Quest for #1 seed

No, the terms are 4 years I believe - or 3 at the very least. There is not that much turnover each year.


Steve, There is no telling exactly what they'll do when the time comes ... but it's apparent that keeping the "bracket integrity" or whatever you want to call it, has overweighed a variety of other factors in the last 2 years, particularly attendance and the avoidance of second-round intra-conference matchups. Lowell and Harvard are not going to boost attendance much. They already proved last year that keeping Michigan in Grand Rapids was not a major priority. And if perhaps more fans would go to Minnesota to see Wisconsin play than out East - if you're Wisconsin, would you really want a game at Minnesota in the regional final?

I just read this on USCHO:
[www.uscho.com]

The women's hockey tournament is expanding to eight teams from four. But they only plan to seed the top two teams so they don't play each other until the final.

From the article:
The parents of UMD forward Megan Stotts sent a letter dated Jan. 28 to [Troy] Arthur [the NCAA staff liaison to the Women's Ice Hockey Committee] threatening the NCAA with a Title IX grievance and circulated a petition demanding "the same tournament play-down bracket the NCAA Division I men's Frozen Four has had, specifically the team seeded 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 and 6, 4 plays 5."

interesting to note before the princeton final or other finals for the night:


Rk Team KRACH Record Sched Strength
Rating
1 Colorado College 6 261.7
2 Denver 3 297.1
3 Minnesota 1 368.1
4 Wisconsin 9 227.5
5 Boston College 14 186.6
6 Michigan 15 182.6
7 Cornell 26 134.1
8 Boston University 7 255.8
9 New Hampshire 18 162.0
10 North Dakota 5 281.2
11 Ohio State 28 131.6
12 Harvard 24 136.5
13 Mass.-Lowell 20 145.2
14 Maine 17 169.2
15 Northern Michigan 16 169.8
16 Colgate 37 103.4
17 Michigan State 13 204.0
18 Minnesota State 4 281.7
19 Northeastern 12 205.0
20 Minnesota-Duluth 10 225.5
21 Nebraska-Omaha 29 122.4
22 Vermont 32 118.1
23 St. Cloud State 11 215.4
24 Brown 38 96.14
25 Bowling Green 36 111.6
26 Dartmouth 34 116.8
27 Alaska-Anchorage 8 252.5
28 Michigan Tech 2 341.4
29 Miami 23 142.6
30 St. Lawrence 35 114.0
31 Alaska-Fairbanks 22 144.2
32 Western Michigan 27 133.6
33 Bemidji State 44 60.57
34 Alabama-Huntsville 46 50.30
35 Massachusetts 30 120.8
36 Lake Superior 21 144.7
37 Ferris State 25 136.4
38 Providence 33 117.7
39 Notre Dame 19 161.5
40 Union 40 81.16
41 Merrimack 31 119.4
42 Clarkson 41 75.81
43 Rensselaer 45 59.29
44 Wayne State 47 50.06
45 Niagara 43 63.23
46 Princeton 42 63.88
47 Air Force 49 25.27
48 Holy Cross 50 17.76
49 Yale 39 84.33
50 Canisius 51 16.85
51 Quinnipiac 55 13.82
52 Robert Morris 48 27.76
53 Sacred Heart 52 16.71
54 Mercyhurst 54 16.35
55 Connecticut 53 16.45
56 Bentley 58 12.38
57 Army 56 13.58
58 American Int'l 57 12.39

tonight before all the games, our SOS moves to 29.

SOS up to 30 now

also
5-3-1
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
5. cornell
7.hahvahd
8. wisconsin
9. bu
9. uhn
9. und
9. tosu
13. dc
14. umassl
15. unm
16. maine

this one is complicated with the four team tie.
bu - wins uhn, und
uhn-wins und, tosu
und-wins tosu
tosu- wins bu
->
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
6. cornell
7.hahvahd
8. wisconsin
9. bu
10. uhn
11. und
12. tosu
13. dc
14. umassl
15. nmu
16. maine
aha/cha take 15 and 16
banding
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: bu, uhn, und, tosu
#4's: dc, umassl, aha/cha, cha,aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. uhn (10)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. und (11)
4. dc (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (12)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. umassl(14)
wisconsin should play bu by rank order but bu has to be in worchester so they instead play uhn. since cornell and bc should be in the same bracket cornell gets bu. but umich and tosu cannot play in the first round. i doubt they would swap the higher seeds so probably tosu swaps with und. a cornell umich swap would not be good for attendance even though both sets of fans rock. anyone see this one differently? tough one this week, i think i broke the ties correctly.

How much does it matter? Assuming we don't really screw up in ECAC play, we're going to be a #2 seed or theoretically maybe a #1 seed (one of four #2 or four #1 seeds). So it means in the first of the two regional games, as a #2 seed you play a team just a little less good than you (the #3 seed) instead of the worst team in your region (the #4 seed). As a practical matter, say we're in the same region as, say, Michigan, whether they're #1 and we're #2 or vice versa, we have to beat them to get the the Frozen Four. Also as a practical matter, if you're the #1 seed you're *probably* going to beat #4 since several of the #4's will be the auto-qualifiers from the wimpier leagues. But that only gets you to the regional final. There's always the chance #3 mildy upsets #2 in the first regional game and if you're #1 and you're definitely better than #3, you have an easier - but not guaranteed - chance of going to Columbus and the final four.

Say we're #2 in a region where BC is #1. We're almost as likely to meet them in the regional final as if they're #2 and we're #1. That's a rematch I'd like.

Sure, it would be great to be a #1 seed. But mostly you want to avoid being the #4 seed in a region.

