NCAA bracketing affirmative action style -- loosen the rules?

[billhoward]

Last-n games overweighted means mostly league games and it favors the better team in a less competitive league. But for purposes of this discussion, we're talking improvements in fairness that are most advantageous to Cornell, not ways to help North Dakota or Quinnipiac. There should be a way to recognize a team that had, say, its two best players injured through mid-season or a freshman class that caught fire in February. OTOH, if it's a true national contender, they'd still be in there as a mid-pack seed, not out of the tournament. (Trivia: What is the lowest seed in a 16-team tournament to win the title? In basketball there are lots of first round upsets, but three of the final four are usually fairly high seeds. OK, there was Pittsburgh in pro football this year.)

Expanding beyond 16 teams would be a stretch as noted because 16 is already a greater percentage of D1 hockey than 64 basketball teams is a fraction of D1 basketball. Also, expanding the field increases the odds that the better team will have one off night, lose, and not make the title game. When Cornell won its national titles, the NCAA playoff was 4 teams (out of what, 30 that played seriously at the time?) vs. 16 now out of 60. Ned Harkness and Dick Bertrand and John Hughes did not have to worry about getting past Nebraska-Omaha or Miami or Ohio State on the tournament's first weekend.

Others have pointed out with finality: The NCAA tournament doesn't determine the best team in the country. It's tautological: The tournament defines the tournament winner.

We're grousing in part because we've had a run of bad luck in seedings and placements -- in 2002-03, didn't we get a tougher first round opponent than we should have in order to make the tournament allegedly fairer in some other way? But then, every year 15 hockey schools and 63 basketball schools are playing if-only in April ... we've been one of the if-only schools for 35 years running now. Maybe eLynah counts as grief therapy.

[Pete Godenschwager]

[Q]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.[/Q]

I see your point, which is why I was clear to say NCAA champion and not say best team.  So, we're past 1-team per conference, and we're short of a "anybody who played hard at any point in the season gets in" field. Sounds about right the way it is then.  Getting into the 16 team field is competitive enough that the regular season matters, yet it's not so exclusive that a good team cannot recover from a poorly played stretch of games.

[KeithK]

Picking the field should be done following hard and fast rules that are known by the community in advance.  That way no one can ever complain that they're team was screwed out of a bid - you know what it's going to take and you just have to get it done on the ice.  (You can complain about the crieria used, but that's different).

Seeding on the other hand is a totally different thing.  The committee should have plenty of flexibility here.  After all, everyone who gets in has to win 4 games to win it all including several against tough teams regardless of draw.  Sticking to arbitrary rules like the "bands" or the 1-16 PWR ranking is silly.  If you can make a better tournament by switching 12 and 13 then do it.  Same for 11 and 13, or 9 and 12.  There just isn't that much difference between the 9th and 12th ranked teams or between 11 and 13.  Now they shouldn't switch things around without a good reason and should try to stick to the order where possible, but tying your hands because of the numbers is silly, IMNSHO.

Unless, of course, it meeans screwing the Gophers.  Then I'm all for it. :-D

[DeltaOne81]

[Q billhoward]Last-n games overweighted means mostly league games and it favors the better team in a less competitive league. But for purposes of this discussion, we're talking improvements in fairness that are most advantageous to Cornell, not ways to help North Dakota or Quinnipiac.[/Q]

Well, at least you're honest. Somehow I don't think saying "hey, NCAA committee, here are some ideas to help Cornell's seeding" is gonna go over that well.

There should be a way to recognize a team that had, say, its two best players injured through mid-season or a freshman class that caught fire in February.

Great, so now we have the ncaa basketball process, with subjective judgement, background deals, and smoke and mirrors. That's what the entire point of PWR is to avoid. If you want that, go be a basketball fan.

[KeithK]

Last n games is a silly criterion to use.  The season is the season and games played in November should mean exactly the same as games played in March.  You should have to play well all season in order to earn the right to play for the national championship.  There's no reason to reward the "hot" team - if a team is really "hot" they'll have a better chance to win the tournament.

[Chris \'03]

[quote billhoward] But for purposes of this discussion, we're talking improvements in fairness that are most advantageous to Cornell, not ways to help North Dakota or Quinnipiac. [/q]

Am I alone in thinking that a tournament that is fair is better than one that unfavorably advantages Cornell?

[q] (Trivia: What is the lowest seed in a 16-team tournament to win the title? [/q]

There's a sample of 3 and they were: 1-seed Minnesota, 2-seed Denver, 1-seed Denver. I don't think any of them were the overall #1.  

