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 redhawkman10 View Post
    If 87% of the top seeds advanced in those dates you mentioned how is the upset rate 30%?
    87% refers to the bye teams advancing to the frozen four (#1-#2 seeded teams). Out of the 16 teams seeded #1-2 in those four years, only Michigan State and LSSU failed to advance (14/16 = 87.5%).

    The ~30% upset rate refers to the first round only (non-bye teams seeded #3-6 in each regional). Five of the 16 teams seeded #3 or #4 lost to a #5 or #6 seed in those years.

    Parity or not, I don't see these percentages changing much if the format goes to best of 3's.
    Last edited by Bakunin; 05-08-2010, 10:10 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

      Originally posted by MinnesotaNorthStar View Post
      The "haves" don't. The teams that finish in the top 8 in the PWR do. The two are mutually exclusive. Want to host the first round? Win.
      What?

      Do you mean that the "haves" are never in the top 8 in the PWR? Or that the top 8 in PWR never include any "haves"? That's what "mutually exclusive" means.

      I hope you meant to say that the two aren't the same. True, but there's a significant overlap. This year's top 8 included one "have not", six "haves", and one borderline "have", depending on your definition.

      The only thing that was exceptional about this year is that usually there's no Bemidji, and the top eight usually include seven or eight haves.

      Sorry, but the "haves" do have advantages. Bigger recruiting and athletic budgets, wealthier alumni, better facilities, glitzier campuses, in many situations more glamorous athletic programs.

      "Just win" is a lot harder for the UAH's and RIT's of the world than it is for the BC's and Wisconsins.

      Comment


      • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

        Originally posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
        Yeah, I don't think too many people nation-wide realize what that two game winning streak did for RIT hockey on campus and throughout the entire Rochester area. The increase in attention that team brought to themselves, the NCAA Tournament and the Frozen Four was stunning. Prior to this year's post season, I nearly always had to explain to people what the Frozen Four was and I had to let them in on the fact that RIT was now in Division I (and what that actually meant, for that matter). Occasionally, people who knew I was a big RIT hockey fan would ask me how they were doing as though there were no way to find out anything about them otherwise (and in a way, that was true). And even on campus, there was an awareness, but outside of the couple thousand regular game attendees, there didn't seem to be much interest (although it had increased significantly since the move to D-I). Now, however... WHAT A DIFFERENCE! The campus came together and was totally energized with school spirit like never before. How many other schools had hundreds of students, faculty, staff, and alumni outside in the cold welcoming their team's bus back to campus at 2:00 am after winning only a regional championship? Probably not many. Even more amazingly, the Rochester community was energized by the team's heroics. The media attention from all TV stations, the newspaper and sports talk radio was immense for nearly two weeks. Previous to that, if they got an actual article and highlights on the news, it was a good weekend. Now, many many more people here are aware of the formerly hidden gem we had at Ritter every season. Now I can't wear an RIT hockey shirt or hat anywhere without someone commenting on it, and actually knowing what they're talking about. I have also never seen as much Orange dotted throughout crowds at Rochester Amerks games as I see now. These seem to be people who were always Amerks fans, but now are excited about another team representing the Flower City on a national stage. The entire city kind of fell in love with these guys. There were viewing parties for the tournament games at multiple bars throughout the area, not just around the campus.
        It's all been rather incredible and can't help but increase the profile of NCAA hockey in a city that was primarily a Buffalo Bills / New York Yankees / Syracuse Orange / Minor league baseball and hockey city. But under the new proposed format, this may never happen again (and not just in Rochester). Not that it would be impossible, but highly unlikely.
        It would just be a shame if that had not happenned for RIT and Rochester. Although, on a personal note, I am now feeling much more pressured to get my tickets early since the local demand for tickets is going way way up. I can see the one home game at Blue Cross Arena selling out in '10-'11, which would be amazing at 11,500 people (something the Amerks haven't even done in a few seasons, btw).
        All this entire post tells me is that RIT thinks they are bigger than they really are... again.
        BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09

        Jerseys I would like to have:
        Skating Friar Jersey
        AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
        UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
        Army Black Knight logo jersey


        NCAA Men's Division 1 Simulation Primer

        Comment


        • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

          Originally posted by Patman View Post
          All this entire post tells me is that RIT thinks they are bigger than they really are... again.
          Isn't it worthwhile to let RIT revel in their accomplishment? Their story is one that college hockey teams nationwide can take inspiration from. Sure, they got hot (and a bit lucky) at the right time, but if all it takes is a bit of luck and opportunity to jump-start support for a hockey program, I'm all for that.

