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.

2024 Pairwise and Tournament Qualification Thread

Wasn't this part of the 'Colorado College Rule'* where the regular season conference champion was invited regardless of their final Pairwise and a team that won both their regular season and the conference tourney was rewarded with a bye? It made sense, then as the 4 conferences at that time HE, ECAC, CCHA and WCHA would regularly produce 2 or more eligible teams for the tourney.

*Colorado College won the WCHA regular season one year, 1994? and was left out of NCAA's
 
Last edited:
J.D. said:
I think his point there was if the teams were right next to each other like #12 and #13. With UMass at 14, less of an appetite for that.
Click to expand...

I also imagine he has less of an appetite now that the team he'd be helping is not named North Dakota...
 
NOTE: The Committee is NOT allowed to do this under current rules, but it would be cool if the rules were amended one of 2 ways:
1) Amend the "No intraconference games in Round 1" rule to say...."No games in Round 1 between teams who have played each other since January 1". (I think this would allow a BU v UMass game?)
In this case, Springfield would be: BU v UMass, Maine v Cornell. Omaha would be: Denver v RIT, Minn v Omaha. Md Heights would be: MSU v WMU, NoDak v Michigan. BU has a more challenging game, but closer to home.

or

2) Allow the following: Springfield: BU v Cornell (I know Cornell should be a 3, but bear with me here), Wisconsin v UMass. (I know, UMass should be a 4). And, then, there is a caveat that says "If Cornell and UMass both win, Cornell, as higher PWR ranked team, gets last change in the regional final.

Personally, I think #1 above would serve the Committee well. It would prevent recent rematches. Sometimes you might have a situation where someone has played an OOC series in January, and they play again in the first round of the NCAAs. Maybe that shouldn't happen.
 
By the way.....CC misses because they lost to Augustana on October 28. A bad loss. They would have been a #3 otherwise.
 
Mike McMahon is in complete disbelief that common sense prevailed in regard to keeping Maine-Cornell in Springfield and Michigan-North Dakota in Missouri.

Now, the funny thing here is they hit the jackpot of teams in Missouri where the 2,500 seats won't be enough. Man is this system broken.
 
Fun Fact: According to College Hockey News, eight of the eleven youngest teams in Division One are in the Tournament -- BC, Denver, BU, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Cornell, Minnesota and Michigan, along with the oldest team in Division One, RIT. LINK
 
chatster said:
Fun Fact: According to College Hockey News, eight of the eleven youngest teams in Division One are in the Tournament -- BC, Denver, BU, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Cornell, Minnesota and Michigan, along with the oldest team in Division One, RIT. LINK
Click to expand...

And… Maine is tied for 12th. UMass is tied for 16th.
 
J.D. said:
Mike McMahon is in complete disbelief that common sense prevailed in regard to keeping Maine-Cornell in Springfield and Michigan-North Dakota in Missouri.

Now, the funny thing here is they hit the jackpot of teams in Missouri where the 2,500 seats won't be enough. Man is this system broken.
Click to expand...

Ya "neutral sites" falls on complete deaf ears to me when it seems like a #3 or #4 seed end of benefiting from it more than top seeds and now they're playing in a 2500 seat arena when they could sell 5-10k tickets for a regional baffles me. We could have 1st round home matches on campus at BC, Wisconsin, Denver, Maine, Michigan State, North Dakota, BU and Minnesota. Would be absolute insane atmospheres, instead we're forced to deal with this nonsense
 
sigx15 said:
Ya "neutral sites" falls on complete deaf ears to me when it seems like a #3 or #4 seed end of benefiting from it more than top seeds and now they're playing in a 2500 seat arena when they could sell 5-10k tickets for a regional baffles me. We could have 1st round home matches on campus at BC, Wisconsin, Denver, Maine, Michigan State, North Dakota, BU and Minnesota. Would be absolute insane atmospheres, instead we're forced to deal with this nonsense
Click to expand...

Easy solution for Missouri. Sell tickets for each game separately, that way you double the attendance there for the first day.
 
BC/HE said:
Easy solution for Missouri. Sell tickets for each game separately, that way you double the attendance there for the first day.
Click to expand...

So 5000? Still doesn’t equate to the capacity of any of the top schools. On campus for the regionals is the way to go. Neutral for the semis and finals.
 
Are there parameters in place for hosting a regional? I thought there was one with regards to arena size, but that could be wishful thinking on my part. I don't understand how Maryland Heights got the bid based on their size. Was it given an exception? It's a practice rink for the St. Louis Blues. I'm flabbergasted as to how it even was selected.

Family circumstances and lack of time to book a trip are preventing me from making the trip to Sioux Falls. I'm always up for adding both a new arena to see BU play in, plus a state I've never been too. Sadly, not in the cards this season. Trying to figure out if I go to a watch party or watch from the comfort of my couch where I can change the channel if things go awry. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top