2024 Pairwise and Tournament Qualification Thread

[ticapnews]

Let's just make a win a win. Doesn't matter when it is, regulation vs OT. Every win gets equal weight.

Congratulations Providence, you're back in the field. New Hampshire better resume practices because they're now squarely on the bubble.

Omaha is now ninth. If the Mavericks beat North Dakota on Friday night, they're both #2 seeds. But hey, since there are no rules anymore, we can just make Omaha the #2 seed and North Dakota the #3 seed and have them play each other again.

 

[BC/HE]

Let's just make a win a win. Doesn't matter when it is, regulation vs OT. Every win gets equal weight.

Congratulations Providence, you're back in the field. New Hampshire better resume practices because they're now squarely on the bubble.

Omaha is now ninth. If the Mavericks beat North Dakota on Friday night, they're both #2 seeds. But hey, since there are no rules anymore, we can just make Omaha the #2 seed and North Dakota the #3 seed and have them play each other again.

Nobody is looking at abandoning the selection rules or making major changes to the selection format as you infer here. A very minor tweak such as allowing a 12/13 switch could avoid major disruptions such as giving an overall number 1 or 2 seed a 20 point PWR penalty opponent. You are likely to get a PWR team in the 30's this year and another in the 20's. Giving those to the 3 and 4 overall seed and making the 1 and 2 play the 13 and 14 is a much more drastic approach than switching a 12 and 13. Just that one addition possibility to the selection rules would be enough to help out most years.

 

[ticapnews]

Nobody is looking at abandoning the selection rules or making major changes to the selection format as you infer here. A very minor tweak such as allowing a 12/13 switch could avoid major disruptions such as giving an overall number 1 or 2 seed a 20 point PWR penalty opponent. You are likely to get a PWR team in the 30's this year and another in the 20's. Giving those to the 3 and 4 overall seed and making the 1 and 2 play the 13 and 14 is a much more drastic approach than switching a 12 and 13. Just that one addition possibility to the selection rules would be enough to help out most years.

What you're describing already happened. It was discussed at the time because it was unfair to the overall #1 seed but the rules are the rules.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_NCAA_Division_I_men's_ice_hockey_tournament

 

[J.D.]

Let's just make a win a win. Doesn't matter when it is, regulation vs OT. Every win gets equal weight.

Congratulations Providence, you're back in the field. New Hampshire better resume practices because they're now squarely on the bubble.

Omaha is now ninth. If the Mavericks beat North Dakota on Friday night, they're both #2 seeds. But hey, since there are no rules anymore, we can just make Omaha the #2 seed and North Dakota the #3 seed and have them play each other again.

Ya you've just gone off the rails.

 

[ticapnews]

Ya you've just gone off the rails.

Why is proposing to make all wins equal any more radical than switching teams between bands?

Edit: I would argue that proposing that a win is a win is far less controversial than what you're proposing. All wins were treated the same until a few seasons ago. Keeping the integrity of the seeding bands and avoiding intra conference play has been a constant for far longer, and has precedent - even at the expense of the #1 overall seed.

 

[J.D.]

Why is proposing to make all wins equal any more radical than switching teams between bands?

There is nothing radical about switching 12 and 13 in an extreme scenario when the same thing can be done between 5 and 8 just because they are in a "band". The bracket integrity is not altered much at all.

 

[Seacaptim]

Committee must decide priority this year. Is it the “serpentine” #1 vs #16, #2 vs #15 seeding integrity or will they start moving teams out of their seeds, to fit the no intra conference idea…. Deviation away from these seeds when setting up bracket, affects the regional finals as well. For example in JD’s projected bracket-BU as #2 overall seed, might face the #5 Michigan State, when they should be facing a #7 seed… Again, committee has an “out” if NCHC presents 5 teams into the tournament…otherwise lets hope Cornell wins the ECAC tournament..
The combination of guaranteeing the host schools a spot in their regional AND strongly recommending no first round intra conference match-ups, stands to wreck any “seeding integrity”. Bracket integrity is a cop out, since teams are allowed to be moved around as long they are in the same “band” (#1 seeds, #2 etc.). There is no perfect solution but which should be the higher priority? I go with the seeding as close as possible.

 

[ticapnews]

There is nothing radical about switching 12 and 13 in an extreme scenario when the same thing can be done between 5 and 8 just because they are in a "band". The bracket integrity is not altered much at all.

Right. Nothing at all radical about breaking decades of precedent for the sake of convenience.

 

[J.D.]

Right. Nothing at all radical about breaking decades of precedent for the sake of convenience.

You're choosing to be obtuse about this.

