How to fix the seeding process
Posted by billhoward
How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 01:03AM
Maybe the pendulum has swung too far. The NCAA committee seems caught up in applying a formula that's inflexible. No matter how many decimal places of precision in the math-based part of its calculation, there is a margin of real world error, meaning the team calculated as the No. 8 might be anywhere from say the sixth through eleventh best team. So why be so prissy about giving the calculated No. 8 the No. 8 seed? Consider:
The real bands aren't 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16. The bands this year seem to be:
1-2 BC and Denver – get first round chumps (Mercyhurst, Bemidji State). If there were three weaklings, then the top band would be 1-2-3. (Whether BC really deserves the overall No. 1 is something else.)
3-4 CC and Minnesota – must play real hockey teams in first round but at least have top seeds
5-6 Cornell and Michigan – just missed top band seeds, legitimate chance to make Frozen Four
7-12 North Dakota, UNH, Harvard, (The) Ohio State, Wisconsin, BU – the great middle, no reason to complain about missing the top band of four, could argue they belong higher or lower in the middle and fans play what-if they'd been matched against X not Y in Worcester not Minneapolis.
13-14 Maine, Colgate – unlikely to advance but won’t embarrass themselves
15-16 Bemidji State, Mercyhurst – No need to book rooms for the whole weekend (KRACH rankings 31 and 51 of 58 D1 schools).
In other words, the seeding committee should really have worried this year about the 2-3 split (who does, doesn’t get a first round pushover) and the 4-5 split (who does, doesn’t get a top seed).
Allow modest reseeding based on the impact of sites and ice surfaces. If you play in your home region / state / town / rink and/or you normally play on an Olympic surface (and your opponent doesn’t), you’re stronger than your seeding indicates (or your opponent will play weaker than its seeding indicates). So while No. 4 (Minnesota this year) is matched up against No. 13 (Maine), the fact that Minnesota has every possible geographic/ice surface advantage this year means it could be paired up against say a No. 12, 11, or 10 seed (eg Ohio State) if need be to avoid some unfairness elsewhere and it would still have the same relative advantage.
Teams that draw well should be placed closer to home. (“For the good of the sport.â€) In other words, the NCAA should honor the likes of Cornell and Wisconsin, unless it thinks half-empty rinks help college hockey. This is more important than in college basketball where virtually every game is televised and where students would have a hard time getting seats even if they could get to the regional game site.
Reward recent performance. This would benefit young teams and teams whose star player missed the first half with an injury. Based on its January 1-on performance, Cornell is a top-four seed.
Allow some intra-conference matchups if it avoids tortured juggling elsewhere (especially geographic juggling). Suppose, say, Vermont or RPI or Dartmouth squeaked in to the tournament, would it be so bad if Cornell had RPI as a first round opponent if avoiding RPI forced Cornell from Amherst to Minneapolis?
Make No. 16 a wild card. Meaning if the committee uses a heavily formula-based criteria for who gets in, make it apply to 15 not 16 teams. Then let the committee in its wisdom pick No. 16, a team that belongs for no other reason than "just because." This year that might have been Dartmouth or Vermont (although that would have meant tossing Colgate and Colgate just beat Vermont and Vermont just beat Dartmouth).
Could you trust the NCAA committee to apply this fairly? If the committee was required to report its reasoning, then sit still for a half-hour televised press conference on seeding day and once again the day before the Frozen Four begins, then the fear of looking like dolts might keep them honest. If the committee had the freedom to change a seeding here and there, it would be a better tournament.
OTOH, it's just a game.
The real bands aren't 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16. The bands this year seem to be:
1-2 BC and Denver – get first round chumps (Mercyhurst, Bemidji State). If there were three weaklings, then the top band would be 1-2-3. (Whether BC really deserves the overall No. 1 is something else.)
3-4 CC and Minnesota – must play real hockey teams in first round but at least have top seeds
5-6 Cornell and Michigan – just missed top band seeds, legitimate chance to make Frozen Four
7-12 North Dakota, UNH, Harvard, (The) Ohio State, Wisconsin, BU – the great middle, no reason to complain about missing the top band of four, could argue they belong higher or lower in the middle and fans play what-if they'd been matched against X not Y in Worcester not Minneapolis.
13-14 Maine, Colgate – unlikely to advance but won’t embarrass themselves
15-16 Bemidji State, Mercyhurst – No need to book rooms for the whole weekend (KRACH rankings 31 and 51 of 58 D1 schools).
In other words, the seeding committee should really have worried this year about the 2-3 split (who does, doesn’t get a first round pushover) and the 4-5 split (who does, doesn’t get a top seed).
Allow modest reseeding based on the impact of sites and ice surfaces. If you play in your home region / state / town / rink and/or you normally play on an Olympic surface (and your opponent doesn’t), you’re stronger than your seeding indicates (or your opponent will play weaker than its seeding indicates). So while No. 4 (Minnesota this year) is matched up against No. 13 (Maine), the fact that Minnesota has every possible geographic/ice surface advantage this year means it could be paired up against say a No. 12, 11, or 10 seed (eg Ohio State) if need be to avoid some unfairness elsewhere and it would still have the same relative advantage.
Teams that draw well should be placed closer to home. (“For the good of the sport.â€) In other words, the NCAA should honor the likes of Cornell and Wisconsin, unless it thinks half-empty rinks help college hockey. This is more important than in college basketball where virtually every game is televised and where students would have a hard time getting seats even if they could get to the regional game site.
Reward recent performance. This would benefit young teams and teams whose star player missed the first half with an injury. Based on its January 1-on performance, Cornell is a top-four seed.
Allow some intra-conference matchups if it avoids tortured juggling elsewhere (especially geographic juggling). Suppose, say, Vermont or RPI or Dartmouth squeaked in to the tournament, would it be so bad if Cornell had RPI as a first round opponent if avoiding RPI forced Cornell from Amherst to Minneapolis?
