How to fix the seeding process

[jeh25]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 [Q2]ugarte Wrote: ...  They are inflexible about 4-team bands but willing to play favorites within the bands.  It is as if they are just pissed about the codebreakers running bracketology analyses.[/Q]
Right: "NCAA selection process" and "transparency" are not words often heard together, at least not in the past.  [/q]


Umm. Hasn't PWR correctly predicted the NCAA field for the last 9 years?

[DeltaOne81]

The idea is nice, but it would never fly (obviously), and yeah, coaches shouldn't be concerning themselves with that.

I do agree with the idea that it would be better to acknowledge that bands aren't perfect and it makes no more sense to switch a 1 with a 4 than it would to switch 4 and 5... this is *specifically* the case when we're talking about switching 15 and 16 with 13 and 14, who are much more similar to 12.

I would approve of a change which said teams could be moved +- 2, instead of the bands. But the flexibility should definitely be limited, or else we're saying PWR isn't good enough to chose the seeds, and if that's the case, why should it be good enough to pick the 16 (14).

-Fred

[Steve M]

I certainly agree the bands aren't perfect, I'm advocating something that's workable within the framework of the existing rules.  I also believe it's best to have an objective system to determine who gets in the tourney, and provide some breakdown of relative ranking, which the seed bands do.

[Steve M]

Hi Larry.

I'm out in SoCal too, I think I met you Sat. night at the Biltmore.  The location of the regionals doesn't affect me personally either, but if I were a student I would be bummed out if I had to find a way to get to Minny on a limited budget.  I think it's also a lot to expect students to drive 5 hours to see a regional when your team isn't playing there.

The more I think about Greg's idea though, the more I agree with you.  The coaches should only have to concern themselves with getting ready to play their opponent, not picking it.  Also, the teams who were best on reputation would benefit the most, not the teams who actually earn the highest seeds.  For example, in 2003, some teams in the third seed band might have picked a matchup with Cornell, even though we had earned a #1 seed because they didn't think we were as good as the rankings placed us.  A #2 seed that's perceived as better than us would then have been allowed to play a #4 seed.

[Trotsky]

[Q]CrazyLarry Wrote:
Since when do teams get to pick their opponent, and why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee?  Also, do you really think Schafer will pick going to Worcester in BC's region rather than playing a struggling, injured Minnesota.  And why would he want the headache?  I'd rather he concentrate on winning two games, rather than scouting 16 teams.[/q]

Have a week off and a televised show with a live audience, like the draft.  Invite all 16 ADs or their representatives.  If a coach wants to go fine, or he can send an assistant.  Cornell should send Whelan.

"Since when do teams get to pick their opponent"?  Why the hell not?  Why not give the teams the reward of choosing where they want to go, with diminishing opportunities as they are lower ranked?  It would be fun.  It would attract a TV audience.  It would generate all sorts of backbiting and anger and bad feeling.  Imagine if Minnesota is ranked low and Wisconsin takes the *last* Minneapolis seed and effs them out of a home game.

"Why do you think Schafer will be any better at doing it than the Committee"?  I don't, because it's a meaningless statement.  There is no "better," or there are hundreds of possible "betters."  I believe the highest value of the system should be rewarding higher ranked teams with more options.  I believe Schafer (or Whelan) is indeed better at determining what's best for the Cornell hockey team than a committee.

I think the questions of where teams would choose to go if they had to choose are fascinating.  Say KRACH is the rank-ordering metric.  CC gets the first choice.  Do they pick the closest location and deal with Minnesota?  Say they pick Minneapolis and now it's Minny's turn at the 4th pick.  Do they ditch their 1-seed and go for the Minneapolis 2-seed, meeting a tougher opponent but on home ice, or do they choose the remaining 1-seed and piss off every fan and booster and posturing politico in their state?

I love it.  People could get fired over their choices; maybe even assaulted.  That's something to strive for.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]CrazyLarry Wrote:

 Since when do teams get to pick their opponent
[/q]

When UAF was an "associate" member of the CCHA (participating in the playoffs with the rest of the league but not part of the standings), the top seed got to chose between the last place team and UAF as a playoff opponent.  If they picked the last-place team, the second-place team got to choose between UAF and the next-to-last place team, etc.

I think in Greg's method you should also let the top eight teams pick their opponents from among the next eight.

[BCrespi]

All of this stuff is really interesting, and would certainly be fun.  However, I feel what is being lost in all of this is we would still need this, "objective, transparent (insert adjective here)" system (i.e. PWR, KRACH) that we (and others) would be bitching about for the entire season (as has been shown to occur).  I'm not sure if this gets at the root of the problem though I'm certainly not the one with the answer.

(Parenthetically yours)

[Janos]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Part of the appeal of a 16 team tournament is that you don't have byes. The point of the auto-bids is to give every team in D1 something to play for in terms of the national scene. The road is already hard enough for the AH/CHA teams - why make it harder? ... If you can't get into the top 14 you don't deserve to play for the national championship.[/q]

A #15 or #16 seed doesn't deserve to play for a national championship, but if you're in the bottom 30, just because you won your tournament, you DO???  My little league baseball team won our tournament once.  Why didn't we get to play U.Texas in the College World Series?

According to the KRACH ratings, Mercyhurst has a 1-in-40 chance of beating BC.  Do you honestly think a nationally televised clobbering in NCAA Tournament action is good for the sport?

