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 claver2010 View Post
    Every year the BPT bracket is the easiest...
    Not that it would make the regional any more difficult, but since there are only going to be 5 or at most 6 teams in the field this year east of the Hudson, it is time to relocate the eastern regional to western NY or PA.
    No man is entitled to the benefits of freedom if he is not vigilant in its preservation. - Douglas MacArthur

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein

    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.- Thomas Jefferson

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

      Originally posted by claver2010 View Post
      Every year the BPT bracket is the easiest...
      Every year? They've hosted two regionals. It isn't like they're Worcester or Albany.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

        The script to use for next weekend at the DIY Calculator

        20120302 MT 0 CC 1 wc
        20120302 Mk 0 ND 1 wc
        20120302 DU 0 NO 1 wc
        20120302 MD 0 SC 1 wc
        20120302 Wi 0 Mn 1 wc
        20120302 BS 0 AA 1 wc
        20120302 Vt 0 BC 1 he
        20120302 NE 0 BU 1 he
        20120302 ML 0 Pv 1 he
        20120302 Mr 0 MA 1 he
        20120302 SH 0 By 1 nc
        20120302 Ar 0 HC 1 nc
        20120302 AI 0 RM 1 nc
        20120302 Ca 0 Ct 1 nc
        20120302 RP 0 Ck 1 nc
        20120302 Bn 0 Qn 1 nc
        20120302 Da 0 SL 1 nc
        20120302 Pn 0 Ya 1 nc
        20120302 Ak 0 LS 1 nc
        20120302 BG 0 NM 1 nc
        20120302 OS 0 Nt 1 nc

        20120303 SH 0 By 1 nc
        20120303 Ar 0 HC 1 nc
        20120303 AI 0 RM 1 nc
        20120303 Ca 0 Ct 1 nc
        20120303 RP 0 Ck 1 nc
        20120303 Bn 0 Qn 1 nc
        20120303 Da 0 SL 1 nc
        20120303 Pn 0 Ya 1 nc
        20120303 Ak 0 LS 1 nc
        20120303 BG 0 NM 1 nc
        20120303 OS 0 Nt 1 nc
        20120303 MT 0 CC 1 wc
        20120303 MD 0 SC 1 wc
        20120303 Mk 0 ND 1 wc
        20120303 Wi 0 Mn 1 wc
        20120303 DU 0 NO 1 wc
        20120303 BS 0 AA 1 wc
        20120303 Vt 0 BC 1 he
        20120303 MA 0 Mr 1 he
        20120303 BU 0 NE 1 he
        20120303 NH 0 Me 1 he
        20120303 Pv 0 ML 1 he

        Home teams are pegged to win every game. To change the outcome of a game add either a 1 (in the event of a tie) or a 2 (for a road victory) to the Away team total.
        Playoff games cannot end in a tie. If you select one upset in a playoff series, remember to add a third game.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

          Originally posted by Priceless View Post
          Every year? They've hosted two regionals. It isn't like they're Worcester or Albany.
          Better phrased: every time they host it's one of, if not the, the easiest bracket.

          I'm sure the ECAC people will be ******ed but when you usually place HE in Northeast and then ECAC in East it'll be the easier bracket. In this scenario you have Ferris St, which I'm not sure what to think about at this stage and a severely, severely depleted BU team as your top 2 seeds.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

            Originally posted by Wol4ine View Post
            Code:
            Bridgeport		Worcester	St. Paul	Green Bay
            Ferris St		Boston Coll	Michigan  	UMD
            Boston U		UM-L		Minnesota	Miami
            Northern Mich		MSU		Maine		Union
            Denver		        AHA Champ   	UND	        Merrimack
            I think the question is, "does UMD outdraw UM and MSU in Green Bay?" I think they do.
            I'd like to get another eastern team, preferably Maine in Bridgeport to help attendance but can't make that happen.
            I think it is more than likely (60/40) though that Union gets upset by someone in the ECAC so they get 2 bids rather than one.
            Just a couple of comments:
            1) A real quick look at Union's RPI leads me to believe there is a possibility, if they are upset in quarterfinal round by a sweep, that they could fall out of the field.
            2) Interesting thought about Mich/Mich State and also UMD. It's a bit of a conundrum right now, because I don't see UMD as a very solid overall #1. Their RPI is less that #2 and #3, and by a good margin... My own opinion is that, if this were the final PWR, we would see UMD in St Paul. Because forcing UMD and also Mich/MSU into longer travel for what seems to me a marginal difference in attendance doesn't seem right. But, maybe I am only expressing my own opinion about what should be....

