NCAA Seeding Speculation

Lots of judgement calls to be made this time. Assuming bonuses of
.003/.002/.001, the field is, from

[www.uscho.com]

1. Boston College (BC)
2. Colorado College (CC)
3. Denver (DU)
4. Minnesota (Mn)
------------------------------------------
5. Cornell (Cr)
6. Michigan (Mi)
7t North Dakota (ND)
7t New Hampshire (NH)
------------------------------------------
9. Harvard (Ha)
10. Ohio State (OS)
11t Wisconsin (Wi)
11t Boston University (BU)
------------------------------------------
11t Maine (Me)
14. Colgate (Cg)
22t Bemidji State (BS)
28. Mercyhurst (Mh)

I'm assuming they break all ties by indivudual comparisons.

A few things are known. Minnesota must play in Minneapolis, BU must
play in Worcester. Keeping the top four close to home puts BC in
Worcester, CC in Grand Rapids, and DU in Amherst, which makes the
regionals

1E Boston Coll 1M Colorado Co 1N Denver 1W Minnesota
2E 2M 2N 2W
3E Boston Univ 3M 3N 3W
4E 4M 4N 4W

We can fill in the 4-seeds without trouble, pairing the worst overall
#1 overall etc:

_Worcester_ _Grand_Rapids_ _Amherst_ _Minneapolis_
1E Boston Coll 1M Colorado Co 1N Denver 1W Minnesota
2E 2M 2N 2W
3E Boston Univ 3M 3N 3W
4E Mercyhurst 4M Bemidji St 4N Colgate 4W Maine

For the 2 and 3 seeds it gets tricky. Cornell, as #5 overall, should
be bracketed with #4 Minnesota and #12 BU, but only one of those is
possible. And #8 New Hampshire can't go in the bracket with #1 BC
because that would give a first-round matchup with BU. How this goes
probably depends on whether Cornell gets sent to Minneapolis or not.
If they do, UNH has to go to Grand Rapids or Amherst. From an
attendance point of view, you probably want to do that like this:

_Worcester_ _Grand_Rapids_ _Amherst_ _Minneapolis_
1E Boston Coll 1M Colorado Co 1N Denver 1W Minnesota
2E North Dakota 2M Michigan 2N UNH 2W Cornell
3E Boston Univ 3M 3N 3W
4E Mercyhurst 4M Bemidji St 4N Colgate 4W Maine

Now Harvard can't go to Minneapolis and OSU can't got to Grand Rapids,
so the obvious thing to do is

_Worcester_ _Grand_Rapids_ _Amherst_ _Minneapolis_
1E Boston Coll 1M Colorado Co 1N Denver 1W Minnesota
2E North Dakota 2M Michigan 2N UNH 2W Cornell
3E Boston Univ 3M Wisconsin 3N Harvard 3W Ohio State
4E Mercyhurst 4M Bemidji St 4N Colgate 4W Maine

On the other hand, if we start with Cornell in Worcester instead, we
probably want the UNH/Harvard pairing to stay in New England so the
Northeast Regional doesn't have only one Eastern team in it:

_Worcester_ _Grand_Rapids_ _Amherst_ _Minneapolis_
1E Boston Coll 1M Colorado Co 1N Denver 1W Minnesota
2E Cornell 2M Michigan 2N UNH 2W North Dakota
3E Boston Univ 3M Wisconsin 3N Harvard 3W Ohio State
4E Mercyhurst 4M Bemidji St 4N Colgate 4W Maine

Another possibility is that the committee will follow their
geographically loose attitude from 2003 (where they decided Providence
and Worcester were approximately equidistant from Cornell) and send BC
to Amherst instead:

_Worcester_ _Grand_Rapids_ _Amherst_ _Minneapolis_
1E Denver 1M Colorado Co 1N Boston Coll 1W Minnesota
2E 2M 2N 2W
3E Boston Univ 3M 3N 3W
4E Colgate 4M Bemidji St 4N Mercyhurst 4W Maine

Then the only departure needed from the 1-16 seeding would be a swap
of BU for Wisconsin:

_Worcester_ _Grand_Rapids_ _Amherst_ _Minneapolis_
1E Denver 1M Colorado Co 1N Boston Coll 1W Minnesota
2E Michigan 2M North Dakota 2N UNH 2W Cornell
3E Boston Univ 3M Ohio State 3N Harvard 3W Wisconsin
4E Colgate 4M Bemidji St 4N Mercyhurst 4W Maine

That's decent attendance-wise, as long as the BU fans show up. Plus
there are Michigan fans everywhere. But it may not be fair to BC, who
should have earned their fans a shorter road trip.

I'd say option #2 if they want to adhere to the geography, or #3 if
they're willing to fudge it in the name of seeding.

