2024 Pairwise and Tournament Qualification Thread

[ticapnews]

You're choosing to be obtuse about this.

No, I'm the one being reasonable.

I'm not married to the idea either way, I object to changing precedent on a whim. If it's something that needs to be addressed, do it in the off-season. Like every other change. Not a week before the tournament field is selected.

If the NCAA wanted to change this, the time would have been after the 2003 tournament when #1 Cornell was screwed even though the committee could have made numerous exceptions, including intra conference match ups (the WCHA had five teams) or turned #12 Harvard and #11 Ohio State into 4 seeds. It did nothing. It allowed Cornell to play the overall #14 team instead of the overall #37. And then didn't change the rules.

Now you are proposing we change those rules in the middle of the selection process for no other reason than convenience. Not even because it will hurt the #1 overall seed.

[J.D.]

In the middle of the selection process? Wodon is the one who said it's not an ironclad rule. If it is then obviously I am not saying they should change it in the middle of this year's selection process. I would say they should seriously consider changing the rule to give themselves more flexibility to create a bracket that is actually logical.

[Numbers]

If I may.....
The reason for the "5 teams in one conference qualify" exception to No Intraconference Games is simple:
Let's say you have 2 #2s and 3#s from the same conference. You're stuck. You literally have no options, except for 2 conference-mates to play each other.
The rule is NOT there for seasons like this one, where NCHC may have 5 schools, but they will be spread across 3 seed bands.

In reality, what will happen is that Denver and NoDak will play BSU and RIT if it happens that Western Mich and CC are the #13 and 14 seeds. That's precendence. It will happen, and BC and BU will face WMU and CC in that case.

Just like, in the case where UMass is the #13, then BC goes to Providence, and BU goes to either Sioux Falls or Maryland Heights. It's the rule. It's the way the committee has always followed the rule (no matter who was on the committee).

Some fans might not like it. But, it is the way it is.

As for swapping 12 and 13.....Here's the problem with that. Suppose they are in the same regional, and both win in Round 1. Now, who has the home ice for the Region Final? Or, more possibly, let's say that the #13 PWR team, who gets seeded 12th, plays in some other region (not with the other 12/13 team). If they win, and the #4 in that region wins, then the #13 PWR gets a "last change" game. And, conversely, if the team that was dropped from 12 to 13 wins, and the #3 in their region also wins, then they play a road rules game, even though, originally, noth of those teams were #3 seeds. The committe doesn't want this, and that is the reason for the rule about "no switching bands."

[BC/HE]

So if North Dakota wins the NCHC and Michigan State the B1G they both likely end up as 1 seeds then we would then see how well the committee follows precedent. If UMass is a 4 there would be no other option than to place North Dakota in Springfield pitting Michigan State against the NCHC 4 seed. That would also likely be a 1/16,2/15,3/14 and 4/13 perfect bracket.

[J.D.]

If I may.....
The reason for the "5 teams in one conference qualify" exception to No Intraconference Games is simple:
Let's say you have 2 #2s and 3#s from the same conference. You're stuck. You literally have no options, except for 2 conference-mates to play each other.
The rule is NOT there for seasons like this one, where NCHC may have 5 schools, but they will be spread across 3 seed bands.

In reality, what will happen is that Denver and NoDak will play BSU and RIT if it happens that Western Mich and CC are the #13 and 14 seeds. That's precendence. It will happen, and BC and BU will face WMU and CC in that case.

Just like, in the case where UMass is the #13, then BC goes to Providence, and BU goes to either Sioux Falls or Maryland Heights. It's the rule. It's the way the committee has always followed the rule (no matter who was on the committee).

Some fans might not like it. But, it is the way it is.

As for swapping 12 and 13.....Here's the problem with that. Suppose they are in the same regional, and both win in Round 1. Now, who has the home ice for the Region Final? Or, more possibly, let's say that the #13 PWR team, who gets seeded 12th, plays in some other region (not with the other 12/13 team). If they win, and the #4 in that region wins, then the #13 PWR gets a "last change" game. And, conversely, if the team that was dropped from 12 to 13 wins, and the #3 in their region also wins, then they play a road rules game, even though, originally, noth of those teams were #3 seeds. The committe doesn't want this, and that is the reason for the rule about "no switching bands."

Precedents can change. Committee isn't the same every year. Common sense says 12 v. 13 fighting over who the home team is doesn't compare to #1 in the PWR going from playing #31 in the PWR to playing #14 in the PWR. It also simply doesn't make any sense to give the #3 and #4 overall seeds a distinct advantage over #1 and #2. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean it has to stay that way when there is a better solution. In the scenario being proposed here I think the qualifier would be that it would happen when 12 and 13 are kept in same regional. I am just open to flexibility when it is logical. It doesn't have to be this rigid.

[ticapnews]

Precedents can change. Committee isn't the same every year. Common sense says 12 v. 13 fighting over who the home team is doesn't compare to #1 in the PWR going from playing #31 in the PWR to playing #14 in the PWR. It also simply doesn't make any sense to give the #3 and #4 overall seeds a distinct advantage over #1 and #2. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean it has to stay that way when there is a better solution. In the scenario being proposed here I think the qualifier would be that it would happen when 12 and 13 are kept in same regional. I am just open to flexibility when it is logical. It doesn't have to be this rigid.

Except I literally just showed you a previous example of that exact thing happening. #1 played #14 while #2 played #37. This a rule the NCAA has consistently followed for decades.

Is there a reason this is suddenly a problem this season?

[amkirby10]

Well, just to offer my thoughts, unsolicited of course.

I dont mind the idea of the rule to avoid conference games in the first round of the national tourney. I agree with the basic premise, that being that its more interesting to mix up the matchups and not see the same sets of opponents constantly. The rule itself is not the problem.