Make No. 16 a wild card. Meaning if the committee uses a heavily formula-based criteria for who gets in, make it apply to 15 not 16 teams. Then let the committee in its wisdom pick No. 16, a team that belongs for no other reason than "just because." This year that might have been Dartmouth or Vermont (although that would have meant tossing Colgate and Colgate just beat Vermont and Vermont just beat Dartmouth).
Could you trust the NCAA committee to apply this fairly? If the committee was required to report its reasoning, then sit still for a half-hour televised press conference on seeding day and once again the day before the Frozen Four begins, then the fear of looking like dolts might keep them honest. If the committee had the freedom to change a seeding here and there, it would be a better tournament.
OTOH, it's just a game.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.ligo-la.caltech.edu)
Date: March 21, 2005 09:47AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Maybe the pendulum has swung too far. The NCAA committee seems caught up in applying a formula that's inflexible.
[/q]
I feel the opposite. The CC-DU disgrace shows they're abandoning objective criteria.
Maybe the pendulum has swung too far. The NCAA committee seems caught up in applying a formula that's inflexible.
[/q]
I feel the opposite. The CC-DU disgrace shows they're abandoning objective criteria.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: ugarte (---.cisco.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 10:53AM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
billhoward Wrote:
Maybe the pendulum has swung too far. The NCAA committee seems caught up in applying a formula that's inflexible.
[/Q]
I feel the opposite. The CC-DU disgrace shows they're abandoning objective criteria.[/q]They are somewhere in between. They are inflexible about 4-team bands but willing to play favorites within the bands.
It is as if they are just pissed about the codebreakers running bracketology analyses.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Josh 03 (---.rtp.epa.gov)
Date: March 21, 2005 11:26AM
What about a play in game to make it a field of 17 instead of 16. Maybe even 2 play in games. That way, the top 2 seeds don't get an auto-win against the AH and CHA winner. Instead, those teams have to take on the #15 or #16 team to get to the 1st round. That could equalize the bands a bit more.
It's a step backwards for AH and CHA, but I'm just spewing ideas here.
It's a step backwards for AH and CHA, but I'm just spewing ideas here.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Stephen Turner (---.slrhc.org)
Date: March 21, 2005 11:33AM
Interesting idea, but as a percentage, a lot of teams make the tournament now, especially compared to basketball. A few good teams need to be left out in order to have some validity.
As for subjectivity/objectivity there needs to be some subjectivity, otherwise why do you need a committee. Wouldn't it be better for Cornell (and for college hockey in general) if we were in Amherst, even if we were 6 or 7 instead of 5? There needs to be some flexibility, common sense always has a roll.
As for subjectivity/objectivity there needs to be some subjectivity, otherwise why do you need a committee. Wouldn't it be better for Cornell (and for college hockey in general) if we were in Amherst, even if we were 6 or 7 instead of 5? There needs to be some flexibility, common sense always has a roll.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 11:33AM
[Q]ugarte Wrote: ... They are inflexible about 4-team bands but willing to play favorites within the bands. It is as if they are just pissed about the codebreakers running bracketology analyses.[/q]
Right: "NCAA selection process" and "transparency" are not words often heard together, at least not in the past.
(Flipping the two and placing Denver ahead of Colorado College can be argued both ways. Denver did beat CC for the WCHA title the night before and won their head to head series by 3 games to 2. CC has a beatable team it must play while Denver gets a pushover. Sort of like what happened to Cornell in 2003 except then we were the No. 1 seed.)
Right: "NCAA selection process" and "transparency" are not words often heard together, at least not in the past.
(Flipping the two and placing Denver ahead of Colorado College can be argued both ways. Denver did beat CC for the WCHA title the night before and won their head to head series by 3 games to 2. CC has a beatable team it must play while Denver gets a pushover. Sort of like what happened to Cornell in 2003 except then we were the No. 1 seed.)
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 11:45AM
Interesting concept. And the following two years the NCAA first round has sites in Albany and then in Rochester. That's when it would really be worth - assuming we were not a high enough #1 seed - offering to drop down to a the second band of seeds (4-6-7-8) if it allowed us to stay in the region, if such an option were to exist. That would be interesting, especially if the whole thing were televised, sort of like NFL draft day with a countdown timer: The #1 seed overall gets to pick its region if it doesn't like its placement (so long as it doesn't force a host school out), then the #2 overall gets to accept or reject its region, etcetera, and when you get to #4 overall, #4 has the option of dropping to a #5 seed and picking its region. And you only have five minutes to decide. But you don't know what's behind Door Number Three yet - you mind wind up with a less desirable opponent. This would create all sorts of havoc with intra-conference matchups. It would be more popular in the East / Northeast where you actually drive to the home region site; if you're CC and the regional is in Minneapolis, having home ice doesn't exactly let your fans follow en masse.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 12:03PM
[q] What about a play in game to make it a field of 17 instead of 16. Maybe even 2 play in games.[/q]Play-in games are horrible. Part of the appeal of a 16 team tournament is that you don't have byes. The point of the auto-bids is to give every team in D1 something to play for in terms of the national scene. The road is already hard enough for the AH/CHA teams - why make it harder? Just so you can get Dartmouth or Northern Michigan into the tournament as #15? If you can't get into the top 14 you don't deserve to play for the national championship.
Besides, hockey is over the NCAA guideline of 25% anyway so there's no way they would increase the size of the field. Well, unless they thought a CHA/AH matchup would bring in Superbowl ratings.
Besides, hockey is over the NCAA guideline of 25% anyway so there's no way they would increase the size of the field. Well, unless they thought a CHA/AH matchup would bring in Superbowl ratings.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 12:35PM
see below
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2005 12:37PM by Steve M.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 12:36PM
The way to fix it, within the existing rules, is to put a higher priority on keeping teams close to home (especially amongst the upper seeds) and put a lot more flexibility in the competitive equity department. I don't mind them drawing a solid line between the #1 and #2 seeds (not flipping Cornell with Minny) while swapping teams within the seed bands (as they did with DU and CC). But if the committee is going to give themselves the flexibility to do such swaps, it would be much better for them to stop worrying about whether seed 1d plays seed 2a in the 2nd round and give even greater priority to attendance than they did.