          I like the proposed format for the intense on-campus atmospheres that would be ignited, but at the same time, you have to respect the integrity of an all neutral-site tournament.

          Comment


          • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

            Originally posted by CLS View Post
            What?

            Do you mean that the "haves" are never in the top 8 in the PWR? Or that the top 8 in PWR never include any "haves"? That's what "mutually exclusive" means.

            I hope you meant to say that the two aren't the same. True, but there's a significant overlap. This year's top 8 included one "have not", six "haves", and one borderline "have", depending on your definition.
            .
            Yes, that is what I meant to say...knew that didn't sound right.
            Jordan Kawaguchi for Hobey!!
            Originally posted by Quizmire
            mns, this is why i love you.

            Originally posted by Markt
            MNS - forking genius.

            Originally posted by asterisk hat
            MNS - sometimes you gotta answer your true calling. I think yours is being a pimp.

            Originally posted by hockeybando
            I am a fan of MNS.

            Comment


            • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

              Originally posted by citydog View Post
              but at the same time, you have to respect the integrity of an all neutral-site tournament.
              Regionals were played on campus sites as recently as 2009. It's not like neutral sites have been around for 50 years and we're trying to buck some long-held tradition here.

              I say it's better to reward the high seeds with home ice and create a real atmosphere for these games than to continue this silly attempt at equalizing everything at the expense of atmosphere and attendance. It's not like upsets will disappear completely - they still occurred nearly 1/3 of the time in the first round when the best of 3 format last existed.

              Comment


              • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                Originally posted by Bakunin View Post
                87% refers to the bye teams advancing to the frozen four (#1-#2 seeded teams). Out of the 16 teams seeded #1-2 in those four years, only Michigan State and LSSU failed to advance (14/16 = 87.5%).

                And of course, keep in mind that the upset rate was only around 30% in the first round between '88-'91 when the 3-6/4-5's squared off.


                During 1988-1991, there were only 8 teams in the tourney, so there were no 3/6 or 4/5 matchups, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The 12-team tourney format lasted 11 years (1992-2002) and the only year that LSSU earned a bye (1993), they lost in the national final to Maine.

                Bye teams that failed to advance:

                1992: SLU, Maine, Minnesota
                1994: Michigan
                1995: CC
                1997: Clarkson
                1998: MSU, UND, BU
                1999: Clarkson, UND
                2000: Wisconsin
                2001: St. Cloud
                2002: BU, Denver

                That's 15 who failed to advance, so the success rate of bye teams was actually 29/44 = 66%.
                If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                Comment


                • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                  Originally posted by citydog View Post
                  Isn't it worthwhile to let RIT revel in their accomplishment? Their story is one that college hockey teams nationwide can take inspiration from. Sure, they got hot (and a bit lucky) at the right time, but if all it takes is a bit of luck and opportunity to jump-start support for a hockey program, I'm all for that.

