It would have been somewhat unfortunate to have SPASH and ECM play in a quarter final match-up
"Hypotheticall Speaking" If ECM beat spash 1-0 in 2-OT, and looses in the championship game; The team that beat ECM in the championship would be better than spash, because they beat the team that beat SPASH. The championship team would be the best team in the state because again "Hypothetically Speaking" SPASH or ECM or any other of the teams in the state could not be considered the best team in the state cause they totally blew their chance in the entire post-season. Hypothetically speaking if SPASH lost, no way could anyone agrue that they are the best team in the state; IF they were the best team in the state why did they loose a game in the postseason?
(I hope people realize that I am not making predicitons, just saying something I have observed and made my opinion in the past three years in several different post-seasons in several sports)
I think I understand where your coming from....the best team will win in the end. But using your example above, if SPASH and ECM played 2OT and had a grueling game, the winner could be somewhat at a disadvantage from being physically/mentally worn out going into the next game. More so than what they could have been if they were playing a lesser team. I just think the system could be improved by matching the higher rated teams (based on prior game results/power rankings/coaches rankings) against the lower ranked teams. The higher ranked teams have earned the right to POTENTIALLY have an easier path to the finals....it can make a difference when playing 3 games in 3 days. In most years the system in place will work just fine, but I still think seeding would be an improvement.