The committee could have put together the following bracket that would have allowed many more fans to see their teams play live, while staying well within the published NCAA selection rules:
West-
4 Minnesota
7 North Dakota
10 Ohio State
14 Colgate
Midwest-
2 Colorado College
6 Michigan
11 Wisconsin
15 Bemidji State
East-
3 Denver
5 Cornell
12 Boston U.
13 Maine
Northeast-
1 Boston College
8 New Hampshire
9 Harvard
16 Mercyhurst
I know Adam and Jayson wouldn't like it, because it would be tougher for USCHO to predict the brackets, but as long as they're allowing swaps such as 1b with 1c, they won't be able to predict the brackets perfectly anymore anyway.
And for those who say the above brackets would be unfair from a competitive equity standpoint, my response is that PWR is not a good enough seeding method to produce accurate forced rankings of teams such that a few swaps within bands (or ignoring 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 matchup criteria completely) is truly going to upset the competitive balance of the tourney. College Hockey is a great sport, and the opportunity should be given to as many fans as possible to see their teams play live in the tourney IMHO.
The committee could have put together the following bracket that would have allowed many more fans to see their teams play live, while staying well within the published NCAA selection rules:
West-
4 Minnesota
7 North Dakota
10 Ohio State
14 Colgate
Midwest-
2 Colorado College
6 Michigan
11 Wisconsin
15 Bemidji State
East-
3 Denver
5 Cornell
12 Boston U.
13 Maine
Northeast-
1 Boston College
8 New Hampshire
9 Harvard
16 Mercyhurst
I know Adam and Jayson wouldn't like it, because it would be tougher for USCHO to predict the brackets, but as long as they're allowing swaps such as 1b with 1c, they won't be able to predict the brackets perfectly anymore anyway.
And for those who say the above brackets would be unfair from a competitive equity standpoint, my response is that PWR is not a good enough seeding method to produce accurate forced rankings of teams such that a few swaps within bands (or ignoring 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 matchup criteria completely) is truly going to upset the competitive balance of the tourney. College Hockey is a great sport, and the opportunity should be given to as many fans as possible to see their teams play live in the tourney IMHO.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: CrazyLarry (---.caltech.edu)
Date: March 21, 2005 01:26PM
I know we'd all love to be in an east regional, but the system is really pretty good. As everyone says, no one predictor (RPI, TUC record, H2H, COP, or even KRACH) has enough precision to define seeding. PWR takes a number of criteria (not the best criteria, no, but not worthless ones, either, at least they are reasonably well motivated) and uses them all together. I think that has some value.
The #1 seeds get chosen and ranked, and everything follows from there, and that is as it should be. The best #1 seeds get the easiest draw, and the lowest #1 seed gets the toughest draw. And the best #2 seed gets the lowest #1 seed to contend with. I can't see why you would do it any other way.
Would people really rather play CC or DU than Minnesota? Having seen them all play on TV, not in a million years.
The #1 seeds get chosen and ranked, and everything follows from there, and that is as it should be. The best #1 seeds get the easiest draw, and the lowest #1 seed gets the toughest draw. And the best #2 seed gets the lowest #1 seed to contend with. I can't see why you would do it any other way.
Would people really rather play CC or DU than Minnesota? Having seen them all play on TV, not in a million years.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 01:36PM
1. Publish a fully-deterministic procedure prior to the season which will be used to rank all teams at the end of the season.
2. Play the season. No selection show is necessary -- selections are completely transparent.
3. Call team #1. They have a complete choice of all regionals and all seeds. There are *no* restrictions at all -- there are no bands, no host requirements, no intra-conference prohibitions.
4. Call the next team. They have a choice of all regionals and all seeds not yet taken.
5-17. Repeat Step 4.
18. The worst team gets whatever's left.
2. Play the season. No selection show is necessary -- selections are completely transparent.
3. Call team #1. They have a complete choice of all regionals and all seeds. There are *no* restrictions at all -- there are no bands, no host requirements, no intra-conference prohibitions.
4. Call the next team. They have a choice of all regionals and all seeds not yet taken.
5-17. Repeat Step 4.
18. The worst team gets whatever's left.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2005 01:38PM by Trotsky.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 01:46PM
I'd rather play BC in Worcester on NHL ice than Minnesota on their home Olympic sheet, but that is besides my point, as I'm not whining about the seeding. My point is that PWR isn't accurate enough to perfectly seriatim rank the teams 1-16, so some tinkering within the seed bands can be done without destroying the competitive balance of the tournament. Is everyone convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that BC is better than DU and CC, that Harvard and OSU are better than Wisconsin, and Maine is better than Colgate? I'm not and I'm sure most people would agree with me. Given this, why not do some swapping within seed bands, within reason using some judgement, to better boost attendance and give more people a chance to see their schools' teams? The NCAA rules allow for this and I firmly believe the committee should use this flexibility to a greater extent. I think they will in the future if they must to avoid attendance disasters.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 01:53PM
I like your idea providing the fully deterministic procedure involves a better ranking system than PWR.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: CrazyLarry (---.caltech.edu)
Date: March 21, 2005 02:09PM
Since when do teams get to pick their opponent, and why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee? Also, do you really think Schafer will pick going to Worcester in BC's region rather than playing a struggling, injured Minnesota. And why would he want the headache? I'd rather he concentrate on winning two games, rather than scouting 16 teams.
Also, this year's tourney has lots of East-West intrigue. Interesting Matchups. I like it. Of course, I'm in LA, the travel isn't making me upset.
Also, if you want to get rid of the hosting thing, which everybody hates - go to the Eastern regionals when your team isn't there. Filling those places up is the only way to start convincing the NCAA to lose the host thing.