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

              Originally posted by claver2010 View Post
              Better phrased: every time they host it's one of, if not the, the easiest bracket.

              I'm sure the ECAC people will be ******ed but when you usually place HE in Northeast and then ECAC in East it'll be the easier bracket. In this scenario you have Ferris St, which I'm not sure what to think about at this stage and a severely, severely depleted BU team as your top 2 seeds.
              It's only because Yale was hosting that there was certain to be an ECAC team there. Won't happen this year.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                Originally posted by JF_Gophers View Post
                The real flaw is in looking at PWR before all games are complete. If they end up #2 in PWR, its not because they "moved up". It was the only position they ever had, as PWR is meant to be calculated at the end.

                Everything before that is just for speculation and entertainment purposes.
                It is worth looking at the PWR in advance, just to see how things might shake down, and what the possible issues might be. But I agree that creating/analyzing a bracket so precisely as of right now (or 3 weeks ago, or whatever), is kinda pointless, since so many things can and will change.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                  Originally posted by mnstate0fhockey View Post
                  Why? Notre Dame really hasn't been playing well. I'm not really surprised at all.
                  My guess is it's possible he meant looking at how they were playing just a few weeks ago. After we beat Michigan in January (making them the 7th team ranked, rated, or standing number 1 this year we had won against) it would have been jaw-dropping to think Notre Dame wouldn't have made it. Then Jeff Jackson entered the picture.... oh wait, wrong thread...

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                    College Hockey Weekly has their current bracketology up...

                    http://collegehockeyweekly.com/Current_Pairwise.html

                    Also, CHW has their forecast of what they think the tournament will ultimately look like...

                    http://collegehockeyweekly.com/Tournament-Forecast.html
                    North Dakota
                    National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                      Originally posted by ScoobyFanClub View Post
                      It's only because Yale was hosting that there was certain to be an ECAC team there. Won't happen this year.
                      Unless Yale runs the table over the next three weekends in the ECAC tourney, which I admit is unlikely, but one can dream. With the parity in the ECAC this year there is a good chance that some team other than Union could win the tourney, and if Union and Cornell reach the semi's with one losing in the finals to a dark horse, you could quite possibly see three ECAC teams in.
                      YALE HOCKEY
                      2013 National Champions

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                        Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                        College Hockey Weekly has their current bracketology up...

                        http://collegehockeyweekly.com/Current_Pairwise.html

                        Also, CHW has their forecast of what they think the tournament will ultimately look like...

                        http://collegehockeyweekly.com/Tournament-Forecast.html
                        Hey, FS23, you are going to think I don't like you. Sorry about that. But, I have one more question CHW and its current bracketology. Is it OK to ask?

                        OK. I was reading through the explanation, and it seems that they started by first doing a full serpentine (1-16, 2-25, etc), bracket and then adjusting after that. I have not seen that reasoning before. I thought the committee is supposed to start by putting #1s closest to home in the regionals, and then bracket their opponents after that.

                        Again, CHW has a preliminary bracket with 2-BC and 7-Minn. I can't see that ever being part of the process. (At least with the current PWR). My understanding is that it would go:
                        1-UMD to St Paul; 2-BC to Worcester; 3-Mich to Green Bay; 4-FSU to Bridgeport, and then we start with the opponents.

                        Also, having done all that work, and then wanting to get BC to the east (yes, I don't blame them...), they have this explanation:
                        1. Duluth
                        8. Miami
                        9. Union
                        16. Air Force

                        2. Boston College
                        7. Minnesota
                        10. Maine
                        14. North Dakota

                        3. Michigan
                        6. Lowell
                        11. Michigan State
                        15. Merrimack

                        4. Ferris State
                        5. Boston University
                        12. Northern Michigan
                        13. Denver

                        We don't have any intra-conference matchups, but we would really like to see BC out East for attendance purposes. We can't swap BC with Duluth, as that creates another intra-conference matchup, and swapping BC with Michigan creates the same BC-Merrimack matchup. Therefore, we swap Ferris State with BC...Now let's assign regionals and we get...


