NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

2003 regionals at Michigan were absolutely off-the-hook bonkers. As amazing an atmosphere as you can find in sports, and I've seen some great ones.

Considering Michigan's 1st round game in 2003 would have been in Orono, I agree.

[alslammerz]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

And why is UMich traveling to BSU any better than Yale to UND?

And then you come to my whole argument this past March - who cares what's fair for the 3 &4 seeds? BSU did what it needed to do to get a 2 seed. How where they rewarded? With a partisan UMich croud as the higher seed since UMich fans could drive a couple hours no problem, while it was a 15 hour drive from northern Minnesota. For some reason, the NCAA felt that $$$ and attendance was more importaint than the play of the teams. I'd rather reward the 1 & 2 seeds with home games than move 3 & 4 seeds close in off-campus neutral sites (like was done for UMich and Yale).

Maybe not an improvement, but at the very least, it's Michigan to Minnesota rather than Indiana, and Yale to North Dakota rather than Albany. I'm not saying that it's better to have North Dakota-Yale at Albany, I'm saying travel wise it's a tough hit for Yale.

I think your premise is flawed. If Yale won @ UND (whether on Saturday or Sunday the first weekend), they would fly home to New Haven anyway, then bus up to Albany probably Thursday evening, practice on Friday, skate-around Saturday morning, and play the quarterfinal game Saturday evening. Even if they played @ UND and then @ a Western quarterfinal location the next weekend, I really doubt they'd stay in a hotel for all 6/7 days between the games - they'd fly home and then fly back out west.

Maybe (should be noted that they ended up not being able to move anyway). My point is that as much as I'd love the NCAA to say they are just going to stick with the same formula they used for seeding in the past, (actually a purer form since they will need to worry about attendance at all), it wouldn't surprised me if they started moving teams around to make travel easier to both the first round on campus site, and then to make sure those mostly work in terms of travel for the super-regionals. And looking at all the moves that might have meant in 2010 shows that this could potentially be a lot of tweaks.

As I said, I don't mind this in theory. BC is never going to ask Alaska to come out to Conte for a series, so to get them in the playoffs would be cool. But if we're going to do it, let's try to keep the bands as 1,8,9,16 - 2,7,10,15 - 3,6,11,14 - 4,5,12,13 because to me, the fun of this would be getting to see new teams play in your barn. It's the NCAA, though, so I imagine that they'd start looking at things and raising similar concerns as I outlined in my earlier post (which was my attempt to think like the NCAA, not my only woeful feelings about Yale's travel schedule).

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

5 seeds in a 16 team tournament

Sorry 2/3 Hadn't finished my coffee

In the case of AHA teams, it is much much less likely to happen (sadly).
In the case of Bemidji, I don't know if you noticed but the Beavers were in the overall #4 to # 7 range all season. Not exactly a cinderella or long-shot to make the FF like many thought they were in '08-'09. Turns out they were actually just that good. Although going forward, they are no longer part of the "mid-major" world, so the point would be moot anyhow.

Agreed. I meant Bemidji 2009

[Slasher7]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/160574

Didn't we do this already? I remember when I was at school this was the format (with less teams). I like the one and done aspect of the NCAAs and you get some huge upsets (RIT over Denver, Yale over UND, etc). Keep it the same.

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I may be in the minority, but I'll be happy either way.

I enjoyed the years when UND got to host teams in the quarterfinals in their own building. It was a nice reward for a good regular season and conference playoff performance, and make no doubt about it, it's a nice advantage.

Plus, the opportunity to increase the likelihood of the 4 best teams that year making it to the Frozen Four, to be decided in a one and done format was also enticing.

Upsets still happened. Just not as frequently. You could also see the situations where a team like BSU gets to host a school like Michigan, something that otherwise has little chance of occurring. Think of the atmosphere on campus for that series.

On the other hand, as a sports enthusiast I am a huge fan of one game, single elimination events, and the runs that underdogs can go on.

I see it as a win-win situation.

By the way, for those interested, here is a bit of history of results back when on-campus preliminary tournament games were played.

Beginning in '77 there were a couple of single elimination games, play-in type games, on campus, to determine the Frozen Four. The home team was 3-2 in those games between 1977 and 1980.

Beginning in 1981 they went to 8 teams with quarterfinal rounds on campus at the higher seed, two game total goal series. The home team won 21 series, while losing 7. Both Wisconsin in '81 and Bowling Green in '84 managed to go on the road and win the two game series and go on to win the championship.

In 1988 an extra round was added, with the four highest seeds receiving a one week rest. Again, these were two game, total goals series. The home team won 20 of 24 series.

