NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

All this entire post tells me is that RIT thinks they are bigger than they really are... again.

What the **** are you talking about?

Try reading it again. That post had absolutely NOTHING to do with "how big RIT thinks they are", whatever the **** that means.

It was merely a statement about the impact that the run RIT made had on the campus and the city and how under the new format it most likely wouldn't have happened.

I'm really not sure what you're problem is with anything I wrote. I was using RIT as a recent and relevant example (that is coincidentally close to my heart) of my point about the new format. I'm sure that if the same thing happened for UConn, Storrs would be similarly energized (unless the bouncy-ball team were making another Final Four run at the same time) and could propel that program to new levels of support that it desperately needs (attendance- and money-wise). Could you just imagine what a strong program at a well known school like UConn would do for the profile of the AHA and D-I hockey in Connecticut and even nation-wide? Of course, personnally, I hope that doesn't happen since they're in the same conference as RIT, but you get my point.
Not to mention that despite being an HEA team, UMass-Lowell could probably use a similar run themselves to re-energize that program. And if that ever does happen, I hope Coach McDonald (RIT alum, btw) is still there to see it. I think he's a good coach with a bright future.

[BC/HE]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

15 teams have won all but 3 NCAA Hockey championships and 18 teams have won them all. The haves do not need any more advantages. They have enough just by who they are. If you really want to fill arenas let the top teams be the visitors which would not be fair either so why not make it a best 2 of 3 with the first game at the lower seed and the next two scheduled at the higher seed. That way the higher seed does still have an advantage, you get an awesome crowd for game 1 and probably the other games as well since it is not overkill.

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

so why not make it a best 2 of 3 with the first game at the lower seed and the next two scheduled at the higher seed. That way the higher seed does still have an advantage, you get an awesome crowd for game 1 and probably the other games as well since it is not overkill.

This would be a hugely costly and difficult scenario due to travel and timing issues, probably killling off any profit the tourney would generate.

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

15 teams have won all but 3 NCAA Hockey championships and 18 teams have won them all. The haves do not need any more advantages. They have enough just by who they are. If you really want to fill arenas let the top teams be the visitors which would not be fair either so why not make it a best 2 of 3 with the first game at the lower seed and the next two scheduled at the higher seed. That way the higher seed does still have an advantage, you get an awesome crowd for game 1 and probably the other games as well since it is not overkill.

Spin-off of this idea: Top seed gets two games at home. If they don't win both, the next weekend is one game at the lower seed's site. Use the current layoff weekend before the FF as the super regional. FF the same weekend as now.

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Spin-off of this idea: Top seed gets two games at home. If they don't win both, the next weekend is one game at the lower seed's site. Use the current layoff weekend before the FF as the super regional. FF the same weekend as now.

Way too much advantage for the higher seeded team. There's a reason in best-of seven series the key games (1,5,7) are all at the lower seed's place(except in the stupid 2-3-2 set-up).

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Way too much advantage for the higher seeded team. There's a reason in best-of seven series the key games (1,5,7) are all at the lower seed's place(except in the stupid 2-3-2 set-up).

Way more advantage than if all three games are at the top seed for sure (as in the current proposal)? That's clearly incorrect.

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Way more advantage than if all three games are at the top seed for sure (as in the current proposal)? That's clearly incorrect.

Listen, this isn't the NHL. There is plenty of precedent in the NCAA for something like the proposal. In a perfect world, they would go best of three for each round (and, actually, that would only add one week to the current set-up - Regional weekend the first rd., the bye week, have the quarterfinals, then FF week the national Semi-finals, and one week later, the Championship round), but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now, does that make it fair for everyone? No, but life isn't fair.

I'm sick of everyone worring about what's fair. It's this attitude that got us the everone wins a trophy mentality. Let's just have the teams get a trophy at the end of the regular season saying they tried real hard. Better yet, why have a "winner" and a "loser" for regular season games too? Let's just not count goals and give them participation certificates. Even better, if you score a goal, you hurt the feelings of the goalie and the other team! Let's just have a figure skating contest! Wait, it's still a competition then... Just have each team skate around in circles...

[Hammer]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The CCHA is going to be mad at you for wrecking their shootouts.