[q]We're grousing in part because we've had a run of bad luck in seedings and placements -- in 2002-03, didn't we get a tougher first round opponent than we should have in order to make the tournament allegedly fairer in some other way? [/quote]

You're grousing.
In '03 Cornell (the overall #1) drew #14 Minnesota-Mankato instead of the CHA or AHA entry because there were two WCHA #1 seeds and two WCHA #4 seeds meaning that the only way to avoid first round intraconference games was to match the two #1 seed WCHA teams with the AHA/CHA entries. Thus, instead of Cornell being rewarded with a #1 vs. #16 games, it was stuck playing a #14 that was leaps and bounds better than #15 or #16. It's a matter of how the committee's priorities are ordered. Where one might think that having 1/16 and 2/15 is fairer and more in keeping with bracket integrity, the committee feels that avoiding intraconference matchups is more important as long as the teams are kept in their bands.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Chris '03]
You're grousing.
In '03 Cornell (the overall #1) drew #14 Minnesota-Mankato instead of the CHA or AHA entry because there were two WCHA #1 seeds and two WCHA #4 seeds meaning that the only way to avoid first round intraconference games was to match the two #1 seed WCHA teams with the AHA/CHA entries. Thus, instead of Cornell being rewarded with a #1 vs. #16 games, it was stuck playing a #14 that was leaps and bounds better than #15 or #16. It's a matter of how the committee's priorities are ordered. Where one might think that having 1/16 and 2/15 is fairer and more in keeping with bracket integrity, the committee feels that avoiding intraconference matchups is more important as long as the teams are kept in their bands.[/quote]

Yes, but where the committee really screwed up that year was in ignoring individual comparisons and using straight PWR to place teams into the bands, which was unlike what was done in previous years.  If they had focused on comparisons among teams in the tournament rather than irrelevant comparisons with non-tournament teams, OSU would have been a 4-seed instead of SCSU, and Minnesota and CC could have played OSU and one patsy, leaving the other one for Cornell.  I'll let someone else look up the Hockey-L and/or eLF posts about it.

[KeithK]

[q]Am I alone in thinking that a tournament that is fair is better than one that unfavorably advantages Cornell?
[/q]Nope.  Fair is fair, even if it doesn't help Cornell.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote jtwcornell91]
Yes, but where the committee really screwed up that year was in ignoring individual comparisons and using straight PWR to place teams into the bands, which was unlike what was done in previous years.  If they had focused on comparisons among teams in the tournament rather than irrelevant comparisons with non-tournament teams, OSU would have been a 4-seed instead of SCSU, and Minnesota and CC could have played OSU and one patsy, leaving the other one for Cornell.  I'll let someone else look up the Hockey-L and/or eLF posts about it.[/quote]

I have a better idea... how about you invite some of the committee members over, and we can all watch you get into a 10 minute debate about it in which you confuse the hell out of them ::popcorn::

Ah, good memories...

[billhoward]

[quote Chris '03][quote billhoward] [q]We're grousing in part because we've had a run of bad luck in seedings and placements -- in 2002-03, didn't we get a tougher first round opponent than we should have in order to make the tournament allegedly fairer in some other way? [/quote]
You're grousing.
In '03 Cornell (the overall #1) drew #14 Minnesota-Mankato instead of the CHA or AHA entry because there were two WCHA #1 seeds and two WCHA #4 seeds meaning that the only way to avoid first round intraconference games was to match the two #1 seed WCHA teams with the AHA/CHA entries. Thus, instead of Cornell being rewarded with a #1 vs. #16 games, it was stuck playing a #14 that was leaps and bounds better than #15 or #16. It's a matter of how the committee's priorities are ordered. Where one might think that having 1/16 and 2/15 is fairer and more in keeping with bracket integrity, the committee feels that avoiding intraconference matchups is more important as long as the teams are kept in their bands.[/quote]
Do you recall the interview after the pairings were announced and Schafer, I believe, expressed his displeasure ... somewhat delicately? Perhaps he, too, recognized it's hard to feel sorry for an overall #1 arguing it deserves #16 not #13.

Overall, if one looks at Cornell's NCAA opponents and locations, would an impartial observer (maybe not us) say Cornell got fair, neutral, or disadvantaged draws? The 1-vs.-14 seed was ever so modestly disadvantageous but most people would call it neutral. Vs. Minnesota on Minnesota's home Olympic sheet was disadvantageous and the NCAA could have made it fairer by forcing the Gophers to use the Excel Center instead. We got lucky that the 2003 Frozen Four was in Buffalo ... and were unable to do anything with it.