[Q]jy3 Wrote:


worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. umassl(14)

anyone see this one differently? tough one this week, i think i broke the ties correctly.[/q]

UML can't play BC in the first round. They'd swap with DC probably.

oh yeah i missed that one
here is the 3-2-1
i actually meant to use the 3-2-1 in my post but for some reason did the 5-3-1.
here is 3-2-1 before 2nite's beanpot, which will change things

1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
7t Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
10t Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
13t Northern Michigan
15t Maine
15t Colgate
15t Dartmouth
15t Michigan State
->
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
7t Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
10t Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
13t Northern Michigan
-> hahvahd wins over wisconsin,
tosu-wins over bu
umassl wins over nmu
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
8 Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
11 Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
14 Northern Michigan
15 aha/cha
16 cha/aha
bands:
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: und, tosu, bu, uhn
#4's: umassl, nmu, aha/cha, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. und (9)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. uhn (12)
4. umassl (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (10)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(11)
4. nmu(14)
-that all fits nicely but we have to swap out of a wisconcin und matchup if we can, which would mean either a und-uhn swap or und-tosu swap since bu cant move. i think swapping a 9-10 may make more sense so i will go with und-tosu swapping.^
->
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. tosu (10)^
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. uhn (12)
4. umassl (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. und (9)^
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(11)
4. nmu(14)

5-3-1 for comparison
banding
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: bu, uhn, und, tosu
#4's: dc, umassl, aha/cha, cha,aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. uhn (10)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. und (11)
4. umassl(14)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (12)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. dc (13)
__________________
LET'S GO RED!
jy3

Having a #1 seed virtually assures Cornell will stay east for the regionals, as the chance of more than two eastern teams becoming #1 seeds is practically nil, and #1 seeds are, in order, placed in the regional closest to home. There's also the advantage of having the last line change that's been mentioned before.

Well, the other shoe (or was it the bottom) dropped last night. Harvard's loss to BC puts us at a pretty solid 6th place in PWR with either the 3-2-1 or 5-3-1 bonus. Very tough to see how we'll pick up any more comparisons from here on out. My guess is that we're going to end up as a 6th or 7th seed (i.e. 2b or 2c). Minnesota is actually looking somewhat secure in 4th, so 6/7 is not a bad place to be. Let Michigan go to Mariucci!

I think we want to line up opposite BC. i.e., 1:8, 2:7, 3:6, 4:5. That would put us east against a team we have seen and will not be intimidated by. We know we will not be getting Harvard in the Sweet 16 game, so that leaves somebody out of {BU, UNH, NoDak}. Any of those match-ups would be a great game.

Cornell moved ahead of Michigan in the PWR, up to #5 (without bonus and with 3-2-1 bonus). It appears the Northern Michigan - Michigan Tech tie on Thursday night dropped Bowling Green from TUC status taking away two wins for Michigan. Michigan Tech is a TUC with a 8-19-3 record.

Also note, that it makes Mich Tech a TUC (for now) and they beat Minn twice. Of course, Minn STILL doesn't fall. UAA is now only 0.0007 short of being a TUC and Minn is 0-2-1 against them.

If I could choose which top tier team Cornell would play in the NCAA's it would definitely be Boston College.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

If I could choose which top tier team Cornell would play in the NCAA's it would definitely be Boston College.[/q]

Western Bias....

[q]Michigan Tech is a TUC with a 8-19-3 record.[/q]Ridiculous. The .500 Win% cutoff several years back may have allowed weak teams to be "Under Consideration" by virtue of a weak schedule, but at least they had to win half of their games. The current RPI cutoff for TUC further emphasizes the bias toward the stronger conferences that's in the RPI. How about requiring both .500 record and .500 RPI? That eliminates the chance of a crappy AH team being a TUC but also prevents a crappy WCHA team from being a TUC simlpy because they play a tought schedule.

agreed

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

That eliminates the chance of a crappy AH team being a TUC but also prevents a crappy WCHA team from being a TUC simlpy because they play a tought schedule.[/q]

How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule?

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Also note, that it makes Mich Tech a TUC (for now) and they beat Minn twice. Of course, Minn STILL doesn't fall. UAA is now only 0.0007 short of being a TUC and Minn is 0-2-1 against them.[/q]

Actually, their victory over 9-15-6 Minnesota State last Saturday is what put them over the top.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule?[/q]

I had a similar conversation with a coworker today re: squeakball. He mentioned that Texas A&M is 15-7 overall and 4-7 in the Big 12. Their chances of getting an at-large bid are slim at best.

SOS helps because it credits teams for good wins and acceptable losses. But somewhere you have to draw the line. I don't care how much they whine about a tough schedule, unless they win an autobid with an amazing post-season run, no team with a losing record should ever be considered for the NCAA tourney. (i.e. be a TUC)

[q]How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule? [/q]The middling WCHA team that has a losing overall record shouldn't be eligible for the tournament. That's what TUC means first and foremost - that the team is worthy of consideration for playing in the tournament for the national title. If you can't win at least half of your games you don't deserve to play for the title.

Now I understand that there's no way that MTU is really in the hunt for an at large bid at this point. But a middling WCHA team that happens to be under .500 might be. Regardless, the strength of shcedule factor of playing MTU or that middling WCHA team are already incorporated into the RPI and thus PWR. Why do we need to overweight games against losing teams? Because that's what an under-.500 team is, no matter how tought their schedule is.

(Pre-emptive request: Let's leave auto-qualifiers out of this. That's a separate discussion, which we've had multiple times.)

Cornell #3 as of right now!

It probably won't last the night, but its nice to see

Harvard 12

Colgate 14 and Dartmouth 15

not including the fairbanks - miami game (dont think it will matter 1-1 tie)
3-2-1

Rk Team PWR Record RPI
Rk W-L-T Win % Rk RPI
1 Denver 27 4 22-7-2 .7419 2 .5915
2 Colorado College 26 2 25-6-3 .7794 1 .5935
3 Cornell 24 1 20-4-3 .7963 4 .5808
4t Boston College 23 8 19-6-5 .7167 5 .5807
4t Minnesota 23 14 20-12-1 .6212 6 .5774
6 Michigan 22 3 24-7-3 .7500 7 .5737
7 New Hampshire 20 5 22-7-3 .7344 9 .5673
8t Boston University 19 12 20-10-2 .6563 3 .5822
8t Mass.-Lowell 19 9 19-7-4 .7000 8 .5689
10 Harvard 18 10 17-7-2 .6923 11 .5629
11t North Dakota 16 22 16-12-3 .5645 12 .5581
11t Ohio State 16 6 23-8-3 .7206 13 .5560
13t Colgate 15 7 22-8-2 .7188 14 .5484
13t Dartmouth 15 20 15-10-2 .5926 18 .5331
13t Wisconsin 15 11 21-9-2 .6875 10 .5660
16 Northern Michigan 12 16t 16-9-7 .6094 19 .5302

guess they picked up comparisons

Boy, PWR and RPI and KRACH really does make it clearer who's going to be where in the post-season. <g>

