National Flavor to the Tournament

I know that everyone feels we understand the selection and seeding process very well, taking into account intraconference situations, travel distances and competetive equity. But, I've noticed that since the tourney went to 16 teams, the national nature of the tourney (as determined by East-v-West Big 4 matchups) has declined a lot. The number of Eastern teams going west is the sum total of one, Maine in '03. More Western teams have come east, but mostly in the #4 seed situation.

So, my question is, are we fooling ourselves? Is the comittee looking at attendance first, and then rationalizing with competitive equity. Or have we been lucky that the two are the same. Do we really know what the committee will do if competetive equity sends the big Eastern teams West? I say two years of data isn't enough to say we do.

Just a thought. Fire away John...

[Q]LarryW Wrote:
Is the comittee looking at attendance first, and then rationalizing with competitive equity. Or have we been lucky that the two are the same. Do we really know what the committee will do if competetive equity sends the big Eastern teams West? I say two years of data isn't enough to say we do.[/q]

I agree with this. The USCHO board crowd has gone off the deep end with the 1-16 seeding, to the extent that they now think it overrides the things that the NCAA does spell out explicitly. The past few years the 1-16 seedings have worked out nicely geography-wise, so the relative importance of these factors has not been tested.

The one piece of evidence for competitive equity taking preference over geography was in 2003, #6 Maine being sent West in place of #8 BC, so #1 Cornell could have an "easier" second-round opponent.

One thing that we have lost is the idea that a good seed will mean staying in your region. Back in the days of the 12-team tournament, the top four teams in the East and in the West were usually assured of staying in their own region for the first rounds of the NCAAs. Now, the four teams in a band could go anywhere.

Attendance has not been an issue either. If you look at the brackets, the last two years have gone strictly by the 1-16, 2-15, etc... scenario - except to avoid intra-conference matchups in the first round, or the host team stays in their region concept. That's been it. No other factors have been considered the last two years.

Whether that be simply because the "bracket integrity" came out good enough, or if it's a longer-term strict policy, we'll see.

Nobody thinks that it might mean something that all the Eastern schools stayed East? That all the Boston schools (I include UNH in this) have stayed East both years? I would be utterly shocked to find BC or UNH head West, even if Minn was #1 and BC or UNH were #8 (I note that I can't remember which schools are technically hosts this year, I'm pretty sure BU is). In fact, I'd be surprised to see us head West, too, even with the Minn #4/5 issue out there.

I suggest that unless there are 3 teams from one region in a band, we're likely to see the Eastern teams stay East. The comittee won't be sending us West as a #2 seed if there's a Western #2 seed they could send there instead. The bonus criteria might even give them enough cover to claim it still satisfies competetive equity. Maybe.

At any rate, my point is, the evidence isn't so clear that a #5 PWR with the Gophers at #4 means spending time in the Twin Cities.

(I just realized I had an old login to the forum, so LarryW has been reincarnated as CrazyLarry)

Agreed, we just don't know. Bracket integrity has worked out pretty fine in past years. Ending up 4/5 with Minn and us could easily keep us East, but it could also definitely send us West. Personally I'd rather not go into the selection show worrying about that, but the simple fact is that we haven't really seen the committee's preference on this issue, since it hasn't really come up.

The BC or Maine thing doesn't count cause either way one team was going west. In fact, you could say the committee kept BC east to give us an "easier" 2nd round (did someone formally say so?) after having to screw us in the first round, or it could have been that the nearby BC in Chestnut Hill would draw more attendence to Providence than the out-in-the-boondocks Orono Blackbears. So that situation could either be 1) a "make up call" in bracket integrity, 2) attendence, or 3) neither.

But as I said, I'd still rather do into selection Sunday #3 or #4 nationally or with Minn in the #2 band.

I'm sorry, but the evidence is clear. Go back to the brackets, read the articles that followed the selections, and the evidence is plain as day. The teams that stayed East and West did so because of coincidence. Attendance was not a consideration.

The bonus criteria cannot be used as a cover. There are people who know what the bonus is that would cry foul. There is no conspiracy theory with the bonus. It's kept secret, but it's not used as a fudge factor.

If you don't want to believe this, the only thing I have left to resort to is "trust me"

I realize that Adam has actually talked to the folks who do the process. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I love that the process is nearly transparent (we're not in the room, and the selection meeting is not broadcast live, that would be completely transparent).