To be national champion, you have to win four NCAA games. But you might not be able to beat every one of the 15 others. Maybe we could have beaten the team that beat Minnesota.

[billhoward]

[quote KeithK][quote Chris '03][quote billhoward] But for purposes of this discussion, we're talking improvements in fairness that are most advantageous to Cornell, not ways to help North Dakota or Quinnipiac. [/quote]
Am I alone in thinking that a tournament that is fair is better than one that unfavorably advantages Cornell?
[/quote]Nope.  Fair is fair, even if it doesn't help Cornell.[/quote]
That was meant to be a wry comment, just without the after it. Fanatics could argue Cornell deserves a make-good for the alleged wrongs of previous years. No winner thinks the tournament was unfair.

[canuck89]

Does anybody else think that the NCAA tournament should look a little bit more like the ECACHL tourney?  I think that the initial two teams played (before the frozen four), should be played as a best of 3 games.  I feel that this would help eliminate some spoilers and would guard against flukes.  I know this doesn't specifically favor Cornell, which is why I brought it up.  Personally, I've always hated the football playoffs for this reason and prefer the NHL and NBA method (Though, not best out of 7).  It's such a shame to have a great season going and then in one game, lose to Mercyhurst and the like because your goalie ate something funny for lunch.  Any thoughts?

-I do feel that the frozen four should continue as played, though, with a one game per opponent method (as per ECACHL again). :-}

[Beeeej]

[quote canuck89]Does anybody else think that the NCAA tournament should look a little bit more like the ECACHL tourney?  I think that the initial two teams played (before the frozen four), should be played as a best of 3 games.  I feel that this would help eliminate some spoilers and would guard against flukes.  I know this doesn't specifically favor Cornell, which is why I brought it up.  Personally, I've always hated the football playoffs for this reason and prefer the NHL and NBA method (Though, not best out of 7).  It's such a shame to have a great season going and then in one game, lose to Mercyhurst and the like because your goalie ate something funny for lunch.  Any thoughts?

-I do feel that the frozen four should continue as played, though, with a one game per opponent method (as per ECACHL again). :-}[/quote]

I have never, ever, ever understood that rationale.  You want to avoid fluke outcomes - except where the outcomes are really important?!

The idea of the tournament is for whichever team is playing best at any given moment to move forward to the next level.  The win-or-go-home format serves that quite well, and if your opponent beats you, you deserve to go home.

Plus, if you went to best-of-three at the regional level, you'd have to have two weeks' worth of regionals instead of one - and/or put them at campus sites.  The main reason the early rounds of conference playoffs work well as best-of-three is that they're on campus.

Beeeej

[canuck89]

The reason for not doing it for the frozen four is that it is assumed at that point that the abilities of the teams are similar.  Sure, the "outcomes are really important," but a loss in one game to the #4 team is not so "flukey" as a loss to the #16 team.

I do understand the concern for a lengthy tournament and hotel stays, etc.  I had thought about this as well, but i didn't know if some trade-offs were worth it.

In regards to always playing your best, there is a reason why the NHL, NBA, and MLB use a best of 7 game series for the playoffs.  Their rationale seems to directly contradict yours as to how a tournament champion should be decided.  I mean, why not just drop the puck and say first one to score wins (read with sarcasm) Also, if football were such a physically demanding sport, I'm sure they'd the multi-game method too.  It is the most fair, and the only negative I see is the cost and inconvenience of longer stays.

[Beeeej]

[quote canuck89]The reason for not doing it for the frozen four is that it is assumed at that point that the abilities of the teams are similar.  Sure, the "outcomes are really important," but a loss in one game to the #4 team is not so "flukey" as a loss to the #16 team.[/quote]

If you want to be reasonably sure the top four teams make the Frozen Four, go back to a four-team tournament.

In regards to always playing your best, there is a reason why the NHL, NBA, and MLB use a best of 7 game series for the playoffs.  Their rationale seems to directly contradict yours as to how a tournament champion should be decided.

Their rationale contradicts nothing I said.  Every round in the pro hockey, basketball, and baseball playoffs is multiple games.  They have the luxury of scheduling such long playoffs to avoid flukes, build excitement, and add revenue, and so they do.  If college hockey were to have the luxury of a three-game series for every level of the NCAA tournament, I'd think it was a little silly just in terms of duration, but I'd shrug and go along with it.  It's saying you want to avoid flukes only in the earlier rounds that I find bizarre - especially when there is always the chance that a Mercyhurst will still get through a three-game quarterfinal to the Frozen Four.  Suddenly, Minnesota's terrified of another fluke, and saying to themselves, "Why isn't this round three games, too??"

Beeeej