NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by jtwcornell91
NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 12:07AM
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.
.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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2005 12:45AM by jtwcornell91.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 12:23AM
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)
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)
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: Rita (---.agry.purdue.edu)
Date: March 20, 2005 12:34AM
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....).
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....).
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: Robin L (12.20.24.---)
Date: March 20, 2005 12:54AM
Denver in Amherst is certainly close to home.....
yeah I know it just works out that way
yeah I know it just works out that way
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: Rita (---.agry.purdue.edu)
Date: March 20, 2005 01:06AM
i found the answer to my previously posed question. record in the last 16 games (not 20) was discontinued in 2003.
[www.uscho.com]
[www.uscho.com]
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 01:16AM
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.
Boy, we are going to get royally *screwed* in the seeding this year.
Damnit, Quinnipiac, you've screwed us! I hate them already.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 01:48AM
It was once 20 but then they reduced it to 16 and finally eliminated it.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: TCHL8842 (---.houston.res.rr.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 02:01AM
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.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.solutionip.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 02:08AM
[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.
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.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: TCHL8842 (---.houston.res.rr.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 02:19AM
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.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: cbuckser (---.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 03:55AM
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 MaineI 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.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 04:13AM
[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.
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.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: March 20, 2005 04:16AM
[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.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 09:35AM
[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
.[/q]
Obviously we all like this. It also answers a troubling question of fairness and logic the committee should address: if Cornell had lost their championship game they'd be in Worcester just like this bracket is constructed. So their reward for winning is to be shipped west?
But...I don't think so. The numbers are what the numbers are. Tinkering to help a particular school is detrimental to fairness at a higher level.
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
.[/q]
Obviously we all like this. It also answers a troubling question of fairness and logic the committee should address: if Cornell had lost their championship game they'd be in Worcester just like this bracket is constructed. So their reward for winning is to be shipped west?
But...I don't think so. The numbers are what the numbers are. Tinkering to help a particular school is detrimental to fairness at a higher level.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jkahn (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:10AM
As I posted last night in the PWR Updates thread, in the third period actually
[Q]With BC win, it looks like a Cornell win will put us at #3 (CC win) or 5 (Den. win). It also looks like BU will be #12 in those scenarios, so even if we're #5, they might put us in a 5-12 match-up in Worcester, with the winner playing #3.[/q] - the same conclusion as Craig, and there's as much competitive equity there as in any scenario.
In the same thread I wrote:
[q]jkahn wrote:
I'd say it's up to the committee. Most likely we either get a 5-12 match-up w/ BU in Worcester or we go to Minn and play Wisconsin. We'll know tomorrow [/q]
The latter result is what Jayson Moy speculates on USCHO.
I'm hoping for Worcester so the Faithful can be there in force (and I've already got plane tickets from Chicago). We'll know in an hour.
[Q]With BC win, it looks like a Cornell win will put us at #3 (CC win) or 5 (Den. win). It also looks like BU will be #12 in those scenarios, so even if we're #5, they might put us in a 5-12 match-up in Worcester, with the winner playing #3.[/q] - the same conclusion as Craig, and there's as much competitive equity there as in any scenario.
In the same thread I wrote:
[q]jkahn wrote:
I'd say it's up to the committee. Most likely we either get a 5-12 match-up w/ BU in Worcester or we go to Minn and play Wisconsin. We'll know tomorrow [/q]
The latter result is what Jayson Moy speculates on USCHO.
I'm hoping for Worcester so the Faithful can be there in force (and I've already got plane tickets from Chicago). We'll know in an hour.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:10AM
[q]Also, Cornell would avoid being screwed twice[/q]...and would have the added benefit (which you mentioned yesterday) of screwing Michigan (sending them to play at Mariucci) in payback for all of their years at Yost.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:23AM
anyone know how to get the build your own rankings on slack.net to consider a tuc as rpi >= .5 and record >= .500
i am curious how this would change things
40 minutes til seeding. i think we will be in minne.
i am curious how this would change things
40 minutes til seeding. i think we will be in minne.