3-2-1
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
6. cornell
7. bu
8. uml
9. uhn
10. wi
11. tosu
12. hahvahd
13. und
14. 'gate

15. dc
16 .nmu

minne over umich and cornell, umich over cornell breaks the tie at 4.
#9 is more complicated
uhn over tosu
wi over uhn
tosu over wi
so then i assume we list them by rpi as i have above
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, bu, uml
#3's: uhn, wi, tosu, hahvahd
#4's: und, 'gate, aha/ch, cha/aha

grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. uml (8)
3. wi (10)
4. cha/aha (sacred heart)(16)

minnesota
1. minne (4)*
2. umich (5)
3. hahvhad (12)
4. 'gate (14)^

amherst
1. bc (3)
2. cornell (6)
3. uhn (9)
4. und (13)^

worcester
1. cc (2)
2. bu(7)*
3. tosu (11)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

i figured worcester and amherst are so close that the distance doesnt matter. so putting cc in worcester ensures a 2-7 matchup. anyone have any different fields? ^editverlooked the minne-und matchup so we likely have to swap 13 and 14

OR
if u take that amherst is closer to cc than worcester it makes things messy
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, bu, uml
#3's: uhn, wi, tosu, hahvahd
#4's: und, 'gate, aha/ch, cha/aha

grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. uml (8)
3. wi (10)
4. cha/aha (sacred heart)(16)

minnesota
1. minne (4)
2. umich (5)
3. hahvhad (12)
4. und (13)

amherst
1. cc (2)
2. cornell (6)
3. tosu (11)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

worcester
1. bc (3)
2. bu(7)
3. uhn (9)
4. 'gate (14)
-if u take the distance into account but now u have to switch uhn with someone. cant swap with wi so either tosu or hahvahd...i would say tosu. ^also, minne and und can't play first round games...so swap und and colgate
->
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. uml (8)
3. wi (10)
4. cha/aha (sacred heart)(16)

minnesota
1. minne (4)*
2. umich (5)
3. hahvhad (12)
4. 'gate (14)^

amherst
1. cc (2)
2. cornell (6)
3. uhn (9)^
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

worchester
1. bc (3)
2. bu(7)*
3. tosu (11)^
4. und (13)^

As I pointed out in the other thread, you have Minn/UND in the first round. Flip UND with 'Gate.

edited thanks

With another win over a TUC and the stumbling of other teams at the top, this is looking like a real possibility again. The key, other than Cornell winning, is Brown and SLU. Together they represent 4 out of Cornell's 9 wins over TUCs and they are both very close to falling below a 0.500 RPI.

We also need to watch Alaska-Anchorage and Western Michigan. We want UAA to be a TUC -- they have a favorable record against Minnesota. Similarly, we DON'T want WMU to be a TUC, as that will add TUC wins to Michigan.

I agree with the comment made in the "Other Scores" thread. Even though I understand the math, it's pretty ridiculous that Cornell's aspirations for a #1 seed hinge upon Western Michigan and Lake Superior State slugging it out to determine if WMU is just above average or just below average. The "math" would be better served by changing TUC qualification to RPI (KRACH) over 0.5000 (100) AND a winning record.

1. cc
1. denver
3. minne
4. cornell
4. bc
6. umich
7. wi
8. uhn
8. umassl
10. bu
10. hahvahd
12. dc
12. tosu
14.und
15. 'gate
16. nmu
16. maine

broken ties->
1. cc
2. denver
3. minne
4. cornell
5. bc
6. umich
7. wi
8. uhn
9. umassl
10. bu
11. hahvahd
12. dc
13. tosu
14.und
_________
15. 'gate
16. nmu
17. maine
#1's: cc, du, minne, cornell
#2's: bc, umich, wi, uhn
#3's: umassl, bu, hahvahd, dc
#4's: tosu, und, aha/cha, cha/aha

grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 uhn (8)
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16)
minne
1 minne*(3)
2 umich (6)
3 hahvahd(11)
4 und (14)
amherst
1 du(2)
2 wi(7)
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15)
worcester
1 cornell (4)
2 bc (5)
3 bu*(10)
4 tosu (13)
we have some swapping to do.
uhn cant play umass, minne cant play und, bc cant play bu
bu and minne cannot move. cannot swap uhn and bc. looks like swapping bc(5) with umich (6) and uhn(8) with wi(7)
or u could swapp umassl(9) with havhahd(11).

swapping tosu(13) and und(14) seems reasonable->

grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 wi(7)^^
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16) (Q)
minne
1 minne*(3)
2 bc (5)^^^
3 hahvahd(11)
4 tosu (13)^
amherst
1 du(2)
2 uhn (8)^^
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15) (bemidji state)
worcester
1 cornell (4)
2 umich (6)^^^
3 bu*(10)
4 und (14)^
that seem reasonable? did i miss anything?

You know its late in the college hockey season if...

You run through the bracketology process after each night... for both no bonus, 3/2/1 bonus, and 5/3/1 bonus

Yeah, I did it last night, albeit before the UAA game which changed things.

---------

I do have a few comments on your brackets, mainly for attendence reasons.

1) The committee would probably like to keep BC east and Mich in GR. Rather than swapping BC with Mich and UNH with Wisc, swap BC with Wisc and UNH with Mich.

2) Also, I'm not convinced we'd end up in Amherst in this scenario. It may be "closer" to Denver, but they'd likely fly into Logan (Boston) , so the trip to Worcester is a shorter trip. Although it *could* be cheaper to fly into NYC and drive, so I guess I can't say. Its still a toss up even with a Western team in the east.

---------

FYI, with the 3/2/1 bonus at the moment, I get the same top 16.

So we have:
grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 mich (6)
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16) (Q)
minne
1 minne (3)
2 unh(8)
3 hahvahd(11)
4 tosu (13)
amherst
1 du(2)*
2 bc (5)
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15)** (bemidji state)
worcester
1 cornell (4)*
2 wisc(7)
3 bu (10)
4 und (14)**

Could flop *s and **s if you wanted to put DU in Worcester

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

You know its late in the college hockey season if...

You run through the bracketology process after each night... for both no bonus, 3/2/1 bonus, and 5/3/1 bonus

Yeah, I did it last night, albeit before the UAA game which changed things.

---------

I do have a few comments on your brackets, mainly for attendence reasons.

