Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2024 Pairwise and Tournament Qualification Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Scarlet View Post
    Out of curiosity, and I get it's not really apples to apples, how are the opening rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament done? Are schools hosts like in hockey? Has there ever been an issue with seeding due to a lower seed that had to play in an arena as the host?
    I believe that both the men's and women's bb tournament still have "host" institutions, but I think they handle them differently. On the men's side, I'm pretty sure that it's a rule that the host institution cannot have its team play at that site, so, exactly the opposite of men's hockey.

    The women's side is trickier. I think on the women's side, at least in the past, they've had some "host" schools who got to play at home against a team that was a higher seeded team.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

      I believe that both the men's and women's bb tournament still have "host" institutions, but I think they handle them differently. On the men's side, I'm pretty sure that it's a rule that the host institution cannot have its team play at that site, so, exactly the opposite of men's hockey.

      The women's side is trickier. I think on the women's side, at least in the past, they've had some "host" schools who got to play at home against a team that was a higher seeded team.
      Creighton was a host in Omaha last week but their team played in Pittsburgh so that confirms that the men's side does not place host schools at home. It appears on the women's side that the top seeds 1-4 all host at home.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

        I believe that both the men's and women's bb tournament still have "host" institutions, but I think they handle them differently. On the men's side, I'm pretty sure that it's a rule that the host institution cannot have its team play at that site, so, exactly the opposite of men's hockey.

        The women's side is trickier. I think on the women's side, at least in the past, they've had some "host" schools who got to play at home against a team that was a higher seeded team.
        In the men's tournament there are hosts for all of the eight first and second round sites and then the regional finals. You're right, the hosting rules are the exact opposite of hockey - the host team cannot play in any venue where they're the host under any circumstances in both the opening two rounds and the regionals. The other note is that the host institution is virtually guaranteed to profit off hosting because the men's tournament brings in a lot more revenue than hockey. Therefore, the hosts are often conferences or tourism boards in addition to schools. It's exceedingly rare that any kind of "host school shuffle" occurs in basketball, mostly because the big brand schools go out of their way not to host so they don't end up getting shipped thousands of miles away.

        In the women's tournament, they break the teams into four-team pods for the opening two rounds. Those games are automatically held at the home site of the top-seeded team. That means if you're a top-4 seed (of 16), you get to play up to two home games in the first two rounds. You also get to keep part of the ticket revenue. The women's tournament used to do four regional final sites but recently moved to two sites a lot like the old hockey super regionals. For instance, this year two regional brackets will play in Portland, OR and Albany. Of course, it's a lot easier to have four basketball games in one day at one venue than it is to have four hockey games.
        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        Comment


        • Originally posted by J.D. View Post
          Over the years one of my biggest problems with the PWR has been how you end up with Western in the field to begin with. Specifically in how they get in over other NCHC teams. Western finished in 6th place and got swept at St. Cloud in playoffs but still get in over CC and St. Cloud. I know it's math but that in-conference dynamic of the PWR has always bugged me.
          WMU -SCSU went to 3 games. Had WMU been swept they'd be out of the tournament.

          Comment


          • Seeing a lot of people complaining about the capacity size for the MO regional, justifiably so. I counted 17 or 18 AHL venues that would basically allow rotating every four years and most not running into any issues. Providence is already in rotation, and if they ever wanted to expand beyond Colorado for a host they always could... but then people would complain about the travel. Never seems to be a happy compromise. There was the conspiracy of "NCAA doesn't want more than one Minnesota team in the frozen four!" to it looking like it's being said about the Michigan-heavy one too.

            I think Denver should roll over UMass as they have really gotten hot in the second half and their freshmen have grown, so it shouldn't matter where or who they play. But yeah there should be a better answer than bidding for venues and people getting squeezed out of attending due to capacity.
            Living somewhere between North and South.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by brassbonanza View Post

              In the men's tournament there are hosts for all of the eight first and second round sites and then the regional finals. You're right, the hosting rules are the exact opposite of hockey - the host team cannot play in any venue where they're the host under any circumstances in both the opening two rounds and the regionals. The other note is that the host institution is virtually guaranteed to profit off hosting because the men's tournament brings in a lot more revenue than hockey. Therefore, the hosts are often conferences or tourism boards in addition to schools. It's exceedingly rare that any kind of "host school shuffle" occurs in basketball, mostly because the big brand schools go out of their way not to host so they don't end up getting shipped thousands of miles away.

