Bracketology Starts

[abmarks]

There's a 4th solution, too.  Keep the regionals.  Get rid of hosts and intraconference restriction and concentrate on seeding by actual region.  Have a very tight rotation around 2-3 true regional sites:

West: St. Paul, Denver
Central: Chicago, Detroit
East: Albany, Worcester
Northeast: Manchester, Boston

Break the PWR standings into 4 bands; within band, start with the best team and seed to the closest site.  Rinse and repeat.

So, right now (guessing at mileage):

Sioux Falls

1. (1) St. Cloud
2. (5) Mankato
3. (9) Minn-Duluth
4. (13) Minnesota

Allentown

1. (2) Notre Dame
2. (6) Denver
3. (11) Penn State
4. (14) UNO

Worcester

1. (3) Cornell
2. (7) Ohio State
3. (10) Northeastern
4. (15) North Dakota

Bridgeport

1. (4) Ohio State
2. ( Clarkson
3. (12) Providence
4. (22) Mercyhurst

Ugh. Please no!

THis would be good for attendance, sure. But what I love about the regionals now is that we get the east-west and other matchups not usually seen.    The location rota are a good idea, but let's keep the banding regardless of where the teams are from.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

OOC, isn't the Bracketology "rule" that we assume the conference leader is the AQ for that conference?  if so, why is anybody dealing with North Dakota?  BC is in first place in Hockey East, despite their PWR position. So they are the 15 seed, not NoDak.

JH

[Trotsky]

OOC, isn't the Bracketology "rule" that we assume the conference leader is the AQ for that conference?  if so, why is anybody dealing with North Dakota?  BC is in first place in Hockey East, despite their PWR position. So they are the 15 seed, not NoDak.

JH

The "rule" is that we assume the conference leader is the AQ for that conference if nobody from that conference would qualify for AL.  It's a convention for reserving the slot for the conference (essentially, it is the Atlantic Hockey Quota).  Northeastern is #10 (and Providence #12) so we don't consider BC.

[adamw]

The Yale point is a perfect encapsulation of why best-of-3 on-campus regionals are bad, as I've argued ad nauseum forever. ... My argument comes down to this ... The Pairwise is not precise enough to give the higher seeded teams such an advantage. The Pairwise is an imprecise tool. This isn't conference standings where everyone plays each other during the season and they "earn" the higher seed. The Pairwise is good enough for selecting the field, but once in there, it's unfair to give double advantages. The higher seeded teams often get the benefit through the year of playing more home games than the "smaller" schools. So - Yale got the chance to beat North Dakota and Minnesota in the Regionals on neutral ice, in front of friends and family. So be it.

[adamw]

The Yale point is a perfect encapsulation of why best-of-3 on-campus regionals are bad, as I've argued ad nauseum forever. ... My argument comes down to this ... The Pairwise is not precise enough to give the higher seeded teams such an advantage. The Pairwise is an imprecise tool. This isn't conference standings where everyone plays each other during the season and they "earn" the higher seed. The Pairwise is good enough for selecting the field, but once in there, it's unfair to give double advantages. The higher seeded teams often get the benefit through the year of playing more home games than the "smaller" schools. So - Yale got the chance to beat North Dakota and Minnesota in the Regionals on neutral ice, in front of friends and family. So be it.

This logic, by the way, is shared by at least 75% of the coaches, which is why any discussion to do something different, never gets anywhere, and probably won't. The NCAA also wants neutral sites - known in advance - for TV reasons.

[Trotsky]

The Pairwise is good enough for selecting the field, but once in there, it's unfair to give double advantages. The higher seeded teams often get the benefit through the year of playing more home games than the "smaller" schools. So - Yale got the chance to beat North Dakota and Minnesota in the Regionals on neutral ice, in front of friends and family. So be it.

That's a little disingenuous since it cherry picks one case that fits your narrative.  We would need an exhaustive list of the times that higher seeds were f-cked by playing in situations advantageous to lower seeds.

But in looking back at 2005 and 2006 I was surprised that I misremembered both cases as Cornell being the better seed against Minny and Wisco.  In fact it was the opposite in both cases.

BTW, your argument does not just kill best of 3.  It kills campus seeds entirely.

I just want NC$$ games at Lynah!  Why do you defy me with logic?!

[RichH]

Also, Holy Cross over Minnesota.

[Trotsky]

Also, Holy Cross over Minnesota.

Next on Geraldo: upsets are upsets!

You would also need to consider cases where better seed smaller schools got f-cked.

Though I suspect from their record that's probably typically Harvard, so...

