NCAA Tourney Team Selection Options

[J.D.]

Well, Minnesota puts in bids for basically everything else, so it's a very reasonable assumption they DO put in as many bids as they can. Maybe if you were a Minnesotan and knew how many NCAA Swimming Championships, and NCAA basketball Final Fours, and NCAA anything else, and PGA Golf Championships, and Super Bowls, etc., that they make bids on, heck, they even put in bids for the Olympic Games, then you'd understand how ******** it is to assume they don't put in bids for NCAA hockey tournaments.

Do you have proof or do you not? Let's keep it simple.

[FredsDeadFriend]

I am sure there is a lot that goes into selecting locations. With the growth of hockey I would expect even more locations to be popping up as more programs get going to spread the game. Playing in Minnesota or Massachusetts in a saturated market really doesn't grow the game. If you want to get more specific the state of Massachusetts has 11 national titles compared to only 8 in Minnesotay.....

A site in Arizona would be awesome....only 20 states have NCAA D1 hockey programs.

THIS, if it were the only motivation, is something I'd be ok with, yet it's not BOTH Minnesota and Massachusetts being left out, only Minnesota, Mass still gets 5 tournaments from 2020-2026, Minnesota gets 1.

And your Title comparison? 5 teams with 8 titles vs 11 teams with 11 titles, doesn't say as much to bolster what you think you are saying as you think it does.

Also, UND with 6 titles is basically right on the Minnesota border and UW with another 6 titles is a short bus ride away from the Twin Cities and both relied heavily on the state of Minnesota to fill their rosters. Why are there ZERO tourney's held in Wisconsin? I mean, i know the answer, and it's legitimate, but doesn't change the fact that a state with 6 titles never gets even a Regional tourney.

And going forward, I'd bet my house that more Minnesota based teams will win Natl Titles and make FFs than Mass based teams.

Again, I am not arguing that all tournaments need to be held in Minnesota, lol. That would not help college hockey at all. But at the same time, for all that Minnesota has done to help build college hockey here in America, you'd think they wouldn't try SO HARD to avoid rewarding Minnesota in any way. I mean one out of forty tournaments, while Mass gets 5 and Penn gets 5, NH gets 4, NY gets 3 and even RI gets 2.

If the NCAA wants to promote hockey and get it out of saturated markets, why are they continuing to play so many tournaments in Eastern states??? Play ALL of our FFs in Vegas and Florida and maybe Arizona or Texas or Cali, as all would be neutral locations with pro hockey arenas and potential schools nearby that are considering starting up hockey, but don't avoid Minnesota while having lots of tourneys in Mass, NH, NY & RI and claim it's not biased and only for the good of college hockey.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Well since you stated that "33 of the last 49 titles(last 50 seasons). That is TWICE as many as Eastern teams have produced."...that would look to me that the NCAA is doing something that favors the west team does it not? Maybe travel and locations have benefits - team bonding, focus on game, etc.

No, the OBVIOUS reason for those results is simple, MORE TALENT in the west. You saw what I posted about 14 of the first 16 NCAA champs being Western teams, right? And 10 of the first 16 runner ups were from the west, as well. And the Western teams won most of the 3rd place games they played in against Eastern teams, and the scoring margins were heavily in favor of the western teams, and it wasn't even close!!!

[FredsDeadFriend]

So now the PWR is designed to help more Eastern teams get in. Please explain to us how the PWR factors in being a Western team vs. Eastern. Do Eastern teams get more credit for results? If we are simply breaking out East/West by league and the western leagues are WCHA/NCHC and Big Ten...2019 was an 8-8 split.

2018: 9-7 west
2017: 9-7 west
2016: 9-7 east
2015: 9-7 west
2014: 8-8
2013: 8-8
2012: 9-7 west
2011: 9-7 west

National titles in that time are 5-4 for the west. Ya, what a corrupt system we have. The east only won those 4 titles because the committee refuses to flood the tournament with 10+ western teams every year! You're simply talking out of your ***.

