Re: 2019 NCAA Tournament Thread - Regionals are the best weekend of hockey all year
This is such a weak argument, that it really is borderline trolling. However, I'll respond, since I don't believe you are trolling.
Says the guy who objects to name-calling.
The above mentioned examples all have head-to-head playoff series, and except for NFL, go for more than one game. Furthermore, and more importantly, the seeding and home court advantage is based on much more balanced and fair schedules (other than the finals, of course) - meaning, the teams play roughly the same opponents in the regular season. How do you compare the record of PC and Mankato this year? I understand the committee has to go by something (RPI, PairWise, or whatever), but you can argue that that is flawed too. I looked at the record Mankato had against the 16 tourney teams - 1 tie and 3 losses. PC - 3 wins, 1 tie and 4 losses. Mankato 4 games against tourney teams, PC had 8 games (one of the wins came against a Frozen Four bound team). Add the playoffs and the regionals into the mix and Mankato adds 1OT win and 1 loss, while PC adds another 2 wins. So there, you want to go by PairWise, fine, to me this was in no way 3 vs. 14 matchup.
I actually agree with most of this. The stats guys can tell you better than I ever could why the Pairwise is flawed. But when enough people with training in field reach the same conclusion, I can accept their verdict. Trouble is, the Pairwise is the agreed upon rule. As you say, Tournament seeding has to be based on something. Unless you want to do a random draw.
I am. I think it's great for college hockey popularity...
And with that, almost all of the disagreement between the two of us can vanish. The current format puts the West schools in a ridiculous situation, where the large majority of suitable rinks are blacklisted for being campus sites. Take that away, come up with a reasonably equitable rotation of sites, and I could accept the current system. Speaking only for myself, of course.
The problem with your "bonus" example is that you want to give it on a "mutually exclusive basis". You want to give it to some, but not all...
Either this comes from another poster, or you're inventing it out of thin air. "Give it to some but not all" is my objection! Posters on your side of the debate are willing to give Home Crowd advantage to an Eastern school, but rarely to the West. Though somehow it's OK if you're North Dakota...
All I'm saying is be consistent. If neutrality is all important, then apply that principle across the board. But if the rules change & we can choose sites to maximize game atmosphere and revenue, great! Of course that would lead to inequities in individual years. But if a diligent effort is made to balance things out over the long haul, reasonable fairness can be accomplished. That kind of compromise is fine. Blacklisting campus rinks wasn't a compromise. That decision remains an open wound, and it continues to fester.
...With that being said, I challenge you to give me an alternative 16 team bracket for this year, with these NCAA requirements:
Way ahead of you. I've already done so, on the other thread that's currently running.
1. Protect the bracket integrity (i.e. keep 1-16, 2-15, etc.)
I rewarded teams for winning conference championships, moving the six champs plus the top two at-large teams into the into the top 8 spots. Granted, that's not a small change. But otherwise I used the Pairwise numbers and went 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc.
2. Avoid interconference matchups.
Worked out perfectly on the first try; didn't need to make any trades. But I would have moved a team up or down one spot to avoid
intra-conference match-ups.
3. Put the top seeds closer to home
In my hypothetical format, the top 8 seeds played AT home.
4. … (let's waive the attendance consideration)
Why waive it? I'll speak to that. I believe the % of seats filled would be much, much better under my format. I didn't add up the total capacity of the 8 rinks; there might be some loss of seats. Still, I think the capacity numbers would be acceptably close. Total revenue would depend on the ticket prices charged. But sure, any loss of capacity and/or revenue is an "imperfection."
I guarantee you you will not find a perfect bracket.
Because there's no such thing as a perfect bracket. I like my bracket a lot, but it has some downside. Every conceivable option does. But one of my favorite features is that the right to host is earned on the ice.
The committee did the right thing this year.
And this last item illustrates why the topic is so unwieldy. Criticize the system, and people race to the conclusion that you're criticizing this year's committee. Not necessarily so.
In general, I AGREE that the committee did the right thing this year. The problem is the format -- the rules of the game. The Providence Home Ice situation, and the fact it keeps recurring, does provide an example of the fundamental problems with current format. But in any given year, the committee's hands are tied by the rules as they currently exist. If I had been on this year's committee, I might very well have voted for the bracket they produced. The bracket integrity was indeed appealing. Even though unearned home crowd advantage is a big problem, it can be the lesser of the evils. Especially when sites have been pre-chosen and cannot be changed. But I would have continued to insist that, moving forward, policy change is needed.
Thank you for correcting that...