?  Hahaha.  Did anyone? [see above picture] This seems…less than ideal. College hockey is fun!  Local arenas and atmospheres are intense and intimidating.  Couldn’t this sport tap into this energy and utilize one of the main positives that differentiates collegiate athletics from professional sports?  I think so.

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

WHO GOES? 16 NCAA hockey teams.

The number of teams should stay the same.  Does more than 25% of all of college hockey making the NCAA Tournament seem a little high?  Sure, but the numbers work well and one of the repeatedly mentioned goals is to increase the growth and visibility of the sport, in general. So, 16 it is.  Continue using the same selection method: Pairwise Rankings and Conference Tournament winners.  Avoid conference matchups in the First Round, obviously.

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

WHY CHANGE? There are a few well-known issues with the current set-up:

Poor Attendance: A couple Regionals have better attendance than others.  Generally, those in the northeast tend to do better because the distance between schools and sites is not as far.  Sites with a participating host team also do a little better because there is a rooting interest.  However, the random Midwest Regional in an AHL/NHL arena is usually…sparse.  I have been to a few of these and it is not entertaining.

No Reward for Dominance: If a team has had a good season and managed to secure a #1 seed, there is no guarantee that their matchup or playoff site is to their advantage.  The committee will try to place higher seeds closer to home, but…sometimes, teams are sent to Minneapolis and get paired with Minnesota in the first/second round.  Or one of the schools from Boston.  That seems like punishment.  There have been countless debates about whether it’s better to be in a certain location or be a certain seed.  This should never happen!  Being a higher seed should always mean receiving a reward!

[Hit THE JUMP for David's elegant solution to the worst postseason in sports]

The 2013 Motor City Bowl between Pitt and Bowling Green, via StadiumJourney blog.

In our roundtable yesterday I suggested a new way of calculating bowl eligibility. It struck a chord, and it's offseason, so I thought I'd do a follow-up.

The Problem: With 40 (plus the NC) bowls, the bowl field has now expanded to 80 teams, or 62.5% of what's currently 128 FBS schools. However the old six-win provision for bowl eligibility remains mostly intact, disqualifying mostly mediocre schools who played much harder schedules in favor of bad, barely eligible, barely FBS teams.

This system doesn't just create less watchable bowls. It incentivizes schools to pad their non-conference schedules with noncompetitive opponents and FCS programs, and incentivizes conferences to play fewer conference games lest they disqualify more of their teams from bowl play. The result is a less competitive, and thus less interesting, football season.

My Proposal: A simple points system:

• 3 points for a win over any team in the final CFP Top 25
• 2 points for a win over any Power 5 school not included above
• 1 point for a win over any FBS school
• -1 points for a loss to any FCS school

I initially proposed 7 points as the cutoff for eligibility, but as one reader correctly predicted, this is still too exclusive. So I amend that to the highest bowl points level you need to fill the available bowl games is your bubble region.

[After the jump: I try this out with the 2015-'16  bowl field]