2016 national title game in the great western city of Tampa, FL: 19,358
2015 in Boston (here is where you will move the goalposts and say it's because BU played Providence): 18,022
2014 in Philly: 18,742
2013 in Pittsburgh: 18,184
2012 in Tampa: 18,818

Yeah, every 8 to 8 split should probably have been 9-7 and most of the 9-7 splits should probably have been 10-6. The East DOES produce really good teams, sometimes, BC for example, but as a whole, Eastern teams are simply weaker as a whole compared to Western teams, it's always been this way.

And I never claimed Florida for either the east or west, both Florida and Ohio I figured to be neutral.

But by your list there, that is 5 years straight without a FF in a Western state. 3 Eastern states and twice in Tampa.

[J.D.]

You made a point about FF attendance. Attendance has been pretty good everywhere until Buffalo. Hopefully they don't get it again. FF routinely goes to a lot of the same places now. I am sure Detroit will get one to make up for last year. Tampa, Boston, St. Paul and Vegas stand a good chance to see FFs going forward. If you wanna make a case that certain western bids were turned down and shouldn't have been, what are they? Who is being denied?

[Numbers]

FDF,
I don't know just how exactly you think that there is somehow an inherent, and willful, bias in the PWR. But, as far as I can see, the PWR which usually chooses the field is a completely neutral set of mathematical calculations. There would be little way for the people at the NCAA to manipulate it if they wished. And, there being no subjective criteria in choosing the field, any complaints about the distribution of the field in the last 30 are hollow complaints.

As far as regional sites....the NCAA handbook for bidding sites places so many very stringent rules on hosts, that there is very little room for the host arena to make a profit unless there are lots and lots of tickets sold to the regionals. This is the origin of the NC$$ moniker. Because it is that way (and clearly the motivation is to make money for the NCAA), then it is always feasible for the eastern sites of Bridgeport, Manchester, Albany, and a couple of others to bid. There are enough colleges close by that there will be fans from those schools in attendance. However, in the west, this is not the case. Take Loveland. In a non-COVID year, it's going to be very difficult for fans from Minnesota, Michigan, and other places to go to the regional. So, the only way it makes sense to host is under the assumption that Denver, or CC or Air Force qualifies. The only way that this would change is if it were possible to host on campus. Until about 12 years ago or so, it was possible, and there were years when the U of Minn hosted at Mariucci. Then, the NCAA deemed on campus sites to be too advantageous for the host school, and discouraged them. Since that time, the only on campus regionals have been at Notre Dame, and that was because (in the words of the NCAA), no one else bid for those Midwest Regionals.

Let me ask you this: If you can't host a Regional on campus, just where in Minnesota do you propose to host the regional? I can think of a couple of possibilities: One is the home rink of SCSU, which is not on campus. The other is the home rink of UMD, also not on campus. Have either of those schools bid to host? Not that I am aware of. There is, in the archives, an article suggesting that Duluth bid to host in 15 and in 16, and that article states that the NCAA preference is not only "not on-campus sites", but schools home rinks as well. As you can readily understand, this takes every good option in Minnesota out of the question.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the NCAA did this intentionally in order to favor eastern teams. I would say that is NOT the case, and that the NCAA actually did this ignorantly, not paying attention to the situation in the west. And, that, as a result of a policy which is ill founded, there is nowhere in Minnesota to host a regional.

Everything you write about the NCAA Tournament can easily be attributed to this kind of ignorance. It's not intentional. It's just that the NCAA is fairly blind to the realities in the west.

[Numbers]

Future Frozen Fours:
2023 - Tampa
2024 - St Paul
2025 - St Louis
2026 - Vegas

Looks pretty west to me.

