2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

[mookie1995]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

...Alternatively, you could try to convince Michigan as a school to put in a bid to host at the Joe. Then it would be your rabid home crowd...

to many of us old timers, it's funny to hear a complaining UM comment because for a long time Yost was able to host events and UM would get home ice. kudos for the ncaa to stay away from campus sites now, but it does open up the possibility of having games in front of nobody in midsized rinks.

and i've heard the joe doesn't want anything to do with events where beer sales are 86'd!!

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I agree numbers that the math SHOULD be the determining factor, unfortunately the NCAA will always follow the money, where it can be influenced to benifit the bottom line it will be influenced imo.

Hey, JDubbs, Thanks for the input. But, you have me confused now. I thought that the tourney was all determined by numbers, and by their insistence on as few intraconference 1st round matchups as possible. I can't think of any time recently that I looked at the bracket and thought "Well, they really turned that one upside down to make more money..."

In fact, the only times recently that I can remember that they were not totally in line was the year they swapped DU and CC as the #2 and #3 overall because they weighed the head-to-head strong in the committee, and then the year they swapped Air Force for someone, so they could be in the same region as one of the other Colorado schools.

I was advocating a little more subjectivity, because I think they could make a better bracket if they wanted to. But, now, reading UMBand feeling like Michigan has been done wrong lately, I think that it should all be numbers, because it prevents anyone from even imagining back room dealing.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Priceless,
Really appreciate the information. Can I ask your opinion on something? Do you think it makes sense for them to have that idea: 1v13 is better than intraconference matchup? And, what would your own thought be of some kind of subjectivity in the seeding part of making the bracket? For example, I totally agree with the idea that math alone decides the field. Things are too close for any other way. But, once we have decided the field, it seems the committee has hamstring itself with strict seeding bands. Sometimes it happens that #12 and #13 are really tied. And, that #12 is just what they need as a 4th seed to make a better bracket. Or, the #13 works better as the last #3 seed. Do you see what I am asking?

I get what you're asking and I'm sure it is something the NCAA considers. 1 v 13 really isn't the ideal matchup, especially considering #16 is generally a much, much weaker team than the other #4 seeds. If a conference gets 5+ teams in the field I would prefer they protect bracket integrity (and the #1 overall seed, which they claim is already a goal) and allow a conference game in the first round.

I understand the goal behind bands but sometimes wish they could be a little more flexible, especially with hosts. (I'm sure the folks at BC agree) Last year when UHN wrapped up a #4 seed it sent #1 seeded BC to St. Louis instead of a leisurely drive to Manchester. I would also change the way they break ties when 3 or more teams are involved. Right now it is straight RPI even if the team with the lowest RPI has pairwise wins over the other teams. So in 2007 even though UMass won the comparisons against both Maine and St. Lawrence, they had the lowest RPI so received a #4 seed while Maine and SLU got #3 seeds. If it is unanimous (as in 2007) that team should be ranked higher. You can then break the H2H tie using the comparison. If the teams split the comparisons, then go ahead and use RPI to break ties. Once ties are broken and seeding established 1-16 set the brackets. I always prefer bracket integrity but the NCAA is going to tinker to produce the best moneymakers they can.

 

[davyd83]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Well, that scenario generally fits in with the ongoing trend of Michigan getting shipped off to a hometown regional for someone else, while they themselves never get to play in a regional within a hundred miles of Ann Arbor. I'll stop complaining about it when Michigan actually plays in a regional that isn't either in the middle of nowhere in front of a crowd of 50 people or a rabid home crowd for one of the three other teams.

Of course Michigan gains no advantage by playing in their back yard at the CCHA Tourney, while Miami, Northern Michigan and Alaska have much longer trips than the one UM has for that event. Poor Michigan. Get them a tissue!

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Well, that scenario generally fits in with the ongoing trend of Michigan getting shipped off to a hometown regional for someone else, while they themselves never get to play in a regional within a hundred miles of Ann Arbor. I'll stop complaining about it when Michigan actually plays in a regional that isn't either in the middle of nowhere in front of a crowd of 50 people or a rabid home crowd for one of the three other teams.