              In the women's tournament, they break the teams into four-team pods for the opening two rounds. Those games are automatically held at the home site of the top-seeded team. That means if you're a top-4 seed (of 16), you get to play up to two home games in the first two rounds. You also get to keep part of the ticket revenue. The women's tournament used to do four regional final sites but recently moved to two sites a lot like the old hockey super regionals. For instance, this year two regional brackets will play in Portland, OR and Albany. Of course, it's a lot easier to have four basketball games in one day at one venue than it is to have four hockey games.
              To your point on the financial impacts of hosting, I believe that is exactly why it's different in hockey. I've read some feedback that there isn't a high volume of bids for regionals and much of the motivation for doing so is the prospect of getting the host team/fans in the building. I assume the revenue prospects are much more appealing when this is the case. I personally do not like the idea that the #1 seed gets punished by having to play against a host team as a #4. However, moving to a higher seeds host option introduces a lot of travel for the lower seeds especially if let's say there's an upset in round 1 and then they have to turn around and travel again for game #2. I don't like the idea of stretching out the regionals over two weekends to accommodate the potential for cross country travel. Maybe what we currently have is the best of a bunch of imperfect options.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ubish View Post

                WMU -SCSU went to 3 games. Had WMU been swept they'd be out of the tournament.

                Honestly, neither of those teams should be in based upon the smell test. However, if I had to choose between them SCSU 100% looking at the body of work and H2H. WMU played a Penn State like NC schedule and SCSU simply didn't do well against middle of the pack teams nationally. Digest this detail about these two teams -

                H2H - SCSU 5-2 (including playoff series)

                WMU 9-0-1 in non-conference play.
                Opponents - Ferris, Bowling Green, St. Lowrance, Lindenwood x4!!

                SCSU 4-5-1 in non-conference play.
                Opponents - St. Thomas, Minnesota State, Alaska, Michigan, and Bemidji.

                In addition, neither team was good down the stretch in conference play (prior to port season series).
                WMU since January 9-9-1
                SCSU since January 4-9-3 (2-1 in the shootout "ties")

                In my opinion, again if we're talking smell test and not Pairwise math, CC was better than both of these teams especially in the back half of the year. They just ran into a hot Omaha.
                Record since January 11-5-2
                CC's losses since January -
                Loss @ Minnesota (series split)
                OT loss @ UMD (series split)
                OT loss vs SCSU (series split)
                Loss @ Omaha (Loss/tie)
                Loss @ Denver (series split)​​​

                Comment


                • Originally posted by StateofHockey78 View Post


                  Honestly, neither of those teams should be in based upon the smell test. However, if I had to choose between them SCSU 100% looking at the body of work and H2H. WMU played a Penn State like NC schedule and SCSU simply didn't do well against middle of the pack teams nationally. Digest this detail about these two teams -

                  H2H - SCSU 5-2 (including playoff series)

                  WMU 9-0-1 in non-conference play.
                  Opponents - Ferris, Bowling Green, St. Lowrance, Lindenwood x4!!

                  SCSU 4-5-1 in non-conference play.
                  Opponents - St. Thomas, Minnesota State, Alaska, Michigan, and Bemidji.

                  In addition, neither team was good down the stretch in conference play (prior to port season series).
                  WMU since January 9-9-1
                  SCSU since January 4-9-3 (2-1 in the shootout "ties")

                  In my opinion, again if we're talking smell test and not Pairwise math, CC was better than both of these teams especially in the back half of the year. They just ran into a hot Omaha.
                  Record since January 11-5-2
                  CC's losses since January -
                  Loss @ Minnesota (series split)
                  OT loss @ UMD (series split)
                  OT loss vs SCSU (series split)
                  Loss @ Omaha (Loss/tie)
                  Loss @ Denver (series split)​​​
                  WMU is a strange team. I think they rank in the top 10 or 12 in both offense and defense this year. Their advance stats are dynamite. I watched them play two games at North Dakota and thought they were the best team I'd seen this year. I think the "expected goals" in those two games were something like 5-2 WMU and 3-1 WMU, and they got swept.

                  I watched them dismantle a very good DU team twice in the four games they played.

