Quest for #1 seed

[adamw]

Sorry John, I don't think that's worded as definitively as you make it sound.

If they wanted it to sound definitive, they could just say:  "The seeds *must* be placed in the region closest to their campus, in 1-2-3-4 priority order."

That's as cut and dried as you can get.

Saying "as close as possible" - leaves a lot of room.  They could very easily be saying "as close as possible ... so long as it doesn't mess other things up too much."

That's what I get out of it.  We'll see..

[DeltaOne81]

I say "major major stretch", you say "full of shit" - same difference

There are 4 qualifications that are absolutely supposed to be met for the seedings. First, keeping the bands intact. Second, seeding the #1s in home order. Finally, third, avoiding intraconference first round matchups. And fourth, hosts have to be in their regional.

Everything else - attendence, competitive equity, etc - are suggestions.

So what's the priority of the first 4 requirements? Well, the bands makes absolutely no room for violating that condition. Interconference matchups explicitly yields to the bands - intraconference can happen if they have to based on bands being intact, but it never says it yields to anything else. The #1s in order, says, if possible, so that yielding to something. Host requirement yields to no one as well.

So we know that
Hosts, bands < home order #1s, intraconference

The hosts and bands can't conflict (can they?), so no problems there, so they're each the top priority.

So what about intraconference versus the home ordering of #1s? The home order does leave open the possibility of being lesser priority with the "if possible", by intraconference only mentions that it yields to the bands, nothing else.

So, I'd say its:
Hosts, bands < intraconference < home order #1

Which means I'd say, that if a #4 was a host and it caused an intraconference matchup with a #1, they'd move the #1s around. So my guess is the "if possible" is designed to cause flexibility with the other "top 4" requirements.

But to think that any of the suggestions would ever come before those, I just don't buy it.

[jkahn]

[Q]DeltaOne wrote:
But to think that any of the suggestions would ever come before those, I just don't buy it.[/q]
Then how do you explain our being in Providence rather than Worcester in 2003?  And if they can make exceptions for small differences, we certainly can't be sure where they will draw the line.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]jkahn Wrote:

 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.[/q]

Their rationale for that was that Providence and Worcester were basically equidistant for us, so they could put is in either.

[adamw]

[Q]KeithK Wrote: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.)[/q]

No, those won't happen.  Let's not get crazy.  We're just dealing with the one sentence in the manual that refers to placement of No. 1 seeds.

I want to see what happens if Michigan is a No. 1 seed this year.  What are you saying, John, that should happen?  Do you believe Michigan would be in Grand Rapids if they are an overall No. 4, or not?  Are you saying that you believe they place them closest to campus, going in order.  In other words, No. 1 is CC - put them in Minneapolis.  No. 2 is Denver ... put them Grand Rapids (closest remaining place to Michigan) ... No. 3 is BC ... put them in Worcester ... No. 4 is Michigan ... place them in Amherst.

Because all I'm saying is - I don't think this would be the case.  Michigan would probably be in Grand Rapids, and Denver would go to Amherst.  Why?  Because Michigan then would be as close as possible -- Denver wouldn't, but so what. They fly either way and it makes no difference to attendance.

One of those two teams - Denver or Michigan - will get priority for being as "close as possible" ... Which one?  Denver gets to be as close as possible first - because they are a No. 2 overall and Michigan is No. 4?  Or Michigan gets to be as close as possible -because Grand Rapids is REALLY, REALLY close and it makes no difference to Denver?

This is the ambiguity that I don't think is answered by the manual.  And so I'm basically saying - they are going to use their discretion in this situation.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

I want to see what happens if Michigan is a No. 1 seed this year.  What are you saying, John, that should happen?  Do you believe Michigan would be in Grand Rapids if they are an overall No. 4, or not?  Are you saying that you believe they place them closest to campus, going in order.  In other words, No. 1 is CC - put them in Minneapolis.  No. 2 is Denver ... put them Grand Rapids (closest remaining place to Michigan) ... No. 3 is BC ... put them in Worcester ... No. 4 is Michigan ... place them in Amherst.

Because all I'm saying is - I don't think this would be the case.  Michigan would probably be in Grand Rapids, and Denver would go to Amherst.  Why?  Because Michigan then would be as close as possible -- Denver wouldn't, but so what. They fly either way and it makes no difference to attendance.

One of those two teams - Denver or Michigan - will get priority for being as "close as possible" ... Which one?  Denver gets to be as close as possible first - because they are a No. 2 overall and Michigan is No. 4?  Or Michigan gets to be as close as possible -because Grand Rapids is REALLY, REALLY close and it makes no difference to Denver?

This is the ambiguity that I don't think is answered by the manual.  And so I'm basically saying - they are going to use their discretion in this situation.
[/q]

The manual says "No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible, in order of their ranking 1-4."  Sounds pretty unambiguous to me: place #1 as close to home as possible, then #2, then #3, then #4.  Denver is placed as close to home as possible, i.e., Grand Rapids, before you ever get to Michigan.

As for comparisons to 2003, it's one thing to say Providence and Worcester are equally close to Ithaca, and quite another to say Amherst and Grand Rapids are equally close to Colorado Springs.

[adamw]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
As for comparisons to 2003, it's one thing to say Providence and Worcester are equally close to Ithaca, and quite another to say Amherst and Grand Rapids are equally close to Colorado Springs.[/q]

Well, forgetting what the manual says for a second, I think personally it would be somewhat ridiculous to not put Michigan in Grand Rapids under this scenario - because for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Amherst and GR for CC or Denver.

As for the manual ... well, I guess we'll see, eh? If Michigan is the No. 4 seed, it will be a hoot.