Due to the distances between many teams in the west and cities with appropriate facilities, MOST tourney teams don't end up within 100 miles of home. When the committee did Michigan a favor in 2010 by putting them in Fort Wayne to the surprise of most, who was at fault that few Michigan fans showed up despite the easiest travel of any of the four teams assigned there? And how unfair that in the season's ultimate game so many people had the nerve to root for Duluth last year.

At some point the NCAA may decide that empty buildings like those in St Louis and Fort Wayne are not in the best interests of the sport and consider going back to campus sights. For two consecutive seasons the NCAA made it as easy or nearly as easy as possible for Michigan fans to get to a tourney game, even if by car. Who was at fault that so few showed up? Are you going to protest how "unfair" it would be for Yost to go back to hosting NCAA tournament games then? You need to ground yourself a little more in the facts.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Hey, JDubbs, Thanks for the input. But, you have me confused now. I thought that the tourney was all determined by numbers, and by their insistence on as few intraconference 1st round matchups as possible. I can't think of any time recently that I looked at the bracket and thought "Well, they really turned that one upside down to make more money..."

In fact, the only times recently that I can remember that they were not totally in line was the year they swapped DU and CC as the #2 and #3 overall because they weighed the head-to-head strong in the committee, and then the year they swapped Air Force for someone, so they could be in the same region as one of the other Colorado schools.

I was advocating a little more subjectivity, because I think they could make a better bracket if they wanted to. But, now, reading UMBand feeling like Michigan has been done wrong lately, I think that it should all be numbers, because it prevents anyone from even imagining back room dealing.

Thats really what I was agreeing with. Sorry for any confusion. I think its generally and probably will only ever be a minor change (by the numbers) to make for a better tournament. Like you said it doesn't happen to often, but I espect it to remain that way (minor changes in allignments to make for a better tournament-as the NCAA see's it, when possible).

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Priceless,
I agree with you about the tiebreaking procedure. If the idea is to have more PWR wins, then a PWcomparison is really the chip, not someone's RPI.
At one time, I thought about something like this:
Top 16 by PWR in the field. Choose bands like this:
Start with #1 in the PWR. There are 6 men in the room. Vote "Is this a #1 seed(not overall, I mean a region seed)?" exclude the rep from the teams own conference. Continue with #2,3,4 overall. If any are voted "not a #1", then start with #5 until they fill the #1s. Continue with the rest of the seeds the same way. Have a rule that no team be seeded more than one band outside of its PWR rank.
Then, do the bracket as they do now...

But, like I said above, all math has a big advantage : there is no reasonable griping afterwards.

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Hey, JDubbs, Thanks for the input. But, you have me confused now. I thought that the tourney was all determined by numbers, and by their insistence on as few intraconference 1st round matchups as possible. I can't think of any time recently that I looked at the bracket and thought "Well, they really turned that one upside down to make more money..."

In fact, the only times recently that I can remember that they were not totally in line was the year they swapped DU and CC as the #2 and #3 overall because they weighed the head-to-head strong in the committee, and then the year they swapped Air Force for someone, so they could be in the same region as one of the other Colorado schools.

I was advocating a little more subjectivity, because I think they could make a better bracket if they wanted to. But, now, reading UMBand feeling like Michigan has been done wrong lately, I think that it should all be numbers, because it prevents anyone from even imagining back room dealing.

I think the NCAA is open to the fact they they will move teams around a little for "atmosphere" even if it means deviating from some of the other requirements while placing the teams in their respective regions. The rules they have clung to are teams are not moved out of their "band" (the number 3 overall seed is going to be a 1 somewhere, the number 10 seed will be a 3 somewhere, etc), host teams always host, and first round conference re-matches are forbidden unless more than 4 teams from a single conference are in the tourney. I can assure you that ticket sales and atmosphere were at least somewhat behind placing Michigan in the Fort Wayne regional that Notre Dame hosted in 2010. It didn't work particularly well, but hind-sight is 20/20.

 

[Happy]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I think the NCAA is open to the fact they they will move teams around a little for "atmosphere" even if it means deviating from some of the other requirements while placing the teams in their respective regions. The rules they have clung to are teams are not moved out of their "band" (the number 3 overall seed is going to be a 1 somewhere, the number 10 seed will be a 3 somewhere, etc), host teams always host, and first round conference re-matches are forbidden unless more than 4 teams from a single conference are in the tourney. I can assure you that ticket sales and atmosphere were at least somewhat behind placing Michigan in the Fort Wayne regional that Notre Dame hosted in 2010. It didn't work particularly well, but hind-sight is 20/20.

