NCAA bracketing affirmative action style -- loosen the rules?

KeithK · February 23, 2006, 03:52:12 PM

Lets be honest here. The primary reason that professional leagues go with long series is revenue. Yes, there are plenty of fans/commentators who argue that a longer series is a better test - e.g. those who say the first round of the baseball playoffs should be 7 games. But the reason the owners go to longer series and a larger number is revenue.

I'm not sure that football would necessarily go with a a series if it were possible. I can't imagine the Super Bowl being such a big event if it were a series of games.

Al DeFlorio · February 23, 2006, 04:30:07 PM

[quote Chris '03]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]
Everyone on the planet who follows college hockey understands this. Some of us just think the NCAA has their priorities backwards.

Why is it a problem if Mankato plays Colorado College in the first round? Why is it preferable to screw a #1 overall seed in order to avoid such a match-up?

On the one hand people are arguing above the desirability of maintaining the precise PWR rankings ("Why should #1 have to face #5 instead of #8?"), but on the other seem perfectly willing to accept this silly restriction.

And I'm with Beeeej when he writes: "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." It still makes no sense to me that the first two rounds of the ECACs are two-out-of-three when the three "money" games are lose-and-go-home.

billhoward · February 23, 2006, 04:53:01 PM

Remember the old riddle, "Why does a dog lick himself? ... "

In every sport where it's possible to play back to back games (just about everything except football and Daytona (and NASCAR yellow flags are effectively second and third chances)), the pros play them as best-of-seven series for the same reason as the dog.

More games bring in more revenue and the players don't have to go to class Monday-Friday.

The best-of-seven series does provide some fairness for a team that has a bad day in the first game. It can recover. OTOH the number of series that go seven games shows how closely matched the two teams are, or how sports are random, too. (Trivia: Of all the world series and NBA and hockey playoffs ever played, how many went the full seven games?)

What college sports have a second chance? Rowing (repechage)? CWS baseball? Other?

Al DeFlorio · February 23, 2006, 04:58:51 PM

[quote billhoward]What college sports have a second chance? Rowing (repechage)? CWS baseball? Other?[/quote]
Wrestlebacks in tournament wrestling. But you can't win or finish second in your weight class going through the wrestlebacks.

KeithK · February 23, 2006, 05:05:27 PM

[quote Al DeFlorio]Everyone on the planet who follows college hockey understands this. Some of us just think the NCAA has their priorities backwards.

Why is it a problem if Mankato plays Colorado College in the first round? Why is it preferable to screw a #1 overall seed in order to avoid such a match-up?

On the one hand people are arguing above the desirability of maintaining the precise PWR rankings ("Why should #1 have to face #5 instead of #8?"), but on the other seem perfectly willing to accept this silly restriction.[/quote]I think avoiding inter-conference matchups, especially in the first round, is a very important factor. I don't like the idea of teams who just played in a conference tournament final or semi turning around and playing again six days later in round 1. But in my mind the problem is not that they have this rule. It's that they apply certain rules - the banding - very strictly when it doesn't make sense. Everyone who was paying attention in 2003 knew that the committee could have avoided both first round inter conference matchups and preserved equitable seeding by switching the #12 and #13 seeds, who were certainly much more interchangeable than #14 and #16. But their strict adherence to the bands prevented this solution.

Thankfully we won both games that weekend anyway.

billhoward · February 23, 2006, 05:13:43 PM

[quote KeithK]Everyone who was paying attention in 2003 knew that the committee could have avoided both first round inter conference matchups and preserved equitable seeding by switching the #12 and #13 seeds, who were certainly much more interchangeable than #14 and #16. But their strict adherence to the bands prevented this solution.[/quote]
Good point, not previously made so well: The #16 seed is often not a top twenty team. It got an automatic qualifier berth. It should be the reward for the overall #1 team to feast upon. If you were the #1 overall and you had an ailing defenseman or an overworked No. 1 goalie, you could pretty safely rest him in game one of the first weekend.

Some year, when the overall #14 gets swapped for #16 in the name of some other tournament integrity rule and takes out the overall #1, while the #2 team shuts out #16, there'll be squawking.

