Giant NC$$ Mess

Is Providence's goose officially cooked? Can Cornell avoid getting sent west if Hockey East occupies PWR slots #3, 4, 6 and 7? What the hell is the committee going to do with all those freakin' WCHA teams clogged up in the middle like so much fine Midwestern roughage? Sure, it'll all change come conference tourney time, but take a gander at this:

1) #1 seeds: Colorado College, Cornell, UNH, BU. BU has to go to Worcester. By proximity CC goes to Minneapolis. Does Cornell go to Providence, or does the NC$$ get evil on us? Screw it. Ship the Wildcats west.

2) #2 seeds: Minnesota, BC, Maine, Ferris St. Minny has to stay in Minny. Ferris State can't stay west, because Michigan will be the #3 in Ann Arbor. Put Ferris in Providence. BC goes to Worcester, Maine goes to Ann Arbor.

3) #3 seeds (gulp): Michigan, MSU-Mankato, North Dakota, St. Cloud. Eep. Michigan stays in Ann Arbor, meaning there are three WCHA schools, none of whom can play Minnesota in the first round in Minneapolis. Crud. Er. Um. What to do? Anyone have any idea? I suppose this will work itself out in the WCHA tourney (unless all the faves win...). Faced with this dilemma, I'll say the NC$$ pulls a fast one, moves St. Cloud down to a #4, and pulls Ohio State up a slot, to a #3, and puts 'em in Minneapolis. Send MSU-Mank to Worcester, put North Dakota in Providence.

4) #4 seeds: St. Cloud, Harvard (not for long), CHA winner, MAAC winner. Harvard heads to Worcester, St. Cloud to Ann Arbor, CHA to Providence and MAAC to Minny.

Leaving us with:

PROV.
1. Cornell
2. Ferris St.
3. North Dakota
4. CHA winner

WORC.
1. BU
2. BC
3. MSU-Mankato
4. Harvard

MINN.
1. CC
2. Minnesota
3. Ohio St.
4. MAAC winner

MICH.
1. UNH
2. Maine
3. Michigan
4. St. Cloud


Of course, I'm completely full of s**t. Maybe they'll just send Cornell west. And then I'll cry.

Go on. Tell me why I'm wrong.


ZD

ZooeyDog wrote:

> 3) #3 seeds (gulp): Michigan, MSU-Mankato, North Dakota, St.
> Cloud. Eep. Michigan stays in Ann Arbor, meaning there are
> three WCHA schools, none of whom can play Minnesota in the
> first round in Minneapolis. Crud. Er. Um. What to do?

I'm pretty sure that McCaw or whoever said in an interview that they'd rather have intraconference matchups than flip seeds, since the "bands" exist to create even regionals, that is the unbreakable rule. I can't find it since USCHO isn't responding now.

> 4) #4 seeds: St. Cloud, Harvard (not for long), CHA winner,
> MAAC winner. Harvard heads to Worcester, St. Cloud to Ann
> Arbor, CHA to Providence and MAAC to Minny.

I dunno about Hahvahd. A couple UVM wins will raise their RPI. A win over Dmouth and a loss to us in Albany would do even more for their RPI (using JTW's script). While they're hardly a lock, even if they were lose only to us, they also certainly have a chance.

So my brackets:

PROV.
1. Cornell
2. Ferris St.
3. MSU-Man (flip-able w/ other 3s, was going for closest to ideal 1-16, 2-15, etc)
4. CHA winner

WORC.
1. BU
2. BC
3. UND
4. Hahvahd (you misspelled it )

MINN.
1. CC
2. Minnesota
3. SCSU (worst #3 gets stuck playing Minn in Minn)
4. MAAC winner (in the lion's den )

MICH.
1. UNH
2. Maine
3. Michigan
4. OSU (also flip-able with Hahvahd, but both teams are closer to home this way)

By: [www.uscho.com]

01 CC
02 Cornell
03 UNH
04 BU *
-------------------
05 Minny *
05 BC
05 Maine
08 Ferris
-------------------
09 Michigan *
09 Mankato
11 NoDak
12 St. Cloud
-------------------
13 OSU
14 Harvard

Providence is tied with Harvard but let's assume for simplicity's sake that they're gone.