The head of the selection committee said it was too "delicious" to not make Minnesota play Air Force in Colorado a while ago, thus putting the number 1 seed in the toughest bracket. So, they can do anything they want, and it is really only problem if they screw over your favorite team.

 

[UMBand]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Of course Michigan gains no advantage by playing in their back yard at the CCHA Tourney, while Miami, Northern Michigan and Alaska have much longer trips than the one UM has for that event. Poor Michigan. Get them a tissue!

OK, so Miami has a 3-hour drive, and no matter where you put the tournament, it's a long trip for Alaska and NMU. What's your alternative site?

 

[UMBand]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

At some point the NCAA may decide that empty buildings like those in St Louis and Fort Wayne are not in the best interests of the sport and consider going back to campus sights. For two consecutive seasons the NCAA made it as easy or nearly as easy as possible for Michigan fans to get to a tourney game, even if by car. Who was at fault that so few showed up? Are you going to protest how "unfair" it would be for Yost to go back to hosting NCAA tournament games then? You need to ground yourself a little more in the facts.

Which two years would those be? You want facts, let's look at facts.

Michigan's regional bids since 2004 (the year after the last Yost regional):
2011: St. Louis (9 hour drive from A2, wow, they made it so easy for us!)
2010: Ft. Wayne (3 hour drive from A2)
2009: Bridgeport (far)
2008: Albany (far)
2007: Denver (far)
2006: Grand Forks (far)
2005: Grand Rapids (2 hour drive from A2)
2004: New Hampshire (far)

So we've been placed in the Midwest Regional exactly twice. And since the JLA won't host a regional, we're never going to have a regional on our side of the state. Seems fair to me, eh?

Campus sites may not be "fair," but they're a known entity, and good for fans. Period. Nothing more pathetic than playing in front of an empty arena in Albany, or a library crowd in Denver. At least make it somewhat possible, or attractive, for your fans to actually attend a regional.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

UMB,

Hey. Totally understand the frustration. I don't want to be in the middle of an argument. So, I am asking: Do you think the Committee is out to do Michigan wrong? I mean, they intentionally put the wolverines a long way from AA? Or, do you just think the process is skewed so it comes out that way, and so it should be changed?

I was looking at the NCAA tourney history, too.
2011-Michigan in St Louis - 2nd closest.
2010-Ft Wayne - Closest.
2009-Bridgeport - 3rd or 4th
2008-Albany - 3rd
2007-Denver- probably 2nd, although 2nd,3rd,4th are all the same to you this year
2006-Grand Forks - 2nd or 3rd
2005-Grand Rapids - Closest
2004-Manchester - 4th, although again 2nd,3rd,4th are all the same to you
2003-Yost
2002-Yost
2001-Grand Rapids

So, this is my thought. As the process currently works, if you are not hosting, and not a high #1 (like 1st or 2nd overall) seed, it's random. You have 8 years there. Twice closest region. That's 1/4. Random. Same with the rest.

Sometimes I wish it were different, too. But, you have all the schools in mind. If you make it convenient for one school, a different school will complain about preferential treatment. So, random is good.

Thanks.

 

[kdilks]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

to many of us old timers, it's funny to hear a complaining UM comment because for a long time Yost was able to host events and UM would get home ice. kudos for the ncaa to stay away from campus sites now, but it does open up the possibility of having games in front of nobody in midsized rinks.

and i've heard the joe doesn't want anything to do with events where beer sales are 86'd!!

I wouldn't have a problem if the NCAA was actually trying to stay away from campus sites, but haven't Colorado College, Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota all got regionals on-campus in recent years? Not to mention all the ones that are technically off-campus, but still in the same city as the host school.

Due to the distances between many teams in the west and cities with appropriate facilities, MOST tourney teams don't end up within 100 miles of home. When the committee did Michigan a favor in 2010 by putting them in Fort Wayne to the surprise of most, who was at fault that few Michigan fans showed up despite the easiest travel of any of the four teams assigned there? And how unfair that in the season's ultimate game so many people had the nerve to root for Duluth last year.

