Quit BITCHING about seeding

[atb9]

"I just felt like playing a little violin, Kyle."

[CowbellGuy]

What the fuck is seeding "properly" when they arbitrarily switch 2 and 3 and give no reason?

[jeh25]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 What the fuck is seeding "properly" when they arbitrarily switch 2 and 3 and give no reason?[/q]

The esteemed Mr. Turner's complaint was about MN being a 1 seed while we were a 2 seed.

Denver and CC getting swapped affects that how? Seems to me we still get seeded behind MN regardless.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

 [Q2]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 What the fuck is seeding "properly" when they arbitrarily switch 2 and 3 and give no reason?[/Q]
The esteemed Mr. Turner's complaint was about MN being a 1 seed while we were a 2 seed.

Denver and CC getting swapped affects that how? Seems to me we still get seeded behind MN regardless.[/q]

I think the point he is making is that the committee seemingly bent over backwards to not go by the selection criteria in accomodating Denver but didn't do the same for Cornell.  I'm also unclear as to how Michigan gets to go to Grand Rapids.  Anyways, his point is well-taken because nobody here would be nearly as pissed off had those changes not been made.  

[jkahn]

If they would've gone:
1-8-9-16
2-7-10-15
3-6-12-14
4-5-11-13
I don't think there'd be that much bitching about us going Minn.,
but when they go
1-7-12-16
2-6-11-14
3-8-9-15
4-5-10-13
and state that subjectivity is now part of the process, then you wonder how well they really thought out the possibilities and whether they even considered:
1-8-9-16
2-7-10-15
3-5-12-14
4-6-11-13, which would have kept us and Colgate east in addition to BC, BU, H and UNH, and only required swapping the 6-11 game with the 5-12 as compared with perfect seeding.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Let's face the reality.  

They needed a justification to put Michigan in Grand Rapids.  Otherwise the gate in that reagion would suck.  After that, they knew they had free reign to toss the PWR out our apply the PWR strictly as they needed to.

Welcome back to the smoke-filled room.

[calgARI '07]

As I have said, this is the best case scenarios for the usual suspects: Minnesota, BC, Michigan.  The little schools that won't generate the huge TV dollars in the Frozen Four, Cornell and CC, get just about the worst case scenarios.  I think it would have only been worse for Cornell had they been matched up with Wisconsin in the first round (they play on the international ice surface).

[adamw]

They didn't need to swap CC and Denver to justify putting Michigan in Grand Rapids.

[Oat]

I have said this before many times. I'll say it again. Minnesota is the most overrated team in the nation. They suck. They just suck. Their fans are idiots too. I am disappointed that Cornell doesn't get to play in the East Coast. I am dissappointed because I won't be able to travel. But at the same time, I am glad that we only have to get through Ohio State and this aforementioned overrated team to be in the frozen four. Our team has a relatively easy bracket compared to Wisconsin, Michigan, CC. I think that those three teams are all better than Minnesota. So I can't complain there.

[ugarte]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 As I have said, this is the best case scenarios for the usual suspects: Minnesota, BC, Michigan.  The little schools that won't generate the huge TV dollars in the Frozen Four, Cornell and CC, get just about the worst case scenarios.  I think it would have only been worse for Cornell had they been matched up with Wisconsin in the first round (they play on the international ice surface).[/q]Even if you have said it before, and even if you say it again, it still won't matter: NOBODY will bring in huge TV dollars for the Frozen Four. It gets ratings similar to an informercial.