However, where I take issue with the rule is how strictly the NCAA has proven themselves willing to stick to it. To use this year as an example, in what world does it make sense to send BU to South Dakota instead of Massachusetts, and the reverse for North Dakota? Just to avoid playing UMA and UNO, respectively? That seems foolish at best and simply asinine at worst. There should be no question about the Fighting Hawks being in Sioux Falls, and the Terriers in Springfield, conference matchup or otherwise.

Now, having said all this, I don't expect a change to occur for this year's tourney, or even any time soon. If the Minutemen and Mavericks end up as 4 seeds, then it'll be tough tooties for both BU and UND. They've proven time and again that this rule is gospel, ironclad, unless it is literally unavoidable.

[Seacaptim]

Jim Connelly’s bracket prediction
Providence, R.I.
1. Boston College
6. Maine
9. Wisconsin
14. Colorado College

Maryland Heights, Mo.
4. Denver
7. Quinnipiac
10. Michigan
13. Western Michigan

Sioux Falls, S.D.
3. North Dakota
8. Minnesota
11. Omaha
15. RIT

Springfield, Mass.
2. Boston University
5. Michigan State
12. Massachusetts
16. Bemidji State

I would make one additional change here. Bemidji and Colorado College swap places, as #1 BC should be playing #16 BMS. This is common sense.
Read the article to gain his rationale…I disagreee with him on attendance. Providence will not have a great crowd and I am not sure that Springfield will either. It is Easter weekend and some games are Friday at 2:00 (Providence) and Easter Sunday. If BC students were not on Easter break, they may have sent a few busloads to Providence…hope I am wrong.

[J.D.]

Except I literally just showed you a previous example of that exact thing happening. #1 played #14 while #2 played #37. This a rule the NCAA has consistently followed for decades.

Is there a reason this is suddenly a problem this season?

I don't understand what this means. You pointed out an example from like 20 years ago. The committee changes every year and precedents can change. Just because they made a decision on something similar 20 years ago has absolutely no bearing on what they might do now. Suddenly this season? Maybe because it's not a scenario we see unfold every season. That's why.

[J.D.]

Jim Connelly’s bracket prediction
Providence, R.I.
1. Boston College
6. Maine
9. Wisconsin
14. Colorado College

Maryland Heights, Mo.
4. Denver
7. Quinnipiac
10. Michigan
13. Western Michigan

Sioux Falls, S.D.
3. North Dakota
8. Minnesota
11. Omaha
15. RIT

Springfield, Mass.
2. Boston University
5. Michigan State
12. Massachusetts
16. Bemidji State

I would make one additional change here. Bemidji and Colorado College swap places, as #1 BC should be playing #16 BMS. This is common sense.
Read the article to gain his rationale…I disagreee with him on attendance. Providence will not have a great crowd and I am not sure that Springfield will either. It is Easter weekend and some games are Friday at 2:00 (Providence) and Easter Sunday. If BC students were not on Easter break, they may have sent a few busloads to Providence…hope I am wrong.

Christ almighty, Connelly goes with the all NCHC game but then decides it would be the #2 overall seed who gets #16 and #1 to play #14?

[ticapnews]

I don't understand what this means. You pointed out an example from like 20 years ago. The committee changes every year and precedents can change. Just because they made a decision on something similar 20 years ago has absolutely no bearing on what they might do now. Suddenly this season? Maybe because it's not a scenario we see unfold every season. That's why.

Yes, there is a new committee every season, but the policies, procedures and rules remain constant. The ones that need to be changed are done in the off-season. They have followed this protocol consistently, whoever has been on the committee. The only time there has been an intra conference opening round game was when there was no other option because one conference had 5 teams in the middle pairing and it was unavoidable.

But it would have been avoidable if they had considered changing a team into another band. The committee didn't do that.

[King]

Hi all, just read thru the thread and do not see this addressed: AIC is a co-host in Springfield, MA with UMA; is there some reason they are not being discussed as needing to be placed in Springfield if they win their tourney? If they do need to be placed in Springfield, what happens if UMA loses on Friday to fall to a 4 seed and AIC wins on Saturday to also be a 4 seed?

Also, a few issues with Connelly’s bracket: 1) overall 1 will play overall 16 bc of yuge discrepancy in CCHA team rankings vs CC/WMU etc; 2) overall 2 will not be protected and play one of the NCHC teams, swapping with overall 3 who will play AHA champ; 3) makes no sense to have 6v9 and 7v10 when 9/10 are from same conference—should be 6v10 and 7v9. So I have it:

Providence: 1 BC, 7 QU, 9 Bucky, 16 Bemidji
Maryland Heights: 4 Denver, 6 Maine, 10 Mich, 13 Western
Springfield: 2 BU, 5 Mich St, 12 UMass, 14 CC
Sioux Falls: 3 Nodak, 8 Minn, 11 Omaha, 15 RIT

Hope everyone is well

[J.D.]

I believe the AIC thing is incorrect. They are not a co-host. Because the only thing that could be dumber here is having multiple hosts for a site when they could finish in the same magical band.

[King]

I believe the AIC thing is incorrect. They are not a co-host. Because the only thing that could be dumber here is having multiple hosts for a site when they could finish in the same magical band.

Upon what information are you basing your assumption that AIC is not a co-host? The NCAA ticket offer emails I receive show AIC as a co-host and if you simply Google “AIC hockey regional host”, there are plenty of articles with quotes from AIC and MassMutual Center bigwigs.

[manurespreader]

Their problem is that it's too much to worry about. Heaven forbid they would have to come up with some sort of creative solution when they could obnubulate with impunity.