Bracketology
Posted by Beeeej
Bracketology
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:08AM
Anybody besides me get the ominous feeling that, if we get to make a run at the Frozen Four this year, it's gonna have to be through UNH again? 
Beeeej
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:15AM
I was thinking the same thing on the ride in this morning. Right now, Cornell is (with luck and execution) a 2nd band team and UNH is a 3rd band team. Throw in that the other eastern 3rd band team may well be an ECAC opponent, and you've got a Cornell-UNH matchup in Amherst or Worcester.
Personally, I like that matchup. A bracket like:
1. BC
2. Cornell
3. UNH
4. Harvard
I could live with.
Personally, I like that matchup. A bracket like:
1. BC
2. Cornell
3. UNH
4. Harvard
I could live with.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:33AM
I wonder how much the committee will try to approximate the "natrual" seeding for a 16 team tournament (1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc.) and how much attendance will come into play. The bracket Greg listed might well come up, regardless of the system. However, I'd personally like to see at least one western team in the regional. I guess I just like that aspect of the old, old system with regional crossovers.
Getting revenge on UNH would a wonderful thing, assuming we could beat 'em.
Getting revenge on UNH would a wonderful thing, assuming we could beat 'em.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: ninian '72 (---.ed.gov)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:40AM
Good intuition. This week's Bracketology column at uscho has Cornell in the West with NoDak, Mass-Lowell, or UNH as the first-round opponent, depending on how the bonus points shake out:
[www.uscho.com]
[www.uscho.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2005 11:42AM by ninian '72.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:52AM
The conventional wisdom, to which all of Moy's simplistic articles subscribe, assumes the committee will try to put together a perfect bracket as possible (e.g 2nd round #1 vs. #8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5) regardless of attendance ramifications. I don't think we really know what the committee will do in this regard, because they haven't yet had to choose between attendance and "bracket integrity" since the 16 team field came into play 2 years ago.
Taking Moy's brackets as a starting point, I would switch Cornell's and Wisconsin's spots as well as Michigan's and Harvard's to get better attendance. There would still be some western teams going east and vice versa. A "natural bracket" is only equitable if all of the higher seeded teams win their first round games.
Taking Moy's brackets as a starting point, I would switch Cornell's and Wisconsin's spots as well as Michigan's and Harvard's to get better attendance. There would still be some western teams going east and vice versa. A "natural bracket" is only equitable if all of the higher seeded teams win their first round games.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2005 12:07PM by Steve M.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:52AM
If we're not good enough to get past UNH, then it really doesn't matter. Besides, if we do meet UNH *and* beat them, the victory will be all that much sweeter.
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 01:16PM
The seeding committee should take into consideration which teams actually get fans to travel. Cornell could put 1,000 fans in Amherst or Worcester but not Grand Rapids. (Lord, what a missed opportunity that was that we didn't make the title game in 2003 when it was in Buffalo.) Wisconsin fans are insanely loyal, too, and ought be rewarded with something that's within an eight-hour charter bus ride of the people's republic of Madison, all other seeding factors being equal. OTOH, how many fans would Harvard send even to Worcester?
Yes, it would be nice to exact revenge on UNH if you knew Cornell was going to win in advance.
A Cornell-BC-UNH-Harvard pairing guarantees one eastern team makes it to the Frozen Four but removes the possibility (duh) of two getting there from among the four. Every one of the four *could* make it all the way to the semifinals if they were in separate brackets.
Yes, it would be nice to exact revenge on UNH if you knew Cornell was going to win in advance.
A Cornell-BC-UNH-Harvard pairing guarantees one eastern team makes it to the Frozen Four but removes the possibility (duh) of two getting there from among the four. Every one of the four *could* make it all the way to the semifinals if they were in separate brackets.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: February 01, 2005 01:55PM
Everything we've seen from the committee indicates that "band integrity" matters a whole lot more than preserving the 1-16 seeding.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 01:59PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Everything we've seen from the committee indicates that "band integrity" matters a whole lot more than preserving the 1-16 seeding.[/q]
well we know our band is second to none in terms of integrity (... sorry, following suit w/ another stupid joke)
Everything we've seen from the committee indicates that "band integrity" matters a whole lot more than preserving the 1-16 seeding.[/q]
well we know our band is second to none in terms of integrity (... sorry, following suit w/ another stupid joke)
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 02:10PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Everything we've seen from the committee indicates that "band integrity" matters a whole lot more than preserving the 1-16 seeding.[/q]
I think it is fair to say that they only tinker with the 1-16 seeding when the host team and no intraconference first round matchups rules come into play.