Beeeej · February 23, 2006, 05:29:06 PM

[quote billhoward]Some year, when the overall #14 gets swapped for #16 in the name of some other tournament integrity rule and takes out the overall #1, while the #2 team shuts out #16, there'll be squawking.[/quote]

...unless the eliminated #1 is Cornell, in which case mostly there'll be a lot of laughing, and it'll be fuel for several years' worth of "EZAC" posts.

Which is another reason it's a really good thing we didn't lose that game.

Beeeej

canuck89 · February 23, 2006, 06:12:24 PM

In response to Beeeej, I wanted the best of 3 only in the first two rounds because of the reasons you've stated. A series is more expensive and takes its toll on the players. Therefore, I thought a compromise would be in order. The positive of a series is that the better team has a better chance of winning. Following that thought, a best of 3 is more necessary (to avoid flukes) in the first two rounds than the last two (F4). I know the rationale seems weird, but it was a compromise between convenience and fairness. I do understand that other college sports don't do this either, however, someone has always got to be first. :-P

Now to be honest, I don't expect this to happen soon, or at all for that matter. Instead, I was just asking what people thought if in fact this system could be pulled off and made to work.

Beeeej · February 23, 2006, 06:21:46 PM

I find myself wondering if you're aware that it's actually how they used to do it, for a few years at least, back in the earliest days of the 12-team field. Cornell beat Michigan in the first game of the NCAAs in 1991, but it was a best-of-three series and they lost the other two games. The quarterfinals was also a best-of-three.

Beeeej

KeithK · February 23, 2006, 06:59:23 PM

...and before the best of three series we had the infamous "total goals" two game set. *cringe* Nothing like a six period game over two days!

RichH · February 23, 2006, 07:14:48 PM

...or how about the "mini-game" in the ECAC tournament, 1983-1991? ::thud::

RichH · February 23, 2006, 07:20:32 PM

[quote billhoward]Remember the old riddle, "Why does a dog lick himself? ... "
[/quote]

Good God, Bill. Among other things, you're becoming the Dan Rather of this board as well.

Rita · February 23, 2006, 07:23:15 PM

[quote 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.[/quote]

I think everyone's regular season ends this weekend, going back 10 weeks and assuming 2 games per week that puts you at December 24/25th. Thus if you take the last 20 games, that will give you the holiday tourney and allows Minnesota to count their Holiday tourney game v. sacraficial lamb Union and Denver's loss against Princeton (who didn't get the sacraficial lamb memo). But I should not be so snarky, considering I was in Estero for our win against 3-21-6 Northeastern. I do not think many teams have any open dates from mid-January on to pad their schedules, so unless their was a major shift in scheduling I don't think this would be a problem.

Teams do not have any control over who their conference opponents are, unless we really want to be like football and basketball (ACC in particular) and bribe/ steal teams from other conferences to make your conference more "marketable". No reason for hockey to do that, each conference can and does have their "big" tournament game ;-).

I'll still throw this out there even though practically everyone hates the idea of the L20/L16. Is there a mathematical way to that take into account some RPI factor of your league to compensate for the fact the top to bottom the Atlantic hockey is not as strong as the WCHA? I know the RPI does this but it brings in your opponents opponents etc, things that you can't control. They have the bonus factors (.3/.2/.1 or .33/.22/.11 don't the numbers vary from year-to-year?) for quality wins, how much more difficult would it be to add in a bonus based on winning percentage/conference strength?

Yes, if you are a really hot team at the end of the season you will win your conference tourney and take the automatic bid. But if you start the season 6-6-2 and finish 15-4-1 with the 4th loss being in the conference tourney finals you are now 21-10-3. Good enough for an at large bid? Maybe, maybe not (North Dakato got in at 22-14-5) depends on what conference you are in, who your opponents played and beat, and other math that baffles me every February/March :-P.

OK, I'll go back to my corner now and won't bring up L16/L20 anymore because I don't have time to do the math to see who would have benefited or been screwed by such a factor. ;-)

nyc94 · February 23, 2006, 07:38:26 PM

I think only the ECAC and CCHA are done this weekend.

KeithK · February 23, 2006, 07:44:46 PM

[q]I'll still throw this out there even though practically everyone hates the idea of the L20/L16. Is there a mathematical way to that take into account some RPI factor of your league to compensate for the fact the top to bottom the Atlantic hockey is not as strong as the WCHA?[/q]You certainly could. I believe John's "You Are the Committee" scripts offered some version of this back in the day or at least we talked about it. I still think it's not a relvant criterion.