Originally posted by CLS
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Expand The Brackets?
Collapse
X
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Originally posted by Puck Swami View PostNo expansion is needed. If your team can't make the tourney under the PWR system in the top quartile of 58 NCAA teams or by winning the conference tourney (the second chance opportunity), your team doesn't deserve to be dancing. Period.
DU was the last team left out of the dance in 2006 and 2007, and the team didn't deserve a berth.
The PWR system is transparent, and every team knows exactly what they need to do to secure a spot.
The tournament is fine the way it is. The regular season should mean something.
The way I look at it, the National Tournament begins with the Conference Tournaments. The Conference Tournaments give EVERY TEAM (except the 9th and 10 place teams in HE), regardless of how mediocre their regular season performance, a second chance. They can get in the National Tournament by winning their Conference Tournament.
Perhaps Providence and Northeastern have a beef, since they're the only teams that didn't get a "second chance", but I hope they have enough pride to admit that they don't really deserve the chance.
How many opportunities should mediocre teams get?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Originally posted by uwbadgers14 View PostI would like to see the tournament with a few more teams in it but its not a popular idea with many of the people on these boards, for whatever reason...
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
We need to worry about having more D-I programs such that we can justify the 16-team field before we even think of asking for something beyond that. Get to 64 teams (that's 6 more programs, assuming no one else folds) and we're good with what we got.
I think we'd need to get to 70 teams before we even dream of an 18 team field, 80 teams before we think of a 20 team field.
Originally posted by Puck Swami View PostThe PWR system is transparent, and every team knows exactly what they need to do to secure a spot.
Until the committee breaks form from the PWR, we have no one bickering about bubble teams getting in because of "quality wins" or all the other BS you hear about with the basketball tourney.
There aren't any polling numbers used, like the BCS. The numbers don't factor in anything besides wins and losses. The only "bias" possible is in how we chose the weight factors for RPI and in how we define a TUC. Both of those factors are settled before the season begins. The selection process is pretty much as unbiased as determining the field for the Stanley Cup playoffs.
The only argument I've ever seen that's worth having is whether we should use KRACH instead of RPI. Every other complaint has been soundly rejected by 90% of this board. What's not to like about that?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
No expansion is needed. If your team can't make the tourney under the PWR system in the top quartile of 58 NCAA teams or by winning the conference tourney (the second chance opportunity), your team doesn't deserve to be dancing. Period.
DU was the last team left out of the dance in 2006 and 2007, and the team didn't deserve a berth.
The PWR system is transparent, and every team knows exactly what they need to do to secure a spot.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
I favor 12 teams..with the 1 seed getting a bye till the regional final
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Originally posted by FRICKER View PostIf the BB guys can talk about expanding to 96 teams (when a #16 hasn't EVER beaten a #1), why can't we talk about a modest expansion from the fiels of 16? What I'd like to see is and expansion from sixteen to 20 or 22 teams, with Nos. 17-20 or 22 playing a "playin game" against Nos. 13-16.
There are always teams that end up on the outside looking in, but #17 probably is usually more deserving of a chance that a #21 or 23. For example,
Ferris State was a top ranked team all year and didn't make the field becasue of a couple close losses. Whatdaya think?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
I ws thinking about posting a thread about this exact idea last night.....
I could see expanding the teams to 28 teams.
All 4 #1 seeds get a first round bye
teams 2-6 in each bracket would play the first round games. And then they would be re-seeded lowest seed still alive plays their regional #1
First Round games would be played on Thursday and Friday, Round of 16 Played Sat and Sunday.
This way you would have pretty much all winning programs with a chance to be Cinderella. Just my 2 Cents.Last edited by GopherBigGuy911; 03-22-2010, 12:43 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Originally posted by Dirty View PostHow about a triple-elimination tournament?
Maybe we should use the base-ketball format and let the tournament go on for 8 months on ESPN Ocho
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Loss of the CHA champ next year is effectively a 1 team expansion over this year (one more at-large gets in). Don't like the idea of expansion or retraction from 16. The current tournament is tough to get into, but still includes some smaller schools capable of upset. We may need some tweaks as far as host sites for attendance reasons, but the size of the tournament should be left alone.
Leave a comment:
-
Expand The Brackets?
For the record, Hammer:
* my dad - West Point
* me - Clarkson
* son #1 - UNH
* son #2 - Lake Superior State
Ok, if you don't like expanding the field, how about going with an (8) team including league champs & regular season champs from Hockey East, ECAC, CCHA, and WCHA, with the two of those with the worst records playing a play-in game. Of course, Minnesota & BU should always get first round byes.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
For fairness's sake, maybe I'll start a "back to 12 teams?" thread.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Even as a fan of the second team out this season, I still say no. For a 58-team division, our tournament's the perfect size. Absolutely no changes are needed or necessary.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: