Quest for #1 seed

[rita]

I'm in squeakball country, and even that has been brutal this season. I'm at purdue.. home of the very pathetic boilermaker cagers.. the men were horrible and even the ladies had a down year (though to be fair, they only had 2 returning starters a sr and a soph from last year's team).

thus far no luck finding a bar with cstv... thus the ride up to grand rapids would be worth it.. maybe even if cornell isn't playing.

I lived out in oregon for 4 years, and that was purgatory.. at least in eugene there was a rink with ice for 10 months out of the year, and an adult hockey league to play in, and a sports bar that was open at 9 am so i could watch the cornell-mankato state and the cornell bc games from the 2003 regionals..... here no such luck. nearest rink is over an hour away (45 min if i drive like the typical hoosier) and the adult league is run like youth t-ball... exactly 2 minute shifts, matching lines/ability all game long. too weird to make the drive for "games" on a  sunday night at 10 pm....

[puff]

I'm currently in College hockey hell. The only people i have seen since the middle of January with even the least interest in College Hockey are a pair of Wis. grads who have fallen into deep depression with thier teams late season collapse.

Although i will say the ice pilots are in town and they're having a pretty good season. Later this month if my schedule doesn't change i'll have a good opportunity to let Marsters have it if he's in net for La. Nothing like getting a bonus round ::uptosomething::

[jtwcornell91]

New Orleans got rid of its ECHL team just as I arrived.  But I made a point of getting an apartment where I could put up a mini-dish, so my living room is College Hockey Nirvana every Friday and Saturday night.
 

[jkahn]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 CC has to go to the closest regional, as the overall #1, so they'd be in Minneapolis, not Grand Rapids.  (I'm pretty sure the committee wouldn't consider those two sites more or less the same distance, like they did with Cornell going to Providence vs Worcester in 2003.)[/q]

or would the committee feel like they're giving #1 CC a better deal by shipping them to G. R. to avoid playing #5 Minn. at Minn. in the 2nd round.  
My brackets:
Grand Rapids
#1 CC, #8 N. Dak., #10 Dartm., #16 Q'pac
Minn.
#2 Denv., #5 Minn., #11 OSt. , #15 Bem.
Worc.
#3 BC, #7 Harv., #9 BU, #14 N. Mich.
Amh.
#4 Mich., #6 Cor., #12 Wis., #13 UNH

For that matter, they might also feel the same about #2 Denver and move them to Worcester.   With the current PWR, this would give the most balanced brackets of all.
Grand Rapids
#1 CC, #8 N. Dak.,  #10 Dartm., #15 Bem.
Worc.
#2 Denv., #7 Harv., #9 BU, #16 Q'pac.
Amh.
#3 BC, #6 Cor., #12 Wis., #14 N. Mich
Minn.
#4 Mich., #5 Minn., #11 OSU, #13 UNH
In this scenario, the only switching from the pure 1-16, 2-15 etc. necessary is to flip 9 with 10, and 11 with 12.  I've also swithched Q'pac. and Bemidji for regional reasons and to give Den. a slight repayment for being shipped all the way east.  

Clearly, Minn. at #5 poses some interesting questions for the committee regarding balancing the travel priority for #1 seeds vs. the competitive inequity of giving those same seeds a tougher second round game.

[jy3]

i also put maine in instead of nmu so here are my edited brackets.

3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers

#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, aha/ch, cha/aha

grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. ---und (
3. ---dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)

minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. ---minne*(5)
3. ---tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)

amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ---hahvahd (7)
3. ---wi (12)
4. uhn (13)

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

so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c cc should be placed

closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 1 v 8 blah blah blah right.

we have NO problems.
theoretically with 5 teams from one conference they can ignore the no intraconference 1st round matchups but lets see what we can do...
now with nmu correctly in and maine out, we are all good

see what you think, minne and bu make things less than ideal...i guess they could swap umich and place them in minne and move cc out to the east...

[nshapiro]

As things currently stand, a Cornell win over St. Lawrence would flip the Michigan comparison, and that can happen if they pull a QF upset.

[jtwcornell91]

We may think that's a better deal for CC, but it's not what the handbook says.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 We may think that's a better deal for CC, but it's not what the handbook says.[/q]
Exactly. "Better deal" isn't the issue - geographical proximity is all it says.

[adamw]

The handbook says that No. 1 seeds should be put as close to their campus as possible.  So "as possible" is a bit ambiguous, and leaves things open to selective manipulation.

[KeithK]

The "as possible" clause seems to leave some lee-way for the committee.  Do CC or Denver have to go to Minnesota if they're the top ranked team (assuming Minny were a 2 seed)?  If the point of keeping top ranked teams close to home for travel and fan purposes does it matter if a team has to fly anyway?  One could argue that it doesn't make much difference in terms of travel or fans whether CC goes to Grand Rapids or Minny and so maybe it's appropriate to reward a top ranked team with a trip to GR, even though it's further away in terms of mileage.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 The handbook says that No. 1 seeds should be put as close to their campus as possible.  So "as possible" is a bit ambiguous, and leaves things open to selective manipulation.[/q]

Jesus Christ, Adam, does "possible" also mean something different in your universe?   ::rolleyes::  In what way would not be possible for #1a CC and #2a Minnesota to play in the same regional?  There is no guideline forbidding it.  Would a rift somehow open in in the spacetime continuum? ::nut::

[DeltaOne81]

Well, you *could* argue that it means, as close as possible while retaining the best 'competitive equality' (1-16, 2-15, etc). However, since the "as close as possible" is a much more serious requirement than the competitive equality 'suggestion', that would be a  major major stretch by the committee.

[KeithK]

I think this just shows that "possible" and "impossible" aren't really appropriate words here.  The committee has lots of leeway in its decisions when you consider all of the possible considerations, guidelines and suggestions.  The past two years experience and statements of committee members etc. may indicate that they will not choose to do it a certain wya, but that doesn't make it impossible.

On a purely hypothetical level, would there be any recourse if, for instance, the committee decided to make Cornell/Michigan/whoever a #1 seed even if the numbers didn't warrant it?  Or decided to send a #1 seed further away from home than the proximity rule dictated?  Or for that matter decided to give Colgate an at-large bid because they decided they "deserved" it?  Is there any mechanism where the NCAA powers that be can/would overrule the committe?  Or would we just be stuck with the results and the bitching?  (Yes, I know these things are not going to happen.  But absurd hypotheticals can sometimes shed light on more likely situations.)

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 Well, you *could* argue that it means, as close as possible while retaining the best 'competitive equality' (1-16, 2-15, etc). However, since the "as close as possible" is a much more serious requirement than the competitive equality 'suggestion', that would be a  major major stretch by the committee.[/q]

You could argue that, but you'd be full of shit.  Given that it is step c., and step b. is to put the host institutions at home, it obviously means as close as possible given the placements of the host schools.  I.e., if CC is #1 and Minnesota is #4, CC has to go to Grand Rapids.  Minneapolis is closer, but it's not possible to put CC there, since Minnesota has to play there.

What's not clear is what happens if a host team makes it as a #4 seed and the place-the-top-four-close-to-home rule would set up an intraconference matchup.  E.g., what happens if the top four are 1. CC 2. Michigan 3. DU 4. BC and WMU wins the CCHA tournament?  Placing the hosts according to step 6c. would put CC in Minneapolis, Michigan in Grand Rapids, DU in Amherst and BC in Worcester.  Step 6d. says to avoid interconference matchups if possible, but can it override 6c. and move Michigan out of the Midwest regional?  Or does "if possible" mean given the results of steps 6a. and 6c., which have already put WMU and Michigan in the Midwest regional?

[jkahn]

Remember, they put us in Providence in 2003 rather than Worcester, which violated the "as close as possible" rule, so other considerations can override it.