Also, this year's tourney has lots of East-West intrigue. Interesting Matchups. I like it. Of course, I'm in LA, the travel isn't making me upset.
Also, if you want to get rid of the hosting thing, which everybody hates - go to the Eastern regionals when your team isn't there. Filling those places up is the only way to start convincing the NCAA to lose the host thing.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: jeh25 (---.psy.uconn.edu)
Date: March 21, 2005 02:25PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
ugarte Wrote: ... They are inflexible about 4-team bands but willing to play favorites within the bands. It is as if they are just pissed about the codebreakers running bracketology analyses.[/Q]
Right: "NCAA selection process" and "transparency" are not words often heard together, at least not in the past. [/q]
Umm. Hasn't PWR correctly predicted the NCAA field for the last 9 years?
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 02:38PM
The idea is nice, but it would never fly (obviously), and yeah, coaches shouldn't be concerning themselves with that.
I do agree with the idea that it would be better to acknowledge that bands aren't perfect and it makes no more sense to switch a 1 with a 4 than it would to switch 4 and 5... this is *specifically* the case when we're talking about switching 15 and 16 with 13 and 14, who are much more similar to 12.
I would approve of a change which said teams could be moved +- 2, instead of the bands. But the flexibility should definitely be limited, or else we're saying PWR isn't good enough to chose the seeds, and if that's the case, why should it be good enough to pick the 16 (14).
-Fred
I do agree with the idea that it would be better to acknowledge that bands aren't perfect and it makes no more sense to switch a 1 with a 4 than it would to switch 4 and 5... this is *specifically* the case when we're talking about switching 15 and 16 with 13 and 14, who are much more similar to 12.
I would approve of a change which said teams could be moved +- 2, instead of the bands. But the flexibility should definitely be limited, or else we're saying PWR isn't good enough to chose the seeds, and if that's the case, why should it be good enough to pick the 16 (14).
-Fred
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 02:53PM
I certainly agree the bands aren't perfect, I'm advocating something that's workable within the framework of the existing rules. I also believe it's best to have an objective system to determine who gets in the tourney, and provide some breakdown of relative ranking, which the seed bands do.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 03:02PM
Hi Larry.
I'm out in SoCal too, I think I met you Sat. night at the Biltmore. The location of the regionals doesn't affect me personally either, but if I were a student I would be bummed out if I had to find a way to get to Minny on a limited budget. I think it's also a lot to expect students to drive 5 hours to see a regional when your team isn't playing there.
The more I think about Greg's idea though, the more I agree with you. The coaches should only have to concern themselves with getting ready to play their opponent, not picking it. Also, the teams who were best on reputation would benefit the most, not the teams who actually earn the highest seeds. For example, in 2003, some teams in the third seed band might have picked a matchup with Cornell, even though we had earned a #1 seed because they didn't think we were as good as the rankings placed us. A #2 seed that's perceived as better than us would then have been allowed to play a #4 seed.
I'm out in SoCal too, I think I met you Sat. night at the Biltmore. The location of the regionals doesn't affect me personally either, but if I were a student I would be bummed out if I had to find a way to get to Minny on a limited budget. I think it's also a lot to expect students to drive 5 hours to see a regional when your team isn't playing there.
The more I think about Greg's idea though, the more I agree with you. The coaches should only have to concern themselves with getting ready to play their opponent, not picking it. Also, the teams who were best on reputation would benefit the most, not the teams who actually earn the highest seeds. For example, in 2003, some teams in the third seed band might have picked a matchup with Cornell, even though we had earned a #1 seed because they didn't think we were as good as the rankings placed us. A #2 seed that's perceived as better than us would then have been allowed to play a #4 seed.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 03:03PM
[Q]CrazyLarry Wrote:
Since when do teams get to pick their opponent, and why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee? Also, do you really think Schafer will pick going to Worcester in BC's region rather than playing a struggling, injured Minnesota. And why would he want the headache? I'd rather he concentrate on winning two games, rather than scouting 16 teams.[/q]
Have a week off and a televised show with a live audience, like the draft. Invite all 16 ADs or their representatives. If a coach wants to go fine, or he can send an assistant. Cornell should send Whelan.
"Since when do teams get to pick their opponent"? Why the hell not? Why not give the teams the reward of choosing where they want to go, with diminishing opportunities as they are lower ranked? It would be fun. It would attract a TV audience. It would generate all sorts of backbiting and anger and bad feeling. Imagine if Minnesota is ranked low and Wisconsin takes the *last* Minneapolis seed and effs them out of a home game.
"Why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee"? I don't, because it's a meaningless statement. There is no "better," or there are hundreds of possible "betters." I believe the highest value of the system should be rewarding higher ranked teams with more options. I believe Schafer (or Whelan) is indeed better at determining what's best for the Cornell hockey team than a committee.
I think the questions of where teams would choose to go if they had to choose are fascinating. Say KRACH is the rank-ordering metric. CC gets the first choice. Do they pick the closest location and deal with Minnesota? Say they pick Minneapolis and now it's Minny's turn at the 4th pick. Do they ditch their 1-seed and go for the Minneapolis 2-seed, meeting a tougher opponent but on home ice, or do they choose the remaining 1-seed and piss off every fan and booster and posturing politico in their state?
I love it. People could get fired over their choices; maybe even assaulted. That's something to strive for.
Since when do teams get to pick their opponent, and why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee? Also, do you really think Schafer will pick going to Worcester in BC's region rather than playing a struggling, injured Minnesota. And why would he want the headache? I'd rather he concentrate on winning two games, rather than scouting 16 teams.[/q]
Have a week off and a televised show with a live audience, like the draft. Invite all 16 ADs or their representatives. If a coach wants to go fine, or he can send an assistant. Cornell should send Whelan.
