Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

    Originally posted by mnstate0fhockey View Post
    I realize that, but Minnesota and Michigan aren't in the Big Ten yet, Notre Dame has yet to move to Hockey East, and North Dakota isn't in the NCHC.

    I think the poster was trying to show how the tournament field would break down by future conferences, but listed CC as a future WCHA team by mistake.
    Ah, I see what mookie's doing now. My error.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

      Originally posted by UMBand View Post
      Well, that scenario generally fits in with the ongoing trend of Michigan getting shipped off to a hometown regional for someone else, while they themselves never get to play in a regional within a hundred miles of Ann Arbor. I'll stop complaining about it when Michigan actually plays in a regional that isn't either in the middle of nowhere in front of a crowd of 50 people or a rabid home crowd for one of the three other teams.
      stop whining, Michigan has played more NCAA games in their own state than probably anyone.
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX


      The reason for the talent in the west? Because MN didn't rely on Canada.

      Originally posted by MN Pond Hockey
      Menards could have sold a lot of rope

      this morning in Grand Forks if North Dakota had trees.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

        Originally posted by Numbers View Post
        Priceless,
        Really appreciate the information. Can I ask your opinion on something? Do you think it makes sense for them to have that idea: 1v13 is better than intraconference matchup? And, what would your own thought be of some kind of subjectivity in the seeding part of making the bracket? For example, I totally agree with the idea that math alone decides the field. Things are too close for any other way. But, once we have decided the field, it seems the committee has hamstring itself with strict seeding bands. Sometimes it happens that #12 and #13 are really tied. And, that #12 is just what they need as a 4th seed to make a better bracket. Or, the #13 works better as the last #3 seed. Do you see what I am asking?
        I agree numbers that the math SHOULD be the determining factor, unfortunately the NCAA will always follow the money, where it can be influenced to benifit the bottom line it will be influenced imo.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

          Originally posted by UMBand View Post
          Well, that scenario generally fits in with the ongoing trend of Michigan getting shipped off to a hometown regional for someone else, while they themselves never get to play in a regional within a hundred miles of Ann Arbor. I'll stop complaining about it when Michigan actually plays in a regional that isn't either in the middle of nowhere in front of a crowd of 50 people or a rabid home crowd for one of the three other teams.
          Sorry you feel this way UMB. I suppose you know that the assignment of teams follows a relatively strict formula. There really isn't much room for the committee to intentionally give any school a bad situation. So, if Mich ends up as a #2 seed across from either BU or Lowell or someone else from the east (by across I mean 1v8; 2v7 etc), the odds are really good they go to the east coast. That wouldn't be in the middle of nowhere, nor a rabid home crowd. Might be a slightly rabid home crowd...

          Alternatively, you could try to convince Michigan as a school to put in a bid to host at the Joe. Then it would be your rabid home crowd...

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

            Well, seeing as how Joe Louis Arena has no interest whatsoever in hosting another regional, that last part is kinda tough. Their best bet is trying to host any regional headed to Grand Rapids.
            FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY: 2012 FROZEN FOUR


            God, that was fun...

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

              Originally posted by Numbers View Post
              ...Alternatively, you could try to convince Michigan as a school to put in a bid to host at the Joe. Then it would be your rabid home crowd...
              to many of us old timers, it's funny to hear a complaining UM comment because for a long time Yost was able to host events and UM would get home ice. kudos for the ncaa to stay away from campus sites now, but it does open up the possibility of having games in front of nobody in midsized rinks.

              and i've heard the joe doesn't want anything to do with events where beer sales are 86'd!!
              a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
                I agree numbers that the math SHOULD be the determining factor, unfortunately the NCAA will always follow the money, where it can be influenced to benifit the bottom line it will be influenced imo.
                Hey, JDubbs, Thanks for the input. But, you have me confused now. I thought that the tourney was all determined by numbers, and by their insistence on as few intraconference 1st round matchups as possible. I can't think of any time recently that I looked at the bracket and thought "Well, they really turned that one upside down to make more money..."

                In fact, the only times recently that I can remember that they were not totally in line was the year they swapped DU and CC as the #2 and #3 overall because they weighed the head-to-head strong in the committee, and then the year they swapped Air Force for someone, so they could be in the same region as one of the other Colorado schools.

