2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

[mookie1995]

Appreciate the thought, Priceless. What happens if NoMich loses to BG, and then next week Cornell or Merrimack lose their quarterfinal? Could NoMich do the ultimate back-in?

then western will get lake in the best of three and whomever wins would probably pass northern (flipping rpi which northern is winning vs both). nd has a chance too to pass them.

the rest of the comparisons look to be safely in nmu's favor.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Thanks again, Patman, Priceless, Mookie. I like what you wrote, M about WM v LSSU. That's really looking ahead. How about 1 step further yet? BG beats NM, so WM faces LSSU. Whoever wins that loses 2 at the Joe, and then we are back where we started, with NM in the tourney. Or, to make things worse in the CCHA, what if MSU loses 2 in a row to Miami? Do they get added to the mix of stew right around the tourney bubble?

I, being a Minny fan, have been trying to find a way to get CC in the tourney, too. And, I think that it might be they can make it if they go all the way to the Broadmoor Final, and NMU loses tonight, LSSU beats WMU and then loses 2 at the Joe, and MSU gets swept by Miami. I might try to run that through the calculator.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Here's what I'm going with based on CHN's list 10 minutes ago

Worcester
1 - BC
8 - Union
10 - Maine
16 - AHA

St Paul
4 - Minn-Duluth
7 - UMN
9 - Miami
15 - Merrimack

Bridgeport
3 - UML
6 - BU
12 - MSU
14 - Cornell

Green Bay
2 - UMich
5 - Ferris
11 - Denver
13 - No Dak

Michigan is the higher seed than UMD while a 4-5 vs Ferris would preserve integrity it would be unfair to Michigan (and lets face it, anybody) to take on Minnesota in Minnesota. Saving goes to the higher seed... and isn't that nice, it puts UMD in St. Paul as well. It also means that NoDak/Cornell don't need to be swapped. Maine and Miami are swapped for the sake of attendance in Worcester... Miami is stuck no matter what. I suppose you could swap NoDak --> Cornell --> Merrimack... but favorable Bridgeport attendance and Green Bay attendance is bolstered by the above. (Honestly, its mostly because I don't want UML vs. North Dakota)

I cannot imagine that the better #1 seed will be seeded with a #2 or #3 seed Minnesota.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I think Michigan gets sent to St. Paul because the committee won't want 2v5 and 4v7 when it could just as easily have 2v7 and 4v5.

[B]Bridgeport	Worcester	St. Paul	Green Bay[/B]
Lowell		Boston C	Michigan	Duluth
Boston U	Union		Minnesota	Ferris St
Mich St		Maine		Miami		Denver
No Dakota	AHA Champ	Merrimack	Cornell

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I think Michigan gets sent to St. Paul because the committee won't want 2v5 and 4v7 when it could just as easily have 2v7 and 4v5.

[B]Bridgeport	Worcester	St. Paul	Green Bay[/B]
Lowell		Boston C	Michigan	Duluth
Boston U	Union		Minnesota	Ferris St
Mich St		Maine		Miami		Denver
No Dakota	AHA Champ	Merrimack	Cornell

Love to read you guys' thoughts!! Fun, isn't it? Tbh, I don't know which I would predict. I go both ways. Michigan, as a higher #1, should have priority to Green Bay. But, they have to fly. UMD can drive either way. Michigan's flight is cheaper into Mpls, than to GB, I would imagine, so tends to Mich in St Paul. But, that's tough assignment, Mich against Minn in Round 2.

Then, I think: Look, Michigan, UM-L, and UMD, are all tied. I know, the RPI is tiebreaker, but still, they are all tied. Likewise, BU and Minny are really tied. So, if I want to spin the seeds, I could just as well say that UMD is a 3, and Minn is a 6, and then I am fine again.

So, I simply would not know how the committee approaches this problem.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

More interestingly, to me, is to look way down the road 2 weeks from now. It is not difficult to create a scenario where Michigan and FSU are both #1s. (If you guys want to try, it seems to me that it requires FSU winning the CCHA tourney - otherwise they can end behind Minn/UMD and Union. At least, in the scenario where higher seeds win.) At the same time, I can get MichState and WeMich or MichState and NoMich at #14 and #15 pretty easy, too.