"Since when do teams get to pick their opponent"? Why the hell not? Why not give the teams the reward of choosing where they want to go, with diminishing opportunities as they are lower ranked? It would be fun. It would attract a TV audience. It would generate all sorts of backbiting and anger and bad feeling. Imagine if Minnesota is ranked low and Wisconsin takes the *last* Minneapolis seed and effs them out of a home game.
"Why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee"? I don't, because it's a meaningless statement. There is no "better," or there are hundreds of possible "betters." I believe the highest value of the system should be rewarding higher ranked teams with more options. I believe Schafer (or Whelan) is indeed better at determining what's best for the Cornell hockey team than a committee.
I think the questions of where teams would choose to go if they had to choose are fascinating. Say KRACH is the rank-ordering metric. CC gets the first choice. Do they pick the closest location and deal with Minnesota? Say they pick Minneapolis and now it's Minny's turn at the 4th pick. Do they ditch their 1-seed and go for the Minneapolis 2-seed, meeting a tougher opponent but on home ice, or do they choose the remaining 1-seed and piss off every fan and booster and posturing politico in their state?
I love it. People could get fired over their choices; maybe even assaulted. That's something to strive for.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2005 03:05PM by Trotsky.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.ligo-la.caltech.edu)
Date: March 21, 2005 03:46PM
[Q]CrazyLarry Wrote:
Since when do teams get to pick their opponent
[/q]
When UAF was an "associate" member of the CCHA (participating in the playoffs with the rest of the league but not part of the standings), the top seed got to chose between the last place team and UAF as a playoff opponent. If they picked the last-place team, the second-place team got to choose between UAF and the next-to-last place team, etc.
I think in Greg's method you should also let the top eight teams pick their opponents from among the next eight.
Since when do teams get to pick their opponent
[/q]
When UAF was an "associate" member of the CCHA (participating in the playoffs with the rest of the league but not part of the standings), the top seed got to chose between the last place team and UAF as a playoff opponent. If they picked the last-place team, the second-place team got to choose between UAF and the next-to-last place team, etc.
I think in Greg's method you should also let the top eight teams pick their opponents from among the next eight.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: BCrespi (---.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 04:06PM
All of this stuff is really interesting, and would certainly be fun. However, I feel what is being lost in all of this is we would still need this, "objective, transparent (insert adjective here)" system (i.e. PWR, KRACH) that we (and others) would be bitching about for the entire season (as has been shown to occur). I'm not sure if this gets at the root of the problem though I'm certainly not the one with the answer.
(Parenthetically yours)
(Parenthetically yours)
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Janos (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 04:11PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Part of the appeal of a 16 team tournament is that you don't have byes. The point of the auto-bids is to give every team in D1 something to play for in terms of the national scene. The road is already hard enough for the AH/CHA teams - why make it harder? ... If you can't get into the top 14 you don't deserve to play for the national championship.[/q]
A #15 or #16 seed doesn't deserve to play for a national championship, but if you're in the bottom 30, just because you won your tournament, you DO??? My little league baseball team won our tournament once. Why didn't we get to play U.Texas in the College World Series?
According to the KRACH ratings, Mercyhurst has a 1-in-40 chance of beating BC. Do you honestly think a nationally televised clobbering in NCAA Tournament action is good for the sport?
Allowing AH/CHA teams to participate in NCAA Regionals isn't fooling ANYONE into thinking that these teams can be a contender for a national championship. You mention that the appeal of a 16-team tourney is so that you don't have byes. For all intents and purposes, BC and Denver both have byes this year. At least a #15 or #16 team like Vermont/Dartmouth could shake things up a bit.
If you want national attention for college hockey, focus on broadcasting more regular-season and post-season games. There is no reason that one should have to search far and wide to be able to see a live broadcast of a Top-5 college hockey team, let alone a lesser team or conference like AH/CHA.
Part of the appeal of a 16 team tournament is that you don't have byes. The point of the auto-bids is to give every team in D1 something to play for in terms of the national scene. The road is already hard enough for the AH/CHA teams - why make it harder? ... If you can't get into the top 14 you don't deserve to play for the national championship.[/q]
A #15 or #16 seed doesn't deserve to play for a national championship, but if you're in the bottom 30, just because you won your tournament, you DO??? My little league baseball team won our tournament once. Why didn't we get to play U.Texas in the College World Series?
According to the KRACH ratings, Mercyhurst has a 1-in-40 chance of beating BC. Do you honestly think a nationally televised clobbering in NCAA Tournament action is good for the sport?
Allowing AH/CHA teams to participate in NCAA Regionals isn't fooling ANYONE into thinking that these teams can be a contender for a national championship. You mention that the appeal of a 16-team tourney is so that you don't have byes. For all intents and purposes, BC and Denver both have byes this year. At least a #15 or #16 team like Vermont/Dartmouth could shake things up a bit.
If you want national attention for college hockey, focus on broadcasting more regular-season and post-season games. There is no reason that one should have to search far and wide to be able to see a live broadcast of a Top-5 college hockey team, let alone a lesser team or conference like AH/CHA.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: March 21, 2005 04:26PM
So if you're not in the ECAC, WCHA, CCHA, or HEA you shouldn't ever be given the chance to expand your conference's visibility or prestige? The autobid is one of the very few things CHA/AH has going for them and is probably the only reason the CHA actually has any members and recruits. If you want NCAA hockey to expand its popularity and presence, you need more teams and more competitive teams, and by pushing the low guys on the totem pole further down, you're just making it worse. Before Cornell and Harvard became perennial contenders as of late, the CCHA, WCHA, and HEA could have made the same case about the ECAC that you're making for AH/CHA.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 04:30PM
[Q]Janos Wrote:You mention that the appeal of a 16-team tourney is so that you don't have byes. For all intents and purposes, BC and Denver both have byes this year..[/q]
March 24, 2000. Niagara 4 UNH 1.