Everything we've seen from the committee indicates that "band integrity" matters a whole lot more than preserving the 1-16 seeding.[/q]
I think it is fair to say that they only tinker with the 1-16 seeding when the host team and no intraconference first round matchups rules come into play.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 02:21PM
Agreed. It appears that they'd like to have a natural 1-16 seeding, but will freely deviate to avoid first round interconference matchups. They will not change the banding.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Red Man (---.fidelity.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 03:43PM
I watched UM Lowell beat UNH 7-0 on TV the other night. UNH is not nearly as good as their recent history would suggest. I would like to play them to exact some revenge.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Bio '04 (---.net.nih.gov)
Date: February 01, 2005 04:01PM
And Ayers has graduated...
___________________________
"Milhouse, knock him down if he's in your way. Jimbo, Jimbo, go for the face. Ralph Wiggum lost his shin guard. Hack the bone. Hack the bone!" ~Lisa Simpson
"Milhouse, knock him down if he's in your way. Jimbo, Jimbo, go for the face. Ralph Wiggum lost his shin guard. Hack the bone. Hack the bone!" ~Lisa Simpson
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: pfm10 (---.gillette.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 05:27PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Agreed. It appears that they'd like to have a natural 1-16 seeding, but will freely deviate to avoid first round interconference matchups. They will not change the banding.[/q]
Except when it applies to the Big Red like back in 2003. Wasn't that a 1 vs. 13 matchup?
On the UNH note, they did look pathetic against Lowell on Friday night for the first period that I caught before going to watch the Clarkson game, but they came back big the next night as a response. I would love to see us whip UNH in the NCAA's, especially since the guy who scored their winning goal back then is marrying into the wife's family. Is there no justice?!
Agreed. It appears that they'd like to have a natural 1-16 seeding, but will freely deviate to avoid first round interconference matchups. They will not change the banding.[/q]
Except when it applies to the Big Red like back in 2003. Wasn't that a 1 vs. 13 matchup?
On the UNH note, they did look pathetic against Lowell on Friday night for the first period that I caught before going to watch the Clarkson game, but they came back big the next night as a response. I would love to see us whip UNH in the NCAA's, especially since the guy who scored their winning goal back then is marrying into the wife's family. Is there no justice?!
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 05:34PM
It's tough to say that they will "only" do something under circumstances given how few times we've seen them seed a 16-team tournament thus far.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 05:44PM
[q]Except when it applies to the Big Red like back in 2003. Wasn't that a 1 vs. 13 matchup? [/q]We should've gotten the 16 seed, which would've been the AH team. But they gave us Mankato in order to avoid inter-conference matchups with two of the other #1 seeds - Minnesota and CC, IIRC. I don't remember if Mankato was #13 or #14.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:23PM
sucks is up 5-0 against onion halfway thru the game
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:32PM
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
sucks is up 5-0 against onion halfway thru the game[/q]
...as Union free-falls from 6-0 to 7-10. Nice of 'em to beat Dartmouth in the midst of their collapse.![B-]](http://elf.elynah.com/smileys/11.gif "B-]")
sucks is up 5-0 against onion halfway thru the game[/q]
...as Union free-falls from 6-0 to 7-10. Nice of 'em to beat Dartmouth in the midst of their collapse.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.rr.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:49PM
I've been switching between the game and horrendous auditions in Cleveland and I'm not sure which is more dreadful.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Chris 02 (---.icsincorporated.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 10:22PM
Looking at the Livestats, it appears there was a big fight at 18:15 of the 2nd period in which one Union guy got DQed for "ER". Anyone know what that is besides a TV show on NBC?
EDIT: The boxscore on collegehockeystats indicates "excessive roughness"....might just be fighting.
EDIT: The boxscore on collegehockeystats indicates "excessive roughness"....might just be fighting.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2005 09:05AM by Chris 02.
H 7 - UC 1
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.phil.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 10:34PM
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
sucks is up 5-0 against onion halfway thru the game[/q]
Mrazek played 5 minutes in goal for UC, made one save and allowed three goals.
Noah Welch managed to not tally a single point in the 8-1 win. As usual, he took a bunch of goonish penalties- 10 minutes (including unsportsmanlike conduct on two separate occasions). A class act through and through that captain.
sucks is up 5-0 against onion halfway thru the game[/q]
Mrazek played 5 minutes in goal for UC, made one save and allowed three goals.
Noah Welch managed to not tally a single point in the 8-1 win. As usual, he took a bunch of goonish penalties- 10 minutes (including unsportsmanlike conduct on two separate occasions). A class act through and through that captain.
Re: H 8 - UC 1 (F)
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.rr.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:19PM
Final score was 8-1. There was a nasty fight at the end of the 2nd with Noah Welch going bare fisted pummelling away on Union players. The only DQ handed out was to Brian Kerr of Union, even though about five players deserved one.