                  But they finished sixth in league play. Honestly, I really don't get it. All I know is I don't want my team playing them if WMU happens to be "on" that night.
                  That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                    WMU is a strange team. I think they rank in the top 10 or 12 in both offense and defense this year. Their advance stats are dynamite. I watched them play two games at North Dakota and thought they were the best team I'd seen this year. I think the "expected goals" in those two games were something like 5-2 WMU and 3-1 WMU, and they got swept.

                    I watched them dismantle a very good DU team twice in the four games they played.

                    But they finished sixth in league play. Honestly, I really don't get it. All I know is I don't want my team playing them if WMU happens to be "on" that night.
                    Totally agree they are an enigma. To a lesser degree that's been true in spurts over the last two+ seasons. I remember last season they were the hottest team in the NCHC for almost two months and then they got boned by Denver and CC at the end of the year and had no mojo heading into the NCAA. To your point, that is still not a #4 seed you want to be dealing with IF they find their game.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by StateofHockey78 View Post

                      Honestly, neither of those teams should be in based upon the smell test. However, if I had to choose between them SCSU 100% looking at the body of work and H2H. WMU played a Penn State like NC schedule and SCSU simply didn't do well against middle of the pack teams nationally. Digest this detail about these two teams -

                      H2H - SCSU 5-2 (including playoff series)

                      WMU 9-0-1 in non-conference play.
                      Opponents - Ferris, Bowling Green, St. Lowrance, Lindenwood x4!!

                      SCSU 4-5-1 in non-conference play.
                      Opponents - St. Thomas, Minnesota State, Alaska, Michigan, and Bemidji.

                      In addition, neither team was good down the stretch in conference play (prior to port season series).
                      WMU since January 9-9-1
                      SCSU since January 4-9-3 (2-1 in the shootout "ties")

                      In my opinion, again if we're talking smell test and not Pairwise math, CC was better than both of these teams especially in the back half of the year. They just ran into a hot Omaha.
                      Record since January 11-5-2
                      CC's losses since January -
                      Loss @ Minnesota (series split)
                      OT loss @ UMD (series split)
                      OT loss vs SCSU (series split)
                      Loss @ Omaha (Loss/tie)
                      Loss @ Denver (series split)​​​
                      This happens a lot with pairwise which is why a lot of people like the KRACH model instead of RPI used in Pairwise. With KRACH they're rated CC #13, WMU #16 and SCSU #17 vs. RPI it's WMU #13, CC#15 and SCSU #17. KRACH rewards teams more for a stronger strength of schedule than RPI typically
                      Last edited by sigx15; 03-26-2024, 09:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • You’re right that Western can be a very good team when they are on. They are a veteran team and Rowe can be very tough in net. They scored 21 goals in their four games with Denver and played very well in Grand Forks. Even the NoDak announcers said they deserved a better fate.

                        Western did have one bad loss. Miami beat us by one for their only NCHC win this season. Broncos were 1/8 on the PP in that game and getting into OT most likely would have locked up a #3 seed. Our offense and defense numbers along with our PK performance have been near top ten. The Broncos largest deficiency has been PP efficiency. Our total season number is about 21%. However, in the 19 NCHC games in 2024 we are 9/66 — 13.6%. Get that number up in the mid 20s where it should be and we would have been comfortably in the mix. We’re a good 5 on 5 team but things sometimes just slow down when we’re on the PP.

                        My feeling is that this team has underperformed this year and really could have been a 2 or 3 seed. If the team that played at NoDak or the team that beat Denver 7-2 on the road shows up, Sparty will have their hands full.
                        Last edited by Sugarisland; 03-27-2024, 07:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sugarisland View Post
                          You’re right that Western can be a very good team when they are on. They are a veteran team....
                          Yikes. Western D-man Zak Galambos turns 27 in two months. Covid year hold my beer.

                          WMU has been effective at assembling a team together in this second to last year of 5th year covid grad transfers.

                          Comment


                          • Ignoring the Boston schools (who ultimately showed their strength / dominance / depth), all games in the first round were close games. (But even those two games were one-goal games through most of or all of the second period.) The other two #1 seeds needed overtime to win over (on paper, but not on the ice) much weaker teams. Five games were decided by one goal, with three going to overtime. Three #3 teams (two from the ECAC) won. An exciting tournament to watch so far. Hoping for some more upsets to frustrate the pundits.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X