March 24, 2000. Niagara 4 UNH 1.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 04:35PM
[q]The autobid is one of the very few things CHA/AH has going for them and is probably the only reason the CHA actually has any members and recruits.[/q]The autobid is absolutely the only reason the CHA continues to exist. If Robert Morris hadn't joined this year after Findlay ended their hockey program (keeping the number at the NCAA auto-bid minimum of 6) the league would likely not exist anymore. (Well, they might've just worked harder to poach otehr teams from AH, but whatever.)
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: ugarte (---.cisco.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 04:38PM
[Q]Janos Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
Part of the appeal of a 16 team tournament is that you don't have byes. The point of the auto-bids is to give every team in D1 something to play for in terms of the national scene. The road is already hard enough for the AH/CHA teams - why make it harder? ... If you can't get into the top 14 you don't deserve to play for the national championship.[/Q]
A #15 or #16 seed doesn't deserve to play for a national championship, but if you're in the bottom 30, just because you won your tournament, you DO??? My little league baseball team won our tournament once. Why didn't we get to play U.Texas in the College World Series?[/q]Your post doesn't really deserve to be taken seriously, but...
Yes, that is exactly right. The conferences are subsets of the NCAA. It is an organization that encourages colleges to join, and to form conferences. Part of the deal that the NCAA makes with those schools and conferences is that if they make a certain comittment to a particular sport, the conference champion will get to play in the NCAA-sanctioned tournament. For instance, the Ivy League champion does get to play in the College World Series. I assure you that Texas considers the Ivy League the CHA of baseball. Ask Kansas, Alabama, Boston College and Syracuse how they feel about the champions of small conferences. (And didn't Niagara win an NCAA game a few years back? (Edit: Greg beat me to this one.)
As for your analogy, if your little league team were, in fact, a Little League team, they would have been eligible to play in the regionals to get to the Little League World Series. If you didn't get to, complain to your own commissioner.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2005 04:40PM by ugarte.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Janos (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 05:00PM
Other than the 90's decade, the ECAC has always been a strong competitor in the Frozen Four; in fact, an ECAC team was a national champion or runner up in a good portion of those years.
I just don't see how an honorary "first-round" showing in the NCAA Regionals is beneficial to college hockey. If one argues that a 15th- or 16th-seed team has no business in the tourney, are you really doing anyone a favor by allowing two other random teams in? Have any of these teams ever made it past the first round?
Regardless -- if the issue is "let's make NCAA hockey more popular," you need to broadcast it on national television. Period. No amount of expansion of college hockey teams is going to make it popular. Kids grow up watching basketball or football, with the dream of being on TV someday. Media has a huge influence on the success or failure of sports. You argue that CHA/AH teams need something to shoot for, but even more fundamentally, the future college hockey stars who are now in elementary school need something to shoot for as well.
With the NHL on break this year and all these new college sports channels sprouting up, there is no reason for the poor media coverage. Last weekend's games should all have been on pseudo-major channels such as CSTV / ESPN-U, you name it. The Regionals should be even more televised, on ESPN or another major network. Come on, Miss America can make it on a national network, but nothing short of the Frozen Four can? (And the FF still is only on ESPN, not a "standard" network.)
I just don't see how an honorary "first-round" showing in the NCAA Regionals is beneficial to college hockey. If one argues that a 15th- or 16th-seed team has no business in the tourney, are you really doing anyone a favor by allowing two other random teams in? Have any of these teams ever made it past the first round?
Regardless -- if the issue is "let's make NCAA hockey more popular," you need to broadcast it on national television. Period. No amount of expansion of college hockey teams is going to make it popular. Kids grow up watching basketball or football, with the dream of being on TV someday. Media has a huge influence on the success or failure of sports. You argue that CHA/AH teams need something to shoot for, but even more fundamentally, the future college hockey stars who are now in elementary school need something to shoot for as well.
With the NHL on break this year and all these new college sports channels sprouting up, there is no reason for the poor media coverage. Last weekend's games should all have been on pseudo-major channels such as CSTV / ESPN-U, you name it. The Regionals should be even more televised, on ESPN or another major network. Come on, Miss America can make it on a national network, but nothing short of the Frozen Four can? (And the FF still is only on ESPN, not a "standard" network.)
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 21, 2005 05:11PM
ESPN is a major sports network now. Is there anyplace you can't get it?
Miss America may not be on a national network much longer. It got tossed by ABC last fall.
Miss America may not be on a national network much longer. It got tossed by ABC last fall.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: adamw (209.71.42.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 05:57PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
I know Adam and Jayson wouldn't like it, because it would be tougher for USCHO to predict the brackets, but as long as they're allowing swaps such as 1b with 1c, they won't be able to predict the brackets perfectly anymore anyway.[/q]
Not true. I am on record many times stating that I wish the committee would afford themselves more flexibility for common sense, because the numbers aren't accurate enough to rely so heavily upon them (after selection). And anyone who has been to regionals with small crowds knows how important it is to maximize attendance, and I have no problem with the committee doing so, so long as that is applied as fairly as possible (i.e. putting Michigan and Wisconsin in GR is OK, because Wisconsin can bring people too).
I know Adam and Jayson wouldn't like it, because it would be tougher for USCHO to predict the brackets, but as long as they're allowing swaps such as 1b with 1c, they won't be able to predict the brackets perfectly anymore anyway.[/q]
Not true. I am on record many times stating that I wish the committee would afford themselves more flexibility for common sense, because the numbers aren't accurate enough to rely so heavily upon them (after selection). And anyone who has been to regionals with small crowds knows how important it is to maximize attendance, and I have no problem with the committee doing so, so long as that is applied as fairly as possible (i.e. putting Michigan and Wisconsin in GR is OK, because Wisconsin can bring people too).
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Stephen Turner (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 06:14PM
This is the best thing I have read, and sums up the situation perfectly.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 06:29PM
I'm glad you feel that way too. I guess I misunderstood your position since I thought your article only talked about giving flexibility on assigning the locations of the #1 seeds. I didn't know you also were in favor of allowing for swaps within bands to improve attendance. Sorry to put incorrect words in your mouth. Good job on the selection show.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 06:32PM
Why thank you. 