                I was advocating a little more subjectivity, because I think they could make a better bracket if they wanted to. But, now, reading UMBand feeling like Michigan has been done wrong lately, I think that it should all be numbers, because it prevents anyone from even imagining back room dealing.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                  Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                  Priceless,
                  Really appreciate the information. Can I ask your opinion on something? Do you think it makes sense for them to have that idea: 1v13 is better than intraconference matchup? And, what would your own thought be of some kind of subjectivity in the seeding part of making the bracket? For example, I totally agree with the idea that math alone decides the field. Things are too close for any other way. But, once we have decided the field, it seems the committee has hamstring itself with strict seeding bands. Sometimes it happens that #12 and #13 are really tied. And, that #12 is just what they need as a 4th seed to make a better bracket. Or, the #13 works better as the last #3 seed. Do you see what I am asking?
                  I get what you're asking and I'm sure it is something the NCAA considers. 1 v 13 really isn't the ideal matchup, especially considering #16 is generally a much, much weaker team than the other #4 seeds. If a conference gets 5+ teams in the field I would prefer they protect bracket integrity (and the #1 overall seed, which they claim is already a goal) and allow a conference game in the first round.

                  I understand the goal behind bands but sometimes wish they could be a little more flexible, especially with hosts. (I'm sure the folks at BC agree) Last year when UHN wrapped up a #4 seed it sent #1 seeded BC to St. Louis instead of a leisurely drive to Manchester. I would also change the way they break ties when 3 or more teams are involved. Right now it is straight RPI even if the team with the lowest RPI has pairwise wins over the other teams. So in 2007 even though UMass won the comparisons against both Maine and St. Lawrence, they had the lowest RPI so received a #4 seed while Maine and SLU got #3 seeds. If it is unanimous (as in 2007) that team should be ranked higher. You can then break the H2H tie using the comparison. If the teams split the comparisons, then go ahead and use RPI to break ties. Once ties are broken and seeding established 1-16 set the brackets. I always prefer bracket integrity but the NCAA is going to tinker to produce the best moneymakers they can.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                    Originally posted by UMBand View Post
                    Well, that scenario generally fits in with the ongoing trend of Michigan getting shipped off to a hometown regional for someone else, while they themselves never get to play in a regional within a hundred miles of Ann Arbor. I'll stop complaining about it when Michigan actually plays in a regional that isn't either in the middle of nowhere in front of a crowd of 50 people or a rabid home crowd for one of the three other teams.
                    Of course Michigan gains no advantage by playing in their back yard at the CCHA Tourney, while Miami, Northern Michigan and Alaska have much longer trips than the one UM has for that event. Poor Michigan. Get them a tissue!
                    "The use of common sense and logic will not be tolerated and may result in fine and/or suspension."- Western Professional Hockey League By-laws. 1999-2000.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                      Originally posted by UMBand View Post
                      Well, that scenario generally fits in with the ongoing trend of Michigan getting shipped off to a hometown regional for someone else, while they themselves never get to play in a regional within a hundred miles of Ann Arbor. I'll stop complaining about it when Michigan actually plays in a regional that isn't either in the middle of nowhere in front of a crowd of 50 people or a rabid home crowd for one of the three other teams.
                      Due to the distances between many teams in the west and cities with appropriate facilities, MOST tourney teams don't end up within 100 miles of home. When the committee did Michigan a favor in 2010 by putting them in Fort Wayne to the surprise of most, who was at fault that few Michigan fans showed up despite the easiest travel of any of the four teams assigned there? And how unfair that in the season's ultimate game so many people had the nerve to root for Duluth last year.

                      At some point the NCAA may decide that empty buildings like those in St Louis and Fort Wayne are not in the best interests of the sport and consider going back to campus sights. For two consecutive seasons the NCAA made it as easy or nearly as easy as possible for Michigan fans to get to a tourney game, even if by car. Who was at fault that so few showed up? Are you going to protest how "unfair" it would be for Yost to go back to hosting NCAA tournament games then? You need to ground yourself a little more in the facts.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                        Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                        Hey, JDubbs, Thanks for the input. But, you have me confused now. I thought that the tourney was all determined by numbers, and by their insistence on as few intraconference 1st round matchups as possible. I can't think of any time recently that I looked at the bracket and thought "Well, they really turned that one upside down to make more money..."