The 1991 season was closest to what is now proposed. For that year only they played on campus in best 2 out of 3 series. Again, the top 4 seeded teams received first round byes. The home team won 6 of the 8 series. UAA and Clarkson provided the upsets. That season's champion, NMU, received a first round bye.

In 1992 they went to regionals.

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I don't like it. Not one bit.

Until 2008, no #4 seed had ever made the Frozen Four since the 16-team format was instituted. This change will virtually ensure that next year's #4 seeds are the last to have the chance to do so.

With this change, instead of two upsets, #4 seeds will need three upsets to reach the Frozen Four. The AHA tournament winner, hampered by the dismal SOS of the rest of their league, will have to be content with making the tournament and perhaps forcing the opening-round series to three games, rather than having a real chance at the Frozen Four.

I also don't like what it does to the scheduling. Either you have to push the Frozen Four back a week, or you give teams only six days to prepare for the Frozen Four (meaning only three days to make travel arrangements, at most).

But the most important issue is the demise of Cinderella. This is bad for everyone except the perennial contenders. The haves get more and the have-nots get less.


Powers &8^]

[dggoddard]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

This is great for the fans who follow the teams all year but can't miss work or afford to travel to the Regionals.

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

This is great for the fans who follow the teams all year but can't miss work or afford to travel to the Regionals.

Well, half the fans.


Powers &8^]

[jdr1]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

i did some quick figures this morning for attendence reasons-- i think the NC$$ would like this for this reason $$$$$$$$

east regional first round games att = 4073
had it been sold out in DU for 2 games and 3 games= 12052 - 18078
had it been sold out in cornell for 2 games and 3 games = 8534 - 12801

northeast regional first round games att = 6572
had it been sold out in BC for 2 games and 3 games = 15768 - 23652
had it been sold out in UND for 2 games and 3 games = 23268 - 34902

mid west regional first round games att = 4133
had it been sold out at Miami for 2 games and 3 games = 6400 - 9600
had it been sold out at BSU for 2 games and 3 games = 5000 - 75

West regional first round games att = 7281
had it been sold out at SCSU for 2 games and 3 games = 11526 - 17289
had it been sold out at wisc. for 2 games and 3 games = 30000 - 45000

and very seldom is a regional right now sold out one that i can think of was 06 with UND UM UM and holy cross at the ralph of 11800 or so for the first round

I do like the upset special just as much as the next guy, but I do believe that the season games record should have more weight!!

Like puck swami said having DU go play RIT next to RIT and UND go play yale next to Yale is a disavantage for them for having a good record all year. not saying that is why they lost just replying to post..

so I am kinda torn on the topic BUT seeing UM having to win 2 games at BSU would be awesome to see!! and would make getting into top 8 in pairwise more important, just like getting in top of conf. to get home ice.

and it will give us more hockey!!!

More Thoughts?????

[dggoddard]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Well, half the fans.


Powers &8^]

1/2 > Zero

Plus the hard core fans can still travel to watch their teams.

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Or maybe the NCAA believed BSU wasn't a strong number two seed and Michigan might be a stronger number three or four seed.

IMHO, that shouldn't matter. BSU was a 2 seed and UMich was a 3 seed. Why should an advantage ever be given to the "road" team - especially at the expense of the higher seed?

Maybe not an improvement, but at the very least, it's Michigan to Minnesota rather than Indiana, and Yale to North Dakota rather than Albany. I'm not saying that it's better to have North Dakota-Yale at Albany, I'm saying travel wise it's a tough hit for Yale.

Again, that's the advantage/incentive to finish with a high seed. See my comment above. You finish as a 1 or 2 seed, you don't have to travel. If you can travel and still make the FF - more power too you.

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

1/2 > Zero

Plus the hard core fans can still travel to watch their teams.

But may not want to.

Being one of those people that travels to regionals (Grand Forks, Bridgeport, Albany), I could plan my weekend. 2 days of hockey. What do I do if there may be a 3rd day? I'm certainly not going to want to miss the deciding game. But it'd be easier to know how much time off work I need, how many nights I need in a hotel, and if I'm flying (which hasn't been the case...too expensive last minute) being able to schedule a flight would be good.

I think this would keep you opposing fans away from the best of 3 unless it was nearby. I might even sit home the next weekend. Seeing my team play 1 game may not be worth the travel. Do you make a weekend of that, or just watch 2 games in one day and drive home without spending much money in the host town?


I personally don't like it.

[LynahFan]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

With this change, instead of two upsets, #4 seeds will need three upsets to reach the Frozen Four.

True, but with the change they would have 4 games to get those 3 upsets, whereas now they have to go 2 for 2.

If I were bored, I could use KRACH to compute the probability that RIT makes the Frozen Four under the current and changed tournaments, but I'm actually kinda busy today.