ETA:
Future Regionals:
2022: Loveland (Denver host), Allentown (Penn State), Albany (ECAC), Worcester (Holy Cross?)
2023: Fargo (NoDak), Allentown, Bridgeport, Manchester
2024: Sioux Falls, SD (NoDak), Maryland Heights, MO (who hosts here?), Providence, Springfield
2025: Fargo, Toledo, Allentown, Manchester
2026: Loveland, Sioux Falls, Albany, Worcester

There are about 6 host sites in the Northeastern US which make sense, and they all get their turn.
Further west, look at it: Fargo is North Dakota's bid. Sioux Falls is Omaha's bid, but it is done with the understanding that if North Dakota goes there, Fighting Hawk fans will fill the place. Those fans will easily run down I-29, even 4 or 5 hours to Sioux Falls, to support their team.
The other places? Well, Allentown has Penn State nearby, plus its close to some of the more eastern schools. So, there are fan bases nearby which gives a chance of making some money. Toledo was a disaster the last time, but it might be worth another shot. Loveland requires one of the Colorado schools to qualify. I'm really curious about Maryland Heights. I don't know who made the bid.

But, the point here is: There is no place in Minnesota or Michigan or Wisconsin which is not a home rink of a team, which has a chance of making money. The only one that has been tried recently was Green Bay (Resch Center), and attendance was bad, and they haven't bid again.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Goals scored totals I list, only include games where Western teams played Eastern teams.

1948 - Western team won the Title and Western teams outscored Eastern teams 18 goals to 16.
1949 - Eastern teams win the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Western teams 11 to 5 in goals scored. This was the only time in first 16 years of NCAA tourney that 2 Eastern teams got into the Title Game.
1950 - Western team won the Title and 3rd place game, outscoring Eastern teams 36 to 17 in goals scored.
1951 - Western team won the Title but lost the 3rd place game, but still outscored Eastern teams 23 to 18 in goals scored.
1952 - Western team won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 13 to 6 in goals scored.
1953 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 17 to 4 in goals scored.
1954 - Eastern team won the Title with a Western team winning Runner Up and the 3rd place game, and Western teams outscored Eastern teams 31 to 14 in goals scored. So even when an Eastern team wins a Title, they do it just barely winning both their games, and the evidence shows it was an exception to the general rule, as the other Eastern team was way outclassed by both western teams.
1955 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 9 to 4 in goals scored.
1956 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 12 to 5 in goals scored.
1957 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 11 to 4 in goals scored.
1958 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 15 to 3 in goals scored.
1959 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 8 to 6 in goals scored.
1960 - Western teams won the Title and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 19 to 7 in goals scored.

1961 - Western team won the Title, but both Eastern teams were paired in the Semis, with the Western team winning the 3rd place game, outscoring the Eastern teams 16 to 5 in goals scored.

1962 - Western teams won the Title, and the 3rd place game, outscoring Eastern teams 22 to 8 in goals scored.
1963 - Western teams won the Title, and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 14 to 4 in goals scored.
1964 - Western teams won the Title, and Runner Up, outscoring Eastern teams 7 to 3 in goals scored.
1965 - Western teams won the Title, and the 3rd place game, outscoring Eastern teams 24 to 11 in goals scored.
1966 - Western teams won the Title, and the 3rd place game, outscoring Eastern teams 15 to 9 in goals scored.
1967 - Eastern teams won the Title, and Runner up, outscoring Western teams 5 to 2 in goals scored.
1968 - Western teams won the Title, and Runner up, outscoring Eastern teams 11 to 2 in goals scored.
1969 - Western team won the Title, but Eastern teams were Runner Up and won the 3rd place game, but Western teams outscored Eastern teams 21 to 15 in goals scored.
1970 - Eastern teams won the Title, and Runner Up, outscoring Western teams 12 to 8 in goals scored.


1971-2019 are the 49 tourney's in 50 years I've already mentioned.

So in total, throughout history, Western teams won 52 Titles to the East's 20.

52 > 20 WOW!!!

And in the first 23 seasons the Western teams PUMMELED Eastern teams scoring wise, with Western teams outscoring Eastern teams 20 out of 23 seasons, even in a year when an Eastern team won the Title.


How much more evidence do you need to prove that Western Hockey IS and always has been superior to Eastern Hockey?

[UMLFan]

I mean... I can't help but laugh.

