Big Ten Hockey Conference

[css228]

let the consolation matchup determine who gets left out the next.

Pffft.  Another lousy soccer import -- bids based on prior year's performance.  ::yark::


And yes I realize you were joking.

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

[KeithK]

let the consolation matchup determine who gets left out the next.

Pffft.  Another lousy soccer import -- bids based on prior year's performance.  ::yark::


And yes I realize you were joking.

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

For some of us that would be a feature, not a bug.  One of us anyway.

[css228]

let the consolation matchup determine who gets left out the next.

Pffft.  Another lousy soccer import -- bids based on prior year's performance.  ::yark::


And yes I realize you were joking.

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

For some of us that would be a feature, not a bug.  One of us anyway.

Under that system Colgate would have gotten an autobid this year *well not exactly, because they wouldnt have even been in the playoff, but still it increases the odds that Qpac or Clarkson would have made the tournament*

[KeithK]

let the consolation matchup determine who gets left out the next.

Pffft.  Another lousy soccer import -- bids based on prior year's performance.  ::yark::


And yes I realize you were joking.

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

For some of us that would be a feature, not a bug.  One of us anyway.

Under that system Colgate would have gotten an autobid this year

That's the chance you take when the league is dumb enough to let everyone in the playoffs.

I've stated my preferences about post season selection enough times through the years so I won't rehash them again.  Do a search if for some god forsaken reason you care. :-)

[Scersk '97]

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

For some of us that would be a feature, not a bug.  One of us anyway.

Under that system Colgate would have gotten an autobid this year

That's the chance you take when the league is dumb enough to let everyone in the playoffs.

I've stated my preferences about post season selection enough times through the years so I won't rehash them again.  Do a search if for some god forsaken reason you care. :-)

Actually, there would be around 10 autobids spread amongst the various conferences, which seems about right to me.  This is an area in which I tend toward Keith's position, that it's best to limit contenders for the national championship to teams that have won at least some tournament or "regular-season championship" during the season.  Or, god forbid, made it past the quarterfinals.  (I don't think that's Keith's position exactly, but it's the flavor to which I would subscribe.)

By limiting the playoffs to eight teams from a twenty-one team league, I would think that whichever four teams made the semis would be likely to do well in the national tourney.

[css228]

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

For some of us that would be a feature, not a bug.  One of us anyway.

Under that system Colgate would have gotten an autobid this year

That's the chance you take when the league is dumb enough to let everyone in the playoffs.

I've stated my preferences about post season selection enough times through the years so I won't rehash them again.  Do a search if for some god forsaken reason you care. :-)

Actually, there would be around 10 autobids spread amongst the various conferences, which seems about right to me.  This is an area in which I tend toward Keith's position, that it's best to limit contenders for the national championship to teams that have won at least some tournament or "regular-season championship" during the season.  Or, god forbid, made it past the quarterfinals.  (I don't think that's Keith's position exactly, but it's the flavor to which I would subscribe.)

By limiting the playoffs to eight teams from a twenty-one team league, I would think that whichever four teams made the semis would be likely to do well in the national tourney.

True, but what has the ECAC actually done to deserve 4 bids in recent times? I think that the NCAA would just be better off replacing the PWR with KRACH if you're going to do that.

[jtwcornell91]

Actually, I wasn't joking, I was just being horrendously unclear.

I meant that the league (21/6 = 3.5) would receive alternately three or four autobids.  In year one, all the semifinalists would receive autobids; in year two, the finalists would receive two of the autobids, and a consolation matchup would be played to determine the third.  Repeat.

If you do that would there be any room in the tournament after autobids. Heck, if D-I expands would there be even enough bids in a 16 team tournament for all of the auto-bids?

For some of us that would be a feature, not a bug.  One of us anyway.

Under that system Colgate would have gotten an autobid this year

That's the chance you take when the league is dumb enough to let everyone in the playoffs.

I've stated my preferences about post season selection enough times through the years so I won't rehash them again.  Do a search if for some god forsaken reason you care. :-)

Actually, there would be around 10 autobids spread amongst the various conferences, which seems about right to me.  This is an area in which I tend toward Keith's position, that it's best to limit contenders for the national championship to teams that have won at least some tournament or "regular-season championship" during the season.  Or, god forbid, made it past the quarterfinals.  (I don't think that's Keith's position exactly, but it's the flavor to which I would subscribe.)

By limiting the playoffs to eight teams from a twenty-one team league, I would think that whichever four teams made the semis would be likely to do well in the national tourney.

In this fantasy world, I think you'd also want to give leagues half-bids with a play-in, like they do for world cup qualifying.  E.g., if the ECAC super-conference has 3.5 bids, the loser of the consy plays the loser of the Central Atlantic College Hockey America title game for the last spot in the NCAAs.

ETA: I had an idea some years back when there were four conferences that you would rank each league by RS and playoff finishes, give auto-bids to the top teams on the eight lists, then use individual pairwise comparisons to fill in the tournament field: first take the best second-place team out of the eight, replace them with the third team on their list, and repeat the process with those eight, etc.

[Trotsky]

If the emphasis is on only the best teams making the national tournament, the solution is to cut back autobids and cut back the tournament field.  Assuming 1 autobid per conference (the current 5 + the future BTHC), a 12 team tourney would still allow 6 at large teams (translation: 4 from the WCHA and BTHC, 1 from HE, and 1 from the ECAC or CCHA).  I don't advocate that at all but that's the direction they'd move if that was their goal.

I think 16 with 1 auto per conference is great.  My only changes would be scrapping the regionals and having the first two rounds be best-of-3 at the top seed barns with reseeding and stopping the practice of having the Frozen Four in stupid places.

[css228]

If the emphasis is on only the best teams making the national tournament, the solution is to cut back autobids and cut back the tournament field.  Assuming 1 autobid per conference (the current 5 + the future BTHC), a 12 team tourney would still allow 6 at large teams (translation: 4 from the WCHA and BTHC, 1 from HE, and 1 from the ECAC or CCHA).  I don't advocate that at all but that's the direction they'd move if that was their goal.

I think 16 with 1 auto per conference is great.  My only changes would be scrapping the regionals and having the first two rounds be best-of-3 at the top seed barns with reseeding and stopping the practice of having the Frozen Four in stupid places.

THE 2012 FROZEN FOUR! COMING TO A RIDICULOUS LOCATION IN FLORIDA NOWHERE NEAR YOU!

[Rita]

If the emphasis is on only the best teams making the national tournament, the solution is to cut back autobids and cut back the tournament field.  Assuming 1 autobid per conference (the current 5 + the future BTHC), a 12 team tourney would still allow 6 at large teams (translation: 4 from the WCHA and BTHC, 1 from HE, and 1 from the ECAC or CCHA).  I don't advocate that at all but that's the direction they'd move if that was their goal.

I think 16 with 1 auto per conference is great.  My only changes would be scrapping the regionals and having the first two rounds be best-of-3 at the top seed barns with reseeding and stopping the practice of having the Frozen Four in stupid places.

THE 2012 FROZEN FOUR! COMING TO A RIDICULOUS LOCATION IN FLORIDA NOWHERE NEAR YOU!

But somewhere near me B-]. Now that The Tampa Bay Lightening are making the playoffs for the first time in many years, we will see how well ice in Tampa holds up in very warm 80 + degree weather. Actually, it has been unseasonably humid the last week or two (humid as in causing T-storms). :-P

[RichH]

If the emphasis is on only the best teams making the national tournament, the solution is to cut back autobids and cut back the tournament field.  Assuming 1 autobid per conference (the current 5 + the future BTHC), a 12 team tourney would still allow 6 at large teams (translation: 4 from the WCHA and BTHC, 1 from HE, and 1 from the ECAC or CCHA).  I don't advocate that at all but that's the direction they'd move if that was their goal.

I think 16 with 1 auto per conference is great.  My only changes would be scrapping the regionals and having the first two rounds be best-of-3 at the top seed barns with reseeding and stopping the practice of having the Frozen Four in stupid places.

THE 2012 FROZEN FOUR! COMING TO A RIDICULOUS LOCATION IN FLORIDA NOWHERE NEAR YOU!

Neat looking building, as I drove right past it on my way to the airport last week.  For a second, I thought I was going to drive right into it, as the crosstown expressway banks right next to it.  It was in the upper '80s, so I guess if the Lightning are playing now...

I think my favorite part of the Anaheim FF (1999) was that there was a freak cold snap and it got into the 40s that weekend, IIRC.

[Swampy]

If the emphasis is on only the best teams making the national tournament, the solution is to cut back autobids and cut back the tournament field.  Assuming 1 autobid per conference (the current 5 + the future BTHC), a 12 team tourney would still allow 6 at large teams (translation: 4 from the WCHA and BTHC, 1 from HE, and 1 from the ECAC or CCHA).  I don't advocate that at all but that's the direction they'd move if that was their goal.

I think 16 with 1 auto per conference is great.  My only changes would be scrapping the regionals and having the first two rounds be best-of-3 at the top seed barns with reseeding and stopping the practice of having the Frozen Four in stupid places.

Of course, we'd want to leave room for upsets by "mid-majors," like Butler, VCU, and Bemidji State (Ouch!). ::bang::

[Trotsky]

Of course, we'd want to leave room for upsets by "mid-majors," like Butler, VCU, and Bemidji State (Ouch!). ::bang::

The Colonial Athletic Conference has sent more basketball teams to the Final Four over the last decade than the ECAC has sent hockey teams to the Frozen Four. :-(

[judy]

If the emphasis is on only the best teams making the national tournament, the solution is to cut back autobids and cut back the tournament field.  Assuming 1 autobid per conference (the current 5 + the future BTHC), a 12 team tourney would still allow 6 at large teams (translation: 4 from the WCHA and BTHC, 1 from HE, and 1 from the ECAC or CCHA).  I don't advocate that at all but that's the direction they'd move if that was their goal.

I think 16 with 1 auto per conference is great.  My only changes would be scrapping the regionals and having the first two rounds be best-of-3 at the top seed barns with reseeding and stopping the practice of having the Frozen Four in stupid places.

THE 2012 FROZEN FOUR! COMING TO A RIDICULOUS LOCATION IN FLORIDA NOWHERE NEAR YOU!

But somewhere near me B-]. Now that The Tampa Bay Lightening are making the playoffs for the first time in many years, we will see how well ice in Tampa holds up in very warm 80 + degree weather. Actually, it has been unseasonably humid the last week or two (humid as in causing T-storms). :-P

Hey now, I remember that ice being able to last 5 periods of hockey a few years back when the Caps lost to Tampa on 2OT Easter Sunday the year Tampa won the Cup. I don't remember if it was good, bad, or horrible ice, but they survived 5 periods.

[Jim Hyla]

Via CHN, interesting article from kypost.com on the idea of merging the WCHA and CCHA.