[Al DeFlorio]

Sometimes it can be illuminating to analyze a reductio ad absurdum example.  What if the four top seeds were:  #1 Wisconsin, #2 Michigan, #3 Cornell, and #4 BC.  The four regional sites are:  Grand Rapids, Rochester, Worcester, and Denver.  None of the four top seeds is a host.

Rigidly applying the process, the NCAA should assign Wisconsin to the nearest site:  Grand Rapids.  Then Michigan to the nearest remaining site:  Rochester.  Then Cornell to the nearest remaining:  Worcester.  Leaving BC to go to Denver.  Would the NCAA really do this?  Or would they use some common sense and put Wisconsin in Denver, Michigan in Grand Rapids, Cornell in Rochester, and BC in Worcester?

[Will]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 Sometimes it can be illuminating to analyze a reductio ad absurdum example.  What if the four top seeds were:  #1 Wisconsin, #2 Michigan, #3 Cornell, and #4 BC.  The four regional sites are:  Grand Rapids, Rochester, Worcester, and Denver.  None of the four top seeds is a host.

Rigidly applying the process, the NCAA should assign Wisconsin to the nearest site:  Grand Rapids.  Then Michigan to the nearest remaining site:  Rochester.  Then Cornell to the nearest remaining:  Worcester.  Leaving BC to go to Denver.  Would the NCAA really do this?  Or would they use some common sense and put Wisconsin in Denver, Michigan in Grand Rapids, Cornell in Rochester, and BC in Worcester?[/q]

Just to play devil's advocate here...maybe it's common sense to do as you say, but is it really fair to make the top overall seed's fans travel thrice as far to get to their team's regional?  Especially since one would likely fly from Madison to Denver, while one could easily drive from Madison to Grand Rapids.

[Ken \'70]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 Well, forgetting what the manual says for a second, I think personally it would be somewhat ridiculous to not put Michigan in Grand Rapids under this scenario - because for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Amherst and GR for CC or Denver.

As for the manual ... well, I guess we'll see, eh? If Michigan is the No. 4 seed, it will be a hoot.[/q]

Adam, what do you think happens if Cornell finishes #4 and MN #5 overall with BC, DU, CC ahead?  Does Cornell get shipped to MN for their "home" ice and maintaince of better brackets.  Or does CC or DU get put there with a hellacious intraconference 1 v 5 on tap for the regional final?  

[adamw]

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
Adam, what do you think happens if Cornell finishes #4 and MN #5 overall with BC, DU, CC ahead?  Does Cornell get shipped to MN for their "home" ice and maintaince of better brackets.  Or does CC or DU get put there with a hellacious intraconference 1 v 5 on tap for the regional final?  
[/q]

I'd be willing to bet that CC would be in Minnesota under that scenario.  But who really knows.

[TCHL8842]

Going through the your committee thing on USCHO website, I found out that if we win the ECAC tourney there is a very good chance that we will be a number 1 seed.  If Denver loses a game in the WCHA, we game the comparison on them, if we win out.  Also, if Minnesota wins the WCHA, we will move up to number 4 in the PWR, assuming BC and Michigan take their respective titles.  If BC loses in the HEA tourney, we can take over their comparison.  

In short, we want any team in the HEA other than BC to win their tourney, and we want any team other then DU to win the WCHA.  This in short will put us anywhere from I believe 1 (did not calculate all the scenarios out) to 4 seed if any one of those two happen.  I believe that there is a decent chance that one of those 2 teams will lose.  If you want to root for anyone in the WCHA tourney, I would say root for CC, since it is very very unlikely we will flip the comparison, so if they beat Minnesota and DU, and BC does not win their tourney we will end up as #2 overall.

This is the best overall scenario so far that I have found for us, none of the results seem unlikely to happen and we end up as the #2 overall seed.

    *  CCHA Play-in #2: Northern Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
    * CCHA Play-in #1: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Michigan State.
    * CCHA Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Northern Michigan.
    * CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
    * CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Ohio State.
    * CCHA Consolation game: Northern Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
    * ECAC Semifinal #2: Harvard defeats Colgate.
    * ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
    * ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats Harvard.
    * ECAC Consolation game: Colgate defeats Vermont.
    * Hockey East Semifinal #2: New Hampshire defeats Boston University.
    * Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Maine.
    * Hockey East Championship game: New Hampshire defeats Boston College.
    * WCHA Play-in #1: Wisconsin defeats North Dakota.
    * WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
    * WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats Wisconsin.
    * WCHA Championship game: Colorado College defeats Denver.
    * WCHA Consolation game: Minnesota defeats Wisconsin.
    * Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Mercyhurst defeats Holy Cross.
    * Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
    * Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Quinnipiac defeats Mercyhurst.

All with bonuses of 3/2/1

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver.  The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.

For example, both of these send us to Minnesota:
- Denver and BC both win out
- Denver wins out, CC wins one of two, and Maine wins HEA

Both of these will make us a one seed
- Denver wins out and CC loses 2 games
- Denver wins out and UNH or BU win HEA

If Denver loses a game, from what I can tell, we're a one seed.  Now I did all of these with Colgate beating Harvard.  I don't know if they hold up with Harvard winning Colgate.

[Will]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

 What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver.  The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.[/q]

Denver winning the CCHA would be quite a coup. :-P

[KeithK]

[Q]Will Wrote:

 [Q2]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

 What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver.  The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.[/Q]
Denver winning the CCHA would be quite a coup.[/q]

No, no.  Jeff said these scenariios involved Denver "wining" the CCHA.  So we ought to chip and send the Pioneers some cases of wine so they can go ahead and booze up Michigan, et. al.

[q]v. wined, win·ing, wines
v. tr.

    To provide or entertain with wine[/q]