NCAA bracketing affirmative action style -- loosen the rules?

[billhoward]

Hockey seeding rules are so tight they hurt the Good of the Game. We're caught up in the absolutism of the four seeding bands (four 1-seeds, four 2-seeds, etcetera) when in fact the margin of error is probably one or two bands. Think how much Cornell's band and seed would flip if it played Michigan State at season's end when they're different teams, or if it was two wins, or two ties in the fall. Or if a Cornell team that was otherwise the same played Western Michigan not MSU in 2005.

What should the rules for seeding be:

1. Absolute rules:
- Host school stays home, meaning UMass-Amherst gets to play at UMass-Amherst if that's a regional site. Or Minnesota at Minnesota (oops).
- The four 1-seeds stay the 1-seeds, even though the difference between the fourth 1-seed and the top two 2-seeds isn't all that great.

2. There should be guidelines not rules:
- Avoid intra-conference matchups but balance that against what else happens if you force the four-entry WCHA into the four regions. Or four ECACHL teams should that happen.
- Higher seeds within bands should, not must, stay closer to home.
- In the East, "home" can mean either of two sites if it's a, say, 300-mile trip. Ditto for an Ohio State if Rochester or Detroit are regional sites.

3. Consider the good of the game guidelines:
- Add a weighting, maybe a tangent to power rankings, for a team's ability to promote the game through good attendance. Basically, this would keep a Cornell or Wisconsin in its home district most every year. Call it affirmative action, which is a still-shaky but decades-ago-established policy much beloved by colleges and a lot of people. We've got that already when an Alabama Huntsville makes the tournament. The repressed class being lifted up isn't any one college as much as all of college hockey. (Mostly we're trying to think of why we shouldn't be exiled to South Dakota when Cornell alone would half fill Pepsi Arena.)

4. Wildcard rules
- In lieu of the above, the seeding committee gets three wildcard choices. That is, it follows current rules, but it also has the power to make three exceptions in seeding, placement, and selection so long as the chairman goes on TV and explains them once at the outset of the tourney and once on Friday of Frozen Four weekend. Right, that No. 16 berth could be given to the No. 20 team if No. 20 had an awesome last month when its leading scorer came back. Make it fun to be on the committee once again.

[heykb]

But then there would be controversy. {insert sound effect here}

I'm pretty certain the whole reason for the strict pwr seedings is so the committee can say there wasn't any subjectivity.

I kind of like your ideas around where the teams should play. I'm not so big on the wildcard idea. In its current form, I think going strictly by pwr has something to be said for it. In your scenario, I'd tell #20, "Too bad. Play better next year." OTOH, I kind of like the idea of a 32 team tournament. If roundball can have 65 (what's up with that 64 vs 65 game, anyway?) I don't see any reason why hockey shouldn't trot out a tournament half as big. I bet the NCAA would make even more $$ that way, too.

Karl B. '77

PS Bill, we were at the Philly event but didn't bump into you. Next time.

[ebilmes]

[quote heykb]OTOH, I kind of like the idea of a 32 team tournament..[/quote]

I just don't think college hockey has the depth for a field that large. The RPI on USCHO only goes to 30, and that's including teams like 12-16-4 Notre Dame and Mercyhurst. A field of 32 would have over half of the D-1 teams in it. While a large tournament would be fun, a lot of the teams wouldn't deserve to be there.

[Rita]

[quote heykb]But then there would be controversy. {insert sound effect here}

I'm pretty certain the whole reason for the strict pwr seedings is so the committee can say there wasn't any subjectivity.

I kind of like your ideas around where the teams should play. I'm not so big on the wildcard idea. In its current form, I think going strictly by pwr has something to be said for it. In your scenario, I'd tell #20, "Too bad. Play better next year." [/quote]

When deciding the seedings, I would like to see the committee somehow factor in your record in the last 16-20 games. I think if you are playing well at the end of the season, it should matter. It shows that you have taken care of business in your conference and conference tourney. I believe basketball takes this into account in deciding which bubble teams will get in and also their seeding.

We know people in the WCHA will be against this as a "criteria" because "their league is so strong that any team can beat another on any given night" ::rolleyes::  .

[Dpperk29]

why not make it so that the host school cannot play at home??? isn't basketball that way?

[Beeeej]

[quote Dpperk29]why not make it so that the host school cannot play at home??? isn't basketball that way?[/quote]

Basketball is that way because they are assured of selling out every game at every regional no matter what teams are playing there.

Hockey is not because they are not.

Beeeej

[heykb]

[quote Dpperk29]why not make it so that the host school cannot play at home??? isn't basketball that way?[/quote]

Basically no. They just farm the teams out by seeding, with no more than a tweak so that #1's can play near their fan base.