Are you the same Steve Turner I knew from the Class of '86 that was good friends with Paul H. (Mr. winning team, losing team 85-86)?
Are you the same Steve Turner I knew from the Class of '86 that was good friends with Paul H. (Mr. winning team, losing team 85-86)?
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 06:37PM
Point well taken, and I know I use parentheses way too much. I'm an engineer after all, and as hard as I try, the ability to write direct, clear prose isn't one of my strengths. At least I get the spelling right most of the time. 
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 21, 2005 07:02PM
I wouldn't want to see attendance trump everything though. As one of the articles on USCHO right now reminds us (Jack Parker's comments) the tourney three years ago where everyone stayed close to home, due to travel fears after 9-11, just wasn't a very interesting tournament. I want to see as many East-West matchups as is reasonable and that means shipping some teams (presumably the lower seeds) away from home.
BTW - I see no hypocrisy with my seeding reaction this year. I love the east-west matchups in the West Regional. I just hate the fact that we have to go west.
BTW - I see no hypocrisy with my seeding reaction this year. I love the east-west matchups in the West Regional. I just hate the fact that we have to go west.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KenP (192.133.17.---)
Date: March 22, 2005 12:43PM
My only gripe about the seeding process is that the WCHA got 3 or the 4 top seeds. No matter how dominant any one conference is, this is not good for the sport. I'd like to see a cap. One conference can have at most 2 teams as #1 seeds in the tourney.
This year I feel both Cornell and Michigan are more deserving of a #1 seed than Minnesota. Even if Cornell was the #1 seed and still placed at Mariucci, I think this would be better.
This year I feel both Cornell and Michigan are more deserving of a #1 seed than Minnesota. Even if Cornell was the #1 seed and still placed at Mariucci, I think this would be better.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 12:57PM
Go ahead and fix the ranking system that gave Minnesota a #1 seed, but if 4 of the top 4 teams by an objective system are all from the same conference, then they all deserve a #1 bid.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 01:12PM
[Q]Go ahead and fix the ranking system that gave Minnesota a #1 seed, but if 4 of the top 4 teams by an objective system are all from the same conference, then they all deserve a #1 bid.[/q]I don't agree. Just because the system is objective doesn't mean that it's either the best objective system (RPI is completely objective but somewhat arbitrary) or the best thing for college hockey. Now I do agree that the committee should stick with whatever criteria they establish and let the chips fall where they may (which they didn't in the Denver-CC case). But I see no problem with modifying the criteria to achieve desirable outcomes, particularly in the case of seeding.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 01:27PM
I don't see any problem with it, I just disagree with it.
I agree that no system can be perfect, but I think we should pick the best one that we can collectively find and go with it. 3 or 4 teams from the same conference being in the top 4 in the nation is entirely possible, and I don't see a reason why we'd need to fight that. Pick the best ranking system you can find and go with it.
Sure, its not going to be perfect, but its not any more or less flawed than saying that more than 2 teams from the same conference can't be #1s. If its more acceptable to have a flawed system that promotes some sense of fairness/spread the wealth then a flawed one that goes exactly by the numbers, well, that's a judgement call.
Say Keith, isn't this backwards from our occassional other run ins where I argue for spreading the wealth and you argue for letting the system (whatever system that may be) run itself?
I agree that no system can be perfect, but I think we should pick the best one that we can collectively find and go with it. 3 or 4 teams from the same conference being in the top 4 in the nation is entirely possible, and I don't see a reason why we'd need to fight that. Pick the best ranking system you can find and go with it.
Sure, its not going to be perfect, but its not any more or less flawed than saying that more than 2 teams from the same conference can't be #1s. If its more acceptable to have a flawed system that promotes some sense of fairness/spread the wealth then a flawed one that goes exactly by the numbers, well, that's a judgement call.
Say Keith, isn't this backwards from our occassional other run ins where I argue for spreading the wealth and you argue for letting the system (whatever system that may be) run itself?
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 01:30PM
I don't claim to be consistent! 
But sports is not a place for pure capitalism in my mind, so I do draw the distinction.
But sports is not a place for pure capitalism in my mind, so I do draw the distinction.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 01:39PM
I didn't mean to take you to task in general, I just thought it was funny . My sense of fair play is involved here, but I'd be more likely to agree with a system that said that more than 5 or maybe 6 teams from a conference couldn't make the tournament at all.
The #1 seed seems less important than a shot to play in the tournament at all, and have a chance to prove yourself. That i do agree should be spread.
I don't think getting a #1 is vital enough - especially as this 'home rink' bull seems to be starting to be phased out - hopefully Engelstad next year will be the last one ever.
With the sport getting big enough to put western regionals in places like Green Bay, Denver, Grand Rapids - potentially XCel, Detroit. And the east obviously can have a very good rotation with Worcester, Manchester, Rochester, Providence - potentially Syracuse, Springfield (not Amherest), Hartford, New Haven, even MSG, Philly, Buffalo, Boston, Portland (Me), etc.
. My sense of fair play is involved here, but I'd be more likely to agree with a system that said that more than 5 or maybe 6 teams from a conference couldn't make the tournament at all.
The #1 seed seems less important than a shot to play in the tournament at all, and have a chance to prove yourself. That i do agree should be spread.
I don't think getting a #1 is vital enough - especially as this 'home rink' bull seems to be starting to be phased out - hopefully Engelstad next year will be the last one ever.