                        In fact, the only times recently that I can remember that they were not totally in line was the year they swapped DU and CC as the #2 and #3 overall because they weighed the head-to-head strong in the committee, and then the year they swapped Air Force for someone, so they could be in the same region as one of the other Colorado schools.

                        I was advocating a little more subjectivity, because I think they could make a better bracket if they wanted to. But, now, reading UMBand feeling like Michigan has been done wrong lately, I think that it should all be numbers, because it prevents anyone from even imagining back room dealing.

                        Thats really what I was agreeing with. Sorry for any confusion. I think its generally and probably will only ever be a minor change (by the numbers) to make for a better tournament. Like you said it doesn't happen to often, but I espect it to remain that way (minor changes in allignments to make for a better tournament-as the NCAA see's it, when possible).

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                          Priceless,
                          I agree with you about the tiebreaking procedure. If the idea is to have more PWR wins, then a PWcomparison is really the chip, not someone's RPI.
                          At one time, I thought about something like this:
                          Top 16 by PWR in the field. Choose bands like this:
                          Start with #1 in the PWR. There are 6 men in the room. Vote "Is this a #1 seed(not overall, I mean a region seed)?" exclude the rep from the teams own conference. Continue with #2,3,4 overall. If any are voted "not a #1", then start with #5 until they fill the #1s. Continue with the rest of the seeds the same way. Have a rule that no team be seeded more than one band outside of its PWR rank.
                          Then, do the bracket as they do now...

                          But, like I said above, all math has a big advantage : there is no reasonable griping afterwards.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                            Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                            Hey, JDubbs, Thanks for the input. But, you have me confused now. I thought that the tourney was all determined by numbers, and by their insistence on as few intraconference 1st round matchups as possible. I can't think of any time recently that I looked at the bracket and thought "Well, they really turned that one upside down to make more money..."

                            In fact, the only times recently that I can remember that they were not totally in line was the year they swapped DU and CC as the #2 and #3 overall because they weighed the head-to-head strong in the committee, and then the year they swapped Air Force for someone, so they could be in the same region as one of the other Colorado schools.

                            I was advocating a little more subjectivity, because I think they could make a better bracket if they wanted to. But, now, reading UMBand feeling like Michigan has been done wrong lately, I think that it should all be numbers, because it prevents anyone from even imagining back room dealing.
                            I think the NCAA is open to the fact they they will move teams around a little for "atmosphere" even if it means deviating from some of the other requirements while placing the teams in their respective regions. The rules they have clung to are teams are not moved out of their "band" (the number 3 overall seed is going to be a 1 somewhere, the number 10 seed will be a 3 somewhere, etc), host teams always host, and first round conference re-matches are forbidden unless more than 4 teams from a single conference are in the tourney. I can assure you that ticket sales and atmosphere were at least somewhat behind placing Michigan in the Fort Wayne regional that Notre Dame hosted in 2010. It didn't work particularly well, but hind-sight is 20/20.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                              Originally posted by IrishHockeyFan View Post
                              I think the NCAA is open to the fact they they will move teams around a little for "atmosphere" even if it means deviating from some of the other requirements while placing the teams in their respective regions. The rules they have clung to are teams are not moved out of their "band" (the number 3 overall seed is going to be a 1 somewhere, the number 10 seed will be a 3 somewhere, etc), host teams always host, and first round conference re-matches are forbidden unless more than 4 teams from a single conference are in the tourney. I can assure you that ticket sales and atmosphere were at least somewhat behind placing Michigan in the Fort Wayne regional that Notre Dame hosted in 2010. It didn't work particularly well, but hind-sight is 20/20.

                              The head of the selection committee said it was too "delicious" to not make Minnesota play Air Force in Colorado a while ago, thus putting the number 1 seed in the toughest bracket. So, they can do anything they want, and it is really only problem if they screw over your favorite team.
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX


                              The reason for the talent in the west? Because MN didn't rely on Canada.

                              Originally posted by MN Pond Hockey
                              Menards could have sold a lot of rope

                              this morning in Grand Forks if North Dakota had trees.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                                Originally posted by davyd83 View Post
                                Of course Michigan gains no advantage by playing in their back yard at the CCHA Tourney, while Miami, Northern Michigan and Alaska have much longer trips than the one UM has for that event. Poor Michigan. Get them a tissue!
                                OK, so Miami has a 3-hour drive, and no matter where you put the tournament, it's a long trip for Alaska and NMU. What's your alternative site?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X