[Jim Hyla]

This week's movement has Omaha in, North Dakota out, Boston College going to Worcester

For anyone interested the article highlights NCAA guidelines.

This week's brackets

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
14 Omaha vs. 4 Ohio State
11 Penn State vs. 5 Minnesota State

East Regional (Bridgeport):
13 Minnesota vs. 3 Cornell
12 Providence vs. 6 Denver

West Regional (Sioux Falls):
16 Mercyhurst vs. 1 St. Cloud State
9 Minnesota Duluth vs. 7 Michigan

Northeast Regional (Worcester):
15 Boston College vs. 2 Notre Dame
10 Northeastern vs. 8 Clarkson
Conference breakdowns

Big Ten — 5
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
ECAC Hockey — 2
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

This week's movement:

Out: North Dakota

In: Omaha

[Trotsky]

I could live with that.

[adamw]

That's a little disingenuous since it cherry picks one case that fits your narrative.  We would need an exhaustive list of the times that higher seeds were f-cked by playing in situations advantageous to lower seeds.

I did say that I was using that as a microcosm ... If you want the exhaustive list, you'll have to read my 74 other articles about the topic.

[Jim Hyla]

I could live with that.

Yes, it would be nice to get Minny more on our turf.

[upprdeck]

Ok. so explain the anti 3 game home series thing to me again?  Is the argument that  PWR is flawed so you give a team home ice that doesnt deserve it?  Dont we do that now in the current system by trying to keep teams close to home anyway and then completely reward and undeserving team by playing at home if they get in?

if best of 3 is bad then why do we do it in the 1st round where it has the least chance of being an upset?

and TV could care less about knowing sites in advance, they are a content driven service..  best of 3 means more games. more revenue, also some more cost.. hosting on home campus helps keep that cost down since they could actually have hosts have a break even model not a profit model. 8 teams would not have to travel instead of 16 traveling.

if it is all about upsets then keep the current system, but attendance is down across the board and this may prop it up a bit maybe not. but it would add to the excitement in the building and not so many empty seats, which is also a bad thing for TV.

[marty]

Ok. so explain the anti 3 game home series thing to me again?  Is the argument that  PWR is flawed so you give a team home ice that doesnt deserve it?  Dont we do that now in the current system by trying to keep teams close to home anyway and then completely reward and undeserving team by playing at home if they get in?

if best of 3 is bad then why do we do it in the 1st round where it has the least chance of being an upset?

and TV could care less about knowing sites in advance, they are a content driven service..  best of 3 means more games. more revenue ersatz Viagra commercials, also some more cost.. hosting on home campus helps keep that cost down since they could actually have hosts have a break even model not a profit model. 8 teams would not have to travel instead of 16 traveling.

if it is all about upsets then keep the current system, but attendance is down across the board and this may prop it up a bit maybe not. but it would add to the excitement in the building and not so many empty seats, which is also a bad thing for TV.

FYP::bolt::

[adamw]

Ok. so explain the anti 3 game home series thing to me again?  Is the argument that  PWR is flawed so you give a team home ice that doesnt deserve it?  Dont we do that now in the current system by trying to keep teams close to home anyway and then completely reward and undeserving team by playing at home if they get in?

When things like that happen, I don't like it either and usually complain about it. But I get that they are trying to have some semblance of crowd. ... But a single game at a neutral site that is somewhat close to some school, is better than a best-of-3 on campus. ... Also, the idea of "close to home" is not a rule that's written down - except for No. 1 seeds, but they deviate from that all the time, for other reasons. In different years with different committees, you've seen them emphasize attendance more than others.

if best of 3 is bad then why do we do it in the 1st round where it has the least chance of being an upset?

You're talking about conference tournament - different discussion.

and TV could care less about knowing sites in advance, they are a content driven service..  best of 3 means more games. more revenue, also some more cost.. hosting on home campus helps keep that cost down since they could actually have hosts have a break even model not a profit model. 8 teams would not have to travel instead of 16 traveling.

Just about all of this here is very untrue on many levels. I've even heard it straight from the horse's mouth, if you prefer.

if it is all about upsets then keep the current system, but attendance is down across the board and this may prop it up a bit maybe not. but it would add to the excitement in the building and not so many empty seats, which is also a bad thing for TV.

Personal preference. If you'd rather see more "excitement in the building" - then great. Personally, I've seen much too much evidence of small crowds at home playoff games to believe this will actually occur to get that excited about it. But OK if that's your preference. I prefer to lean towards fairness. I really don't care how much money everyone makes. And I'm just telling you that the large majority of coaches agree, so any changes are unlikely to happen.