Funky Playoff Format

So I discovered that the CCHA used to use a top seeds *pick* their opponent format for the playoffs. If I understand it right, in the ECAC this would mean number #1 seed would pick which team 6 through 10 they want to host, #2 would pick from the 4 that were left and so on....

For the sake of argument, imagine the ECAC used this system. If you were Mike Schafer, would you a) pick the coldest team b) pick the worst team c) pick the team we match up against best style-wise or d) pick our biggest rival in order to get the guys fired up.

Given our 1st place finish, between Brown, Colgate, Princeton, St. Lawrence and Yale, who would you pick and why?

Moreover, in a more general sense, as a 2 or 3 seed, would you pick a 6th place Harvard over a 9th or 10th place doormat?l

In a general sense, if I were a 2 or 3 seed, i think you would have to pick the highest seed remaining if you had a chance to make the NCAAs without winning the tournament. Otherwise, whomever you think you could beat. As far as Cornell goes, I would have to go with Princeton or Colgate because I think we can beat them. St. Lawrence and Yale are dangerous low seeds and Brown has been a giant killer this season.

If you're referring to what I think you are, it's not quite as crazy as it sounds. When Alaska-Fairbanks first joined the CCHA, they let them play in the playoffs for a year or two as an "associate member" without playing a conference schedule (which means they had--I believe--a 10-team league and an 11-team playoff). But they decided if they were automatically considered the 11th seed, it might be unfair to the higher-seeded team that drew them. So what happened was that the top seed got to choose between the bottom seed and Fairbanks, until somebody took them. As I recall, they made it several spots up the chain. (Don't ask me how the 11-team playoff format worked!)

Of course, that didn't stop me from making fun of it at the time.

a 11-team playoff format? one easy way:

top 5 seeds get a bye. have #6 seed play #11, #7 vs #10 and #8 vs #9 in the first round.

the three winners of the first round move to the quarterfinals, where the top five seeds await. presumably, #4 plays #5, #1 plays winner of #6/#11, #2 plays #7/#10 winner and so on. or one can also reseed the teams.

Yeah, I think that's what they did. I have some memory that Fairbanks actually won their preliminary game, so the #1 and #2 seeds had to choose to pass on them as a quarterfinal opponent.

I was actually thinking about how cool it would be if the ECAC had this format on monday ... had no idea that it had ever actually been ussed. had thought that my idead was way out in left field. apparently not. how interesting!

what dave said... DEFINITELY!

but this format, while it intensifies the fight for spots 1-5, reduces the incentive of teams in spots 6-10. am I missing something?

But on the other hand, hand picking a better team could change your RPI, TUC and cOP enough to swing a PWR comparision your way.

Thats right John....I could just imagine some assistant coach going to JTW's TBRW? site and putting in hypothetical results of beating each of the bottom half teams to determine which opponent would maximize pairwise rankings.

Sarcasm, Neil? How unbecoming...

The 11-team playoff format for the CCHA lasted only one year (1995), and it came about when Kent State suddenly folded its hockey team. For a few years prior to this, the CCHA had the same 12-team format they do now (top 6 host the first round, 3-6 and 4-5 play-in games, etc.), with Alaska-Fairbanks an affiliate and their seeding determined by who chose to play them, as already mentioned.

Anyway, the CCHA really hit for the cycle with the 11-team format. Here's how it worked:

Alaska-Fairbanks (still an affiliate) was automatically seeded 11th and played at the #10 seed in a mid-week preliminary game.

The top 5 hosted best-of-three series that weekend, with the preliminary-game winner playing at the #1 seed (Fairbanks lost the game)

After the first round, the lowest-seeded team played a mid-week play-in game at the second-lowest seed. The winner of that game went on to the semis with the three other first-round winners.

This was such a horrible mess that the CCHA dropped back to a nice, easy, 8-team format for the next few years.

How's this for a funky playoff format? For the Memorial Cup, which decides the championship of junior hockey, you get a playoff champion from each of the three leagues (WHL, OHL, and QMJHL) and the other semi-finalist is the host team, which is decided on years in advance by bidding based primarily on hotel space and seating.

So, if you think it's bad that an NCAA regional can be played at a school's home rink (I do), just imagine if the NCAA had bidding every year for the site of the Frozen Four, and immediately advanced the host school to a slot in it. And if this year's site was, say, Vermont.

What happens when the host qualifies by winning its league?

Then the team they beat in their league final also goes.

Interestingly, there has never been a truly loathsome host, because teams stack their lineups in "make or break" years, and because the league likes to showcase its talent in the Cup.

The OHL has the rule that their conference as a whole "owns" a site every three years, and the team in first place at the all star break gets to be the host (and gets to advance).

But basically juniors hockey is like minor league baseball - exceptions piled on top of expediancies. You get great scheduling too -- my team has played 6 road games in an 8 day stretch once (with the average distance between games being about a 10 hour bus trip each night).

There's some evidence that coaches do check with the stats geeks to find out the implications of their games. E.g., Joe Marsh knowing in 1998 that SLU needed four points to have a realistic chance of making the playoffs and thus pulling the goalie in overtime.

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

There's some evidence that coaches do check with the stats geeks to find out the implications of their games. E.g., Joe Marsh knowing in 1998 that SLU needed four points to have a realistic chance of making the playoffs and thus pulling the goalie in overtime.

Dammit JTW, did you HAVE to remind me of that game?