1) The committee would probably like to keep BC east and Mich in GR. Rather than swapping BC with Mich and UNH with Wisc, swap BC with Wisc and UNH with Mich.

2) Also, I'm not convinced we'd end up in Amherst in this scenario. It may be "closer" to Denver, but they'd likely fly into Logan (Boston) , so the trip to Worcester is a shorter trip. Although it *could* be cheaper to fly into NYC and drive, so I guess I can't say. Its still a toss up even with a Western team in the east.

---------

FYI, with the 3/2/1 bonus at the moment, I get the same top 16.

So we have:
grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 mich (6)
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16) (Q)
minne
1 minne (3)
2 unh(8)
3 hahvahd(11)
4 tosu (13)
amherst
1 du(2)*
2 bc (5)
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15)** (bemidji state)
worcester
1 cornell (4)*
2 wisc(7)
3 bu (10)
4 und (14)**

Could flop *s and **s if you wanted to put DU in Worcester[/q]

that seems like a good solution in order to keep umich and bc for attendance reasons. didnt get into that

Wow. I just checked what would happen if all harmful wins were dropped from the RPI, not just those in the playoffs. Look what happens:

[slack.net]

Now obviously, we don't deserve to be #1 (this flaw cancels other flaws in the PWR), but it's telling that if a bunch of games that we won hadn't counted, we'd be a lot better off.

Also, here's how we'd look with the old selection criteria (35/50/15 RPI, TUCs chosen by winning percentage, last 16 is a criterion):

[slack.net]

We'd still be #7 with the KRACHified version of the old criteria, though:

[slack.net]

(we win last 16 but lose TUC and RRWP to the top six)

I know the conventional wisdom is that it's a huge uphill climb for Cornell to get a #1 seed, but I think our chances are pretty good if we win an ECAC championship. Our RPI will go up so we'll have a good shot at passing BC and or Denver. Minnesota can still fall if MTU or their likely playoff foe, UAA, does some more damage to them. The chances of CC, Denver, Minn, and BC all playing very well over the next 3 weeks is small, especially since some of them will butt heads. As the WCHA and HEA play more games against each other, their good NC will not carry as much weight and their RPIs will trend closer to 0.500.

So I'll go out on a limb and say an ECAC championship will also bring in a #1 seed, providing either Brown or SLU remain a TUC.

I think Steve M has the right idea. There's a lot of losses out there between now and the end of season. If we avoid them, we'll get a #1 seed, since the WCHA tourney will have plenty of losses to hand out. Plus, CC&DU play each other twice this week. Heck, that by itself could make M. Tech a TUC, too, although I think they've fallen a bit too far from RPI = 0.5000 at this point.

Okay, so I ran it through the DIY script [slack.net] and if Minnesota loses to MTU tonight, we pass them and move to #4 in the PWR. If Minnesota splits, we're still #4, but Minnesota drops to #6 because the extra game against Tech drops their RPI enough for Michigan to pass them.

ETA: unfortunately, a sweep doesn't drag them down enough by itself, so we need Tech to pick up at least two points.

I just noticed, Minn's main danger is two-fold. One, their TUC record is close enough to our that depending on how things fall, we could pass them. Two, their RPI is low enough to allow BU to win the head to head comparison with them, as well as Michigan, but BU is awfully close. Of course, neither of them are so close. UNH is hanging in there as well.

As much as it might be against our blood, rooting for BU and UNH and Mich could help Minn lose those comparisons, and for CC and against BC to keep BC down and more likely to cause the 3 way tie. Rooting against BC this weekend is easy cause they play Maine, and we want Maine to stay up there. And of course against Minn.

With all the potential, I'm tempted to take that roote to hope that any *one* of the following can happens: BC, UNH, *OR* Mich passes Minn's RPI, even after bonuses *or* we pass BC's RPI.

On second though, rooting against BC may be tricky, because if they drop much in RPI and TUC, then Minn could pass them, which would just screw everything up.

Lastly, if we care about Harvard and Dartmouth's potential for an at large bid, we don't want to be rooting for BU and UNH. But eh, if Harvard can win to next weekend, and Dartmouth can make it to Albany with only, say, one more loss, they should both be fine.

And don't root TOO hard for Michigan, either - their RPI is only .0099 behind ours (with 5-3-1), so we're within striking distance for them, too.

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote: ... . One, their TUC record is close enough to our that depending on how things fall, we could pass them. Two, their RPI is low enough to allow BU to win the head to head comparison with them, as well as Michigan, but BU is awfully close. Of course, neither of them are so close. UNH is hanging in there as well. ... As much as it might be against our blood, routing for BU and UNH and Mich could help Minn lose those comparisons, and for CC and against BC to keep BC down and more likely to cause the 3 way tie. Routing against BC this weekend is easy cause they play Maine, and we want Maine to stay up there. And of course against Minn. ... hope that any *one* of the following can happens: BC, UNH, *OR* Mich passes Minn's RPI, even after bonuses *or* we pass BC's RPI. On second though, rooting against BC may be tricky, because if they drop much in RPI and TUC, then Minn could pass them, which would just screw everything up. Lastly, if we care about Harvard and Dartmouth's potential for an at large bid, we don't want to be rooting for BU and UNH. But eh, if Harvard can win to next weekend, and Dartmouth can make it to Albany with only, say, one more loss, they should both be fine.[/q]Anyone else thinking: Dan Quayle has stopped trolling eLynah for cocktail party conversation starters?

This is more complex than Father's Day in Hollywood.

Idle question: is there any reasion why you keep talking about "routing" for teams? I'm pretty sure, in a sports context, it's supposed to be spelled "rooting", and you do use that spelling once.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote: ... is there any reasion why you keep talking about "routing" for teams?[/q]Um, he's planning to hack the BU site?

Do the British or Australians spell it routing or rooting? Although "rooting for the home team" has a different meaning down under and may explain the extreme popularity of sports. [psy.otago.ac.nz]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Do the British or Australians spell it routing or rooting?
[/q]

They spell it "supporting" for reasons you allude to.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Do the British or Australians spell it routing or rooting?

[/q]

As far as I know, when it comes to supporting one's team, nobody correctly spells it "routing".

Cause I'm an engineer and I can't spell.

But hey, I was 2 for 5 in that last post. That's a hall of fame batting average

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

Cause I'm an engineer and I can't spell.

