Check out the new article:
http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/03/11_006437.php
I like this one: We get Alabama in the first round. We get retribution against Maine in the second. Then we get to Screw BU in the Frozen Four.........
Actually, in those brackets we play the winner of BC - NoDak in the second. Tough second round - but with only 8 teams left, the second round will be tough for everyone.
My mistake,
But we'll take on anyone. When was the last time we played BC?
I believed we lost to NoDak in the playoffs about 5 years ago... so revenge on them too!
nice comments by Schafer in the sidebar
There's a mistake in the USCHO article regarding the Frozen Four pairings. It correctly explains that the regions are bracketed such that "if all four number-one seeds advance, then the top overall seed plays the No. 4 overall, and No. 2 plays No. 3" but then goes on to say that East would meet Northeast. In the current scenario, East would meet Midwest in the semi-finals, as UNH is #3, not BU. I'm e-mailing Jayson Moy on this, and suspect he'll get it corrected shortly. I do think Jayson's bracket analysis, both last week and this, has been right on the mark.
Post Edited (03-12-03 13:48)
Jayson's brackets may be right on the mark according to the rules as they have been laid out on USCHO. But the West regional they come up with is horrible. Three WCHA teams out of 4. Solid possibility of CC-Minny in the regional final, which could be a WCHA rematch. Maybe this is how the NCAA will do it, but it's a terrible result.
How would I do this differently? Well for thing CC should go to Ann Arbor rather than Minneapolis. The closer to home argument doesn't apply here - either way folks from Colorado will have to fly. So put CC in the Midwest where they avoid facing Minnesota and send UNH to the west. Bring Mercyhurst along with CC to Ann Arbor and likewise send Ohio State to Minnesota.
You still have the St. Cloud-Minnesota matchup in the first round. Easy solution to that. Swap Ohio State and St. Cloud. Horrors! That would involve making St. Cloud a #4 seed and OSU a #3. Sacriledge! But St. Cloud is #12 in PWR and OSU is #13. Swapping them would be easy and not unfair. Besides - you could probably make some quick bonus points argument to justify it. The switch solves a glaring problem, so I think it would be worth it.
So my brackets:
West Regional:
New Hampshire vs. St. Cloud
Minnesota vs. Ohio State
Midwest Regional:
Colorado College vs. Mercyhurst
Maine vs. Michigan
East Regional:
Cornell vs. Alabama-Huntsville
Boston College vs. North Dakota
Northeast Regional:
Boston University vs. Harvard
Ferris State vs. Minnesota State
Once again, the "good wins" band aid may screw it all up anyway.
Does Cornell have any "good" wins?
I guess there's no way we can really tell...
We can tell; "good wins" are wins over teams from other conferences in the top 15 of the non-fudged RPI. At the moment that's OSU (one road win) and BU (two home wins). So we're doing pretty well, although we can't tell how well because we don't know the magnitude of the bonuses.
Harvard, OTOH, is screwed.
We've got two good wins vs. BU, although home good wins don't count as much as road good wins. We also have the road win at Ohio State, which is a good win if OSU finishes in the top 15.
Let's say that Harvard (or Yale or Dartmouth) somehow creep into the Top 15 in the next couple of weeks. If we play them in the ECAC tournament, does that count as a non-conference neutral site game?
Adam '01 wrote:
QuoteLet's say that Harvard (or Yale or Dartmouth) somehow creep into the Top 15 in the next couple of weeks. If we play them in the ECAC tournament, does that count as a non-conference neutral site game?
As far as I can tell, the answer to your question, Adam, is in that same mayonnaise jar.;-)
The answer is no. Non-conference games against teams in your conference (e.g., BU's win over BC in the Beanpot) don't count as quality wins.
They really should call the fudge points "wins against teams from other conferences." Yeah, it's awkward and extraneous (sort of like the bonus points themselves ::yark:: ), but at least it'd be clear. :-D