At any rate this year is an indication of how the seeding of the
16-team tournament can come down to judgement calls.

my attempt
3/2/1

1. bc
2. cc
3. denver
4. minne
5. cornell
6 mich
7. und
8. uhn
9. hahvahd
10. tosu
11. wi
12. bu
13. maine
14. 'gate
15. bemidji
16. mercyhurst

#1s: bc, cc, denver, minne
#2s: cornell, umich, und, uhn
#3s: hahvahd, tosu, wi, bu
#4s: maine, 'gate, bemidji, mercyhurst
3/2/1

grand rapids
1 cc(2)
2 und (7)
3 hahvahd (9)
4 bemidji (15)

minne
1 minne(4)*
2 cornell (5)
3 wi (11)
4 maine (13)

amherst
1 denver (3)
2 umich (6)
3 tosu(10)
4 'gate (14)

worcester
1 bc (1)
2 uhn (8)
3 bu* (12)
4 Mercyhurst (16)

must swap umich/tosu and uhn/bu. seems logical. note some playing with the seeds as bu should play cornell but they cannot be in minne's regional.
->
grand rapids
1 cc(2)
2 ---und (7)
3 ---hahvahd (9)
4 bemidji (15)

minne
1 minne(4)*
2 ---cornell (5)
3 ---wi (11)
4 maine (13)

amherst
1 denver (3)
2 ---uhn (8)
3 ---tosu(10)
4 'gate (14)

worcester
1 bc (1)
2 ---umich (6)
3 ---bu* (12)
4 Mercyhurst (16)

an alternative would be to put cornell with bu in worcester but that penalizes bc in the second round if both favorites advance. we shall see

just for the heck of it
krach
1. cc
2. denver
3. bc
4. minne
5. mich
6. cornell
7. wi
8. und
9. uhn
10. bu
11. tosu
12. hahvahd
13. maine
14. unm
15. bemidji
16. mercyhurst

grand rapids
1 cc (1)
2 und (8)
3 uhn (9)
4 Mercyhurst (16)

minne
1 minne*(4)
2 umich (5)
3 hahvahd (12)
4 maine (13)

worcester
1 denver (2)
2 cornell (6)
3 tosu (11)
4 bemidji (15)

amherst
1 bc(3)
2 wi (7)
3 bu (10)*
4 UNM (14)

also posted under the PWR updates thread, but seems more appropriate here. sorry for the duplication....

I remember back quite a few years ago when your record in the last 20 games was taken into account as well. John, or someone else, can you tell me when "record in the last 20 games" was taken out of the mix?. Anyway, it just doesnt seem fair that cornell who went 18 Wins - 1 loss - 1 tie should be stuck with a #5 seed and presumably a trip to minnesota while minnesota finishes up with 11 wins - 8 losses - and 1 tie and gets to enjoy the advantage of that big home ice. I realize that there isn't anything we can do about the "if you host a regional, you can stay home" rule, but teams should be rewarded for their play going into the regionals. The basketball pundits on espn always say how the b-ball committee takes into account your recent play as well as team injuries when deciding how teams are seeded.

At this point i put on my carnellian colored glasses.
early season records are biased against the ivies and any other team that don't allow organized (official) practices until ~ Oct 15th. the Michigans, and minnesotas, and denvers of the college hockey world have been having official practices since ~ oct 1st and already have a few games under their belt. Between this and the 3 week exam break in december, most of the ecachl teams are at a disadvantage. Since most of the PWR comparisions are won-lost during the early season and the holiday tourneys, we are screwed if we (and our ecachl colleagues) if we play a tough nc schedule, because we take losses knowing that on the ice it will make us a better team, but on the sheets of paper given to the committee, it ends up hurting us.
carnellian colored glasses off.

I realize that the last 20 is skewed because almost all of those games are conference games, and if you are in a conference with several equivalent teams you will take a few more losses than in a conference with one or two top teams. but the bottom line is, cornell (and a few other teams) have taken care of business all season long, particularly in the last 20 games when it *should* matter the most with respect how a team is expected to perform in the playoffs.

for the sake of completeness (WLT) of the teams in the mix going into this weekend
and cornell finished stronger than the other "#1 seeds.. cc, du, bc and minn".

cornell 18-1-1
colg 12-5-3
harvard 12-6-2
ver 10-9-1
dart 14-6

denver 15-4-1
cc 13-5-2
wisc 10-7-3
minn 11-8-1
und 9-8-3

bc 13-3-4
unh 11-6-3
bu 10-6-4
maine 11-5-4

mich 15-2-2
osu 14-5-1
nmu 13-4-3

on a happy note, i was able to watch cornell beat harvard in west lafayette IN (albeit no sound), and met another cornell alum also living in the area (the big red sweatshirts and jerseys do stand out in a bar....).

Denver in Amherst is certainly close to home.....

yeah I know it just works out that way

i found the answer to my previously posed question. record in the last 16 games (not 20) was discontinued in 2003.

[www.uscho.com]

The championship was great! Pegoraro's pass and Varteressian's goal were very much worth wandering around Wrigleyville for a while.

Boy, we are going to get royally *screwed* in the seeding this year.