[Chris \'03]

[quote heykb] If roundball can have 65 (what's up with that 64 vs 65 game, anyway?) I don't see any reason why hockey shouldn't trot out a tournament half as big. [/quote]

There are 318 D-1 basketball programs. A 65 team tournament represents 20% of the country. There are 58 D-1 hockey teams. A 12 team field is 20%, 16 is 27.5%, and 32 is 55%. There aren't even 32 teams with RPI greater than .500. I like the idea that you have to have to be good to get into the tournament. 16 is a litte too big because it takes over 1/4 of the country, but it's ideal because there are no byes anymore. If there was a 32 team tournament this year based on RPI and the season ended today, Union would be in. I'm not even sure it would make more money. There a likely to be quite a few stinkers in the first round. They'd probably have to be campus sites with four regionals the next week. It's like a play-in game for everyone. Yuck.

Here's your 32 team field:
1     Minnesota     
2    Wisconsin    
3    Miami    
4    Boston University    
5    Michigan State    
6    Nebraska-Omaha    
7    Colorado College    
8    Michigan    
9    Maine    
10    North Dakota    
11    Cornell    
12    Boston College    
13    Denver    
14    St. Lawrence    
15    Harvard    
16    Ohio State    
17    Providence    
18    Holy Cross    
19    Alaska-Fairbanks       
20    New Hampshire    
21    Dartmouth    
22    St. Cloud State       
23    Ferris State    
24    Vermont    
25    Lake Superior    
26    Northern Michigan    
27    Colgate    
28    Clarkson    
29    Notre Dame
30    Mercyhurst    
31    Sacred Heart    
32    Union

[heykb]

[quote Rita]

When deciding the seedings, I would like to see the committee somehow factor in your record in the last 16-20 games. I think if you are playing well at the end of the season, it should matter. It shows that you have taken care of business in your conference and conference tourney. [/quote]

I think that was the original logic of using the league tournament winner as the auto-entry vs the RS champ. Yes, it's each league's choice, but I believe that's the fundamental logic.

If more weight should be given to the last 16-20 games, you'd think savvy schools would start to tweak their schedules to give themselves a powder-puff non-conf game or two towards the end of the year. Everyone should start holding a Beanpot-like Feb tourney, hosting the Sisters of Mercy and the State School for the Hopeless. Then their "record in the last 20" is that much better.

[heykb]

[quote Chris '03]...It's like a play-in game for everyone. Yuck. [/quote]

You wouldn't want to see Colgate vs UNO? or Clarkson vs Michigan St? OK, there would be a few stinkers, but I see a lot of teams that are good enough to make the higher seed grumble about what a tough game they're playing in the first round.

I think it would be a hoot. Even if we wind up playing a UNH or LSSU in the first round. Not exactly a creampuff. There'd be a lot of pretty interesting matchups.

[Jacob 03]

[quote Rita]When deciding the seedings, I would like to see the committee somehow factor in your record in the last 16-20 games. I think if you are playing well at the end of the season, it should matter. It shows that you have taken care of business in your conference and conference tourney. I believe basketball takes this into account in deciding which bubble teams will get in and also their seeding.

We know people in the WCHA will be against this as a "criteria" because "their league is so strong that any team can beat another on any given night" ::rolleyes::  .[/quote]

I remember hating this feature more than any other back when it was included in the PWR (sorry, Rita) .  It doesn't reward conference tournament performance too significantly (the first round loss in the Big East tourney is worth just as much as losing in the conference tourney championship), and specifically in hockey the different formats for conference tournaments would throw another variable into how many of last 16 truly "matter."  As for the last handful of games played before the conference tournament, the only reason they mattered more than games at the beginning of the season was because the PWR specifically weighted them more with the "Last 16" factor (and I guess because they're more likely to be conference games).  I would hate to see a PWR-mandated incentive for scheduling perennially poor teams at the end of the season.  Also, the results of a consolation game should never ever matter.  

The only reason for including this as a factor that I find compelling is that it will likely produce a better NCAA tourney field (as it will improve the chances of getting a "hot" team in).  For me this isn't enough to further discount early-season games.  

And for the record, I don't remember WCHA fans whining about this category more than any other fans, but maybe some older elynah denizen can remark on attitude shifts during the "Last 20" and "Last 16" days.

[ursusminor]

It wasn't too long ago that there was a "last-N Games" factor in PWR. It was discarded because it including almost entirely in-league games and thus favored weaker conferences.

[Pete Godenschwager]

[quote heykb][quote Chris '03]...It's like a play-in game for everyone. Yuck. [/quote]

You wouldn't want to see Colgate vs UNO? or Clarkson vs Michigan St? OK, there would be a few stinkers, but I see a lot of teams that are good enough to make the higher seed grumble about what a tough game they're playing in the first round.