Brackets

WORCESTER (BU)
1 04 BU
2 05 BC
3 12 St. Cloud
4 14 Harvard

PROVIDENCE
1 02 Cornell
2 05 Maine
3 11 NoDak
4 15 CHA/MAAC

ANN ARBOR (Michigan)
1 03 UNH
2 08 Ferris
3 09 Michigan
4 13 OSU

ST. PAUL (Minny)
1 01 CC
2 05 Minny
3 09 Mankato
4 16 CHA/MAAC

This gives us two problems: Ferris/Michigan and Minny/Mankato. Swapping Ferris and Mankato, even though it swaps a 2 with a 3, eliminates the problem. Also, Ferris and Mankato are right next to each other in PWR, so if they wanted the NC$$ could b.s. their way around it.

So, revised western brackets:

ANN ARBOR (Michigan)
1 03 UNH
2 09 Mankato
3 09 Michigan
4 13 OSU

ST. PAUL (Minny)
1 01 CC
2 05 Minny
3 08 Ferris
4 16 CHA/MAAC

The other big advantage is that each regional has only one "foreign" team (St. Cloud, NoDak, UNH, and CHA/MAAC). Ka-ching...



Post Edited (03-09-03 02:20)

I would think with so many HE teams in the tourney, a HE team is more likely to get sent west than Cornell is - they need to avoid intraconference matchups.

Greg's Providence bracket looks pretty darn nice. CHA/MAAC and two teams that have been in monumental tailspins of late. I'll take it...

I'd also have to agree that Cornell is less likely to get sent West -- especially if we actually finish at #2. Only way I see us going is if we are at 4 or below, with two eastern teams above us.



Post Edited (03-09-03 02:44)

So I guess it'll come down to which is more sacrosanct: keeping the bands intact, or avoiding intraconference matchups. If DeltaOne is right, they'll avoid swapping as Greg and I have suggested.

I'm not sure I'd be so psyched about playing Maine in the 2nd round. Sure, they'll be rusty, but they'll also be rested and *pissed*, and this is a team that played in the national championship game last year. I dunno: given my choice between the Bears and some CCHA school (Ferris lives!)?

Anyway: go UMass!


ZD

The quality-win "mystery" factor ain'ta gonna help Harvard this year.

Hard to imagine that, even with a three-week layoff, Maine would be any more "rested" after playing NoDak than we would be after playing the CHA champ.

Beeeej

Here's the quote I was talking about:
[Q]On other matters, the committee recently published its guidelines for seeding the tournament, which include creating four "bands" of four teams. Those bands will be the No. 1-4 seeds, respectively. There can be flip-flopping from region to region within a team's seed, but there will be no more flip-flopping of seeds within regions.[/Q]

from [uscho.com]



Post Edited (03-09-03 11:52)

So as to figure out how Hahvahd's RPI stands to change, using JTW's script I filled out the rest of the ECAC season as such:

20030309 SL 3 Cg 2 NC
20030314 Vt 2 Ha 5 NC
20030314 RP 1 Cr 4 NC
20030314 SL 1 Da 2 NC
20030314 Bn 1 Ya 5 NC
20030315 Vt 2 Ha 5 NC
20030315 RP 1 Cr 4 NC
20030315 SL 1 Da 2 NC
20030315 Bn 1 Ya 5 NC
20030321 Da 2 Ha 4 NC
20030321 Ya 1 Cr 3 NC
20030322 Ya 3 Da 4 NC
20030322 Ha 1 Cr 4 NC

giving all the top teams sweeps next week, and having Havahd lose to us in the finals in Albany. Pretty much a best-case for Hahvahd to need an at large bid (I also made Da, who they would have played 3 times, win the consy). They end up with an RPI of 0.5587, as opposed to their current 0.5520 . Moving them from 13th to 12th in RPI, all other things being equal. While other things are rarely equal, some teams will move up and some will move down, so it's a reasonable possibility. So Hahvahd definitely has a shot at an at-large bid, though, as it was pointed out, the quality win thing won't help them.

Simply changing the consy game around moves them to 0.5581 . Having Hahvahd lose to Dmouth in the semis and beat Yale, drops them to 0.5548 (mainly from probably never having played us, and our #1 RPIStr). Still though it leaves them in 13th in RPI. I have to imagine that any scenario with 2 Hahvahd loses would leave them high and dry, but if you want to play with it, feel free.

If some teams like Denver and St. Cloud and Ohio State stumble just a bit, the Crimson have a very decent shot at getting an at large, so long as they can pull off a record of 3-1 the rest of the way out.



