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.
2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
- Thread starter brookyone
- Start date
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
IMO, the ECAC has had too many quarters that rematched conference tournament games as well. The Gophers had only had the one with Wisconsin in 2008 until the last two years. As for BC playing incredible games … the one versus Harvard last year? Really? If you think a game decided by two of the softest goals in tourney history was incredible, you really should get to more hockey games.
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Grant, refer to this link for an explanation of how the men's teams are selected and seeded: http://www.uscho.com/faq/ncaa-selection-process/
Here's the pertinent part (my bolding of the point you were disputing).
Q: How is the tournament seeded?
A: The four top-ranked teams in the tournament are awarded No. 1 seeds. The next four are No. 2 seeds, the next four No. 3 seeds and the final four No. 4 seeds. Attempts have been made to keep teams closest to their home region, but there is an emphasis on bracket integrity — keeping the first-round matchups as close as possible to having No. 1 overall play No. 16 overall, No. 2 overall play No. 15 overall, and so on.
The committee is directed to avoid first-round games between teams from the same conference unless five or more teams from one conference are selected. In that case, the committee will prioritize maintaining bracket integrity over avoiding intra-conference matchups.
Also, schools that are hosting regionals and make the field of 16 will play at that site.
Grant, refer to this link for an explanation of how the men's teams are selected and seeded: http://www.uscho.com/faq/ncaa-selection-process/
Here's the pertinent part (my bolding of the point you were disputing).
Q: How is the tournament seeded?
A: The four top-ranked teams in the tournament are awarded No. 1 seeds. The next four are No. 2 seeds, the next four No. 3 seeds and the final four No. 4 seeds. Attempts have been made to keep teams closest to their home region, but there is an emphasis on bracket integrity — keeping the first-round matchups as close as possible to having No. 1 overall play No. 16 overall, No. 2 overall play No. 15 overall, and so on.
The committee is directed to avoid first-round games between teams from the same conference unless five or more teams from one conference are selected. In that case, the committee will prioritize maintaining bracket integrity over avoiding intra-conference matchups.
Also, schools that are hosting regionals and make the field of 16 will play at that site.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
And it could be said that the women use four-team bands just like the men. Which doesn't mean that I like at all how the seedings for the women are done, just that they need to be addressed on their own merits without trying to make comparisons to the men's tournament.
And it could be said that the women use four-team bands just like the men. Which doesn't mean that I like at all how the seedings for the women are done, just that they need to be addressed on their own merits without trying to make comparisons to the men's tournament.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
exactly, and this year there is the real possibility that once again UND will play either MN or WI 6 times and MN & WI play each other 6 times as well
what is the point of proving your superiorority during the regular season, once again in the conference tournament, only to meet again first thing in the NCAA tournament?
If I didn't know better, you people out east are afraid to play teams in the WCHA. I suppose 14 years of failure will do that.
exactly, and this year there is the real possibility that once again UND will play either MN or WI 6 times and MN & WI play each other 6 times as well
what is the point of proving your superiorority during the regular season, once again in the conference tournament, only to meet again first thing in the NCAA tournament?
If I didn't know better, you people out east are afraid to play teams in the WCHA. I suppose 14 years of failure will do that.
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Every time you put fingers to keys, you manage to make yourself look more foolish than the last time. That is a gift, truly a gift.
Every time you put fingers to keys, you manage to make yourself look more foolish than the last time. That is a gift, truly a gift.
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Last year Denver and Wisconsin were assigned to the NE Regional in Manchester, NH; Niagra and Yale to the West Regional in Grand Rapids, MI; and Minnesota State and St. Cloud State to the Midwest Regional in Toledo, OH. Lots of travel that could have been avoided if the cost of travel was the main priority.
Last year Denver and Wisconsin were assigned to the NE Regional in Manchester, NH; Niagra and Yale to the West Regional in Grand Rapids, MI; and Minnesota State and St. Cloud State to the Midwest Regional in Toledo, OH. Lots of travel that could have been avoided if the cost of travel was the main priority.
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
A tournament configured to purposely ensure all regions are represented in the FF as opposed to an objective of bringing the four best teams to the FF. Yup...I think foolish is a generously benevolent characterization.
