Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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

  • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    If the goal is to weed out those that aren't "legitimate championship contenders", then isn't a series of games, rather than a one and done scenario more likely to accomplish that?
    I know this isnt what you were saying I am just using your post as a way to get my comment out there...by making the Tourny aren't they automatically "contenders"?
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

      Originally posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
      I wasn't necessarily implying that the "weeding out" is the goal to having auto-bid teams in the tournament, just that teams that manage to lose to an auto-bid essentially make the statement to the nation that they weren't championship material this time around despite earning a high seed, and have consequently been "weeded out". It happens in the one-and-done bouncy-ball tournament every year (just ask Kansas) and you don't hear anyone on TV whining about it as much as praising the tournament for its excitement and unpredictability.
      And actually, a multi-game series does less "weeding out" of the favored teams than of the cinderellas by giving the favorite home team a second chance to make adjustments.
      Because that's where we should look to for guidance? Dick Vitale? You realize those talking heads have a vested interest in upsets? They need material to gab for umpteen million hours. Of course they babble on about the virtue of the lucky bounce.

      I'd like a system that produces a national champion, as much as is reasonably possible, who is the best team in the land.

      Screw Cinderella.

      Comment


      • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

        Originally posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
        I wasn't necessarily implying that the "weeding out" is the goal to having auto-bid teams in the tournament, just that teams that manage to lose to an auto-bid essentially make the statement to the nation that they weren't championship material this time around despite earning a high seed, and have consequently been "weeded out". It happens in the one-and-done bouncy-ball tournament every year (just ask Kansas) and you don't hear anyone on TV whining about it as much as praising the tournament for its excitement and unpredictability.
        And actually, a multi-game series does less "weeding out" of the favored teams than of the cinderellas by giving the favorite home team a second chance to make adjustments.
        For a little over 10 years they played NCAA tournament games on campus at the site of the higher seed.

        In 1984, Bowling Green got hammered on the road in Boston by BU, 6-3 in the first game of their two game total goal series. They came back to win the second night and advanced, eventually winning their one and only championship.

        The following year, Providence lost their first game in East Lansing to MSU, won the second night and eventually lost a very close championship game to RPI.

        In 1988, LSSU won their first championship. They did so even though they lost their first game to Merrimack, the bottom seed in the western region. However, they won game two and eventually their first championship.

        I am sure there may be other examples, especially in conference tournament play. None of those teams demonstrated, or made a statement, that they weren't championship material by their first game loss. In fact, the format then in use permitted those teams to demonstrate they truly were championship material with an ability to bounce back in the face of adversity.

        A team like DU losing to RIT doesn't mean DU wasn't a very real contender for the title this year. It simply means that on a given night the bounces went RIT's way, and, RIT was perhaps the better team. I don't think it tells us anything about how real DU's chances were for winning. I believe it speaks more to the unpredictability of one and done tournaments.

        As I posted much earlier, I'm a fan of one and done tournaments. However, hockey has a long history of deciding playoffs through a series of games between teams, a format that lets two teams start to wear on each other, causing the intensity to flourish, and eventually, hopefully, producing a champion that has truly perservered. I think there is something to be said for that.
        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


        • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
          A team like DU losing to RIT doesn't mean DU wasn't a very real contender for the title this year. It simply means that on a given night the bounces went RIT's way, and, RIT was perhaps the better team. I don't think it tells us anything about how real DU's chances were for winning. I believe it speaks more to the unpredictability of one and done tournaments.
          Everybody's assuming that DU was better than RIT. Even the RIT posters arguing for single elimination are assuming, implicitly or explicity, that DU was the better team. RIT wins a second game and "poof"; that stigma evaporates instantly. RIT IS the better team. Proved it on the ice.

          I understand arguing for single elimination on the grounds that the logistical complications of multiple-game series preclude their use. I can not understand arguing that they have the virtue of advancing a lesser team.

          Comment


          • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

            Originally posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
            It happens in the one-and-done bouncy-ball tournament every year (just ask Kansas) and you don't hear anyone on TV whining about it as much as praising the tournament for its excitement and unpredictability.
            There's a huge difference in variance between a 40-minute basketball game and a 60-minute hockey game. One basketball game is probably about equal to two or three hockey games in terms of variance, especially now that we're in an era of 95% save percentages.
            Originally posted by dicaslover
            Yep, you got it. I heart Maize.

            Originally posted by Kristin
            Maybe I'm missing something but you just asked me which MSU I go to and then you knew the theme of my homecoming, how do you know one and not the other?

