What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Bitch About the Bracket Here

B

Bomber

From BU Band to Sct 12 to Sct 113
Three Eastern teams in South Dakota? Really!?

Why does the committee want empty buildings?

Post your additional bitches here.
 
Probably the easiest bracket the committee has ever had. Perfect set up for 1/16, 2/15, etc…, bracket. Just one swap of Cornell and Wisconsin necessary.
 
In the old paradigm North Dakota went to the eastern regional. In the new paradigm the eastern regional goes to North Dakota.

I'm excited to see the Big 10 carry attendance at the regionals in Albany and Worcester.

If you're unhappy with the bracket and think the games should be hosted by the higher seeds rather than a neutral site, just come up with an alternative that makes the NCAA a profit of mid-six figures every year and send them the proposal.
 
Bomber said:
So 100% math. Great. :rolleyes:

The game deserves human intervention.
Click to expand...
I guess I would have two questions for you.

FIrst, didn't we have "human intervention?" The Committee set up the brackets, and my guess is the committee was made up of humans. So, a group of humans looked at the math and looked at the teams and looked at the location of the regionals and decided this was the best bracket.

Second, if the committee was made up of "humans," but not really, then how should your version of "humans" have set it up, and why would that be a better bracket?

It sounds to me like we had "human intervention," but you're just not happy with what those humans decided.
 
Because I really had no dog in this game and was too lazy to look it up, did any host school of the regional locations make the tournament this year that required them be placed in a specific regional? I know that's sometimes an issue when putting schools in regions.
 
Scarlet said:
Because I really had no dog in this game and was too lazy to look it up, did any host school of the regional locations make the tournament this year that required them be placed in a specific regional? I know that's sometimes an issue when putting schools in regions.
Click to expand...
I think Denver is a host for Loveland, but aside from that I dont believe any of the others made it in
 
ticapnews said:
In the old paradigm North Dakota went to the eastern regional. In the new paradigm the eastern regional goes to North Dakota.

I'm excited to see the Big 10 carry attendance at the regionals in Albany and Worcester.

If you're unhappy with the bracket and think the games should be hosted by the higher seeds rather than a neutral site, just come up with an alternative that makes the NCAA a profit of mid-six figures every year and send them the proposal.
Click to expand...
Despite the flaws of the current regional setup, tickets are easier to get for games in these AHL-type arenas. Many real hockey fans would be shut out if they moved to campus sites.
 
Doogity said:
All of the regional sites should be on campus with the highest seeds hosting. The barns should have some requirements though, such as 5000 capacity. For schools with arenas smaller than the requirements, they can host at a nearby arena within say 100 miles.
Click to expand...
Just come up with a way to replace the lost revenue the NCAA gets from neutral sites bidding to host and I'm sure the NCAA will listen to you.
 
Not sure how big the official allotment to each school is, but Dartmouth has sold theirs out already. So yay?

They're now directing people to the arena's site for additional sales.
 
The problem with the regionals is that people aren't going to travel (i.e., fly, or drive long, long distances). They'll do that for the Frozen Four, but they're not going to do it twice in two weeks, and you always hold out hope your team gets to the Frozen Four.

People will attend when their team is playing a few hours away, at most.

That's the way it has always been, ever since they went to the regional format and it was two regionals of six teams each.

The correct way for the NCAA hockey playoffs to run is this:

16 teams
Serpentine seeding
First week's games at home of higher seed (if you want to make it a best of three, or two games, total goals the way it used to be, fine by me)
Second week's games (currently the off week for the Final Four), at home of higher seed
Frozen Four
 
SJHovey said:
I guess I would have two questions for you.

FIrst, didn't we have "human intervention?" The Committee set up the brackets, and my guess is the committee was made up of humans. So, a group of humans looked at the math and looked at the teams and looked at the location of the regionals and decided this was the best bracket.

Second, if the committee was made up of "humans," but not really, then how should your version of "humans" have set it up, and why would that be a better bracket?

It sounds to me like we had "human intervention," but you're just not happy with what those humans decided.
Click to expand...
The humans simply checked a box. They followed the math without using their human brain to tweak things to improve the quality of the tournament. With, you know, fans.

Putting QU-PC in Albany and putting MD-PSU in Sioux Falls is a minor tweak to the integrity of the math and would have boosted $$$$ and vibes with fuller buildings and happier fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top