Quest for #1 seed

[jy3]

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

 [Q2]jkahn Wrote:

 [Q2]jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/Q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.[/Q]
and they let yowpa prescribe drugs? scary....[/q]


lol it is scary
here is the braketology thread. it is fun to figure the new brackets out
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=44843

[Steve M]

Adam,

Please bear with me one last time on this.  I would like to look at a hypothetical, but plausible scenario.  Let's say the bonus adjusted PWRs end up as follows (not too far off where we are now except I left BU out to simplify it):

1. CC
2. BC
3. Denver
4. Minnesota
5. Cornell
6. Michigan
7. Wisconsin
8. UML
9. Harvard
10. NMU
11. UND
12. UNH
13. Colgate
14. OSU
15. Bimedji St.
16. Holy Cross

Perfectly preserving "competitive equity", as Jayson has done whenever possible, we get:

Grand Rapids
1.  CC
8.  UML
9.  Harvard
16. Holy Cross

Worcester
2.  BC
7.  Wisconsin
10. NMU
15. Bimedji St.

Amherst
3.  Denver
6.  Michigan
11. UND
14. OSU

Minneapolis
4. Minnesota
5. Cornell
12. UNH
13. Colgate

However the committee, at least by the published rules, could easily do following (and even a bit more) to boost attendance:

Grand Rapids
1.  CC
6.  Michigan
11. UND
16. Holy Cross

Worcester
2.  BC
8.  UML
9.  Harvard
15. Bimedji St.

Amherst
3.  Denver
5. Cornell
12. UNH
14. OSU

Minneapolis
4. Minnesota
7.  Wisconsin
10. NMU
13. Colgate

Does the insider knowledge USCHO has really indicate the committee would set the field as shown in the first set of brackets, in spite of the abysmal attendance that would result in nearly all but the BC and Minnesota games?  If so please offer my apologies to your colleague, Jasyon, for the criticism I have aimed at his columns on these boards.

I will, however, make a prediction.  If the committee ever does assemble a geographically challenged NCAA field like the top set of brackets, it will only happen once before they change the way they do things.  College basketball can afford to ship excessive numbers of teams out of their regions to preserve competitive equity.  Do you really believe college hockey in 2005 can as well?

[Ken \'70]

Just flip the original Amherst and Grand Rapids brackets in their entirety.  It's not like Colorado Springs is a short drive from GR, anyway.

While the scenario you paint is probelmatic, it seems much better to do the wholesale flip than making CC play Michigan in the Reg. Finals.  That's a royal screwing for both teams and hardly in line with "competitive equity".

[DeltaOne81]

The seeding rules explictly state that the #1 seeds are to be seeded, in order, as close to home as possible. It doesn't say "except when it doesn't really matter anyway".

Now, as #1, they did put us in Providence, and put UNH in Worcester, but that's kind of different, cause it made a big difference for UNH (30% or so, driving time), but it was pretty similar for us either way. The difference here is that the difference between CR & Amherst for CC is significant. Maybe not so much for the team, but for the fans coming from Colorado, and even moreso for any chance of a fan base already existing in that area. I'm sure as small number of CC grads in the Michigan area greatly outnumber the # in the western Mass area.

So, my first thought is that they'd keep the #1 seeds as in Steve's examples.

After that, you're asking them to rotate around all the 2 seeds. My feeling on the matter, and this is only an impression, is that the committee would tend to 'swap' two teams, rather than move all 4 to fit the area. So what about swapping Cornell/Wisc and UML/Mich, leaving:

Grand Rapids
1) CC 6) Michigan  9) Harvard 16) Holy Cross

Worcester
2) BC 5) Cornell 10) NMU 15) Bimedji St.

Amherst
3) Denver UML 11) UND 14) OSU

Minneapolis
4) Minnesota 7) Wisconsin 12) UNH 13) Colgate

Just my feeling that the committee tends to swap instead of 'shuffle up'. But there's no telling exactly wht they'd do in any given year.

Two other problems->possibilities off this bracket:
- 'weak' Minn bracket -> swap UNH/ UND (for attendence)
    -> or swap UNH/NMU

- that leads to BC/UNH/Cornell in the same bracket. Perhaps flip BC/DU for no real impact but avoid BC/Cornell rematch or BC/UNH second rounder.