            Western College Hockey Blog

            Comment


            • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

              Originally posted by MaizeRage View Post
              There's a huge difference in variance between a 40-minute basketball game and a 60-minute hockey game. One basketball game is probably about equal to two or three hockey games in terms of variance, especially now that we're in an era of 95% save percentages.
              Apropos of nothing: I wonder what the difference in variance is between a basketball game and the last 5 minutes of a 4th quarter...in a basketball game.
              1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2012(!)

              Comment


              • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                Originally posted by amherstblackbear View Post
                Apropos of nothing: I wonder what the difference in variance is between a basketball game and the last 5 minutes of a 4th quarter...in a basketball game.
                I've always maintained that basketball has a d.c. offset problem.

                Comment


                • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                  Originally posted by MaizeRage View Post
                  There's a huge difference in variance between a 40-minute basketball game and a 60-minute hockey game. One basketball game is probably about equal to two or three hockey games in terms of variance, especially now that we're in an era of 95% save percentages.
                  Exactly.

                  A tightly played, playoff hockey game will have a few scoring chances. Basketball has them by the boatload. Basketball's multiple possessions each serve to reduce the overall variance that any one game might have a 'fluky' outcome.
                  "...the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

                  Wisconsin '05 Michigan '07

                  http://noalibisnoregrets.blogspot.com/

                  my other blog

                  Comment


                  • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                    Originally posted by RedFreak View Post
                    Everybody's assuming that DU was better than RIT. Even the RIT posters arguing for single elimination are assuming, implicitly or explicity, that DU was the better team. RIT wins a second game and "poof"; that stigma evaporates instantly. RIT IS the better team. Proved it on the ice.
                    Well, RIT is the better team in a sample of 1. That's not exactly statistically significant.

                    In a sample of 5 games, if we assume KRACH ratings to be an accurate representation of how good a team is, Denver would likely win 4 of them, and RIT 1. Statistically, Denver is the better team, and RIT was only 20% likely to win the game.

                    Of course, the tournament doesn't particularly need statistically significant results.
                    UConn -- Clarkson

                    Comment


                    • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                      Originally posted by kingdobbs View Post
                      Well, RIT is the better team in a sample of 1. That's not exactly statistically significant.
                      Hence the conundrum of attempting to apply true statistical methods and analysis to sports, especially playoffs. One rarely will get an adequate sample size within one season, series against one opponent, or playoff that can produce meaningful inferences (aside from maybe professional baseball where they play 2430 regular season games). Of course aren't the "samples" we refer to in truth the population as there are no other games played that we aren't accounting for? Stats are only meaningful if we understand their limitations.
                      Is RIT a "better" team than Denver? On the ice on that given day, yes. In a best-of-three series at Denver? We don't know. We can only extrapolate from what we know, which is that RIT was better on a neutral site for one game - insufficient data. On paper, one can come to the conclusion that Denver would probably win based on their number of NHL draft picks, big-game experience, etc., etc., but none of that is statistical evidence from which one can draw valid inferences about future results.... And we all know that trying to use predictions based on past results in sports is wrought with peril, esepecially in a post-season environment. Too many lurking variables.
                      I just figured as long as we're all showing off our statistics acumen, I'd throw in my two cents (or one, if you don't agree ).
                      Can't we all just get along?
                      Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                        Originally posted by blockski View Post
                        Exactly.

                        A tightly played, playoff hockey game will have a few scoring chances. Basketball has them by the boatload. Basketball's multiple possessions each serve to reduce the overall variance that any one game might have a 'fluky' outcome.
                        And yet, the upsets happen all the time anyhow - hmmmm. Otherwise, we'd all be winning our pools every year instead of throwing our sheets away after the first set of second round games on Saturday.
                        Can't we all just get along?
                        Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                          Originally posted by RedFreak View Post
                          I can not understand arguing that they have the virtue of advancing a lesser team.
                          There isn't inherent virtue in "advancing a lesser team". There is, however, virtue in the possibility that in any given game, either team can win and advance. If it were only virtuous to advance the "better teams" why play the tournament at all? Technically, BC was the underdog to both Miami and Wisconsin, but still managed to crush them both and win the title. If only the supposed "better teams" as others declare them based on regular season performance are given the best chance to win, what fun is that? Let's just declare Miami the champion with Denver the runner-up. Whatever percentage of the time upsets occur, it's very intriguing to watch a game played on a level field and see what happens. If you take the heavy favorites and give them two more significant advantages, that takes some (not all, of course) of the excitement out of it.
                          Can't we all just get along?
                          Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                            Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                            For a little over 10 years they played NCAA tournament games on campus at the site of the higher seed.