                  I like the proposed format for the intense on-campus atmospheres that would be ignited, but at the same time, you have to respect the integrity of an all neutral-site tournament.
                  I think it helps other small programs like RIT to think they can be "next year's RIT" and make a run. I can't imagine RIT sustaining consistent national success like this past year, but it did put them on the map. Who knows. Maybe even Brown can make a run some day (probably not). It does give hope to all the 'have nots' that they could have their day in the sun.
                  Brown Bears - 2014 National Champions

                  Comment


                  • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post


                    During 1988-1991, there were only 8 teams in the tourney, so there were no 3/6 or 4/5 matchups, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The 12-team tourney format lasted 11 years (1992-2002) and the only year that LSSU earned a bye (1993), they lost in the national final to Maine.
                    http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_91.htm
                    http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_90.htm
                    http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_89.htm
                    http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_88.htm

                    According to their bracket history, 1987 was the last year of the 8 team tournament.
                    Last edited by Bakunin; 05-09-2010, 07:48 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                      Although I like this format, the end result might be less TV coverage of games held in smaller venues.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                        Originally posted by bigmrg74 View Post
                        Yep, and worse of all, people are far more likely to buy nosebleed seats, and then move down into an empty lower bowl. The NCAA should slash Tickets on lower demand regionals, and block off access to upper levels until they've got enough tickets sold to fill lower levels first.
                        Except there are a lot of people who think the upper level seats ARE the better seats. The suckiest seats in the arena are the bottom 2/3rds of the lower bowl. Not being able to buy an upper level ticket would be the difference between me going to a regional and staying home.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                          Ah, my bad - the 6-team regionals were 92-02. There were bye teams from 88-02.

                          Still, I think it makes sense to look at all the bye teams, so from 88-02, bye teams advanced 43/60 = 72% of the time.
                          If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                          Comment


                          • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                            Originally posted by MinnesotaNorthStar View Post
                            The "haves" don't. The teams that finish in the top 8 in the PWR do. The two are mutually exclusive. Want to host the first round? Win.
                            While that is true remember that the scheduling is not equal. Minnesota and UND can schedule OOC games at home against most schools whereas the likes of R.I.T. will have more trouble. It is much easier to win when you have the schools come to you and you know that. That will only get worse now.

                            Now if the NCAA mandated how teams could schedule, I am with you all the way. Since they don't, the "haves" will outschedule the "have nots" and I know you know that

                            I am all for top seeds getting home games, but 2/3 and the Super Regional are not positives in my mind.
                            Last edited by Handyman; 05-09-2010, 04:56 PM.
                            "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?

                              If this plan was this past season, as related to the games I saw:

                              Albany Regional
                              1st round, Cornell vs UNH:
                              NO WAY Cornell loses to UNH in a best of three @Lynah. UNH brought a game that first night that was seldom seen throughout the season. One upset gone.

                              2nd round, UNH vs. RIT:
                              EVEN IF Cornell lost to UNH, NO WAY the second-night UNH team defends against the second-night RIT team. And even if THIS was the BO3 @Whittemore, judging by the changes UNH didn't make against VT in the HE championship.... One upset preserved.

                              I was amazed by the hockey UNH put on the ice against Cornell. We didn't let them have their game, and honestly, Big Red didn't look like the team they brought to the Whitt in January, either. Two consecutive nights of that kind of hockey was unheard of this past season.

                              I was appalled by the hockey UNH put on the ice against RIT. They didn't let us have our game, and UNH did not look like the previous night's team. However, two consecutive nights of sucky hockey was not as rare for UNH this past season. Hence my reasoning above.

                              I get that repeat spectators think of the BO3 as a mountain, and perpetual contenders think of it as a molehill. Consider: if your team gets beat two times out of three, can you really claim that the better team got beat? Four times out of five? That's where Cinderellas come from: they're the teams who WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO WIN, teams that, on paper, were NOT the better team. By taking a larger sample, the NCAA would get a more accurate result.

                              As for home ice advantage: let's not give the have's everything!
                              Originally posted by state of hockey
                              Tecate tonight. Haha!
                              Originally posted by state of hockey
                              Ugh. That was a bad idea.
                              Ever notice how, after hockey season, baseball games seem INTERMINABLE??

                              Comment


                              • Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

                                Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                                Ah, my bad - the 6-team regionals were 92-02. There were bye teams from 88-02.

                                Still, I think it makes sense to look at all the bye teams, so from 88-02, bye teams advanced 43/60 = 72% of the time.
                                That percentage is awfully close to the 11 of 16 top seeds advancing through the best of three first round.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X