But hey, the committee is made up of an entirely new group of 6 ADs every year, so there's no telling how much they'll want to mess with the 1-16 balance. My hunch is that the #1s will stay where they are, and that other teams wil be 'swapped'. Other than that we'll have to wait and see.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

But hey, the committee is made up of an entirely new group of 6 ADs every year, [/q]

Is that right?  I haven't paid attention to the makeup recently, but I thought they served at least two-year terms.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 [Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

But hey, the committee is made up of an entirely new group of 6 ADs every year, [/Q]
Is that right?  I haven't paid attention to the makeup recently, but I thought they served at least two-year terms.[/q]
I could be mistaken. But if it is 2 years, it's like 3 new ones every year, so its at least 50% new blood.

[adamw]

No, the terms are 4 years I believe - or 3 at the very least.  There is not that much turnover each year.


Steve, There is no telling exactly what they'll do when the time comes ... but it's apparent that keeping the "bracket integrity" or whatever you want to call it, has overweighed a variety of other factors in the last 2 years, particularly attendance and the avoidance of second-round intra-conference matchups.  Lowell and Harvard are not going to boost attendance much.  They already proved last year that keeping Michigan in Grand Rapids was not a major priority.  And if perhaps more fans would go to Minnesota to see Wisconsin play than out East - if you're Wisconsin, would you really want a game at Minnesota in the regional final?

[nyc94]

I just read this on USCHO:
http://www.uscho.com/news/2005/02/11_009907.php

The women's hockey tournament is expanding to eight teams from four.  But they only plan to seed the top two teams so they don't play each other until the final.

From the article:
The parents of UMD forward Megan Stotts sent a letter dated Jan. 28 to [Troy] Arthur [the NCAA staff liaison to the Women's Ice Hockey Committee] threatening the NCAA with a Title IX grievance and circulated a petition demanding "the same tournament play-down bracket the NCAA Division I men's Frozen Four has had, specifically the team seeded 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 and 6, 4 plays 5."

[jy3]

interesting to note before the princeton final or other finals for the night:


Rk Team KRACH Record Sched Strength
Rating
1 Colorado College  6 261.7
2 Denver  3 297.1
3 Minnesota 1 368.1
4 Wisconsin 9 227.5
5 Boston College 14 186.6
6 Michigan 15 182.6
7 Cornell 26 134.1
8 Boston University 7 255.8
9 New Hampshire 18 162.0
10 North Dakota 5 281.2
11 Ohio State 28 131.6
12 Harvard 24 136.5
13 Mass.-Lowell 20 145.2
14 Maine 17 169.2
15 Northern Michigan 16 169.8
16 Colgate 37 103.4
17 Michigan State 13 204.0
18 Minnesota State 4 281.7
19 Northeastern 12 205.0
20 Minnesota-Duluth 10 225.5
21 Nebraska-Omaha 29 122.4
22 Vermont  32 118.1
23 St. Cloud State 11 215.4
24 Brown 38 96.14
25 Bowling Green 36 111.6
26 Dartmouth 34 116.8
27 Alaska-Anchorage 8 252.5
28 Michigan Tech 2 341.4
29 Miami 23 142.6
30 St. Lawrence 35 114.0
31 Alaska-Fairbanks 22 144.2
32 Western Michigan 27 133.6
33 Bemidji State  44 60.57
34 Alabama-Huntsville  46 50.30
35 Massachusetts  30 120.8
36 Lake Superior  21 144.7
37 Ferris State  25 136.4
38 Providence 33 117.7
39 Notre Dame 19 161.5
40 Union  40 81.16
41 Merrimack  31 119.4
42 Clarkson  41 75.81
43 Rensselaer  45 59.29
44 Wayne State 47 50.06
45 Niagara 43 63.23
46 Princeton  42 63.88
47 Air Force  49 25.27
48 Holy Cross 50 17.76
49 Yale  39 84.33
50 Canisius 51 16.85
51 Quinnipiac 55 13.82
52 Robert Morris 48 27.76
53 Sacred Heart 52 16.71
54 Mercyhurst 54 16.35
55 Connecticut 53 16.45
56 Bentley 58 12.38
57 Army  56 13.58
58 American Int'l 57 12.39

[jy3]

tonight before all the games, our SOS moves to 29.