Allowing AH/CHA teams to participate in NCAA Regionals isn't fooling ANYONE into thinking that these teams can be a contender for a national championship.  You mention that the appeal of a 16-team tourney is so that you don't have byes.  For all intents and purposes, BC and Denver both have byes this year.  At least a #15 or #16 team like Vermont/Dartmouth could shake things up a bit.

If you want national attention for college hockey, focus on broadcasting more regular-season and post-season games.  There is no reason that one should have to search far and wide to be able to see a live broadcast of a Top-5 college hockey team, let alone a lesser team or conference like AH/CHA.

[CowbellGuy]

So if you're not in the ECAC, WCHA, CCHA, or HEA you shouldn't ever be given the chance to expand your conference's visibility or prestige? The autobid is one of the very few things CHA/AH has going for them and is probably the only reason the CHA actually has any members and recruits. If you want NCAA hockey to expand its popularity and presence, you need more teams and more competitive teams, and by pushing the low guys on the totem pole further down, you're just making it worse. Before Cornell and Harvard became perennial contenders as of late, the CCHA, WCHA, and HEA could have made the same case about the ECAC that you're making for AH/CHA.

[Trotsky]

[Q]Janos Wrote:You mention that the appeal of a 16-team tourney is so that you don't have byes.  For all intents and purposes, BC and Denver both have byes this year..[/q]

March 24, 2000.  Niagara 4 UNH 1.

[KeithK]

[q]The autobid is one of the very few things CHA/AH has going for them and is probably the only reason the CHA actually has any members and recruits.[/q]The autobid is absolutely the only reason the CHA continues to exist.  If Robert Morris hadn't joined this year after Findlay ended their hockey program (keeping the number at the NCAA auto-bid minimum of 6) the league would likely not exist anymore.  (Well, they might've just worked harder to poach otehr teams from AH, but whatever.)

[ugarte]

[Q]Janos Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:
Part of the appeal of a 16 team tournament is that you don't have byes. The point of the auto-bids is to give every team in D1 something to play for in terms of the national scene. The road is already hard enough for the AH/CHA teams - why make it harder? ... If you can't get into the top 14 you don't deserve to play for the national championship.[/Q]
A #15 or #16 seed doesn't deserve to play for a national championship, but if you're in the bottom 30, just because you won your tournament, you DO???  My little league baseball team won our tournament once.  Why didn't we get to play U.Texas in the College World Series?[/q]Your post doesn't really deserve to be taken seriously, but...

Yes, that is exactly right. The conferences are subsets of the NCAA. It is an organization that encourages colleges to join, and to form conferences. Part of the deal that the NCAA makes with those schools and conferences is that if they make a certain comittment to a particular sport, the conference champion will get to play in the NCAA-sanctioned tournament. For instance, the Ivy League champion does get to play in the College World Series. I assure you that Texas considers the Ivy League the CHA of baseball. Ask Kansas, Alabama, Boston College and Syracuse how they feel about the champions of small conferences. (And didn't Niagara win an NCAA game a few years back? (Edit: Greg beat me to this one.)

As for your analogy, if your little league team were, in fact, a Little League team, they would have been eligible to play in the regionals to get to the Little League World Series. If you didn't get to, complain to your own commissioner.

[Janos]

Other than the 90's decade, the ECAC has always been a strong competitor in the Frozen Four; in fact, an ECAC team was a national champion or runner up in a good portion of those years.

I just don't see how an honorary "first-round" showing in the NCAA Regionals is beneficial to college hockey.  If one argues that a 15th- or 16th-seed team has no business in the tourney, are you really doing anyone a favor by allowing two other random teams in?  Have any of these teams ever made it past the first round?

Regardless -- if the issue is "let's make NCAA hockey more popular," you need to broadcast it on national television.  Period.  No amount of expansion of college hockey teams is going to make it popular.  Kids grow up watching basketball or football, with the dream of being on TV someday.  Media has a huge influence on the success or failure of sports.  You argue that CHA/AH teams need something to shoot for, but even more fundamentally, the future college hockey stars who are now in elementary school need something to shoot for as well.

With the NHL on break this year and all these new college sports channels sprouting up, there is no reason for the poor media coverage.  Last weekend's games should all have been on pseudo-major channels such as CSTV / ESPN-U, you name it.  The Regionals should be even more televised, on ESPN or another major network.  Come on, Miss America can make it on a national network, but nothing short of the Frozen Four can?  (And the FF still is only on ESPN, not a "standard" network.)

[billhoward]

ESPN is a major sports network now. Is there anyplace you can't get it?

Miss America may not be on a national network much longer. It got tossed by ABC last fall.

[adamw]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
I know Adam and Jayson wouldn't like it, because it would be tougher for USCHO to predict the brackets, but as long as they're allowing swaps such as 1b with 1c, they won't be able to predict the brackets perfectly anymore anyway.[/q]

Not true. I am on record many times stating that I wish the committee would afford themselves more flexibility for common sense, because the numbers aren't accurate enough to rely so heavily upon them (after selection). And anyone who has been to regionals with small crowds knows how important it is to maximize attendance, and I have no problem with the committee doing so, so long as that is applied as fairly as possible (i.e. putting Michigan and Wisconsin in GR is OK, because Wisconsin can bring people too).