Adds travel costs for people like me coming up from NY City.
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
- Thread starter Numbers
- Start date
Adds travel costs for people like me coming up from NY City.
ticapnews
Never Forget!
Springfield and Providence are both 2/530 and 4 on the weekend.
Sioux Falls and Maryland Heights are 4/730 and 5.
Last edited:
How about:
BC tanks the game to UMass, so that UMass ends up a #3, and then everyone is happy. At least as long as either UND or DU lose on Friday, and MSU wins the B10. Then you have only 1 NCHC #1 seed, and so the opponents for BU and the NCHC Champ are flipped, and BU plays CC and UND/DU plays RIT (or something like you, you get the idea).
That's not bad for the committee. Let Cornell win, and it's better yet.
BC tanks the game to UMass, so that UMass ends up a #3, and then everyone is happy. At least as long as either UND or DU lose on Friday, and MSU wins the B10. Then you have only 1 NCHC #1 seed, and so the opponents for BU and the NCHC Champ are flipped, and BU plays CC and UND/DU plays RIT (or something like you, you get the idea).
That's not bad for the committee. Let Cornell win, and it's better yet.
Isn't it a ridiculously small place to begin with? I suppose ticket speculators could be buying them up to scalp out later. The true test of how messed up ticketing for sporting events will be how many butts in seats happen in that small rink.
Does the rink have seats?
ticapnews
Never Forget!
If you drill down on this one-adhering to that sacrosanct rule, obliterates any adherence to the #1 vs. #16, #2 vs. #15 in round one. Also destroys seeding integrity for the regional finals, where #1 should face #8, #2 vs. #7, #3 vs #6, #4 vs. #5. This might be the year where the committee realizes they are upending all other seeding rules, to remain stuck on the ancient (but admirable) thought that intra conference matchups should be avoided. Lastly, there are 5 NCHC teams in your tournament above, which allows them to wean off this criteria.
If Cornell were to pull a huge upset and win ECAC, they could face North Dakota, and Bemidji could face BC.
BigRedBeer
New member
"Huge" upset? They beat the Q in the regular season and have had a very good season! Not really a huge upset!
Geez, now you know how to set off a fan of a state school hockey team
I heard Adam Wodon talking about this and it makes sense in extreme cases. There is nothing that says the committee has to band teams into a seed and stick to that. Just as an example, let's use #12 and #13 in PWR. If you are comfortable moving teams around within a band there really shouldn't be an issue if you flip flop 12 and 13 if it will alleviate the headaches that we could potentially run into here.
ticapnews
Never Forget!
Why bother using Pairwise at all? Just go with gut instincts, the "feel factor" or just pick the 16 teams with the highest attendance and the most revenue?
So you have a problem with flipping 12 and 13 to avoid monster headaches? You're not changing who is actually in the field. And the committee already has no problem flipping teams within a band. So you could potentially create bracket inequality by flipping #5 with #8 but it's a problem flipping 12 and 13?
ticapnews
Never Forget!
If we're going to ignore rules when they become inconvenient then there's really no point in having rules.
The whole point is it doesn't make sense to have a rule where you can switch #5 and #8 around but not #12 and #13. In fact Wodon is saying there is no rule preventing it anyway.
Protecting the overall number 1 seed has been something that has been used in the past when it has come to intraconference matchups involving 5 or more teams from the same conference. Moving around within bands has been the most common approach as well for the selection committee. They have never gone the route of the highest and lowest seeds between adjacent bands but I have always thought that should be an option. A 5 vs. 8 or 9 vs. 12 should be no different than a 4 vs. 5 or 8 vs. 9 or 12 vs. 13. When you think about it a 4 and 5 are essentially matched up with each other anyway in a perfect world. Same can be said about an 8 and 9 but switching an 8 and 9 makes no sense as they would still play each other. The difference comes with a 12 and 13 as the 4th band 13 through 16 can be a huge difference whereas the other 3 bands are quite close. They really should incorporate the 12/13 switch into the model but it should only be done if they do not move them around in their new band, that is the 12 stays as the 13 and the 13 stays as the 12.