At some point the NCAA may decide that empty buildings like those in St Louis and Fort Wayne are not in the best interests of the sport and consider going back to campus sights. For two consecutive seasons the NCAA made it as easy or nearly as easy as possible for Michigan fans to get to a tourney game, even if by car. Who was at fault that so few showed up? Are you going to protest how "unfair" it would be for Yost to go back to hosting NCAA tournament games then? You need to ground yourself a little more in the facts.

A big issue with the Fort Wayne regional was that they moved the finals from Sunday afternoon to late Sunday evening, when people had to work on Monday morning (and kids would have to go to school, discouraging families from coming). Because of the overtimes, those of us that went to the game didn't get back to Ann Arbor until something like 1 or 2 am.

 

[Nifty16]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

The NCAA Tourney, where its all bout Michigan

 

[UMBand]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

UMB,

Hey. Totally understand the frustration. I don't want to be in the middle of an argument. So, I am asking: Do you think the Committee is out to do Michigan wrong? I mean, they intentionally put the wolverines a long way from AA? Or, do you just think the process is skewed so it comes out that way, and so it should be changed?

Oh, no, I don't think it's necessarily intentional, but rather the broader process is fundamentally skewed from providing fans and players alike the opportunity to play hockey in an arena that doesn't feel like a library. If you've ever been to a regional, you know the NCAA micromanages it to the nth degree in order to make things as soulless as they possibly can. So you get an arena with everything covered in NCAA logos, each band being given equal time almost timed to the second (alternated with NCAA PSA's on the scoreboards), entire sections of empty seats...

It's as sterile as can be. Because the NCAA is convinced they're being "fair." It's like they're afraid to offend someone, lest the Denvers of the world pitch another fit about an atmosphere like Yost. And, for the record, after the NCAA said Yost would never be able to host a regional again because it was too intimidating, other schools (like NoDak) were still permitted to host on their campus in the seasons that followed. Or, in the case of the XCel Center, host on sites on the veritable edge of campus. It's a double standard to say the least.

Plainly, there are so many great college rinks, and the NCAA (first, selectively, and now entirely) is too scared to use them.

 

[UMBand]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

The NCAA Tourney, where its all bout Michigan

The NCAA Tourney, where nobody wins, especially New Hampshire

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I wouldn't have a problem if the NCAA was actually trying to stay away from campus sites, but haven't Colorado College, Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota all got regionals on-campus in recent years? Not to mention all the ones that are technically off-campus, but still in the same city as the host school.

I think most reasonable Michigan fans see it in this logic more than any other. If opposing fans are going to use Michigan/Yost as the poster child for not wanting an unfair on-campus regional, then this scenario with the multitude of Minnesota hostings is just as... hypocritical.

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

And, for the record, after the NCAA said Yost would never be able to host a regional again because it was too intimidating, other schools (like NoDak) were still permitted to host on their campus in the seasons that followed. Or, in the case of the XCel Center, host on sites on the veritable edge of campus. It's a double standard to say the least.

Please show me where the NCAA actually said this about Michigan and Yost specifically and it is not the delusional ranting of a misguided Michigan fan. I respect the intimidating nature of a Yost crowd, especially in an NCAA game, but try convincing a North Dakota fan it is any more so than one in Grand Forks, for just one example. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that I have never heard that reason being cited specifically about Yost. Streaker, Alfa, Alton, help me out here. You guys I trust.

As for your distance arguments, they don't apply because as I noted, most schools often travel great distances to the NCAA locations. Michigan was placed as close as they fairly should have been as often as not, and at least once, a whole lot closer than they should have been.

I do agree with UMBand about the micro managing and the sterile atmosphere at too many regionals. But without entirely throwing out the rules in the current process there is likely no truly fair way to change it.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

From my understanding the NCAA has said it would like to move away from hosting regionals on campus in general. I sincerely doubt anyone ever said they want to avoid Yost because it's "intimidating".

 

[AMC]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

The NCAA Tourney, where nobody wins, especially New Hampshire

Back in the day teams had to go into Yost when Michigan was like a 3-seed. How is that fair to anyone?