Quest for #1 seed

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

All right.  All right.  Ya knew what I meant.

You try getting your posts right after running scenarios for two hours  :-P

[heykb]

[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.

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.[/q]

It's worth noting that we don't really buy anything by being a #1 seed if it sends us to Minnesota. Then we're just playing against the home team, same as if they're #1 and we're a #2 seed.

What we really want to root for is Minn and CU to both be #1 seeds. Then we have a very good chance of playing in Mass, where it'll basically be home games for us (even if we have to play BU/BC/Harvard) since we will have a bazillion fans in the stands.

I ran through some scenarios yesterday and it looks like if Minnesota wins their tourney and we win ours, that should do the trick. If BC loses, that doesn't hurt.

Also note that Dartmouth has a better chance of making the NCAA than Vermont does. Vermont has to win twice this weekend to get in, while Dartmouth just needs Wisconsin or Vermont not to win their tournaments, more or less. Yeah, it's a little trickier than that, but basically Dartmouth is in unless Cinderella appears somewhere.

Karl B. '77

[DeltaOne81]

The main requirement in the handbook is that you place #1 seeds in the order of closest to them home campus before ever even considering competitive equity.

Without getting deep into this again, ff we were 4 and Minn was 5, they'd place all the #1s in order, so, for example, CC in Minn, DU in GR, BC in Worcester, and us in Amherst. *Then* they'd go and place Minn in Minneapolis, and chalk up the lack of competitive balance to the fact that Minn has to be in Minneapolis.

So if we and Minn finished 4/5 like that, with us 4, the rules as written seem to allow little flexbility in not putting us in Amherst or maybe Worcester.

[heykb]

Does anyone know why BU is considered a host team for Worcester, but BC and Harvard aren't?

Do they draw straws or something?

Karl B. '77

[CowbellGuy]

Teams bid for the right to host tourneys. Apparently a lot of work involved.

[KeithK]

[q] Teams bid for the right to host tourneys. Apparently a lot of work involved.[/q]Effort that's probably worth it if you are likely to make the tournament - it guarantees that you won't be sent far from home.  But if you're on the bubble it's iffy.

Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional.  I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling.  That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting.  Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?

[Edit: WooHoo! #201!]

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 The main requirement in the handbook is that you place #1 seeds in the order of closest to them home campus before ever even considering competitive equity.

Without getting deep into this again, ff we were 4 and Minn was 5, they'd place all the #1s in order, so, for example, CC in Minn, DU in GR, BC in Worcester, and us in Amherst. *Then* they'd go and place Minn in Minneapolis, and chalk up the lack of competitive balance to the fact that Minn has to be in Minneapolis.

So if we and Minn finished 4/5 like that, with us 4, the rules as written seem to allow little flexbility in not putting us in Amherst or maybe Worcester.[/q]
I think that's all correct.  The decision as to whether we or BC would be in Worcester vs. Amherst might come down to where BU--which must play in Worcester--winds up being ranked in PWR.  That is to say, would it be more in tune with the seedings to have BU in the same regional with BC or with Cornell?  

Seems to me in 2003 they made an executive decision that Worcester and Providence were effectively equidistant for Cornell, and one could make that same argument for BC this year regarding Worcester and Amherst.  It's not like we're talking Worcester vs. Grand Rapids.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2] Teams bid for the right to host tourneys. Apparently a lot of work involved.[/Q]
Effort that's probably worth it if you are likely to make the tournament - it guarantees that you won't be sent far from home.  But if you're on the bubble it's iffy.

Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional.  I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling.  That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting.  Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?
[/q]

The 2007 East Regional is scheduled for Rochester, but no team has been identified as a host.  (I think the ECAC put in the bid, and left open the possibility of getting a co-hosting team.)

[heykb]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional.  I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling.  That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting.  Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?
[/q]

Cornell hosted the NCAA lacrosse final when I was there.  Didn't Princeton host it just a year or two ago? Penn may host b-ball when it's in Philly - I don't know.

Anyway, I'd imagine Binghamton or Syracuse would be the closest hockey venues big enough to have a Cornell-hosted NCAA regional.  Neither would be bad at all for Cornell fans to overrun the place.

~Karl B. '77

[nyc94]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:  
Seems to me in 2003 they made an executive decision that Worcester and Providence were effectively equidistant for Cornell, and one could make that same argument for BC this year regarding Worcester and Amherst.  It's not like we're talking Worcester vs. Grand Rapids.[/q]

I think they put Cornell in Providence so we would match up with BC in the second round instead of BU which was hosting in Worcester.  According to Moy's analysis post-selection show http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/03/23_006598.php the final "pre-bonus" PWR was:

1 Cornell
2 Colorado College
3 Minnesota
4 New Hampshire
5 Boston University
6 Maine
7 Ferris State
8 Boston College
9 Michigan
10 North Dakota
11 Ohio State
12 Harvard
13 Minnesota State
14 St. Cloud State
15 Mercyhurst
16 Wayne State

The idea was to give us the "weakest" of the #2 seeds.  Yes, it probably hinged on the two cities being equidistant but imagine the reaction if we drew Minnesota State AND BU.  Moy assumes the RPI bonus moved St. Cloud ahead of Minnesota State making Minnesota State the lowest seed we could play without causing a WCHA-WCHA first round matchup.

[CowbellGuy]

The War Memorial is bad, anywhichway. Bad.

[ben03]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 The War Memorial is bad, anywhichway. Bad.[/q]
Syracuse, you are indeed correct ... Blue Cross Arena in Rochester OTOH, is about as nice as you'll find within a 5 hour drive.

[Jacob '06]

I've been trying the "you are the committee" script, and from what I can tell, if we win out and BC and Denver both also win out, we are stuck at 5. If either of them does not and we win out, we will become a 1 seed. I certainly didn't try every possibility in the world, but this seems to be a trend across a bunch of versions I tried.

[heykb]

I agree with Jacob.

I spent way too much time fiddling with this yesterday. The bottom line is if we win twice, we have a very very good chance of a #1 seed. I don't remember all the scenarios I twiddled, but I think these were some of them:

- If Minnesota loses twice and we win once, we get a #1 seed.
- If we win twice and Denver doesn't win twice, we get a #1 seed.
- If BC loses and we win twice, we get a #1 seed.

There were others, I think, but if we win two games, it takes a pretty specific set of circumstances for us *not* to get a #1 seed. And if we win 1 game, there's still the chance of a #1 seed if a little magic happens.

Part of the magic is related to the fact that Minn, CC, and Denver are all in the same tournament. So only one of those teams can win twice. That seems to help Cornell's situation enormously.

Karl B. '77

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:

 I've been trying the "you are the committee" script, and from what I can tell, if we win out and BC and Denver both also win out, we are stuck at 5. If either of them does not and we win out, we will become a 1 seed. I certainly didn't try every possibility in the world, but this seems to be a trend across a bunch of versions I tried.[/q]

Without Pat Eaves, no way does BC win out.