But hey, I was 2 for 5 in that last post. That's a hall of fame batting average [/q]

At least you are better than the guy on USCHO in one of the cornell bashing threads that writes "schedualing" repeatedly.

You folks need to look a little more deeply into the PWR. AA dropped from TUC last night, it was obvious they were going to. As such Cornell needs a lot of help to flip the MN comparison since MN got a big TUC boost as a result .

Even if Cornell plays and wins two TUC games in Albany, MN probably has to lose two TUC games for that comparison to flip. Probability of both, less than 50%.

The BC comparison is very interesting this morning. Tied at TUC and COP with BC playing a COP tonight (ME). If ME wins the comparison may flip. If BC wins tonight this comparison will be very difficult to flip and will be out of our control. If we're perfect the rest of the way, and with some help, its still possible this could flip. But still under 50% with a BC win tonight.

If Denver had lost last night we would have had a good chance to flip that one soon, if it hadn't happened already. This is the most likely of all, just root for the Denver opponents from here on out. Probablility 50%

CC comp is out of the question. Probability 10%.

So where does this leave us? In MN for the regionals as the 5 seed. Unless...

You give up the #1 seed idea and look toward a #6 or #7 seed which would most likely keep the team east against BC or whoever between DU/CC gets shipped east.
(BC isn't going to get the top seed). This means - GO RPI!

Other than Brown and SLU winning, last night was a bad night for the #1 seed chances as all 3 teams we have a shot at passing won, and UAA lost. UAA still has a chance to be a TUC. If they win tonight, and just one playoff game (most likely against Minn) they will be a TUC again. I don't think this is a total long shot since they were able to take 3 of 4 points in Minny a few weeks ago. Also if you use your probablilites (say it's 1/3 of passing Minn and 1/3 of passing BC) the chance that Cornell passes neither Minn, BC, Denver, nor CC is only ~20%.

[Q]Robb Wrote:

I just don't see a #1 seed in the cards. With a 5-3-1 bonus, our comparison with BC looks like:

<removed stuff about why BC will keep the comparison against us>

If all that comes to pass, I'm all for tanking a couple of (regular season) games to give Michigan a taste of their own medicine as the #5 overall seed at Mariucci! Now watch Minny turn it on and we'll go out there as the #6...

[/q]

Well, well - looks like we didn't have to tank those games to drop below both UMs. Now we just need Minnesota to retake the Michigan comparison to keep the Wolverines out of the east!

3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers

#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, maine, aha/ch, cha/aha

grand rapids
1. cc (1)
2. und (8)
3. tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)

minnesota
1. denver (2)
2. minne*(5)
3. dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

amherst
1. umich (4)
2. hahvahd (7)
3. wi (12)
4. uhn (13)

worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell (6)
3. bu* (9)
4. maine (14)

so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c denver should be placed

closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 blah blah blah right.

we have some problems.
bc and maine cant meet in the first round. maine cant swap with uhn. not sure if they would swap umich

and bc. how about maine and bemidji state?
->
grand rapids
1. cc (1)
2. ----und (8)
3. ----tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)

minnesota
1. denver (2)
2. ----minne*(5)
3. ----dc (10)
4. maine (14)

amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ----hahvahd (7)
3. ----wi (12)
4. uhn (13)

worcester
1. bc (3)
2. ----cornell (6)
3. ----bu* (9)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
no intraconference matchups now. not sure about attendance
again, minne being (5) and denver needing go into minne as well as bu being (9) and needing to go to

worcester makes things a bit askew.

oops cc is closer to minne...

3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers

#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, maine, aha/ch, cha/aha

grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. und (8)
3. dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. minne*(5)
3. tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)

amherst
1. umich (4)
2. hahvahd (7)
3. wi (12)
4. uhn (13)

worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell (6)
3. bu* (9)
4. maine (14)

so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c cc should be placed

closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 1 v 8 blah blah blah right.

we have some problems.
theoretically with 5 teams from one conference they can ignore the no intraconference 1st round matchups but lets see what we can do...
bc cant play maine. amazingly that is the only intraconference with 5 wcha teams in
so what about doing this:
maine cant swap with uhn so either maine with seed 15 or 16 or swap bc and umich. i would do 14 with 15.
->
grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. ---und (8)
3. ---dc (10)
4. maine (14)

minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. ---minne*(5)
3. ---tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)

amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ---hahvahd (7)
3. ---wi (12)
4. uhn (13)

worcester
1. bc (3)
2. ---cornell (6)
3. ---bu* (9)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

see what you think, minne and bu make things less than ideal...

CC has to go to the closest regional, as the overall #1, so they'd be in Minneapolis, not Grand Rapids. (I'm pretty sure the committee wouldn't consider those two sites more or less the same distance, like they did with Cornell going to Providence vs Worcester in 2003.)

hi...
most of the bracket predictions i've seen have cornell staying east as a "high" seed in the 2nd band. as much as the lynah faithful, the lynah east contingent (and the team) would hate to see it, what are the chances that they would end up in grand rapids?

just curious, since i am in hockey hell, but only ~ 4 hrs from grand rapids.

thanks
rita

[Q]rita Wrote:

hi...
most of the bracket predictions i've seen have cornell staying east as a "high" seed in the 2nd band. as much as the lynah faithful, the lynah east contingent (and the team) would hate to see it, what are the chances that they would end up in grand rapids?

just curious, since i am in hockey hell, but only ~ 4 hrs from grand rapids.

thanks
rita [/q]

I don't know, Grand Rapids wouldn't be so bad. At least, it's not much worse than East Lansing in terms of distance from Ithaca. Minneapolis is the regional I do not want Cornell to end up at, since that's likely the only one to which I couldn't make it.

[Q]rita Wrote:

hi...
most of the bracket predictions i've seen have cornell staying east as a "high" seed in the 2nd band. as much as the lynah faithful, the lynah east contingent (and the team) would hate to see it, what are the chances that they would end up in grand rapids?

just curious, since i am in hockey hell, but only ~ 4 hrs from grand rapids.

thanks
rita [/q]


If we get a #1 seed, we're almost assured of staying east. If we stay a 2 seed, my guess is about 15-20%. So overall, not very likely.

Where are you that's hockey hell? My first love of hockey developed when I lived near Detroit as a 10 year old. There aren't too many places outside Michigan that are more rabid about hockey IMHO. Orange County, CA is hockey hell (at least for the college game).