Of course there is that undeniable reality that is apparently perceivable only to the most worldly and acutely insightful. That being the inevitable stunting and eventual demise of the sport...all at the hands of a few teams via their sustained excellence. I mean really...who can't see the undeniable destructive impact that excelling consistently to high levels of performance will have...or has had on the sport?
Figured it was about time we got 'round to that annual drivel.
This would qualify as my concept of foolish...with the word foolish being somewhat diplomatic.
A tournament configured to purposely ensure all regions are represented in the FF as opposed to an objective of bringing the four best teams to the FF. Yup...I think foolish is a generously benevolent characterization.
Of course there is that undeniable reality that is apparently perceivable only to the most worldly and acutely insightful. That being the inevitable stunting and eventual demise of the sport...all at the hands of a few teams via their sustained excellence. I mean really...who can't see the undeniable destructive impact that excelling consistently to high levels of performance will have...or has had on the sport?
Figured it was about time we got 'round to that annual drivel.
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Not attacking anybody, just stating what the primary objective is for the men, and wishing the women would do the same: "...there is an emphasis on bracket integrity — keeping the first-round matchups as close as possible to having No. 1 overall play No. 16 overall, No. 2 overall play No. 15 overall, and so on."
Obviously for the women it would be No. 1 overall playing No. 8 overall, etc.
Not attacking anybody, just stating what the primary objective is for the men, and wishing the women would do the same: "...there is an emphasis on bracket integrity — keeping the first-round matchups as close as possible to having No. 1 overall play No. 16 overall, No. 2 overall play No. 15 overall, and so on."
Obviously for the women it would be No. 1 overall playing No. 8 overall, etc.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Well, another day to examine the current PairWise.
I says to myself, how in the world do both Cornell and Harvard win comparisons to Wisconsin?
In both instances it is a small, very small RPI advantage and and the TUC point.
Well, that's silly. The TUC point comes because Wisconsin has played and unfortunately for them LOST to Minnesota. Twice.
In the TUC comparison Harvard has wins over Quinnipiac, Princeton ?, Clarkson and BU. And two ties, Cornell and BC. 4-0-2
Wisconsin has a win and a tie over North Dakota, a win over BU and two losses to Minnesota. 2-2-1
Cornell wins the comparison with Wisconsin with wins over Princeton ? again?, Clarkson and BC, ties with Harvard and Quinnipiac, and a loss to BC. 3-1-2.
Looking at this through my western bias tinted glasses I am having a bit of trouble with calling BOTH Cornell and Harvard better than Wisconsin based on this. Attack me if you will, fine. I still don't think losing to Minnesota should be that big a penalty in the comparisons leading to a national championship tournament. Wisconsin is just NOT number 4.
So I originally proposed something based on being pleased about a pairing which would NOT have Minnesota hosting North Dakota in the quarterfinals for the third year in a row. REALLY, really, that is what I liked about that pairing.
But I don't like those pairings anymore.
Wisconsin may not be a 2, but come one, a 4?
8 versus 1: Robert Morris at Minnesota
7 versus 2: As it currently stands (and we all recognize this is subject to change) Clarkson at the current number 2 Cornell. I believe that is a no fly quarterfinal.
6 versus 3: Wisconsin hosts North Dakota. I still hate it, it is likely that these two teams will have probably played in the WCHA tournament the week before. Further I doubt it is a no fly, that is an extremely long bus ride, but?
5 versus 4: BU at Harvard. Pretty sure this is a no fly quarterfinal.
The problem is that two of the proposed match ups are likely reprises of the conference tournaments. BUT, if the seeded teams win, you get Minnesota v. Harvard and Wisconsin v. Cornell as semi-finals.
THAT would be good with me.
Well, another day to examine the current PairWise.
I says to myself, how in the world do both Cornell and Harvard win comparisons to Wisconsin?
In both instances it is a small, very small RPI advantage and and the TUC point.
Well, that's silly. The TUC point comes because Wisconsin has played and unfortunately for them LOST to Minnesota. Twice.
In the TUC comparison Harvard has wins over Quinnipiac, Princeton ?, Clarkson and BU. And two ties, Cornell and BC. 4-0-2
Wisconsin has a win and a tie over North Dakota, a win over BU and two losses to Minnesota. 2-2-1
Cornell wins the comparison with Wisconsin with wins over Princeton ? again?, Clarkson and BC, ties with Harvard and Quinnipiac, and a loss to BC. 3-1-2.