 

[BC/HE]

Committee must decide priority this year. Is it the “serpentine” #1 vs #16, #2 vs #15 seeding integrity or will they start moving teams out of their seeds, to fit the no intra conference idea…. Deviation away from these seeds when setting up bracket, affects the regional finals as well. For example in JD’s projected bracket-BU as #2 overall seed, might face the #5 Michigan State, when they should be facing a #7 seed… Again, committee has an “out” if NCHC presents 5 teams into the tournament…otherwise lets hope Cornell wins the ECAC tournament..
The combination of guaranteeing the host schools a spot in their regional AND strongly recommending no first round intra conference match-ups, stands to wreck any “seeding integrity”. Bracket integrity is a cop out, since teams are allowed to be moved around as long they are in the same “band” (#1 seeds, #2 etc.). There is no perfect solution but which should be the higher priority? I go with the seeding as close as possible.

Hopefully they mean what they say here: If five or more teams from one conference make the tournament, then the pairing process according to seed will be the priority.

I don't see how this changes going from band to band, however it may mean that the 1 vs. 16 takes priority over an intraconference game.

 

[ticapnews]

You're choosing to be obtuse about this.

No, I'm the one being reasonable.

I'm not married to the idea either way, I object to changing precedent on a whim. If it's something that needs to be addressed, do it in the off-season. Like every other change. Not a week before the tournament field is selected.

If the NCAA wanted to change this, the time would have been after the 2003 tournament when #1 Cornell was screwed even though the committee could have made numerous exceptions, including intra conference match ups (the WCHA had five teams) or turned #12 Harvard and #11 Ohio State into 4 seeds. It did nothing. It allowed Cornell to play the overall #14 team instead of the overall #37. And then didn't change the rules.

Now you are proposing we change those rules in the middle of the selection process for no other reason than convenience. Not even because it will hurt the #1 overall seed.

 

[J.D.]

In the middle of the selection process? Wodon is the one who said it's not an ironclad rule. If it is then obviously I am not saying they should change it in the middle of this year's selection process. I would say they should seriously consider changing the rule to give themselves more flexibility to create a bracket that is actually logical.

 

[Numbers]

If I may.....
The reason for the "5 teams in one conference qualify" exception to No Intraconference Games is simple:
Let's say you have 2 #2s and 3#s from the same conference. You're stuck. You literally have no options, except for 2 conference-mates to play each other.
The rule is NOT there for seasons like this one, where NCHC may have 5 schools, but they will be spread across 3 seed bands.

In reality, what will happen is that Denver and NoDak will play BSU and RIT if it happens that Western Mich and CC are the #13 and 14 seeds. That's precendence. It will happen, and BC and BU will face WMU and CC in that case.

Just like, in the case where UMass is the #13, then BC goes to Providence, and BU goes to either Sioux Falls or Maryland Heights. It's the rule. It's the way the committee has always followed the rule (no matter who was on the committee).

Some fans might not like it. But, it is the way it is.

As for swapping 12 and 13.....Here's the problem with that. Suppose they are in the same regional, and both win in Round 1. Now, who has the home ice for the Region Final? Or, more possibly, let's say that the #13 PWR team, who gets seeded 12th, plays in some other region (not with the other 12/13 team). If they win, and the #4 in that region wins, then the #13 PWR gets a "last change" game. And, conversely, if the team that was dropped from 12 to 13 wins, and the #3 in their region also wins, then they play a road rules game, even though, originally, noth of those teams were #3 seeds. The committe doesn't want this, and that is the reason for the rule about "no switching bands."

 

[BC/HE]

So if North Dakota wins the NCHC and Michigan State the B1G they both likely end up as 1 seeds then we would then see how well the committee follows precedent. If UMass is a 4 there would be no other option than to place North Dakota in Springfield pitting Michigan State against the NCHC 4 seed. That would also likely be a 1/16,2/15,3/14 and 4/13 perfect bracket.

 

[J.D.]

If I may.....
The reason for the "5 teams in one conference qualify" exception to No Intraconference Games is simple:
Let's say you have 2 #2s and 3#s from the same conference. You're stuck. You literally have no options, except for 2 conference-mates to play each other.
The rule is NOT there for seasons like this one, where NCHC may have 5 schools, but they will be spread across 3 seed bands.

In reality, what will happen is that Denver and NoDak will play BSU and RIT if it happens that Western Mich and CC are the #13 and 14 seeds. That's precendence. It will happen, and BC and BU will face WMU and CC in that case.

Just like, in the case where UMass is the #13, then BC goes to Providence, and BU goes to either Sioux Falls or Maryland Heights. It's the rule. It's the way the committee has always followed the rule (no matter who was on the committee).

Some fans might not like it. But, it is the way it is.

As for swapping 12 and 13.....Here's the problem with that. Suppose they are in the same regional, and both win in Round 1. Now, who has the home ice for the Region Final? Or, more possibly, let's say that the #13 PWR team, who gets seeded 12th, plays in some other region (not with the other 12/13 team). If they win, and the #4 in that region wins, then the #13 PWR gets a "last change" game. And, conversely, if the team that was dropped from 12 to 13 wins, and the #3 in their region also wins, then they play a road rules game, even though, originally, noth of those teams were #3 seeds. The committe doesn't want this, and that is the reason for the rule about "no switching bands."