I'm in squeakball country, and even that has been brutal this season. I'm at purdue.. home of the very pathetic boilermaker cagers.. the men were horrible and even the ladies had a down year (though to be fair, they only had 2 returning starters a sr and a soph from last year's team).

thus far no luck finding a bar with cstv... thus the ride up to grand rapids would be worth it.. maybe even if cornell isn't playing.

I lived out in oregon for 4 years, and that was purgatory.. at least in eugene there was a rink with ice for 10 months out of the year, and an adult hockey league to play in, and a sports bar that was open at 9 am so i could watch the cornell-mankato state and the cornell bc games from the 2003 regionals..... here no such luck. nearest rink is over an hour away (45 min if i drive like the typical hoosier) and the adult league is run like youth t-ball... exactly 2 minute shifts, matching lines/ability all game long. too weird to make the drive for "games" on a sunday night at 10 pm....

I'm currently in College hockey hell. The only people i have seen since the middle of January with even the least interest in College Hockey are a pair of Wis. grads who have fallen into deep depression with thier teams late season collapse.

Although i will say the ice pilots are in town and they're having a pretty good season. Later this month if my schedule doesn't change i'll have a good opportunity to let Marsters have it if he's in net for La. Nothing like getting a bonus round

New Orleans got rid of its ECHL team just as I arrived. But I made a point of getting an apartment where I could put up a mini-dish, so my living room is College Hockey Nirvana every Friday and Saturday night.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

CC has to go to the closest regional, as the overall #1, so they'd be in Minneapolis, not Grand Rapids. (I'm pretty sure the committee wouldn't consider those two sites more or less the same distance, like they did with Cornell going to Providence vs Worcester in 2003.)[/q]

or would the committee feel like they're giving #1 CC a better deal by shipping them to G. R. to avoid playing #5 Minn. at Minn. in the 2nd round.
My brackets:
Grand Rapids
#1 CC, #8 N. Dak., #10 Dartm., #16 Q'pac
Minn.
#2 Denv., #5 Minn., #11 OSt. , #15 Bem.
Worc.
#3 BC, #7 Harv., #9 BU, #14 N. Mich.
Amh.
#4 Mich., #6 Cor., #12 Wis., #13 UNH

For that matter, they might also feel the same about #2 Denver and move them to Worcester. With the current PWR, this would give the most balanced brackets of all.
Grand Rapids
#1 CC, #8 N. Dak., #10 Dartm., #15 Bem.
Worc.
#2 Denv., #7 Harv., #9 BU, #16 Q'pac.
Amh.
#3 BC, #6 Cor., #12 Wis., #14 N. Mich
Minn.
#4 Mich., #5 Minn., #11 OSU, #13 UNH
In this scenario, the only switching from the pure 1-16, 2-15 etc. necessary is to flip 9 with 10, and 11 with 12. I've also swithched Q'pac. and Bemidji for regional reasons and to give Den. a slight repayment for being shipped all the way east.

Clearly, Minn. at #5 poses some interesting questions for the committee regarding balancing the travel priority for #1 seeds vs. the competitive inequity of giving those same seeds a tougher second round game.

i also put maine in instead of nmu so here are my edited brackets.

3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers

#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, aha/ch, cha/aha

grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. ---und (8)
3. ---dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. ---minne*(5)
3. ---tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)

amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ---hahvahd (7)
3. ---wi (12)
4. uhn (13)

worcester
1. bc (3)
2. ---cornell (6)
3. ---bu* (9)
4. nmu (14)

so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c cc should be placed

closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 1 v 8 blah blah blah right.

we have NO problems.
theoretically with 5 teams from one conference they can ignore the no intraconference 1st round matchups but lets see what we can do...
now with nmu correctly in and maine out, we are all good

see what you think, minne and bu make things less than ideal...i guess they could swap umich and place them in minne and move cc out to the east...

As things currently stand, a Cornell win over St. Lawrence would flip the Michigan comparison, and that can happen if they pull a QF upset.

We may think that's a better deal for CC, but it's not what the handbook says.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

We may think that's a better deal for CC, but it's not what the handbook says.[/q]
Exactly. "Better deal" isn't the issue - geographical proximity is all it says.

The handbook says that No. 1 seeds should be put as close to their campus as possible. So "as possible" is a bit ambiguous, and leaves things open to selective manipulation.

The "as possible" clause seems to leave some lee-way for the committee. Do CC or Denver have to go to Minnesota if they're the top ranked team (assuming Minny were a 2 seed)? If the point of keeping top ranked teams close to home for travel and fan purposes does it matter if a team has to fly anyway? One could argue that it doesn't make much difference in terms of travel or fans whether CC goes to Grand Rapids or Minny and so maybe it's appropriate to reward a top ranked team with a trip to GR, even though it's further away in terms of mileage.

[Q]adamw Wrote:

The handbook says that No. 1 seeds should be put as close to their campus as possible. So "as possible" is a bit ambiguous, and leaves things open to selective manipulation.[/q]

Jesus Christ, Adam, does "possible" also mean something different in your universe? In what way would not be possible for #1a CC and #2a Minnesota to play in the same regional? There is no guideline forbidding it. Would a rift somehow open in in the spacetime continuum?

Well, you *could* argue that it means, as close as possible while retaining the best 'competitive equality' (1-16, 2-15, etc). However, since the "as close as possible" is a much more serious requirement than the competitive equality 'suggestion', that would be a major major stretch by the committee.

I think this just shows that "possible" and "impossible" aren't really appropriate words here. The committee has lots of leeway in its decisions when you consider all of the possible considerations, guidelines and suggestions. The past two years experience and statements of committee members etc. may indicate that they will not choose to do it a certain wya, but that doesn't make it impossible.

On a purely hypothetical level, would there be any recourse if, for instance, the committee decided to make Cornell/Michigan/whoever a #1 seed even if the numbers didn't warrant it? Or decided to send a #1 seed further away from home than the proximity rule dictated? Or for that matter decided to give Colgate an at-large bid because they decided they "deserved" it? Is there any mechanism where the NCAA powers that be can/would overrule the committe? Or would we just be stuck with the results and the bitching? (Yes, I know these things are not going to happen. But absurd hypotheticals can sometimes shed light on more likely situations.)

