Indirect Kick: Does the Frozen Four Need to Be Reformatted?

Stepping off the pitch this week, I’d like to focus on a topic that has Boston University’s campus abuzz with excitement: The Frozen Four. For the first time in six seasons, the No. 2 Boston University men’s hockey team qualified for the Frozen Four this past weekend with a pair of 3-2 victories over No. 17 Yale University and No. 7 University of Minnesota Duluth.

However, BU’s exciting road to the Frozen Four was overshadowed by some other big storylines this weekend. For starters, No. 15 Providence College defeated No. 4 Miami University (Ohio) in the East Regional semifinals in a thrilling 7-5 battle. No. 13 St. Cloud State University scored with 38 seconds left in regulation and again in overtime to defeat Michigan Tech University in comeback fashion. Finally, the first overall seed No. 5 Minnesota State University Mankato was stunned, beaten 2-1 by a low-seeded and unranked Rochester Institute of Technology team.

With so much chaos and so many upsets, the question stands, should the NCAA reformat the Frozen Four?

The tournament was most recently restructured in 2003, expanding the field from 12 to 16 teams, and the amount of regionals from two to four. The tournament itself has become more popular as well as less complex. It is also easier now for lower-seeded teams to make the Frozen Four round, only needing to win twice instead of three times.

Some fans believe that more upsets are good for the sport and show how balanced the entirety of college hockey can be. Meanwhile, others believe college hockey has been spread to wide open and more of the top teams deserve to be rewarded for putting in full-season efforts rather than a solid conference tournament run.

There are four potential ways to expand and reformat the tournament.

First, the addition of a play-in game. The most upsets have come in the tournament games involving an Atlantic Hockey opponent. The Atlantic Hockey Association is the weakest conference in all of college hockey. If conference tournaments did not signify an automatic qualification, no teams from the AHA would’ve been in the tournament. The conference’s best team, Robert Morris University, did not even make the tournament this season due to an upset defeat in the conference tournament.

With the AHA Tournament winner getting the 16 seed, there should be a play-in game pairing them with the 16th ranked team. The winner would advance to play the top seed overall in the first round of the tournament. This way, the team that actually finished 16th could be rewarded for their strong performance instead of losing out to a team ranked significantly lower who won their conference tournament.

Second, changing the format from single-game playoffs to a series format. Having a best-of-three series would give top seeds a better chance to advance, rather than losing in a fluke single-game, like what happened with Minnesota State (29-8-3) and Miami (25-14-1).

Third, rather than hosting the regionals at a neutral site, holding them at the site of the top seed would put a larger emphasis on regular season performance. This would allow top seeds to have an advantage, as well as force lower seeded teams to play in hostile road environments. In some cases, this could help lower seeded teams win, and in other cases, make it easier for top seed teams to advance.

Finally, expanding the field to 24 teams is a favorable option. Not only would this make the tournament more interesting, but also give bubble teams a chance to make some noise. There would continue to be four regionals, but each would have six teams, giving the top two seeds in each regional a first round bye. This would, again, be rewarding the top seeded teams for a good season and be making it harder for lower seeded teams to qualify for the Frozen Four.

With these four suggested methods presented, it is very easy to determine ideas that would expand the NCAA Ice Hockey Tournament. However, it is much more difficult to find a perfect solution that would satisfy everyone. Hosting a regional at home might be a touchy subject for some teams, claiming it would be next to impossible to win the regional as a lower seed.

Other problems would include the need to end the season early to play a series rather than a single-elimination game. The play-in game would also anger the AHA, making it unfair for their conference to advance a competitor. The only viable suggestion in that regard would be expanding the field to 24 teams. With this change made to the Frozen Four, the tournament would be much more competitive and possibly feature teams in the Frozen Four who would not have qualified in a 16-team field.