I just point ot that we haven't seen what happens when competetive equity and attendance are not consistent. (I'm using attendance as a proxy for East teams East and West teams West, I'm not asserting a NC$$ attack thing here).

Do we really think that if there are three Western #1s and placing them in order by proximity to sites and then doing 1-16-8-9, etc. left us with an Eastern region that had no HE/ECAC Eastern teams we'd see that. Not a chance. That situation is unlikely, but we could approach it.

OK, I acknowledge the bonus thing was tinfoil-hat stuff. Which brings up another point. We've had 2 years now, and we think we know the seeding process exactly. Can any constraints be placed on the bonus values at this point? I'd think so. I plan to check it, but I was wondering if anyone had done the analysis.

The only reason I brought this up was, I feel like the tourney hasn't provided much EastvWest lately, which is part of the novelty of the thing. I know it wasn't the best matchup, but it was fun to play Mankato in '03. Who knew they wore purple? This sort of thing has clearly dissappeared as a motivation for the committee. That's unfortunate.

I think it's important to distinguish between what the committee is constrained to do by the procedure spelled out in the championships handbook and where they have latitude. In particular, it's misleading to refer to a 1-16 seeding as "bracket integrity". The handbook only uses that term to refer to having one #1 seed, one #2 seed, one #3 seed, and one #4 seed in each regional. That form of bracket integrity is required, even overriding the avoidance of first-round intraconference matchups if necessary. Sticking as close as possible to 1a-2d-3a-4d, 1b-2c-3b-4c etc is known as "competitive equity" and it's simply a desideratum along with attendance and "a playoff-like atmosphere".

In discussing the relative importance of competitive equity and attendance, we are in one of the grey areas where the committee has discretion. Adam's point is that the seedings to date have been consistent with competitive equity being the most important of the desiderata. Larry's point is that the two examples we have so far don't do much to distinguish between the two. But this by definition should depend on the discretion of the people who are actually on the committee anyway. How much turnover has there been since 2003?

[q]The bonus criteria cannot be used as a cover. There are people who know what the bonus is that would cry foul. There is no conspiracy theory with the bonus. It's kept secret, but it's not used as a fudge factor.[/q]I can believe that the bonus isn't being used to fudge (though I think I've suggested such before). It's too easy to test the bonus math (via USCHO) that fudges would probably be easy to spot. But it's definitely a flaw in the process because it invites people to think that fudging is being done. It's no longer a transparent process - it's only transluscent.

If there are people who know the bonus, why is it being kept secret. The committee seems generally open to revealing their process. I don't really understand the secrecy. But, not understanding the secrecy is a far cry from suggesting something underhanded about it. I shouldn't have done that, I know better.

That said, every time we think we understand the entire process, and feel secure about it (every 2-3 years, I think) the selection surprises people again. Like the shift to total PWR in '03, and the 1-16-8-9 deal then.

So, beware, who knows. Plus, every year the tournament could present new and unprecedented issues (not hard with a format having a 2 year history). So, to echo JTW, how much turnover has there been among the selectors?

[Q]CrazyLarry Wrote:
If there are people who know the bonus, why is it being kept secret. The committee seems generally open to revealing their process.[/q]Maybe they just want there to be some mystery about how the seedings will turn out? A selection process that's too predictable makes for bad TV and a committee that feels obsolete. Just a guess.

But why that particular mystery? Seems a strange and bizarre thing to keep secret. But, I agree Josh, the people probably want to appear to have some mystery.

Still, the way the TV thing is presented, the average viewer wouldn't be aware there wasn't any mystery.

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

CrazyLarry Wrote:
If there are people who know the bonus, why is it being kept secret. The committee seems generally open to revealing their process.[/Q]
Maybe they just want there to be some mystery about how the seedings will turn out? A selection process that's too predictable makes for bad TV and a committee that feels obsolete. Just a guess.[/q]

The committee is less open to explaining the process than they used to be:

[Q]"Agreed to implement a detailed effort to educate coaches and the public about the selection process." -- Highlights of Selection Committee Meeting (1997)

Source: [www.ncaa.org][/Q]

[Q]"This will add a little mystery to [selection] Sunday," -- Selection Committee Chair Ian McCaw (2003)

Source: [uscho.com][/Q]

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]