Big deal, you say?? Well, think about it. 2 CCHA #1s, 2 CCHA #4s. So, the committee likely wants to avoid matching them in round one. So, the alternative is to do, for example: Michigan v AHA, and BC v NoMich. All of which would happen with BC as a strong overall #1 seed. In some way, maybe that is the nightmare scenario for the committee.

I think that in that case, I would look to see if there were a CCHA/CCHA matchup available to me that hadn't been played for a long time, and I would use that and the 5-team rule, so I could still have BC v AHA. Michigan/Western would be the best hope of that.

Comments??

 

[Patman]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

More interestingly, to me, is to look way down the road 2 weeks from now. It is not difficult to create a scenario where Michigan and FSU are both #1s. (If you guys want to try, it seems to me that it requires FSU winning the CCHA tourney - otherwise they can end behind Minn/UMD and Union. At least, in the scenario where higher seeds win.) At the same time, I can get MichState and WeMich or MichState and NoMich at #14 and #15 pretty easy, too.

Big deal, you say?? Well, think about it. 2 CCHA #1s, 2 CCHA #4s. So, the committee likely wants to avoid matching them in round one. So, the alternative is to do, for example: Michigan v AHA, and BC v NoMich. All of which would happen with BC as a strong overall #1 seed. In some way, maybe that is the nightmare scenario for the committee.

I think that in that case, I would look to see if there were a CCHA/CCHA matchup available to me that hadn't been played for a long time, and I would use that and the 5-team rule, so I could still have BC v AHA. Michigan/Western would be the best hope of that.

Comments??

The committee has gone that route before so I think they'd use it as precedent... The thing is that the AHA team will be that "bad" (can certainly still unseat a national #1 in a one-game situation) compared to the other #4s. Nevertheless, it would give them all an easy-out.

What is it? 5 teams before such a sacrifice is made? That is, you can have within conference as an opening-round match?

More likely to me... the line will be 14 and not 15... that will happen if neither Union or Cornell win the ECAC and if we know anything about the ECAC, random rules the day. Harvard could have the whole field reaching for the antacids.

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

So have any of you guys posted a "who is locked into the NCAAs no matter what" post yet in this thread? (hint, hint) I imagine there have to be a few by now.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

In 2003 the WCHA had #2, #3, #10, #13 and #14. Cornell was the overall #1 and drew a WCHA team rather than one of the two autobids. CC and Minnesota played Wayne State and Mercyhurst while New Hampshire and Cornell played St. Cloud and Mankato. In fact, the committee had #1 Cornell play #13 Mankato. So I doubt the committee will allow any conference matchups if they can at all be avoided, 5 teams or not.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

So have any of you guys posted a "who is locked into the NCAAs no matter what" post yet in this thread? (hint, hint) I imagine there have to be a few by now.

Tomorrow

I'm planning to do "Already in" and "Need an auto bid or else" lists.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

So have any of you guys posted a "who is locked into the NCAAs no matter what" post yet in this thread? (hint, hint) I imagine there have to be a few by now.

That isn't easy... i've been using the playoffstatus.com website for my info.... but realistically, you can't crank through every possibility and really only go with those that are most probabilistic. Next week will give us a lot more options because the number of games left drops.

Keep in mind, its not impossible for all 5 leagues to provide a team which will not be in the top 11 of the pairwise... just unlikely.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Priceless, Do you mind sharing how you are going about finding out who is "Already in"? It seems to me there are lots of variables. I suppose you have to figure on upsets in all 4 major conferences, and then the AHA bid, so it's a matter of, "Who can't fall lower that 11th in the PWR?" It seems a big job. Go for it!!!

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

We should do away with avoiding intra-conference matchups once and for all. Bracket integrity is where it's at.

Not to mention -- while a vocal minority of die-hards on USCHO might get excited about seeing new teams, it's the known rivalries that sell tickets. John Q Minnesota fan would rather see the Gophs play North Dakota than, say, UNH or UMass-Lowell.