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

My one concern would be if they messed with how much they messed with the brackets to making traveling to another campus easier.

Looking at this year, for example:
Midwest
UAH traveling to Miami instead of to Fort Wayne. Not bad.
Michigan traveling to BSU instead of to Fort Wayne. An improvement.

East
RIT traveling to Denver instead of to Albany.
New Hampshire traveling to Cornell instead of to Albany. Not bad.

Northeast
Alaska traveling to BC instead of to Worcester. Probably an improvement, actually.
Yale traveling to North Dakota instead of to Worcester. An improvement for UND to be sure, but not great for Yale by any means.

West
Vermont traveling to Wisconsin instead of St. Paul. Not bad.
Northern Michigan traveling to St. Cloud State instead of to St. Paul. Negligible.

Not that it would matter much in the grand scheme of things, but you have to figure RIT and Alaska get switched in that 4 band- RIT to BC and Alaska to Denver don't seem to be bad trips. But we'd have to assume the super-regional sites would have one east and one west. Let's say for 2010, it's St. Paul for the Midwest and West, and Albany for the Northeast and East.

In the St. Paul super-regional- you'd have a team that played in Miami, a team that played at Bemidji, a team that played in Wisconsin, and a team that played at St. Cloud the weekend before. Not bad.

But in the Albany super-regional- you'd have a team that played in Boston, a team that played in North Dakota, a team that played in Denver, and a team that played in Ithaca the weekend before. Imagine those upsets happen-Yale and RIT have to travel out to North Dakota and Denver for a best of three series, and then come back east to play in Albany the next weekend. Yikes. Who do you switch? You could switch Miami and Denver in the 1 band. But the two western 2 teams besides North Dakota are from Minnesota- doesn't make sense to move them east either.

This, of course, will also lead to large(r) arguments in seeding.

So lets recap:
First moves- to make games closer to home leads to this:


Second move-make sure home series are closer to their super regional.


Hmm, seems odd to have Vermont potentially out west for two weekends. UAH was originally going to St. Paul anyway. So let's switch them around.

Third move


There's no way to fix Yale/UND playing in North Dakota one weekend and Albany the next, so that stays put. All in all, six teams got moved- RIT to Northeast, Alaska to Midwest, Vermont to East, UAH to the West, Denver to the Midwest, Miami to East. That's a lot of chaos to sort out, without even looking to see what teams gain an advantage by this (though Wisconsin getting UAH, no offense to the Chargers, comes to mind-to the detriment of the No. 1 seeded Miami team).


At the same time, I also really like the idea. I think it would be really fun if sometime down the road, in the first round, Harvard were matched up with a BC or BU, and getting to play in Boston at a campus site rather than Worcester. It's also a great chance to see teams that never get on the schedule-for all the teams, and even to get some big name Western teams out to Eastern barns. I, for one, wouldn't mind getting a chance to broadcast playoff hockey from, say, Michigan, and it would be great to see a WCHA team or CCHA team skate into Lynah for the playoffs- Cornell fans would eat it up. Their first opponent, for karma's sake, will probably be whatever big name team is pushing this the most, but still, it would make for great tv, though tickets sales would get hurt. I think it would be great to see the NCAA playoffs with a better chance for the students to make it out to the games and see the real bands since most of them don't travel, and all of that pomp that makes college hockey great. But I certainly wouldn't want to be a bracketologist, and this is a system that could certainly cause some legitimate gripes as well.

So yeah, I'd recommend with reservations. It would be great to see some of the old time east-west rivalries get played out in the playoffs in someone's home barn, but I imagine the NCAA would try to move seeds to keep teams close to one another (sort of defeating the purpose for me, though it makes sense financially and even, gasp, academically) and that could play merry chaos with the fairness anyway.

maybe I am missing something (which isn't out of the realm of possibility), but Miami wouldn't be moved. The way it reads to me is the #1 seeds would Host the first round. So the 4 super regional sites would of been Miami, Denver, Wisconsin, and BC. Your attendance issues are solved, every single one of those regionals would be sold out. Granted buildings like Miami only hold 3500-4000, but packing the Kohl center and 15k is tempting rather than a half full xcell center. Even if this is stretched to the higher seed hosting, it still works and the NCAA makes 10x more than they do currently which is what they are all about.

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

True, but with the change they would have 4 games to get those 3 upsets, whereas now they have to go 2 for 2.

If I were bored, I could use KRACH to compute the probability that RIT makes the Frozen Four under the current and changed tournaments, but I'm actually kinda busy today.

And if you're really bored, you could calculate a ten-year KRACH and PWR. Over 10 years, there might be enough interconference games to make KRACH more meaningful.