Precedents can change. Committee isn't the same every year. Common sense says 12 v. 13 fighting over who the home team is doesn't compare to #1 in the PWR going from playing #31 in the PWR to playing #14 in the PWR. It also simply doesn't make any sense to give the #3 and #4 overall seeds a distinct advantage over #1 and #2. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean it has to stay that way when there is a better solution. In the scenario being proposed here I think the qualifier would be that it would happen when 12 and 13 are kept in same regional. I am just open to flexibility when it is logical. It doesn't have to be this rigid.

 

[ticapnews]

Precedents can change. Committee isn't the same every year. Common sense says 12 v. 13 fighting over who the home team is doesn't compare to #1 in the PWR going from playing #31 in the PWR to playing #14 in the PWR. It also simply doesn't make any sense to give the #3 and #4 overall seeds a distinct advantage over #1 and #2. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean it has to stay that way when there is a better solution. In the scenario being proposed here I think the qualifier would be that it would happen when 12 and 13 are kept in same regional. I am just open to flexibility when it is logical. It doesn't have to be this rigid.

Except I literally just showed you a previous example of that exact thing happening. #1 played #14 while #2 played #37. This a rule the NCAA has consistently followed for decades.

Is there a reason this is suddenly a problem this season?

 

[amkirby10]

Well, just to offer my thoughts, unsolicited of course.

I dont mind the idea of the rule to avoid conference games in the first round of the national tourney. I agree with the basic premise, that being that its more interesting to mix up the matchups and not see the same sets of opponents constantly. The rule itself is not the problem.

However, where I take issue with the rule is how strictly the NCAA has proven themselves willing to stick to it. To use this year as an example, in what world does it make sense to send BU to South Dakota instead of Massachusetts, and the reverse for North Dakota? Just to avoid playing UMA and UNO, respectively? That seems foolish at best and simply asinine at worst. There should be no question about the Fighting Hawks being in Sioux Falls, and the Terriers in Springfield, conference matchup or otherwise.

Now, having said all this, I don't expect a change to occur for this year's tourney, or even any time soon. If the Minutemen and Mavericks end up as 4 seeds, then it'll be tough tooties for both BU and UND. They've proven time and again that this rule is gospel, ironclad, unless it is literally unavoidable.

 

[Seacaptim]

Jim Connelly’s bracket prediction
Providence, R.I.
1. Boston College
6. Maine
9. Wisconsin
14. Colorado College

Maryland Heights, Mo.
4. Denver
7. Quinnipiac
10. Michigan
13. Western Michigan

Sioux Falls, S.D.
3. North Dakota
8. Minnesota
11. Omaha
15. RIT

Springfield, Mass.
2. Boston University
5. Michigan State
12. Massachusetts
16. Bemidji State

I would make one additional change here. Bemidji and Colorado College swap places, as #1 BC should be playing #16 BMS. This is common sense.
Read the article to gain his rationale…I disagreee with him on attendance. Providence will not have a great crowd and I am not sure that Springfield will either. It is Easter weekend and some games are Friday at 2:00 (Providence) and Easter Sunday. If BC students were not on Easter break, they may have sent a few busloads to Providence…hope I am wrong.

 

[J.D.]

Except I literally just showed you a previous example of that exact thing happening. #1 played #14 while #2 played #37. This a rule the NCAA has consistently followed for decades.

Is there a reason this is suddenly a problem this season?

I don't understand what this means. You pointed out an example from like 20 years ago. The committee changes every year and precedents can change. Just because they made a decision on something similar 20 years ago has absolutely no bearing on what they might do now. Suddenly this season? Maybe because it's not a scenario we see unfold every season. That's why.

 

[J.D.]

Jim Connelly’s bracket prediction
Providence, R.I.
1. Boston College
6. Maine
9. Wisconsin
14. Colorado College

Maryland Heights, Mo.
4. Denver
7. Quinnipiac
10. Michigan
13. Western Michigan

Sioux Falls, S.D.
3. North Dakota
8. Minnesota
11. Omaha
15. RIT

Springfield, Mass.
2. Boston University
5. Michigan State
12. Massachusetts
16. Bemidji State

I would make one additional change here. Bemidji and Colorado College swap places, as #1 BC should be playing #16 BMS. This is common sense.
Read the article to gain his rationale…I disagreee with him on attendance. Providence will not have a great crowd and I am not sure that Springfield will either. It is Easter weekend and some games are Friday at 2:00 (Providence) and Easter Sunday. If BC students were not on Easter break, they may have sent a few busloads to Providence…hope I am wrong.

Christ almighty, Connelly goes with the all NCHC game but then decides it would be the #2 overall seed who gets #16 and #1 to play #14?