Just like Jack BC fan would rather see BU than Western Michigan.

It sells tickets. It takes away one more consideration that threatens bracket integrity. Just do it. Kill the no-intra-conference restriction. Kill it with fire.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Priceless, Do you mind sharing how you are going about finding out who is "Already in"? It seems to me there are lots of variables. I suppose you have to figure on upsets in all 4 major conferences, and then the AHA bid, so it's a matter of, "Who can't fall lower that 11th in the PWR?" It seems a big job. Go for it!!!

I had something at one point which tried to find the odds but it had errors in the code in places... its not infeasible... its just a pain in the arse.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Priceless, Do you mind sharing how you are going about finding out who is "Already in"? It seems to me there are lots of variables. I suppose you have to figure on upsets in all 4 major conferences, and then the AHA bid, so it's a matter of, "Who can't fall lower that 11th in the PWR?" It seems a big job. Go for it!!!

There are always a few goofy results from conference tournaments that can impact the COp component in unexpected ways. So I do put a caveat in that such a scenario to get a team out COULD exist in theory. That's also why I am wary about using a website like playoffstatus.com which has no correlation at all to the pairwise. As I recall, Jim Dahl did the numbers last year and there were almost 900,000,000 scenarios. I'm not running through that many

I had something at one point which tried to find the odds but it had errors in the code in places... its not infeasible... its just a pain in the arse.

That's what Jim did. He may do it and post results at the SiouxSports site.

 

[JimDahl]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

There are always a few goofy results from conference tournaments that can impact the COp component in unexpected ways. So I do put a caveat in that such a scenario to get a team out COULD exist in theory. That's also why I am wary about using a website like playoffstatus.com which has no correlation at all to the pairwise. As I recall, Jim Dahl did the numbers last year and there were almost 900,000,000 scenarios. I'm not running through that many

It's a little worse than that... with all the best of 3 series remaining, at this point it's still something like 1*10^23 possible outcomes. So, it's possible to do pretty definitive potential outcomes for the weekend (I should have those in the next day or two), but only rough probabilities for the whole thing.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

In 2003 the WCHA had #2, #3, #10, #13 and #14. Cornell was the overall #1 and drew a WCHA team rather than one of the two autobids. CC and Minnesota played Wayne State and Mercyhurst while New Hampshire and Cornell played St. Cloud and Mankato. In fact, the committee had #1 Cornell play #13 Mankato. So I doubt the committee will allow any conference matchups if they can at all be avoided, 5 teams or not.

I remember that year, Priceless. And, I agree, since the precedent has been set, that is probably how it would go.

However, and this is in the realm of "how can we get a better system?" rather than, "what is the bracket going to be?", it is my strong opinion that it was wrong then, and it would be wrong now, again, to do it like that. It seems like a basketball system being imposed on hockey, when the 2 tournaments are very different. In basketball, not so much difference between #16 seeds. Hockey - huge difference between #4s. And, this year, if things hold as they are now, BC is a prohibitive #1 overall.

Simply put, the PWR is not a definite enough tool, and the teams are too close, to say "This is the #8 team." "This is the #9 team."

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I know there are problems with trying something else. I would favor using PWR to choose the field, and giving the committee more flexibility in doing the bracket. But, then, there would be many complaints of back-room dealings, and quid pro quos, from many fans who wouldn't like the result.

Oh, well...

 

[BUPhD]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I'm hoping for an analysis of who's in the Bottom Feeders bracket this year soon!

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

It's a little worse than that... with all the best of 3 series remaining, at this point it's still something like 1*10^23 possible outcomes. So, it's possible to do pretty definitive potential outcomes for the weekend (I should have those in the next day or two), but only rough probabilities for the whole thing.

Ouch. I don't think I can run through that many scenarios

 

[Ruikka Task]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Is it conceivable that BU could pass BC by winning hockey East and be able to go to Worcestor instead of the Eagles because the way BU has been playing lately I think the committee should be able to take that into account and if we won hockey East I think the committee should consider it.