I think it would be a hoot. Even if we wind up playing a UNH or LSSU in the first round. Not exactly a creampuff. There'd be a lot of pretty interesting matchups.[/quote]

I'd love to see those matchups, but I think that's what the regular season is for.  The purpose of the tournament should be to determine who the NCAA champion is.  As great as March Madness is, it has really devalued the regular season and I would hate to see that in college hockey.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote heykb]But then there would be controversy. {insert sound effect here}
If roundball can have 65 (what's up with that 64 vs 65 game, anyway?) I don't see any reason why hockey shouldn't trot out a tournament half as big. I bet the NCAA would make even more $$ that way, too.[/quote]

Because hockey has less than 1/4 of the number of teams as squeakball, so having a tournament 1/4 is the size is actually already erring up. Having half of all D-I hockey teams in the tournament would be crazy.

I mean really, does anyone think that Vermont, Clarkson, and Notre Dame are worthy at an at large big based on their season as a whole? Please.


Now one by one:

[Q]1. Absolute rules:
- Host school stays home, meaning UMass-Amherst gets to play at UMass-Amherst if that's a regional site. Or Minnesota at Minnesota (oops).
- The four 1-seeds stay the 1-seeds, even though the difference between the fourth 1-seed and the top two 2-seeds isn't all that great.[/Q]

Already done.

[Q]2. There should be guidelines not rules:
- Avoid intra-conference matchups but balance that against what else happens if you force the four-entry WCHA into the four regions. Or four ECACHL teams should that happen.
- Higher seeds within bands should, not must, stay closer to home.
- In the East, "home" can mean either of two sites if it's a, say, 300-mile trip. Ditto for an Ohio State if Rochester or Detroit are regional sites.[/Q]

A matter of priorities only. First is basically already done (avoid interconfence is done unless it can't be), as is the last (unless we're talking, say, BC going to Worcester instead of Albany - there's a difference there).

The middle is an option, but it wouldn't stop screwing over, it would only change who gets screwed. That's because it would eliminate competitive balance (or whatever they call it).

If you were #1 (Minn, Wisc, etc), would you rather play #8 whoever (Cornell right now), or say, #5 because #5 is closer. Oh great, so I'm the #1 team in the country and my reward is to play a better team with more fans there, instead of a worse team with less who will make the trip. You can say being close to home is more important (and we would certainly think so after last year, and potentially this year), but the fact is that several teams will always get screwed. That being the case, competitive balance seems to me to at least be the most fair way to screw people.



[Q]3. Consider the good of the game guidelines:
- Add a weighting, maybe a tangent to power rankings, for a team's ability to promote the game through good attendance.[/Q]

Attendence concerns are already in there - but have taken a distinct back seat to about everything else by interpretation. You could give them higher weight, but again, you're just screwing different people. Sure, this one would help us, but you can't objectively say that that makes it better. Its just bias.


[Q]4. Wildcard rules
- In lieu of the above, the seeding committee gets three wildcard choices. That is, it follows current rules, but it also has the power to make three exceptions in seeding, placement, and selection so long as the chairman goes on TV and explains them once at the outset of the tourney and once on Friday of Frozen Four weekend.[/Q]

Awful, awful idea. Sure, instead of staying home because you didn't play well enough, you get to stay home because the committee member's brother's friend's cousin's husband is the coach of UMinn-Backwater, and ya know, they did pretty well down the stretch.

How will we feel about this one the first time #13 Cornell gets subjectively passed over for a WCHA club?


[Q]When deciding the seedings, I would like to see the committee somehow factor in your record in the last 16-20 games.[/Q]

They did this up until a few years ago (PWR category called L16 ("last 16") ). It was eliminated for 2 reasons. First, it didn't account for strength of schedule. Should Holy Cross really win a comparison because they went 13-3 down the stretch in Atlantic hockey over Wisconsin going 12-4 in the WCHA? Fix that and you're onto something.

Second, it meant that all games were not equal. Games at the end of the season mean more than games at the beginning. You can argue that makes sense. You can also argue its not just and all games should be equal. The NCAA sided with the latter.

[heykb]

[quote Pete Godenschwager][quote heykb][quote Chris '03]...It's like a play-in game for everyone. Yuck. [/quote]

You wouldn't want to see Colgate vs UNO? or Clarkson vs Michigan St? OK, there would be a few stinkers, but I see a lot of teams that are good enough to make the higher seed grumble about what a tough game they're playing in the first round.

I think it would be a hoot. Even if we wind up playing a UNH or LSSU in the first round. Not exactly a creampuff. There'd be a lot of pretty interesting matchups.[/quote]

I'd love to see those matchups, but I think that's what the regular season is for.  The purpose of the tournament should be to determine who the NCAA champion is.  As great as March Madness is, it has really devalued the regular season and I would hate to see that in college hockey.[/quote]

I appreciate your sentiment. But as long as the definition of national champion is "won 4 games in a row against opponents determined by the NCAA seeds" you could say the regular season is already devalued. We'd have to go back to the bad old days of 1-team-represents-a-conference to change that.