                        I want to stop there. I don't understand why it isn't better to swap the whole game - BC/UND for UMD/AFA or, BC/UND for mich/Merr.

                        Again, I just don't understand the reasoning process here.

                        I don't mean it's wrong, I am just struggling to understand it.
                        Last edited by Numbers; 02-27-2012, 01:49 PM. Reason: Add color for clarity

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                          Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                          Hey, FS23, you are going to think I don't like you. Sorry about that. But, I have one more question CHW and its current bracketology. Is it OK to ask?

                          OK. I was reading through the explanation, and it seems that they started by first doing a full serpentine (1-16, 2-25, etc), bracket and then adjusting after that. I have not seen that reasoning before. I thought the committee is supposed to start by putting #1s closest to home in the regionals, and then bracket their opponents after that.

                          Again, CHW has a preliminary bracket with 2-BC and 7-Minn. I can't see that ever being part of the process. (At least with the current PWR). My understanding is that it would go:
                          1-UMD to St Paul; 2-BC to Worcester; 3-Mich to Green Bay; 4-FSU to Bridgeport, and then we start with the opponents.

                          Also, having done all that work, and then wanting to get BC to the east (yes, I don't blame them...), they have this explanation:
                          1. Duluth
                          8. Miami
                          9. Union
                          16. Air Force

                          2. Boston College
                          7. Minnesota
                          10. Maine
                          14. North Dakota

                          3. Michigan
                          6. Lowell
                          11. Michigan State
                          15. Merrimack

                          4. Ferris State
                          5. Boston University
                          12. Northern Michigan
                          13. Denver

                          We don't have any intra-conference matchups, but we would really like to see BC out East for attendance purposes. We can't swap BC with Duluth, as that creates another intra-conference matchup, and swapping BC with Michigan creates the same BC-Merrimack matchup. Therefore, we swap Ferris State with BC...Now let's assign regionals and we get...


                          I want to stop there. I don't understand why it isn't better to swap the whole game - BC/UND for UMD/AFA or, BC/UND for mich/Merr.

                          Again, I just don't understand the reasoning process here.

                          I don't mean it's wrong, I am just struggling to understand it.
                          My best guess is that they wanted BC to go out East and have North Dakota stay in the West Regional. I was not in on the conference call going over the bracketology this week. It would seem logical to swap the pair, and maintain as much bracket integrity as you can get. Also, I'm not sure why they didn't assign #1 seeds to regionals and then start brackets from there...I'll try to find out more about what went on at the conference call.

                          I'm always open to questions so don't worry about that...and no worries about not liking me
                          North Dakota
                          National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                            Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                            OK. I was reading through the explanation, and it seems that they started by first doing a full serpentine (1-16, 2-25, etc), bracket and then adjusting after that. I have not seen that reasoning before. I thought the committee is supposed to start by putting #1s closest to home in the regionals, and then bracket their opponents after that.

                            Again, CHW has a preliminary bracket with 2-BC and 7-Minn. I can't see that ever being part of the process. (At least with the current PWR).
                            Perhaps the bolded is the source for the disconnect? It sounds like their bracket is based upon how they see the rest of the season shaking out and not based upon current PWR? Either way that West regional is a killer.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                              Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                              Perhaps the bolded is the source for the disconnect? It sounds like their bracket is based upon how they see the rest of the season shaking out and not based upon current PWR? Either way that West regional is a killer.
                              The Bracketology is how they see the tournament looking using the current PWR.

                              The Tournament Forecast is how they see the PWR eventually shaking out at the end of the Conference Tournaments.

                              I talked with the editors, and their explanation was that they take the PWR, bracket it based on pure bracket integrity (i.e. 1v16, 2v15...etc.). They then make their changes from there. That was why they had BC and Minnesota in the same bracket (2v15, 7v10 are coupled together using pure bracket integrity). They chose not to ship the entire BC-UND matchup as they think (I do as well) that the committee would want BC out east and North Dakota out west.
                              North Dakota
                              National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                                Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                                The Bracketology is how they see the tournament looking using the current PWR.

                                The Tournament Forecast is how they see the PWR eventually shaking out at the end of the Conference Tournaments.
                                That's I meant to convey - when I used "bracket" I was referring to the Tournament Forecast.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X