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Listen, this isn't the NHL. There is plenty of precedent in the NCAA for something like the proposal. In a perfect world, they would go best of three for each round (and, actually, that would only add one week to the current set-up - Regional weekend the first rd., the bye week, have the quarterfinals, then FF week the national Semi-finals, and one week later, the Championship round), but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now, does that make it fair for everyone? No, but life isn't fair.

I'm sick of everyone worring about what's fair. It's this attitude that got us the everone wins a trophy mentality. Let's just have the teams get a trophy at the end of the regular season saying they tried real hard. Better yet, why have a "winner" and a "loser" for regular season games too? Let's just not count goals and give them participation certificates. Even better, if you score a goal, you hurt the feelings of the goalie and the other team! Let's just have a figure skating contest! Wait, it's still a competition then... Just have each team skate around in circles...

Actually, I've got no problem with a best-of-three at the upper seed's site, but I was offering an alternative (which has flaws, but not the one you posited) for those who do.

And your 10:28 post still makes no sense .

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Want to host the first round? Win.

Is it that simple? I haven't done the math, but I'm not certain an undefeated AHA team would be in the top 8 in PWR. At least not last season.


Powers &8^]

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I'm sick of everyone worring about what's fair. It's this attitude that got us the everone wins a trophy mentality.

No, fairness is one of the bedrock principles of athletic competition, particularly at educational institutions.

Of course, fairness doesn't mean the playing field must be leveled by any means necessary. But the problem is not that there is an imbalance that someone has proposed leveling; the problem is that this proposal introduces a further imbalance beyond what already exists. Top seeds already have the inherent advantage of playing lower seeds in the first round; why introduce not just one but TWO extra advantages for those top seeds, by giving them not only a home game, but a two-out-of-three home series in the first round?

And even if you could justify it for the top 4 seeds, in what crazy world does the #8 seed deserve such a gigantic advantage over the #9 seed, when the difference between them could come down to a common opponent's winning percentage?


Powers &8^]

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

No, fairness is one of the bedrock principles of athletic competition, particularly at educational institutions.

Of course, fairness doesn't mean the playing field must be leveled by any means necessary. But the problem is not that there is an imbalance that someone has proposed leveling; the problem is that this proposal introduces a further imbalance beyond what already exists. Top seeds already have the inherent advantage of playing lower seeds in the first round; why introduce not just one but TWO extra advantages for those top seeds, by giving them not only a home game, but a two-out-of-three home series in the first round?

And even if you could justify it for the top 4 seeds, in what crazy world does the #8 seed deserve such a gigantic advantage over the #9 seed, when the difference between them could come down to a common opponent's winning percentage?


Powers &8^]

Probably the same crazy world where one team gets into the dance while another stays home due to a common opponent's winning percentage. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Of course, fairness doesn't mean the playing field must be leveled by any means necessary. But the problem is not that there is an imbalance that someone has proposed leveling; the problem is that this proposal introduces a further imbalance beyond what already exists.

The problem is the neutral site format has a severe lack of attendance/atmosphere. That's the problem that needs to be addressed.

And even if you could justify it for the top 4 seeds, in what crazy world does the #8 seed deserve such a gigantic advantage over the #9 seed, when the difference between them could come down to a common opponent's winning percentage?

Here, I'm very much in the "life's not fair" camp. It sucks to be the "first guy out", but the same inequity happens in the conference playoffs every year. Obsessing over that leads to inanitites like the basketball tournament inviting sixty-five teams.

[Handyman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Probably the same crazy world where one team gets into the dance while another stays home due to a common opponent's winning percentage. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

There is kind of a difference though. With the advantage the 8 seed will get in that series due to the new rules what was once supposed to be a pretty even matchup now becomes heavily favored towards the "better" team.

You think it is bad when fans whine now because some random HE game might affect their PWR (lets avoid the "It only counts once a year" argument for a second) imagine if your team is at 8 and because Harvard loses in the ECAC final your team then drops to 9. That is quite the penalty don't ya think?

Like I said, I am all for home games for top seeds, but 2/3 is just too much of an advantage. Maybe that seems fair for the top seeds (i.e. 1-4) but usually the 5-10 seeds are rather equal and you are now, statistically speaking, taking what could be ripe upsets and making them predictable and uninteresting.

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Like I said, I am all for home games for top seeds, but 2/3 is just too much of an advantage.

If you go to campus sites, what's the alternative to best two out of three? One game? Two game, total goals?