[jy3]

SOS up to 30 now

also
5-3-1
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
5. cornell
7.hahvahd
8. wisconsin
9. bu
9. uhn
9. und
9. tosu
13. dc
14. umassl
15. unm
16. maine

this one is complicated with the four team tie.
bu - wins uhn, und
uhn-wins und, tosu
und-wins tosu
tosu- wins bu
->
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
6. cornell
7.hahvahd
8. wisconsin
9. bu
10. uhn
11. und
12. tosu
13. dc
14. umassl
15. nmu
16. maine
aha/cha take 15 and 16
banding
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: bu, uhn, und, tosu
#4's: dc, umassl, aha/cha, cha,aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (
3. uhn (10)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. und (11)
4. dc (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (12)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. umassl(14)
wisconsin should play bu by rank order but bu has to be in worchester so they instead play uhn. since cornell and bc should be in the same bracket cornell gets bu. but umich and tosu cannot play in the first round. i doubt they would swap the higher seeds so probably tosu swaps with und. a cornell umich swap would not be good for attendance even though both sets of fans rock. anyone see this one differently? tough one this week, i think i broke the ties correctly.

[billhoward]

How much does it matter? Assuming we don't really screw up in ECAC play, we're going to be a #2 seed or theoretically maybe a #1 seed (one of four #2 or four #1 seeds). So it means in the first of the two regional games, as a #2 seed you play a team just a little less good than you (the #3 seed) instead of the worst team in your region (the #4 seed). As a practical matter, say we're in the same region as, say, Michigan, whether they're #1 and we're #2 or vice versa, we have to beat them to get the the Frozen Four. Also as a practical matter, if you're the #1 seed you're *probably* going to beat #4 since several of the #4's will be the auto-qualifiers from the wimpier leagues. But that only gets you to the regional final. There's always the chance #3 mildy upsets #2 in the first regional game and if you're #1 and you're definitely better than #3, you have an easier - but not guaranteed - chance of going to Columbus and the final four.

Say we're #2 in a region where BC is #1. We're almost as likely to meet them in the regional final as if they're #2 and we're #1. That's a rematch I'd like.

Sure, it would be great to be a #1 seed. But mostly you want to avoid being the #4 seed in a region.

[Chris \'03]

[Q]jy3 Wrote:

 
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. umassl(14)

 anyone see this one differently? tough one this week, i think i broke the ties correctly.[/q]

UML can't play BC in the first round. They'd swap with DC probably.

[jy3]

oh yeah i missed that one
here is the 3-2-1
i actually meant to use the 3-2-1 in my post but for some reason did the 5-3-1.
here is 3-2-1 before 2nite's beanpot, which will change things  

1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
7t Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
10t Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
13t Northern Michigan
15t Maine
15t Colgate
15t Dartmouth
15t Michigan State
->
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
7t Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
10t Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
13t Northern Michigan
-> hahvahd wins over wisconsin,
tosu-wins over bu
umassl wins over nmu
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
8 Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
11 Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
14 Northern Michigan
15 aha/cha
16 cha/aha
bands:
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: und, tosu, bu, uhn
#4's: umassl, nmu, aha/cha, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (
3. und (9)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. uhn (12)
4. umassl (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (10)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(11)
4. nmu(14)
-that all fits nicely but we have to swap out of a wisconcin und matchup if we can, which would mean either a und-uhn swap or und-tosu swap since bu cant move. i think swapping a 9-10 may make more sense so i will go with und-tosu swapping.^
->
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (
3. tosu (10)^
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. uhn (12)
4. umassl (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. und (9)^
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(11)
4. nmu(14)

5-3-1 for comparison
banding
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: bu, uhn, und, tosu
#4's: dc, umassl, aha/cha, cha,aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (
3. uhn (10)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. und (11)
4. umassl(14)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (12)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. dc (13)
__________________
LET'S GO RED!
jy3

[Steve M]

Having a #1 seed virtually assures Cornell will stay east for the regionals, as the chance of more than two eastern teams becoming #1 seeds is practically nil, and #1 seeds are, in order, placed in the regional closest to home.  There's also the advantage of having the last line change that's been mentioned before.