[www.collegehockeystats.com]
[www.collegehockeystats.com]
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Steve M (4.29.49.---)
Date: February 02, 2005 01:07AM
That's exactly my point. We need to wait and see if the committee is really going to risk poor attendance just to preserve a natural 1-16 bracket. Of course the seed "bands", host schools, and no intra-conf 1st round matchups are cast in stone. The natural 1-16 bracket, however, is not. Moy's articles practically assume it's a given and to hell with the attendance. It makes his column a no brainer to write since it's all cookbook to set up the brackets.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 08:30AM
Maybe, but Moy's very conscientious in general, I didn't read this particular column, but all the derogatory verbage about a guy who has been working his butt off for college (and ECAC) hockey for a decade is uninformed and unwarranted.
Re: H 8 - UC 1 (F)
Posted by: Brian (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 08:47AM
Dell must have been the ref!
Bracketology experts?
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.town.ipswich.ma.us)
Date: February 02, 2005 11:04AM
How many of you astute prognosticators and observers of the PWR noticed that Harvard's win over Union last night dropped Miami out of TUC and reduced MI's TUC comparison advantage over Cornell to .002, bringing Cornell a you-know-what hair from #5 overall and a spot in Denver's bracket in the east?
Observing minutia like this is much more germane to what will keep Cornell "home" in the regionals than vapid speculation about what violence the committee will/should do to the natural seedings to maximize attendance (news flash - not much!).
Observing minutia like this is much more germane to what will keep Cornell "home" in the regionals than vapid speculation about what violence the committee will/should do to the natural seedings to maximize attendance (news flash - not much!).
Re: Bracketology experts?
Posted by: jkahn (216.146.73.---)
Date: February 02, 2005 11:41AM
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
How many of you astute prognosticators and observers of the PWR noticed that Harvard's win over Union last night dropped Miami out of TUC and reduced MI's TUC comparison advantage over Cornell to .002, bringing Cornell a you-know-what hair from #5 overall and a spot in Denver's bracket in the east?
[/q]
Actually, according to USCHO, they were not a TUC before last night's game - perhaps they were one sometime on Saturday before all the late results were in. Regardless, the whole TUC/non-TUC issue is definitely a flaw in the system. If you lose to a team with an RPI of .5 or better, that hurts you, but if that team falters and is deemed a weaker team, then that loss doesn't matter so much. The last two games of the regular season, Michigan plays Bowling Green, who is just above the TUC line. They're already 2-0 vs. Bowling Green and it might turn out that their PWR winds up higher if they go 1-1 in their last two games rather than 2-0, which might push Bowling Green out of TUC. Of course, Michigan wouldn't know this until after the CCHA playoffs, so they wouldn't lose on purpose, but there should never be a system with possible results like this. Does the committee understand this?
How many of you astute prognosticators and observers of the PWR noticed that Harvard's win over Union last night dropped Miami out of TUC and reduced MI's TUC comparison advantage over Cornell to .002, bringing Cornell a you-know-what hair from #5 overall and a spot in Denver's bracket in the east?
[/q]
Actually, according to USCHO, they were not a TUC before last night's game - perhaps they were one sometime on Saturday before all the late results were in. Regardless, the whole TUC/non-TUC issue is definitely a flaw in the system. If you lose to a team with an RPI of .5 or better, that hurts you, but if that team falters and is deemed a weaker team, then that loss doesn't matter so much. The last two games of the regular season, Michigan plays Bowling Green, who is just above the TUC line. They're already 2-0 vs. Bowling Green and it might turn out that their PWR winds up higher if they go 1-1 in their last two games rather than 2-0, which might push Bowling Green out of TUC. Of course, Michigan wouldn't know this until after the CCHA playoffs, so they wouldn't lose on purpose, but there should never be a system with possible results like this. Does the committee understand this?
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: H 7 - UC 1
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 12:24PM
Welch is, was, and always will be a thug.
Re: Bracketology experts?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: February 02, 2005 04:09PM
[Q]jkahn Wrote:
Ken '70 Wrote:
How many of you astute prognosticators and observers of the PWR noticed that Harvard's win over Union last night dropped Miami out of TUC and reduced MI's TUC comparison advantage over Cornell to .002, bringing Cornell a you-know-what hair from #5 overall and a spot in Denver's bracket in the east?