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2005 10:39AM by jy3.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:24AM
Here's what I came up with in a quick hack last night. Starting with a straight 1-16, 2-15 etc. would give:
Is this a "prediction"? I hope not. I don't like the straight "bracket-integrity" approach. While I don't subscribe completely to Adam's "storyline" position (see USCHO article) I think the committee should have flexibility to create seeds to design igood regionals that have both decent attendance prospects and good east-west matchups.
Besides, as anyone who has been following this for weeks knows, there really isnt that much difference in ranking between Michigan and Cornell in the #2 band, or BU/OSU in the #3 band. Or for that matter between Minny/Cornell or UNH/Harvard across bands. A couple of second order things happening (e.g. Brown winning one more game in Novemeber) and these rankings flip. So sticking to a rigid bracket seems shortsighted. Unless the committee is simply trying to eliminate all possibility of people being upset with the seedings by going strictly with the numbers.
1 BC CC DU Minn 2 UNH NoD Mich Cor 3 Har OSU Wisc BU 4 Mer BSU Col MaineThis can't work because BU and Minny have to host their own regionals. So flip BU with either OSU or Wisc. I'll pick OSU because that leaves Michigan in Grand Rapids.
# Amh Wor GR Minn 1 BC CC DU Minn 2 UNH NoD Mich Cor 3 Har BU Wisc OSu 4 Mer BSU Col MaineNow, I got to this without taking the step of placing the top seeds in regionals first. So what? Minny is where they have to be. BC is closest to home. I doubt it matters whether you send CC or Denver to Worcester or Grand Rapids, so I don't think you're "screwing" CC by sending them further away.
Is this a "prediction"? I hope not. I don't like the straight "bracket-integrity" approach. While I don't subscribe completely to Adam's "storyline" position (see USCHO article) I think the committee should have flexibility to create seeds to design igood regionals that have both decent attendance prospects and good east-west matchups.
Besides, as anyone who has been following this for weeks knows, there really isnt that much difference in ranking between Michigan and Cornell in the #2 band, or BU/OSU in the #3 band. Or for that matter between Minny/Cornell or UNH/Harvard across bands. A couple of second order things happening (e.g. Brown winning one more game in Novemeber) and these rankings flip. So sticking to a rigid bracket seems shortsighted. Unless the committee is simply trying to eliminate all possibility of people being upset with the seedings by going strictly with the numbers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2005 10:25AM by KeithK.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: TCHL8842 (---.houston.res.rr.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:26AM
jy3 isn't already set for a TUC being a RPI > 0.5000, dont understand the second part. But if you set the TUC to be RPI > 0.4990 we would be ranked 4th overall.
Biting The Hand That Seeds Us
Posted by: ZooeyDog (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:36AM
I don't have anything new to add. We're going to Minny, and we know it.
I just wanted to somehow work the title of this post into the conversation.
I just wanted to somehow work the title of this post into the conversation.
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 10:40AM
[Q]TCHL8842 Wrote:
jy3 isn't already set for a TUC being a RPI > 0.5000, dont understand the second part. But if you set the TUC to be RPI > 0.4990 we would be ranked 4th overall.[/q]
sorry i think i made a typo.
i meant a tuc being defined by winning percentage >= .500 AND rpi >= .500
jy3 isn't already set for a TUC being a RPI > 0.5000, dont understand the second part. But if you set the TUC to be RPI > 0.4990 we would be ranked 4th overall.[/q]
sorry i think i made a typo.
i meant a tuc being defined by winning percentage >= .500 AND rpi >= .500
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Re: NCAA Seeding Speculation
Posted by: jkahn (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: March 20, 2005 11:19AM
The committee juggles things around to send Mich to GR and pairs 8-9 UNH-Harv. in a region with #3. If they could do all this, you'd think they could've put the #5 team in a region with #3 and kept us east.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.