[Bonin21]

Right question.

Because "I'm sure" isn't proof.

I think what Numbers said above how "No neutral site in Minnesota really works for this set up" makes sense, but I don't know that for sure either.

I don't know who this crazy guy is but the Gophers have not been putting in bids all the time anymore because the X is too big. It's bad because UND is ending up with essentially home ice advantage to the FF every two years.

It's time to go back to campus locations.

[Bonin21]

But yes, West (the old WCHA teams) is Best. : )

[FredsDeadFriend]

This state of hockey argument is amusing, especially when there's a state that has 19 national championships. If we're going to use arbitrary stuff like "state of hockey" in an NCAA tournament bid conversation, then let's just give LSSU a tourney bid now without having to even play the Bemidji game tonight because the Lakers are from the state with 19 titles.

Only 9 of those 19 titles were in the last 50 years. So if you feel it appropriate to reward the state of Michigan for recruiting a ton of Minnesotans and Canadians back in the 40s, 50s and 60s and winning titles way back then, go ahead, try to make that argument. UMn focused their recruiting on Minnesotans and were rewarded by DWARFING the state of Michigan in the # of players picked to represent the US in the Olympics and the # of players inducted into the US Hockey Hall of Fame, as well.

Realistically, University of Michigan hasn't won a title in the 21st Century, neither has LSSU or NMU or Mich Tech, so Mich St is the only Michigan based team to win a title in the 21st Century. The State of Minnesota, on the other hand, has won 5 Titles and gotten to 7 title games to only 2 by Michigan teams, on the men's side, with 12 Minnesota teams winning titles on the women's side.

[FredsDeadFriend]

I mean... I can't help but laugh.

At the East? Yeah, Eastern hockey is pretty hilarious, lol.

[FredsDeadFriend]

You made a point about FF attendance. Attendance has been pretty good everywhere until Buffalo. Hopefully they don't get it again. FF routinely goes to a lot of the same places now. I am sure Detroit will get one to make up for last year. Tampa, Boston, St. Paul and Vegas stand a good chance to see FFs going forward. If you wanna make a case that certain western bids were turned down and shouldn't have been, what are they? Who is being denied?

Well, I got my attendance figures from Wikipedia, so they very well might not be reliable, seeing as sometimes they report the attendance just of the Title game, or of the whole tournament same as they report the Frozen Four attendance, so I could be wrong on that angle? Not a hill I will die on right now. But my point of consistency still stands, IF staying out of saturated markets is the reason for avoiding Minnesota for the most part, why not avoid Mass or NY or Penn or Conn? If Western teams have to fly most or all the time, then Eastern teams should also have to fly most or all of the time, too. Most of us would enjoy going to Florida or Texas or Arizona or Southern Cal or to Vegas in April. That would be fair to all, and would help promote the sport.

[FredsDeadFriend]

FDF,
I don't know just how exactly you think that there is somehow an inherent, and willful, bias in the PWR. But, as far as I can see, the PWR which usually chooses the field is a completely neutral set of mathematical calculations. There would be little way for the people at the NCAA to manipulate it if they wished. And, there being no subjective criteria in choosing the field, any complaints about the distribution of the field in the last 30 are hollow complaints.

Watching College hockey for decades now, and being a stats geek, it's been obvious to me that the PWR is basically nothing more than the RPI. They don't start out matching top to bottom, and even later in the season sometimes vary slightly, but for the most part, by the end of the season, the PWR almost exactly matches the RPI, because SO much of how it's calculated, depends on the same or far too similar of mathematical equations.

The NCAA Colllege Basketball Selection Committee gave up on the RPI a long time ago, after years of criticism for their depending on it, as it is a ******** rating system, probably the WORST math based rating system in the history of college sports. Yet College hockey is STILL married to it.


It's basically a system that far too much rewards wins even against creampuffs and punishes teams for losing to even the best of competition.


So... the bias comes from teams playing in weak conferences being rewarded with being rated highly and teams competing in very tough conferences struggling to get any respect from the PWR.