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

Well, you *could* argue that it means, as close as possible while retaining the best 'competitive equality' (1-16, 2-15, etc). However, since the "as close as possible" is a much more serious requirement than the competitive equality 'suggestion', that would be a major major stretch by the committee.[/q]

You could argue that, but you'd be full of shit. Given that it is step c., and step b. is to put the host institutions at home, it obviously means as close as possible given the placements of the host schools. I.e., if CC is #1 and Minnesota is #4, CC has to go to Grand Rapids. Minneapolis is closer, but it's not possible to put CC there, since Minnesota has to play there.

What's not clear is what happens if a host team makes it as a #4 seed and the place-the-top-four-close-to-home rule would set up an intraconference matchup. E.g., what happens if the top four are 1. CC 2. Michigan 3. DU 4. BC and WMU wins the CCHA tournament? Placing the hosts according to step 6c. would put CC in Minneapolis, Michigan in Grand Rapids, DU in Amherst and BC in Worcester. Step 6d. says to avoid interconference matchups if possible, but can it override 6c. and move Michigan out of the Midwest regional? Or does "if possible" mean given the results of steps 6a. and 6c., which have already put WMU and Michigan in the Midwest regional?

Remember, they put us in Providence in 2003 rather than Worcester, which violated the "as close as possible" rule, so other considerations can override it.

Sorry John, I don't think that's worded as definitively as you make it sound.

If they wanted it to sound definitive, they could just say: "The seeds *must* be placed in the region closest to their campus, in 1-2-3-4 priority order."

That's as cut and dried as you can get.

Saying "as close as possible" - leaves a lot of room. They could very easily be saying "as close as possible ... so long as it doesn't mess other things up too much."

That's what I get out of it. We'll see..

I say "major major stretch", you say "full of shit" - same difference

There are 4 qualifications that are absolutely supposed to be met for the seedings. First, keeping the bands intact. Second, seeding the #1s in home order. Finally, third, avoiding intraconference first round matchups. And fourth, hosts have to be in their regional.

Everything else - attendence, competitive equity, etc - are suggestions.

So what's the priority of the first 4 requirements? Well, the bands makes absolutely no room for violating that condition. Interconference matchups explicitly yields to the bands - intraconference can happen if they have to based on bands being intact, but it never says it yields to anything else. The #1s in order, says, if possible, so that yielding to something. Host requirement yields to no one as well.

So we know that
Hosts, bands < home order #1s, intraconference

The hosts and bands can't conflict (can they?), so no problems there, so they're each the top priority.

So what about intraconference versus the home ordering of #1s? The home order does leave open the possibility of being lesser priority with the "if possible", by intraconference only mentions that it yields to the bands, nothing else.

So, I'd say its:
Hosts, bands < intraconference < home order #1

Which means I'd say, that if a #4 was a host and it caused an intraconference matchup with a #1, they'd move the #1s around. So my guess is the "if possible" is designed to cause flexibility with the other "top 4" requirements.

But to think that any of the suggestions would ever come before those, I just don't buy it.

[Q]DeltaOne wrote:
But to think that any of the suggestions would ever come before those, I just don't buy it.[/q]
Then how do you explain our being in Providence rather than Worcester in 2003? And if they can make exceptions for small differences, we certainly can't be sure where they will draw the line.

[Q]jkahn Wrote:

Remember, they put us in Providence in 2003 rather than Worcester, which violated the "as close as possible" rule, so other considerations can override it.[/q]

Their rationale for that was that Providence and Worcester were basically equidistant for us, so they could put is in either.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:On a purely hypothetical level, would there be any recourse if, for instance, the committee decided to make Cornell/Michigan/whoever a #1 seed even if the numbers didn't warrant it? Or decided to send a #1 seed further away from home than the proximity rule dictated? Or for that matter decided to give Colgate an at-large bid because they decided they "deserved" it? Is there any mechanism where the NCAA powers that be can/would overrule the committe? Or would we just be stuck with the results and the bitching? (Yes, I know these things are not going to happen. But absurd hypotheticals can sometimes shed light on more likely situations.)[/q]

No, those won't happen. Let's not get crazy. We're just dealing with the one sentence in the manual that refers to placement of No. 1 seeds.

I want to see what happens if Michigan is a No. 1 seed this year. What are you saying, John, that should happen? Do you believe Michigan would be in Grand Rapids if they are an overall No. 4, or not? Are you saying that you believe they place them closest to campus, going in order. In other words, No. 1 is CC - put them in Minneapolis. No. 2 is Denver ... put them Grand Rapids (closest remaining place to Michigan) ... No. 3 is BC ... put them in Worcester ... No. 4 is Michigan ... place them in Amherst.

Because all I'm saying is - I don't think this would be the case. Michigan would probably be in Grand Rapids, and Denver would go to Amherst. Why? Because Michigan then would be as close as possible -- Denver wouldn't, but so what. They fly either way and it makes no difference to attendance.

One of those two teams - Denver or Michigan - will get priority for being as "close as possible" ... Which one? Denver gets to be as close as possible first - because they are a No. 2 overall and Michigan is No. 4? Or Michigan gets to be as close as possible -because Grand Rapids is REALLY, REALLY close and it makes no difference to Denver?

This is the ambiguity that I don't think is answered by the manual. And so I'm basically saying - they are going to use their discretion in this situation.

[Q]adamw Wrote:

I want to see what happens if Michigan is a No. 1 seed this year. What are you saying, John, that should happen? Do you believe Michigan would be in Grand Rapids if they are an overall No. 4, or not? Are you saying that you believe they place them closest to campus, going in order. In other words, No. 1 is CC - put them in Minneapolis. No. 2 is Denver ... put them Grand Rapids (closest remaining place to Michigan) ... No. 3 is BC ... put them in Worcester ... No. 4 is Michigan ... place them in Amherst.

Because all I'm saying is - I don't think this would be the case. Michigan would probably be in Grand Rapids, and Denver would go to Amherst. Why? Because Michigan then would be as close as possible -- Denver wouldn't, but so what. They fly either way and it makes no difference to attendance.

One of those two teams - Denver or Michigan - will get priority for being as "close as possible" ... Which one? Denver gets to be as close as possible first - because they are a No. 2 overall and Michigan is No. 4? Or Michigan gets to be as close as possible -because Grand Rapids is REALLY, REALLY close and it makes no difference to Denver?