                            In 1984, Bowling Green got hammered on the road in Boston by BU, 6-3 in the first game of their two game total goal series. They came back to win the second night and advanced, eventually winning their one and only championship.

                            The following year, Providence lost their first game in East Lansing to MSU, won the second night and eventually lost a very close championship game to RPI.

                            In 1988, LSSU won their first championship. They did so even though they lost their first game to Merrimack, the bottom seed in the western region. However, they won game two and eventually their first championship.

                            I am sure there may be other examples, especially in conference tournament play. None of those teams demonstrated, or made a statement, that they weren't championship material by their first game loss. In fact, the format then in use permitted those teams to demonstrate they truly were championship material with an ability to bounce back in the face of adversity.

                            A team like DU losing to RIT doesn't mean DU wasn't a very real contender for the title this year. It simply means that on a given night the bounces went RIT's way, and, RIT was perhaps the better team. I don't think it tells us anything about how real DU's chances were for winning. I believe it speaks more to the unpredictability of one and done tournaments.
                            I don't disagree with anything you say here, but I will say that when a team knows ahead of time that the post-season is a single elimination, each game takes on ultimate importance and should be treated as such. If they can't muster enough to win, they aren't good enough (this time). Not that a team goes into game 1 of a best-of-three thinking it can take a game off by any means, but as you laid out in your post, sometimes they can get away with it.

                            Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                            As I posted much earlier, I'm a fan of one and done tournaments. However, hockey has a long history of deciding playoffs through a series of games between teams, a format that lets two teams start to wear on each other, causing the intensity to flourish, and eventually, hopefully, producing a champion that has truly perservered. I think there is something to be said for that.
                            I agree with you in theory here. However, I don't believe a series of games that are all played in one team's arena are the best way of accomplishing that. A disproportionate number of home games in favor of the higher seed is a given, but the entire series at home is too much, in the interest of fairness. I do not mean to imply that the road teams can't win by any means, but it does make it much more difficult.
                            Can't we all just get along?
                            Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                              Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                              Dude, do me a favor, go back and watch games from that era then watch them now, it is night and day. But hey, anytime you want to bet on the upsets in games in this format I'm your huckleberry.
                              Before BSU was in the business of earning at-large berths, they lost to Denver 4-3 in OT in the first round - and that was in 2005, the year Denver won it all. The only real difference between 2005 and now is that instead of losing by a goal or two, the #4's are starting to win their first round games.

                              As far as upsets go, I would've picked Michigan over BSU regardless of playoff format this past season. I don't know who else would have / could have pulled off an upset under a best of 3, assuming all matchups stayed the same. We definitely would have seen more than one upset in the 2009 tournament under a best of 3, I think. Vermont over Yale, Cornell over Northeastern, and Princeton over Duluth would have all been realistic possibilities.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                                Originally posted by RedFreak View Post
                                Everybody's assuming that DU was better than RIT. Even the RIT posters arguing for single elimination are assuming, implicitly or explicity, that DU was the better team. RIT wins a second game and "poof"; that stigma evaporates instantly. RIT IS the better team. Proved it on the ice.
                                Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the first game wasn't played on the ice? Or are you saying that one game says nothing (or little) but two games says a lot? If so, I disagree. Two says more than one, but it doesn't say absolutely that one team is "better", whatever that means. Otherwise, Stanley Cup series would always go to the team that wins the first two games.

                                I don't believe that even a seven game series determines who's "better". I don't believe for a minute that Montreal was "better" than Washington, or that they're the equal of Pittsburgh.

                                . . . I can not understand arguing that they have the virtue of advancing a lesser team.
                                Probably because you come from the viewpoint of
                                I'd like a system that produces a national champion, as much as is reasonably possible, who is the best team in the land.

                                Screw Cinderella.
                                I'm sure many, probably most, people agree with you, or at least think they do. I like Cinderella. I doubt that RIT would have won a two game series against DU. But I know that I wouldn't have as much interest in seeing both games; in fact I'd probably skip the first. Why would I be more interested in the second? Because the first game doesn't say much. One team or the other is going to win and, essentially, start the second game with a lead. But for the second game, I know that, going into the game, both teams know exactly what they need to do to win, and at the end of the night, I'll know who the winner is. I like knowing into the game that either team might win, even the team I don't believe is as good. I like knowing that an underperforming team doesn't get a mulligan.

                                If two game series are so much better, and the goal of the tournament is to determine who is the best team in the land, I don't see why two game series aren't being proposed for the later rounds. Seems to me they're more important there, because in the later rounds, the teams ought to be more evenly matched.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X