Future of NCAA Regionals

[BMac]

Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

[Trotsky]

Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF.  Just like the ECACs.  (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8.  I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

[Jim Hyla]

Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF.  Just like the ECACs.  (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8.  I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Another is to have a 4 game QF at neutral site. 2 games Fri, 2 games Sat to determine the FF teams. Each team plays 1 game. Each game is independent, no overall winner.

[marty]

Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF.  Just like the ECACs.  (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8.  I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Another is to have a 4 game QF at neutral site. 2 games Fri, 2 games Sat to determine the FF teams. Each team plays 1 game. Each game is independent, no overall winner.

And with this you could have the QF east and the Frozen Four west, and the next year move QF west and FF east.

[Swampy]

I can't recall any NCAA Tournament events being held outside of the U.S. I believe only American schools are in the NCAA.

Damn! This cheap map I bought says Montreal is in America. In fact, it shows most of Canada in America. Mexico too! I suppose I'll have to return it.

[Jim Hyla]

Wait, you mean reseeding the remaining 8 after the first round, right? No Byes?

So this:

First round: 9-16 @ 1-8
Re-seed the remaining 8
QF: 5-8 @ 1-4
Don't re-seed the remaining 4
Frozen Four

Pros: The top eight get a first-round series at home. I really like that. No going to Minnesota/Wisconsin as the top 2-seed.
Cons: Not a neutral site. If a 16-seed upsets the top team they still don't get to return home. It adds 2-4 more games to win the NCAA tournament.

Honestly, I like having 1-16 play a three-game series on campus. But the I would prefer to play the QF at a neutral site. There's no elegant way to do this (with scheduling and all), so I guess your proposal is best.

You have my vote.

That's what I mean, although I'd go ahead and reseed again to determine the SF.  Just like the ECACs.  (If we had 4 extra teams...)

There is an inelegant way to play the QF at neutral site, and that would be to make the F4 an F8.  I think that would be a bad idea, however, not least because the final would be between teams playing a third consecutive night.

Another is to have a 4 game QF at neutral site. 2 games Fri, 2 games Sat to determine the FF teams. Each team plays 1 game. Each game is independent, no overall winner.

And with this you could have the QF east and the Frozen Four west, and the next year move QF west and FF east.

I like it.

[adamw]

Are sites really neutral now?

You pointed out Manchester; I'll point out our team having to play Minnesota in Minneapolis and Wisconsin in Milwaukee in '05 and '06 respectively.

It's like if we played BU at the Boston/TD Garden. It's a home game for their fans.

Yeah - but I don't think it's quite the same. First off, they've stopped awarding Minnesota regionals in their home arena - which takes away the effect of having the large ice sheet. When Minnesota gets regionals now, it's at Xcel Center - which is better.

I don't think they can get quite around the host region thing - and I don't think it's a big issue in Manchester. Certainly hasn't helped UNH. And there's so many other schools close by that can draw. This year, Lowell was equidistant from Manchester as Durham is - so the crowds were equal.

The regional has to be somewhere, and it's going to be close to someone.

And I don't think BU would have that much bigger a crowd in Boston Garden than Cornell would - not that a Regional would ever be there.

[adamw]

The biggest issue I have with going by to campus sites - as I'll be expounding upon shortly - is the unfairness.

You want to go by Pairwise 1-16 - but the Pairwise is too imprecise a thing to put that much weight on it. It's better than human guesswork, but not worthing placing that kind of importance on it. What's the difference between the 8-9 seeds? Between 7-10?  Is it a good idea to give those "higher" seeds such a big advantage just in the name of higher attendance?

Think about it from this perspective too ... Teams that play many more home games than road, already get an advantage in the Pairwise. For example, the Big Ten schools - a dynamic that will only get worse.  So now you want, e.g., Yale, which has to play almost all of its Non-Conference games on the road (thus hurting their Pairwise) to go to the home arena of a team that had a big advantage already (e.g. Minnesota) - play on their big ice again?

The deck is too stacked in those kind of situations.

[Trotsky]

Then by all means, improve PWR.  But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

[adamw]

Then by all means, improve PWR.  But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

[Trotsky]

Then by all means, improve PWR.  But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

There's nothing vague about site hosts getting to stay home even if they are 3rd or 4th seeds.

[adamw]

Then by all means, improve PWR.  But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

There's nothing vague about site hosts getting to stay home even if they are 3rd or 4th seeds.

I don't think my reference to vague had anything to do with site hosts being "home"

And I addressed that point earlier.

[Trotsky]

Then by all means, improve PWR.  But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

I disagree because in the case of selection, there needs to be a system, because the alternative is something most of us don't want whatsoever.

In the case of regional suitability, there are options. There is no pressing need to introduce more unfairness into the system - other than vague concepts like "atmosphere" (which could be improved upon in other ways), and dollars (which, I don't think anyone is going to cry over besides the NCAA).

There's nothing vague about site hosts getting to stay home even if they are 3rd or 4th seeds.

I don't think my reference to vague had anything to do with site hosts being "home"

And I addressed that point earlier.

You said campus sites would introduce unfairness into the system.  I don't agree with that, however I was pointing out at least one (significant) source of unfairness that would be removed from the system.

If there was a way to make regionals tenable without the host crutch I would be more in favor of them, but they are already doing poorly despite it.

I think regionals are like Atlantic City.  Props to NCAA hockey for trying something new, however we now have enough of a track record to admit it didn't work.

[KeithK]

Then by all means, improve PWR.  But if the argument is that a quantitative ranking system's translation of very slight performance differences into hard-edged seeds makes it unacceptable to assign home advantage, then how much more unacceptable that it sets the boundary between who gets in and who does not?

I think the questions of the suitability of any given ranking system, and the configuration of the tournament, are separate.

But you can't imrpove PWR. Not enough anyway. Even if you to KRACH or KPWR or something you're still stuck with an imprecise method becuse your sample sizes are so small.  I did a study once upon a time looking at how much uncertainty there is among the rankings in KRACH and it's easily several places.

As Adam said, you need a system for bids so we use the one that we've got imperfections and all.  I don't have a much of a problem with small differences deciding who gets te last at large bid or two because a team that is on the margins like that doesn't have much of an argument for playing for the national title anyway (with a 16 team field).

But once you're in the tournament the field should be as fair as possible.  IMO, teams should largely be treated as equals once they're in.  Sure, you give the higher seed last change because someone has to have it. But adding home ice is a much bigger deal, IMO.

If the point is to make sure that the best teams in the country are the ones who get to the FF then lets stop letting 16 teams into the tournament.

[KeithK]

Here's a random thought. If you go to campus sites for the first round or two, how about giving the visiting team the last change to compensate?