[/Q]
Actually, according to USCHO, they were not a TUC before last night's game - perhaps they were one sometime on Saturday before all the late results were in. Regardless, the whole TUC/non-TUC issue is definitely a flaw in the system. If you lose to a team with an RPI of .5 or better, that hurts you, but if that team falters and is deemed a weaker team, then that loss doesn't matter so much. The last two games of the regular season, Michigan plays Bowling Green, who is just above the TUC line. They're already 2-0 vs. Bowling Green and it might turn out that their PWR winds up higher if they go 1-1 in their last two games rather than 2-0, which might push Bowling Green out of TUC. Of course, Michigan wouldn't know this until after the CCHA playoffs, so they wouldn't lose on purpose, but there should never be a system with possible results like this. Does the committee understand this?[/q]
Seems to me there was a quarterfinal series in the CCHA a few years ago where it would have been better for the higher-ranked team (Michigan?) to lose one game of the series rather than sweep it, because the losing team would remain a TUC with the single win.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: Steve M (4.29.49.---)
Date: February 03, 2005 01:23AM
I've never said anything negative about Moy's other columns, I just think he's making a major assumption in his Bracketology columns. Just because he has done a lot of good work doesn't mean it's "uninformed and unwarranted" to disagree with him or express dislike for some of his columns. 
Re: Bracketology experts?
Posted by: Steve M (4.29.49.---)
Date: February 03, 2005 01:31AM
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
How many of you astute prognosticators and observers of the PWR noticed that Harvard's win over Union last night dropped Miami out of TUC and reduced MI's TUC comparison advantage over Cornell to .002, bringing Cornell a you-know-what hair from #5 overall and a spot in Denver's bracket in the east?
Observing minutia like this is much more germane to what will keep Cornell "home" in the regionals than vapid speculation about what violence the committee will/should do to the natural seedings to maximize attendance (news flash - not much!).
[/q]
Except that everything is going to change between now and the end of the year. Denver might be the #3 seed and Minny might be #4 by the end of the season, so the discussion of the potential "violence" the committee might do the the natural seedings is a much more relavent topic of conversation at this time. I never claimed to be an expert. All I've said is no one has any concrete data to determine whether "natural seedings" will trump attendance concerns. I guess you're an expert by releasing your news flash. Can you quote a source besides Moy's articles?
How many of you astute prognosticators and observers of the PWR noticed that Harvard's win over Union last night dropped Miami out of TUC and reduced MI's TUC comparison advantage over Cornell to .002, bringing Cornell a you-know-what hair from #5 overall and a spot in Denver's bracket in the east?
Observing minutia like this is much more germane to what will keep Cornell "home" in the regionals than vapid speculation about what violence the committee will/should do to the natural seedings to maximize attendance (news flash - not much!).
[/q]
Except that everything is going to change between now and the end of the year. Denver might be the #3 seed and Minny might be #4 by the end of the season, so the discussion of the potential "violence"
the committee might do the the natural seedings is a much more relavent topic of conversation at this time. I never claimed to be an expert. All I've said is no one has any concrete data to determine whether "natural seedings" will trump attendance concerns. I guess you're an expert by releasing your news flash. Can you quote a source besides Moy's articles?
Re: Bracketology experts?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 03, 2005 11:44AM
[q]Seems to me there was a quarterfinal series in the CCHA a few years ago where it would have been better for the higher-ranked team (Michigan?) to lose one game of the series rather than sweep it, because the losing team would remain a TUC with the single win. [/q]I remember that as well. It was Michigan though I can't point to the year or opposing team. I suspect a littel time searching the H-L archives would find it, if I cared enough to look.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: jkahn (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: February 03, 2005 09:53PM
Northeastern's win over UMass tonight makes Miami a TUC, as they had played Northeastern earlier in the season. This results in a 2-0 addition to Michigan's record vs. TUCs.
Why am I even paying attention to this at this point? Bracketology should be forbidden until two weeks are left in the regular season.
Why am I even paying attention to this at this point? Bracketology should be forbidden until two weeks are left in the regular season.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 04, 2005 02:22AM
[Q]jkahn Wrote:
Why am I even paying attention to this at this point?[/q]
Because come March you won't be "that guy" that is convinced the Committee screwed us. See Maine fans in 2003 that don't understand why Maine was sent west while BC played in Providence.
Why am I even paying attention to this at this point?[/q]
Because come March you won't be "that guy" that is convinced the Committee screwed us. See Maine fans in 2003 that don't understand why Maine was sent west while BC played in Providence.
Re: Bracketology
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 04, 2005 07:25AM
[Q]jkahn Wrote: Why am I even paying attention to this at this point? Bracketology should be forbidden until two weeks are left in the regular season.[/q]
Because you believe GNP and personal productivity are growing too quickly and our collective time on eLynahcarping about bracketology or McKee's chances for the Hobey is part of a grass-roots circuit breaker mechanism that keeps the economy from overheating.
Because you believe GNP and personal productivity are growing too quickly and our collective time on eLynahcarping about bracketology or McKee's chances for the Hobey is part of a grass-roots circuit breaker mechanism that keeps the economy from overheating.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.