Looking at this through my western bias tinted glasses I am having a bit of trouble with calling BOTH Cornell and Harvard better than Wisconsin based on this. Attack me if you will, fine. I still don't think losing to Minnesota should be that big a penalty in the comparisons leading to a national championship tournament. Wisconsin is just NOT number 4.
So I originally proposed something based on being pleased about a pairing which would NOT have Minnesota hosting North Dakota in the quarterfinals for the third year in a row. REALLY, really, that is what I liked about that pairing.
But I don't like those pairings anymore.
Wisconsin may not be a 2, but come one, a 4?
8 versus 1: Robert Morris at Minnesota
7 versus 2: As it currently stands (and we all recognize this is subject to change) Clarkson at the current number 2 Cornell. I believe that is a no fly quarterfinal.
6 versus 3: Wisconsin hosts North Dakota. I still hate it, it is likely that these two teams will have probably played in the WCHA tournament the week before. Further I doubt it is a no fly, that is an extremely long bus ride, but?
5 versus 4: BU at Harvard. Pretty sure this is a no fly quarterfinal.
The problem is that two of the proposed match ups are likely reprises of the conference tournaments. BUT, if the seeded teams win, you get Minnesota v. Harvard and Wisconsin v. Cornell as semi-finals.
THAT would be good with me.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
You know what the sad part is. There is some truth to that at the world stage. If Canada and the US continue to dominate, this sport will die at the Olympic level, and that more than any college domination would hurt the sport.
You know what the sad part is. There is some truth to that at the world stage. If Canada and the US continue to dominate, this sport will die at the Olympic level, and that more than any college domination would hurt the sport.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
If your argument is that you want to reward the best teams with an easier path to the Frozen Four, then fine, that's a totally valid argument. But it's a completely separate one from 'I want the four best teams to be in the Frozen Four.' Because all four of those best teams (as defined by the PWR; another debate entirely) are by rule given an opponent that they are ranked higher than.
See those are the posts you gotta just ignore. He's trying to get a response.
I'm going to stop you right there -- no matter HOW you bracket the tournament, if the seeded teams win, then the 4 best teams will be in the Frozen Four. So what is the argument?
If your argument is that you want to reward the best teams with an easier path to the Frozen Four, then fine, that's a totally valid argument. But it's a completely separate one from 'I want the four best teams to be in the Frozen Four.' Because all four of those best teams (as defined by the PWR; another debate entirely) are by rule given an opponent that they are ranked higher than.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
At least at the Olympic level, that domination is mostly by Canada in terms of winning. The USA has missed the gold medal game as many times as it has won it. Even Canada's dominance is not of historic proportions compared to other sports.
Maybe we should eliminate sprinting from track and field at the Olympics as well. Jamaica appears dominant, and Europe won't be winning gold anytime soon. Why hold an event if the Europeans aren't going to win? At least they medal in women's ice hockey.
I think we've moved into that other argument: that the PWR doesn't either produce the four best teams or order them properly as determined by other rankings like Rutter and KRACH.
clarksoncluck
New member
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Regardless of Pairwise,
Here is what I would like to see:
Robert Morris at Minn
UMD at Cornell
Wisco at Harvard
Clarkson at BU
All based on current top 8.
Predictions Minn W, Cornell W, Harvard W and Clarkson W. Obviously it looks like a slant to ECAC.
I have promoted female hockey for years and believe that we need a bunch of out of conference match ups. Sorry about the deficit south of the border, but this would be good fun. Is Minn afraid of RMU (no), Cornell will hold it's own and fill the seats, Harvard will pose a problem for the Badgers and likely get reasonable fans (is Wisco afraid to play Harvard in their barn - No), and Clarkson would take it to the Terriers.
Frozen Four - match ups
Minn vs Clarkson
Cornell vs Harvard
Multi millions are being spent on these programs combined. Travel (60k/team) as a reason to not create a really great cross conference matchup, give me a break.
But to seems to always go back to what is easiest/cheapest?????
Step out of the box, make it cool and exciting and different. Really, step it up a couple of notches.
Boring if UND plays Minn!!!!!
Boring if Harvard plays BU!!!!!!!!
Boring if Cornell plays Clarkson!!!!!!!!!
Boring if Wisco plays RMU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boring, boring, boring, boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please make it better, the fiscal cliff is coming up again, so what does it matter??