Damnit, Quinnipiac, you've screwed us! I hate them already.

It was once 20 but then they reduced it to 16 and finally eliminated it.

Anyone else here believe that if they do bump cornell up to a number 1 seed, they will still be sent to Minnesota, but get to wear there home colors, have an easier first round opponent, and last line changes. Even though this breaks the closest to home part of selection committee stuff, I believe this could really happen.

[Q]TCHL8842 Wrote:

Anyone else here believe that if they do bump cornell up to a number 1 seed, they will still be sent to Minnesota, but get to wear there home colors, have an easier first round opponent, and last line changes. Even though this breaks the closest to home part of selection committee stuff, I believe this could really happen.[/q]
No, this has been discussed. The criteria says that the #1 seeds are seeded in order closest to their campus. I don't see any way that this is the case.

That said, I also don't see any way in hell that Cornell would be bumped to a #1 seed. If we're very lucky the committee will keep us east as a #2, but even that is a definite long shot.

Delta the only way we can get bumped up to one is if we overcome the 0.0035 RPI against DU. You can do this and only affect the seedings of 3-5 teams. Event though it seems highly unlikely, I think keeping bracket intregrity will be more important than putting DU 500 miles away from there campus rather than 2500. That is how I can see that scenario pan out. A number 2 seed out east seems very unlikely so lets have some fun a beat some gophers butt in their home barn.

My predicted brackets are:

Amherst
1	BC
		8	UNH
		9 	Harvard
16	Mercyhurst

Grand Rapids
2	CC
		7	North Dakota
		10	Ohio State
15	Bemidji State

Worcester
3	Denver
		5	Cornell
		12	BU
14	Colgate

Minneapolis
4	Minnesota
		6	Michigan
		11	Wisconsin
13	Maine

I am assuming a 3/2/1 bonus. I am guessing that the committee would choose perfect competitive equity in the first round over perfect competitive equity in the second round (a choice required because host-schools Minnesota and BC are ranked #s 4 and 12, respectively, in the PWR). First-round upsets can prevent perfect competitive equity in the second round, so it makes more sense to have the slight alterations to perfect competitive equity in the second round. In this case, swapping Cornell and Michigan brings better attendance and rivalries to the NCAA regionals. It would also have a side benefit of placing the two teams in regionals with ice surfaces well-suited for the two teams. Also, Cornell would avoid being screwed twice: by having to face the #11 PWR team in the first round and, if successful, likely having to face Minnesota at Marriucci Arena.

[Q]cbuckser Wrote:

My predicted brackets are:
Amherst
1 BC
8 UNH
9 Harvard
16 Mercyhurst

Grand Rapids
2 CC
7 North Dakota
10 Ohio State
15 Bemidji State

Worcester
3 Denver
5 Cornell
12 BU
14 Colgate

Minneapolis
4 Minnesota
6 Michigan
11 Wisconsin
13 Maine
I am assuming a 3/2/1 bonus. I am guessing that the committee would choose perfect competitive equity in the first round over perfect competitive equity in the second round (a choice required because host-schools Minnesota and BC are ranked #s 4 and 12, respectively, in the PWR). First-round upsets can prevent perfect competitive equity in the second round, so it makes more sense to have the slight alterations to perfect competitive equity in the second round. In this case, swapping Cornell and Michigan brings better attendance and rivalries to the NCAA regionals. It would also have a side benefit of placing the two teams in regionals with ice surfaces well-suited for the two teams. Also, Cornell would avoid being screwed twice: by having to face the #11 PWR team in the first round and, if successful, likely having to face Minnesota at Marriucci Arena.[/q]

I sure hope the committee sees your logic.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

cbuckser Wrote:

My predicted brackets are:
Amherst
1 BC
8 UNH
9 Harvard
16 Mercyhurst

Grand Rapids
2 CC
7 North Dakota
10 Ohio State
15 Bemidji State

Worcester
3 Denver
5 Cornell
12 BU
14 Colgate

Minneapolis
4 Minnesota
6 Michigan
11 Wisconsin
13 Maine
I am assuming a 3/2/1 bonus. I am guessing that the committee would choose perfect competitive equity in the first round over perfect competitive equity in the second round (a choice required because host-schools Minnesota and BC are ranked #s 4 and 12, respectively, in the PWR). First-round upsets can prevent perfect competitive equity in the second round, so it makes more sense to have the slight alterations to perfect competitive equity in the second round. In this case, swapping Cornell and Michigan brings better attendance and rivalries to the NCAA regionals. It would also have a side benefit of placing the two teams in regionals with ice surfaces well-suited for the two teams. Also, Cornell would avoid being screwed twice: by having to face the #11 PWR team in the first round and, if successful, likely having to face Minnesota at Marriucci Arena.[/Q]
I sure hope the committee sees your logic.[/q]

There's no doubt that it would help attendance in both locations, except for the fact that Minnesota has already sold out.

It also looks more fair than the Moy prediction, but I just don't think it will look better enough.