With the sport getting big enough to put western regionals in places like Green Bay, Denver, Grand Rapids - potentially XCel, Detroit. And the east obviously can have a very good rotation with Worcester, Manchester, Rochester, Providence - potentially Syracuse, Springfield (not Amherest), Hartford, New Haven, even MSG, Philly, Buffalo, Boston, Portland (Me), etc.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: KenP (192.133.17.---)
Date: March 22, 2005 01:44PM
The best simile for my seeding thoughts likens it to the NFL post-season. In the NFL, the leaders get an auto-bid to the post-season. After that you look at SOS, etc. If one division has a 15-1 team, a 14-2 team and a 13-3 team, the 14-2 and 13-3 teams are a wild-cards, even if they have the 2nd and 3rd best overall records.
Going back to the NCAAs, I don't have any problem putting the 10 best non-conference-winning teams on the ice. And I don't have a problem saying that 2 of the "best" 4 teams come from a single conference. But you can't convince me that a team that is in 3rd place in their conference deserves seeding preference over 4 of the 5 other conference leaders. That's a by-product of algorithms comparing conferences based on the unbalanced and sparce sampling of nc games, and should be explicitly addressed by imposing a #1-seed cap.
Going back to the NCAAs, I don't have any problem putting the 10 best non-conference-winning teams on the ice. And I don't have a problem saying that 2 of the "best" 4 teams come from a single conference. But you can't convince me that a team that is in 3rd place in their conference deserves seeding preference over 4 of the 5 other conference leaders. That's a by-product of algorithms comparing conferences based on the unbalanced and sparce sampling of nc games, and should be explicitly addressed by imposing a #1-seed cap.
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 02:09PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
I didn't mean to take you to task in general, I just thought it was funny . My sense of fair play is involved here, but I'd be more likely to agree with a system that said that more than 5 or maybe 6 teams from a conference couldn't make the tournament at all.
The #1 seed seems less important than a shot to play in the tournament at all, and have a chance to prove yourself. That i do agree should be spread.
I don't think getting a #1 is vital enough - especially as this 'home rink' bull seems to be starting to be phased out - hopefully Engelstad next year will be the last one ever.
And the east obviously can have a very good rotation with Worcester, Manchester, Rochester, Providence - potentially Syracuse, Springfield (not Amherest), Hartford, New Haven, even MSG, Philly, Buffalo, Boston, Portland (Me), etc.[/q]
I think the old Coliseum in New Haven has been condemned as unsafe. Bridgeport's Arena at Harbor Yard seats about 10,000.
I didn't mean to take you to task in general, I just thought it was funny . My sense of fair play is involved here, but I'd be more likely to agree with a system that said that more than 5 or maybe 6 teams from a conference couldn't make the tournament at all.
The #1 seed seems less important than a shot to play in the tournament at all, and have a chance to prove yourself. That i do agree should be spread.
I don't think getting a #1 is vital enough - especially as this 'home rink' bull seems to be starting to be phased out - hopefully Engelstad next year will be the last one ever.
And the east obviously can have a very good rotation with Worcester, Manchester, Rochester, Providence - potentially Syracuse, Springfield (not Amherest), Hartford, New Haven, even MSG, Philly, Buffalo, Boston, Portland (Me), etc.[/q]
I think the old Coliseum in New Haven has been condemned as unsafe. Bridgeport's Arena at Harbor Yard seats about 10,000.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: March 22, 2005 02:40PM
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
I think the old Coliseum in New Haven has been condemned as unsafe. Bridgeport's Arena at Harbor Yard seats about 10,000.[/q]
I don't know if its condemned, but you're right, it is closed, and they're trying to schedule it for demolition although there's a lot of objection as that place has a great deal of memories for people (me included).
I was just naming cities and didn't think of that, but Bridgeport is definitely an option. The point is there's plenty of eastern places to go where you don't need to do home rinks (though Amherst is as safe as any because UMass isn't exactly a power house - Minn/UND is definitely worse). And out west we're slowly moving to the same situation (I'll add Milwaukee to my previous list and hell, anyone want to bid with Chicago?)
I think the old Coliseum in New Haven has been condemned as unsafe. Bridgeport's Arena at Harbor Yard seats about 10,000.[/q]
I don't know if its condemned, but you're right, it is closed, and they're trying to schedule it for demolition although there's a lot of objection as that place has a great deal of memories for people (me included).
I was just naming cities and didn't think of that, but Bridgeport is definitely an option. The point is there's plenty of eastern places to go where you don't need to do home rinks (though Amherst is as safe as any because UMass isn't exactly a power house - Minn/UND is definitely worse). And out west we're slowly moving to the same situation (I'll add Milwaukee to my previous list and hell, anyone want to bid with Chicago?)
Re: How to fix the seeding process
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: March 23, 2005 10:46AM
[Q]adamw Wrote:
Steve M Wrote:
I know Adam and Jayson wouldn't like it, because it would be tougher for USCHO to predict the brackets, but as long as they're allowing swaps such as 1b with 1c, they won't be able to predict the brackets perfectly anymore anyway.[/Q]
Not true. I am on record many times stating that I wish the committee would afford themselves more flexibility for common sense, because the numbers aren't accurate enough to rely so heavily upon them (after selection). And anyone who has been to regionals with small crowds knows how important it is to maximize attendance, and I have no problem with the committee doing so, so long as that is applied as fairly as possible (i.e. putting Michigan and Wisconsin in GR is OK, because Wisconsin can bring people too).
[/q]
Based on your article today, I'm going to have to retract my apology and stand by what I said above. There is no comparison between swapping teams within a seed band and swapping teams in and out of the tourney, or even between seed bands for that matter. The way I read them, the published NCAA rules don't require rigid seriatim ranking based on PWR, they just require their system to pick to field and break it into 4 seed bands. The only stated reason to rank them further is to place the four #1 seeds, in order, in the regionals closest to home, which they technically did on the strict PWR rankings with CC at #2. If you're so strongly against the DU/CC flip (which I agree was unnecessary, yet completely reasonable since the TUC and COPs were so close) how would you be able to defend multiple swaps, or tossing the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 , 4-5 concept completely, to boost attendance?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2005 11:08AM by Steve M.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.