Regardless of Pairwise,
Here is what I would like to see:
Robert Morris at Minn
UMD at Cornell
Wisco at Harvard
Clarkson at BU
All based on current top 8.
Predictions Minn W, Cornell W, Harvard W and Clarkson W. Obviously it looks like a slant to ECAC.
I have promoted female hockey for years and believe that we need a bunch of out of conference match ups. Sorry about the deficit south of the border, but this would be good fun. Is Minn afraid of RMU (no), Cornell will hold it's own and fill the seats, Harvard will pose a problem for the Badgers and likely get reasonable fans (is Wisco afraid to play Harvard in their barn - No), and Clarkson would take it to the Terriers.
Frozen Four - match ups
Minn vs Clarkson
Cornell vs Harvard
Multi millions are being spent on these programs combined. Travel (60k/team) as a reason to not create a really great cross conference matchup, give me a break.
But to seems to always go back to what is easiest/cheapest?????
Step out of the box, make it cool and exciting and different. Really, step it up a couple of notches.
Boring if UND plays Minn!!!!!
Boring if Harvard plays BU!!!!!!!!
Boring if Cornell plays Clarkson!!!!!!!!!
Boring if Wisco plays RMU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boring, boring, boring, boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please make it better, the fiscal cliff is coming up again, so what does it matter??
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Don't let UMD in there.
clarksoncluck
New member
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
Review of the Programs (with an ECAC slant)
Minn - cruise control (may not win it all, but will be competitive), waiting for Kessel to come back and goalies to mature (game wise). If they win, super bonus for them.
Cornell - Wanting it every year, but will have Jenner back for 1 more, others have stepped up, probably an also ran.
Harvard - Trying to run under the radar this year, backed by goaltending, can be a threat if they can shut down teams (probably surprised they are where they are).
Wisco - Beat teams they should and continue to lose to Minn, kinda scary approach.
Robert Morris - Great stats in a weak league, play some tough competition and we'll see.
BU - Lost their studs, put a top line together, and they're better, but others will shut down that team.
Clarkson - Should have it all, good goalie, great offensive skills, but are Jeckle and Hyde.
UND - Split goalie stats (maybe good/bad), Don't think they have enough forward push to get it done.
Kind of open for any of these, this is a year that I would pick Wisco/Clarkson. But a goalie can make all the difference in a 1 game knock out.
Review of the Programs (with an ECAC slant)
Minn - cruise control (may not win it all, but will be competitive), waiting for Kessel to come back and goalies to mature (game wise). If they win, super bonus for them.
Cornell - Wanting it every year, but will have Jenner back for 1 more, others have stepped up, probably an also ran.
Harvard - Trying to run under the radar this year, backed by goaltending, can be a threat if they can shut down teams (probably surprised they are where they are).
Wisco - Beat teams they should and continue to lose to Minn, kinda scary approach.
Robert Morris - Great stats in a weak league, play some tough competition and we'll see.
BU - Lost their studs, put a top line together, and they're better, but others will shut down that team.
Clarkson - Should have it all, good goalie, great offensive skills, but are Jeckle and Hyde.
UND - Split goalie stats (maybe good/bad), Don't think they have enough forward push to get it done.
Kind of open for any of these, this is a year that I would pick Wisco/Clarkson. But a goalie can make all the difference in a 1 game knock out.
Nowheresville
Registered User
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
The problem is that it makes the assumption that the Seeded 4 teams are actually the Best 4 teams.
That's really not something that you can do, especially with how flawed the pairwise is when it comes to the Womens side. The Pairwise largely depends upon how your team and your conference does in non-conference games. Yet, in the Women's game there are so few out of conference games, especially between east and west, that it doesn't take much for the entire rankings to be skewed.
That's a big reason why it would be nice if the womens tournament would get the same rules as the mens side, where avoiding conference matchups in the first round is a top priority. Not only would it make for more interesting games and matchups in the first round, it ultimately would make things more fair, and make it more likely that the best teams actually do make it to the Frozen Four.
The problem is that it makes the assumption that the Seeded 4 teams are actually the Best 4 teams.
That's really not something that you can do, especially with how flawed the pairwise is when it comes to the Womens side. The Pairwise largely depends upon how your team and your conference does in non-conference games. Yet, in the Women's game there are so few out of conference games, especially between east and west, that it doesn't take much for the entire rankings to be skewed.