This is the ambiguity that I don't think is answered by the manual. And so I'm basically saying - they are going to use their discretion in this situation.
[/q]

The manual says "No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible, in order of their ranking 1-4." Sounds pretty unambiguous to me: place #1 as close to home as possible, then #2, then #3, then #4. Denver is placed as close to home as possible, i.e., Grand Rapids, before you ever get to Michigan.

As for comparisons to 2003, it's one thing to say Providence and Worcester are equally close to Ithaca, and quite another to say Amherst and Grand Rapids are equally close to Colorado Springs.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
As for comparisons to 2003, it's one thing to say Providence and Worcester are equally close to Ithaca, and quite another to say Amherst and Grand Rapids are equally close to Colorado Springs.[/q]

Well, forgetting what the manual says for a second, I think personally it would be somewhat ridiculous to not put Michigan in Grand Rapids under this scenario - because for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Amherst and GR for CC or Denver.

As for the manual ... well, I guess we'll see, eh? If Michigan is the No. 4 seed, it will be a hoot.

Sometimes it can be illuminating to analyze a reductio ad absurdum example. What if the four top seeds were: #1 Wisconsin, #2 Michigan, #3 Cornell, and #4 BC. The four regional sites are: Grand Rapids, Rochester, Worcester, and Denver. None of the four top seeds is a host.

Rigidly applying the process, the NCAA should assign Wisconsin to the nearest site: Grand Rapids. Then Michigan to the nearest remaining site: Rochester. Then Cornell to the nearest remaining: Worcester. Leaving BC to go to Denver. Would the NCAA really do this? Or would they use some common sense and put Wisconsin in Denver, Michigan in Grand Rapids, Cornell in Rochester, and BC in Worcester?

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

Sometimes it can be illuminating to analyze a reductio ad absurdum example. What if the four top seeds were: #1 Wisconsin, #2 Michigan, #3 Cornell, and #4 BC. The four regional sites are: Grand Rapids, Rochester, Worcester, and Denver. None of the four top seeds is a host.

Rigidly applying the process, the NCAA should assign Wisconsin to the nearest site: Grand Rapids. Then Michigan to the nearest remaining site: Rochester. Then Cornell to the nearest remaining: Worcester. Leaving BC to go to Denver. Would the NCAA really do this? Or would they use some common sense and put Wisconsin in Denver, Michigan in Grand Rapids, Cornell in Rochester, and BC in Worcester?[/q]

Just to play devil's advocate here...maybe it's common sense to do as you say, but is it really fair to make the top overall seed's fans travel thrice as far to get to their team's regional? Especially since one would likely fly from Madison to Denver, while one could easily drive from Madison to Grand Rapids.

[Q]adamw Wrote:

Well, forgetting what the manual says for a second, I think personally it would be somewhat ridiculous to not put Michigan in Grand Rapids under this scenario - because for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Amherst and GR for CC or Denver.

As for the manual ... well, I guess we'll see, eh? If Michigan is the No. 4 seed, it will be a hoot.[/q]

Adam, what do you think happens if Cornell finishes #4 and MN #5 overall with BC, DU, CC ahead? Does Cornell get shipped to MN for their "home" ice and maintaince of better brackets. Or does CC or DU get put there with a hellacious intraconference 1 v 5 on tap for the regional final?

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
Adam, what do you think happens if Cornell finishes #4 and MN #5 overall with BC, DU, CC ahead? Does Cornell get shipped to MN for their "home" ice and maintaince of better brackets. Or does CC or DU get put there with a hellacious intraconference 1 v 5 on tap for the regional final?
[/q]

I'd be willing to bet that CC would be in Minnesota under that scenario. But who really knows.

Going through the your committee thing on USCHO website, I found out that if we win the ECAC tourney there is a very good chance that we will be a number 1 seed. If Denver loses a game in the WCHA, we game the comparison on them, if we win out. Also, if Minnesota wins the WCHA, we will move up to number 4 in the PWR, assuming BC and Michigan take their respective titles. If BC loses in the HEA tourney, we can take over their comparison.

In short, we want any team in the HEA other than BC to win their tourney, and we want any team other then DU to win the WCHA. This in short will put us anywhere from I believe 1 (did not calculate all the scenarios out) to 4 seed if any one of those two happen. I believe that there is a decent chance that one of those 2 teams will lose. If you want to root for anyone in the WCHA tourney, I would say root for CC, since it is very very unlikely we will flip the comparison, so if they beat Minnesota and DU, and BC does not win their tourney we will end up as #2 overall.

This is the best overall scenario so far that I have found for us, none of the results seem unlikely to happen and we end up as the #2 overall seed.

* CCHA Play-in #2: Northern Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
* CCHA Play-in #1: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Michigan State.
* CCHA Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Northern Michigan.
* CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Ohio State.
* CCHA Consolation game: Northern Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* ECAC Semifinal #2: Harvard defeats Colgate.
* ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
* ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats Harvard.
* ECAC Consolation game: Colgate defeats Vermont.
* Hockey East Semifinal #2: New Hampshire defeats Boston University.
* Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Maine.
* Hockey East Championship game: New Hampshire defeats Boston College.
* WCHA Play-in #1: Wisconsin defeats North Dakota.
* WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
* WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats Wisconsin.
* WCHA Championship game: Colorado College defeats Denver.
* WCHA Consolation game: Minnesota defeats Wisconsin.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Mercyhurst defeats Holy Cross.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
* Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Quinnipiac defeats Mercyhurst.

All with bonuses of 3/2/1

What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.

For example, both of these send us to Minnesota:
- Denver and BC both win out
- Denver wins out, CC wins one of two, and Maine wins HEA

Both of these will make us a one seed
- Denver wins out and CC loses 2 games
- Denver wins out and UNH or BU win HEA

If Denver loses a game, from what I can tell, we're a one seed. Now I did all of these with Colgate beating Harvard. I don't know if they hold up with Harvard winning Colgate.

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.[/q]

Denver winning the CCHA would be quite a coup.

[Q]Will Wrote:

Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.[/Q]
Denver winning the CCHA would be quite a coup.[/q]

No, no. Jeff said these scenariios involved Denver "wining" the CCHA. So we ought to chip and send the Pioneers some cases of wine so they can go ahead and booze up Michigan, et. al.

[q]v. wined, win·ing, wines
v. tr.

To provide or entertain with wine[/q]