[Scersk '97]

Personally, I think the seeding was an unintentional gift.  Take a look at this chart:

Regional/Seed Team          KRACH  1st Game     Columbus
West
           4  Minnesota     620.4  0.672010399  0.375878081
           5  Cornell       592.6  0.630358473  0.343782959
          10  Ohio State    347.5  0.369641527  0.1539689
          13  Maine         302.8  0.327989601  0.12637006

Midwest
           3  CC            1031   0.822497008  0.533493632
           6  Michigan      619.7  0.560003615  0.246058638
          11  Wisconsin     486.9  0.439996385  0.169690817
          14  Colgate       222.5  0.177502992  0.050756914

East
           1  BC            642.5  0.974562774  0.584218271
           7  North Dakota  469.1  0.549619215  0.239539965
          12  BU            384.4  0.450380785  0.175280302
          16  Mercyhurst    16.77  0.025437226  0.000961463

Northeast
           2  Denver        975.8  0.901681759  0.649827644
           8  UHN           428.9  0.576788596  0.204234035
           9  Harvard       314.7  0.423211404  0.124152959
          15  Bemidji       106.4  0.098318241  0.021785361

These numbers are, of course, based on KRACH, and may only reveal advantages rather than  percentages, but it's worth a ponder:

1)  We ended up with the worst available #3 seed, since we couldn't play Harvard again.
2)  Our region's #1 seed ended up with the best available #4 seed.
3)  Obviously, we ended up with the worst available #1 seed, as we should as the overall #5.

Results:

1)  We have the best chance of winning our first round game of any of the #2 seeds.  Look at Michigan.
2)  We have almost the same chance as Minnesota of making Columbus.
3)  We match up well with Ohio State and Maine.  Minnesota?  Well, we'll have to "settle it on the ice," I guess.

Would it have been better to receive the #1, #2, or #3?  Sure.  Did we really deserve it?  I don't think so.  If BC had choked?  Sure.  If Denver or CC had choked and not made their final?  Sure.  But, as the results of the games fell out, we were a #4 or #5.  If we were #4, we'd still end up facing Maine most likely, though I haven't worked it out.  The difference between Maine and Ohio State is not that much.

We can bitch and moan about not being kept east, but them's the breaks.  I like the bracket.  We, hopefully, beat OS, whom we didn't get a chance to play this year and is becoming a non-conference rival of sorts; show up Minnesota on their home ice; play BU, BC, or North Dakota, all rivals (North Dakota to exorcise some demons of the past--'68, '97); and then play, maybe, UHN, Harvard, Denver, or CC for the championship.

Those are my dreams, filled with hate and exorcisms.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Oat Wrote:

 I have said this before many times. I'll say it again. Minnesota is the most overrated team in the nation. They suck. They just suck. Their fans are idiots too. I am disappointed that Cornell doesn't get to play in the East Coast. I am dissappointed because I won't be able to travel. But at the same time, I am glad that we only have to get through Ohio State and this aforementioned overrated team to be in the frozen four. Our team has a relatively easy bracket compared to Wisconsin, Michigan, CC. I think that those three teams are all better than Minnesota. So I can't complain there.[/q]

Just factoring in who the teams are, Cornell has a really good draw.  However, when factoring in the ice surface and the fact that it is at U of M, things get a little more scary.  Still, the draw is not bad at all.  I really like the fact that they have spring break this week so they can totally focus on making the adjustments necessary.

[KeithK]

Come on.  Let us have our bitching for one day.  People are pissed that we have to travel to Minnesota, where there will be few Cornell fans in attendance and a big ice sheet.  The seeding subjectivity (Denver-CC) and the extreme closeness in the Minny-Cornell comparison make it pretty reasonable that people are upset.  So rather than yelling "stop BITCHING", how about this: Get your bitching out of your system today and then forget about it and start thinking about how we're going to play against OSU and then hopefully Maine/Minnesota.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

They didn't need to swap CC and Denver to justify putting Michigan in Grand Rapids.[/q]

I realize that.  It's just a slippery slope kind of thing.  Once you make one rationalization, the next becomes that much easier.  Once you allow one subjectivity, the next one becomes easier.

And you lose the good thing that we had, flawed as it is.

[KeithK]

In fairness, the awarding of at-large bids was still done by a completely objective set of criteria.  Seeding subjectively is less of a concern to me, and Adam based on his recent USCHO article.