Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

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

  • UMICHhockeyRULZ
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by nmupiccdiva View Post
    I thought the goal was to prevent inter-conference match-ups. We could easily see a CCHA or CHA only final for the Ft. Wayne bracket.

    That being said, GO BEAVERS!!!
    Silly northern fan intelligence is for Michigan fans.

    The committee only cares about first-round INTRA-conference match-ups. If teams from the same conference face each-other in later rounds so be it.

    Your envy is noted...

    Leave a comment:


  • UMICHhockeyRULZ
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by Puck Swami View Post
    I freely admit my envy of Michigan. Constantly. Those 9 NCAA titles, the 5 goal outburst to whip us after we went up 3-0 in Worcester Regional in 1999, the Ortmeyer goal/comeback in 2002 in an Ann Arbor, and the fact we haven't played a regular season game against each other since 1981. Add in the great fight song, the good band, the creative fans and loud rink...

    Count me in as envious. **** envious.
    As someone who was also very envious of Michigan BEFORE I went to school there I respect your comment and thank you for expressing your frustration. It feels good to be on top, but you've been there too. Denver is no slouch...

    Leave a comment:


  • alnike
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by dggoddard View Post
    Refs will have Michigan's back.
    dggoddard will literally be on the Denver players' backs.

    Leave a comment:


  • UMICHhockeyRULZ
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by Federal League View Post
    How funny/awesome would it be if Huntsville beat both Miami and Michigan?
    As a Michigan fan Alabama-Huntsville taking those two teams out would blow, but I'm biased. After last year I do suddenly see that as a scary possibility though. However, don't forget about Bedmidji....

    Leave a comment:


  • UMICHhockeyRULZ
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by Bakunin View Post
    Yes. Each group of four is considered a band and each member of each group is interchangeable (as long as they aren't hosting).
    Yes and no. If certain conditions such as intra-conference match-ups, or in this case attendence exist it is permissable as long as the bands stay in tact. If those situations do not exist no, 1 v. 16, 2 v. 15, etc. should remain in-tact.

    As a Michigan Fan/Alumnus I really don't care where they go. Sure, this works out better for the fans that will be going to the Regional (I am unfortunately not), but Michigan travels well in general anyway.

    Actually, these changes make even more sense when you look at what the brackets would have been like if they stayed firm in the seeding. The Northeastern region would have been unreal with BC, NoDak, and Michigan all in the same region. The other three regions would have paled in comparison.

    Leave a comment:


  • UMICHhockeyRULZ
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by HuskySieve View Post
    Maybe they felt like Miami couldn't carry attendence there?
    Miami couldn't. Are they a good team? Yes, but they are a MAC school.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.D.
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Love what the committee did. Kept the quarterfinal bracket integrity in tact and only messed with the #3 seeds. Two western teams and two eastern teams. Makes sense to keep them where they did. The Midwest needed more of an attendance boost than St. Paul, so Michigan instead of NMU made sense. Can't have Yale face Cornell, so send UNH to Albany.

    Nobody wants a dead regional. I think these will be some good ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bakunin
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by nmu_27 View Post
    All #3 seeds are a 'band' though, right? Them being switched isn't too big of a surprise.
    Yes. Each group of four is considered a band and each member of each group is interchangeable (as long as they aren't hosting).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by thebrain View Post
    Original bracketology from November 10, 2009:
    http://www.uscho.com/blogs/bracketol...cketology.html


    Final Bracket:
    So way back in November it got 7 right, and 2 of the seeds. Air Force is there as AHA Champ, so that doesn't count. The "cut line" was 14, so 50%. Not bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • thebrain
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Original bracketology from November 10, 2009:
    http://www.uscho.com/blogs/bracketol...cketology.html
    West Regional (St. Paul)
    1. Bemidji State vs. 16 Air Force
    8 Cornell vs. 9 Western Michigan

    East Regional (Albany)
    2 Miami vs. 15 Minn.-Duluth
    7 Alaska vs. 10 Boston College

    Northeast Regional (Worcester)
    3 Michigan State vs. 13 Denver
    6 Massachusetts vs. 11 Colorado College

    Midwest Regional (Ft. Wayne)
    4 North Dakota vs. 14 Mass.-Lowell
    5 Quinnipiac vs. 12 Notre Dame
    Final Bracket:

    East Regional
    No. 1 Denver vs. No. 4 RIT
    No. 2 Cornell vs. No. 3 New Hampshire

    West Regional
    No. 2 St. Cloud State vs. No. 3 Northern Michigan
    No. 1 Wisconsin vs. No. 4 Vermont

    Northeast Regional
    No. 1 Boston College vs. No. 4 Alaska
    No. 2 North Dakota vs. No. 3 Yale

    Midwest Regional
    No. 1 Miami vs. No. 4 Alabama-Huntsville
    No. 2 Bemidji State vs. No. 3 Michigan

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyFanClub
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by LTsatch View Post
    Thanks to all of the pairwise prediction experts in this thread, it was an interesting education for me this year, and I really appreciated everyones insight. The main thing I took away from this season is attendance is a factor, whether or not some chose to believe it. The PWR held up well against the committees picks again though.
    Well, we believe it is now. It wasn't, by and large, for the 7 previous years. Each year, the people on the committee are different, circumstances are different, and they can do what they want, within guidelines. So they did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puck Swami
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by UMICHhockeyRULZ View Post
    The envy is unreal...
    I freely admit my envy of Michigan. Constantly. Those 9 NCAA titles, the 5 goal outburst to whip us after we went up 3-0 in Worcester Regional in 1999, the Ortmeyer goal/comeback in 2002 in an Ann Arbor, and the fact we haven't played a regular season game against each other since 1981. Add in the great fight song, the good band, the creative fans and loud rink...

    Count me in as envious. **** envious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Red Cloud
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by Eaglefan06 View Post
    I bet Red Cloud got the bracket 100% right.....right?
    What's up with the obsession, Eaglefan06?

    Leave a comment:


  • UMICHhockeyRULZ
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Originally posted by dggoddard View Post
    Refs will have Michigan's back.
    The envy is unreal...

    Leave a comment:


  • LTsatch
    replied
    Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

    Thanks to all of the pairwise prediction experts in this thread, it was an interesting education for me this year, and I really appreciated everyones insight. The main thing I took away from this season is attendance is a factor, whether or not some chose to believe it. The PWR held up well against the committees picks again though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X