That's a big reason why it would be nice if the womens tournament would get the same rules as the mens side, where avoiding conference matchups in the first round is a top priority. Not only would it make for more interesting games and matchups in the first round, it ultimately would make things more fair, and make it more likely that the best teams actually do make it to the Frozen Four.
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations
My take on all of this, without getting into specific teams...
Any ranking system is bound to have some flaws somewhere, though some (PWR) may have more flaws than others (Rutter, KRACH).
Right now we're dealing with three separate issues:
-- Trying to reduce travel costs
-- Trying to avoid intra-conference matchups
-- Trying to maintain bracket integrity
Men's hockey is not as influenced by the travel costs (they come into play occasionally), but the bracket integrity is maintained by creating four seeding bands (I would classify this as 100% seeding) and pairing teams up by band (a team in the #1-seed band versus a team in the #4-seed band and #2 vs. #3) rather than on the overall ranking.
For the women, having only 8 teams in the tournament makes this a lot more difficult. A greater emphasis on the travel cost reduction doesn't help, and some of the bracket integrity issues that have arisen in the past is because they are being treated like two 4-team bands (like the men).
So how do I really feel about this? Well, with 3 WCHA teams likely in the tournament with at least 1 in the top four, it's very difficult to both reduce travel costs and avoid an intra-conference matchup; one precludes the other. My opinion is that an all-WCHA quarterfinal has to happen (no matter how much we all hate it) if it maintains actual bracket integrity (1v8, 2v7, etc). It's only when the travel cost reduction trumps both the other two points of consideration that I raise questions.
The east is a different question because of the geographic concentration of schools. Travel cost differences are virtually a non-issue in east-vs.-east matchups. Would you rather maintain bracket integrity or avoid intra-conference quarterfinal games? I'd pick the latter so long that it's only a 1-position swap in the rankings. Of course, this is also dependent on the relative "closeness" of the teams in the rankings -- if there's a large difference between teams 2 and 3 and a big difference between teams 6 and 7, you might think twice about swapping those pairings.
I know that this clarifies nothing. Honestly, I like the brackets proposed by ManBehindTheCurtain were the field picked today -- the 3 ECAC teams (in addition to the 3 WCHA teams) make it difficult to avoid a second intra-conference matchup, and you can't do it without an extra flight and breaking bracket integrity.
My take on all of this, without getting into specific teams...
Any ranking system is bound to have some flaws somewhere, though some (PWR) may have more flaws than others (Rutter, KRACH).
Right now we're dealing with three separate issues:
-- Trying to reduce travel costs
-- Trying to avoid intra-conference matchups
-- Trying to maintain bracket integrity
Men's hockey is not as influenced by the travel costs (they come into play occasionally), but the bracket integrity is maintained by creating four seeding bands (I would classify this as 100% seeding) and pairing teams up by band (a team in the #1-seed band versus a team in the #4-seed band and #2 vs. #3) rather than on the overall ranking.
For the women, having only 8 teams in the tournament makes this a lot more difficult. A greater emphasis on the travel cost reduction doesn't help, and some of the bracket integrity issues that have arisen in the past is because they are being treated like two 4-team bands (like the men).
So how do I really feel about this? Well, with 3 WCHA teams likely in the tournament with at least 1 in the top four, it's very difficult to both reduce travel costs and avoid an intra-conference matchup; one precludes the other. My opinion is that an all-WCHA quarterfinal has to happen (no matter how much we all hate it) if it maintains actual bracket integrity (1v8, 2v7, etc). It's only when the travel cost reduction trumps both the other two points of consideration that I raise questions.
The east is a different question because of the geographic concentration of schools. Travel cost differences are virtually a non-issue in east-vs.-east matchups. Would you rather maintain bracket integrity or avoid intra-conference quarterfinal games? I'd pick the latter so long that it's only a 1-position swap in the rankings. Of course, this is also dependent on the relative "closeness" of the teams in the rankings -- if there's a large difference between teams 2 and 3 and a big difference between teams 6 and 7, you might think twice about swapping those pairings.
I know that this clarifies nothing. Honestly, I like the brackets proposed by ManBehindTheCurtain were the field picked today -- the 3 ECAC teams (in addition to the 3 WCHA teams) make it difficult to avoid a second intra-conference matchup, and you can't do it without an extra flight and breaking bracket integrity.