Post Edited (03-09-03 12:28)

so i know that we dont know much about the good win bonuses but can we speculate?

is a good win a win against someone in the top 16 in pwr/rpi or is it someone who has >.500 rpi?

the problem with this bonus system is: how do you take into account for something like this happening: team uknown hockey east team is on the bubble now, say providence. hypothetically, if they won vs umass-lowell or another HE team that at the time was within the good team category but by winning put that team out of that good win category or since that loss, that umass-lowell or whomever has since departed from the good team category. what happens to the bonus? sorry if I did not explain myself well, but do you guys understand what I am getting at? Same thing could happen to hahvahd. what if yale loses to hahvahd --> yale falling out of the good team = bonus? sorry if i seem confused, b/c i am

as for providence, i guess i can suck up paying more $$ if cornell gets to play a maac/cha team that they can handle better than another team. no woofing here, just speculating. /me knocks on wood.

BU, with 12 losses, seems like a pretty weak #1. I know they are currently #4 in the PWR, but it still doesn't seem right.

That's what a strong conference does for you. I can't find the cross-tab of all conference against each other, but for instance HE was 31-7-6 against the ECAC this year.

Another reason for the ECAC to get its house in order -- the general level of incompetence hurts our NCAA hopefuls' chances.

go to the USCHO standings page - and click the link for "Inter-conference records"

That's true, but BU is still the 4th place team in Hockey East.

NC %s:

.716 Hockey East
.675 WCHA
.595 CCHA
.420 ECAC
.394 CHA
.162 MAAC

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote:
[Q]
Here's the quote I was talking about:
[Q]On other matters, the committee recently published its
guidelines for seeding the tournament, which include creating
four "bands" of four teams. Those bands will be the No. 1-4
seeds, respectively. There can be flip-flopping from region to
region within a team's seed, but there will be no more
flip-flopping of seeds within regions.[/Q]

from [uscho.com]
[/Q]
Keep in mind, though, that that's a secondary source. What the committee actually said was
[Q]
The committee favors a "banding" model, whereby four groupings of four teams are created and assigned to the respective regional sites. The Division I Men's Ice Hockey Committee favors the selection of teams on a national basis. As a revenue-generating championship, it also favors the pairing of teams on a national basis.

The committee feels that the bracket was impacted negatively due to the implementation of the new policies for 2001-02. It felt that it was not able to provide competitive equity in bracket, as it had been able to do in the past, with the top teams being from the West region and having to compete in the West region. With the previous policy, the committee would have had the ability to move teams across regions.
[/Q]
in [www1.ncaa.org]
and
[Q]
Once the six automatic qualifiers and ten at-large teams are selected,the next step is to develop four groups from the com- mittee s rankings of 1-16.The top four teams are No.1 seeds. The next four are targeted as No.2 seeds.The next four are No. 3 and the last four are No.4 seeds.
[/Q]
in [www.ncaa.org]

The official statements are a lot less explicit than the USCHO interpretation. In fact, since they explicitly mention the placing the #1 seeds as a higher priority than avoiding conference matchups, and say no such thing about 2-4 seeds, you could read it to say they will swap seeds to avoid first-round conference matchups if they absolutely have to.

Key is the phrase: "four groups from the committee's rankings of 1-16." That's the committee's rankings, not the PWR (which is a model thereof). At the end of the day, the committee could always set the brackets, then work backwards to set its "rankings." That would be disingenuous, which makes it even more attractive.

exactly

jy3,

There is no need to speculate. It's clearly spelled out what a good win is. Win vs. a team that finishes the season in the Top 15 of RPI. The ambiguous situation you describe also cannot happen, since the Top 15 is determined via a snapshot of RPI after all pre-NCAA tournament games are complete.

People are getting very hung up on the possibility of WCHA intraconference matchups. In the past, such machups were occassionally unavoidable. Usually, the committee then explained their choice to allow such a matchup by noting that it was not a rematch of a conference tournament game. If lots of WCHA teams get in, some of them won't have played in the WCHA tourney, and I'd expect the NCAA to allow such a game based on previous history.

Harvard getting in as a #4 seed would certainly increase the chance of seeing a CHA/MAAC 1st round opponent as a 1 seed, which seems nice.

Also, looking at the comparisons, I've never seen this much non-transitivity, so how the committee actually seeds the teams based on a PAIR-wise appraoch is probably very unsure. PWR may not indicate the seeding bands very well. There are a lot of comparisons won by teams much lower in the overall PWR, which are likely to be irrelevant because those teams never get compared directly.

Of course, this is what makes it fun!

Adam,
that is what i thought, thanks for clearing it up.
I find it interesting that it is top 15 and not 16 since 16 teams make the tourny.