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.
Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
- Thread starter Freddie
- Start date
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Perhaps goal differential should also be a factor? Teams that have been blown out in conference play should be considered over teams that have lost a lot of one-goal games against the better teams in their respective conferences.
Perhaps goal differential should also be a factor? Teams that have been blown out in conference play should be considered over teams that have lost a lot of one-goal games against the better teams in their respective conferences.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
BUT09: agreed on goal differential, and after that, props to Clarkson, it takes an especially bad team to give up 11 to Union.
Has a conference ever had both the Frozen 4 Champ and the Futile 4 Champ? This might be the WCHA's year!
BUT09: agreed on goal differential, and after that, props to Clarkson, it takes an especially bad team to give up 11 to Union.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
There is no reason to reward winning.Do you advance if you win or lose?
FadeToBlack&Gold
8647
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
I don't know, the last couple of weekends the Huskies seem to have found some confidence again. Perhaps four soul-crushing losses to Denver & Wisconsin will put an end to that and allow Tech to look forward to the Bottomfeeder Tourney. They've got to be anxious to avenge last year's early exit - they looked way too good in that awful 19-1 first round win over American International.
I don't know, the last couple of weekends the Huskies seem to have found some confidence again. Perhaps four soul-crushing losses to Denver & Wisconsin will put an end to that and allow Tech to look forward to the Bottomfeeder Tourney. They've got to be anxious to avenge last year's early exit - they looked way too good in that awful 19-1 first round win over American International.
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
The committee is experimenting with a new hybrid ranking system known as FARTS (Freddie's Arbitrary Ranking of Teams that Suck). FARTS is a mathematical formula taking into consideration:
1. Each teams LP (Losing Percentage),
2. The combined LP of all their opponents,
3. The combined LP of their opponents opponents,
4. The combined LP of all their conference members in NON conference play,
5. The high temperature (celsius) on the day of each team's final game of before the tournament draw, as recorded in the home town of the player who's home town is furthest away from his school.
These FIVE factors are given a 'share' value assigned by the committee's ouija board. The total of all five shares will add up to 100%. Each of the five factors is them multiplied by the assigned 'share', then the shares are added up to create each team's FARTS.
The 25 worst FARTS are declared as TWITS (Teams With Inadequate Talent or Skill). Each of the TWITS are then run through a series of comparisons to all the other TWITS. Those comparisons are:
1. LP against all other TWITS
2. LP against all common opponents
3. Losses in head-to-head meetings
4. Losses that occurred on any day of the week not containing an "R"
Each team is awarded a comparison 'point' for each comparison lost, with ties being broken by FARTS.
The resulting ranking BFR (Bottom Feeder Ranking) will decide eligibility for 'at large' bids, and will also be used for seeding.
As always, this tournament is all for the fans...so feel free to make suggestions. Faithful to the old saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth", the committee believes that everyone ought to have a hand in making this event a total disgrace.
The committee is experimenting with a new hybrid ranking system known as FARTS (Freddie's Arbitrary Ranking of Teams that Suck). FARTS is a mathematical formula taking into consideration:
1. Each teams LP (Losing Percentage),
2. The combined LP of all their opponents,
3. The combined LP of their opponents opponents,
4. The combined LP of all their conference members in NON conference play,
5. The high temperature (celsius) on the day of each team's final game of before the tournament draw, as recorded in the home town of the player who's home town is furthest away from his school.
These FIVE factors are given a 'share' value assigned by the committee's ouija board. The total of all five shares will add up to 100%. Each of the five factors is them multiplied by the assigned 'share', then the shares are added up to create each team's FARTS.
The 25 worst FARTS are declared as TWITS (Teams With Inadequate Talent or Skill). Each of the TWITS are then run through a series of comparisons to all the other TWITS. Those comparisons are:
1. LP against all other TWITS
2. LP against all common opponents
3. Losses in head-to-head meetings
4. Losses that occurred on any day of the week not containing an "R"
Each team is awarded a comparison 'point' for each comparison lost, with ties being broken by FARTS.
The resulting ranking BFR (Bottom Feeder Ranking) will decide eligibility for 'at large' bids, and will also be used for seeding.
As always, this tournament is all for the fans...so feel free to make suggestions. Faithful to the old saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth", the committee believes that everyone ought to have a hand in making this event a total disgrace.
Federal League
I like hockey.
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
If the committee puts that much effort into determining the field, I'll be extremely disappointed. I think the best method would be to put the names of the bottom 25 teams in RPI (excluding anyone who qualifies for the NCAA Tourney) on a wall, blindfold someone and have them throw darts. The first team hit is the No. 1 overall seed, second hit is No. 2 overall seed, etc. until you get your 16 teams. If there are people standing around who could possibly be struck by stray darts, that would be even better.
If the committee puts that much effort into determining the field, I'll be extremely disappointed. I think the best method would be to put the names of the bottom 25 teams in RPI (excluding anyone who qualifies for the NCAA Tourney) on a wall, blindfold someone and have them throw darts. The first team hit is the No. 1 overall seed, second hit is No. 2 overall seed, etc. until you get your 16 teams. If there are people standing around who could possibly be struck by stray darts, that would be even better.
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Yes. Except I think they should all be thrown at the same time.
Yes. Except I think they should all be thrown at the same time.
Terrier520
Sungo
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Disagree. I think this is where the Futile Four can outshine the NCAA.....
... Use KRACH
Disagree. I think this is where the Futile Four can outshine the NCAA.....
... Use KRACH
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Federal League
I like hockey.
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
KRACH makes too much sense. This tourney only uses CRACK.
KRACH makes too much sense. This tourney only uses CRACK.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Forget any kind of ranking system, it makes way too much sense. Use straight up records, then we wouldn't get a whole bunch of AHA teams either.
Forget any kind of ranking system, it makes way too much sense. Use straight up records, then we wouldn't get a whole bunch of AHA teams either.
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
It seems to me that to be true to the spirit of the Futile Four the selection process should be as complicated, drawn out, painful and insane as possible. Teams shouldnt even know if they are in the tournament and what seed they are and where they will be playing until the last possible second.
It seems to me that to be true to the spirit of the Futile Four the selection process should be as complicated, drawn out, painful and insane as possible. Teams shouldnt even know if they are in the tournament and what seed they are and where they will be playing until the last possible second.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Definitely. Bring on the blind choice round robins!
Definitely. Bring on the blind choice round robins!
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
I expect all my decisions to be transmitted by messenger pigeon. So, we'll do it this way... we weight the teams by record and then give the teams with the worst record to the pigeons with the largest wingspan/weight ratio. The first 16 birds to arrive make up the field.
I expect all my decisions to be transmitted by messenger pigeon. So, we'll do it this way... we weight the teams by record and then give the teams with the worst record to the pigeons with the largest wingspan/weight ratio. The first 16 birds to arrive make up the field.
Last edited:
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Lets make it even more complicated by using one-eyed birds with no sense of direction. And have them carry the the information in coconuts tied to their legs...or they could grip it by the husk.
Lets make it even more complicated by using one-eyed birds with no sense of direction. And have them carry the the information in coconuts tied to their legs...or they could grip it by the husk.
Re: Bottom Feeders Bracket/Futile Four 2010
Couple thoughts...
You could use chickens pecking for grain on a sheet of paper to select teams.
Look at the overall records of teams, 16 lowest get in. This allows for a few fewer AHA teams.
Bring on the complicated KRATCH and CRUNCH (Chef's Ranking Underachiving Non-Competitive Hockey) systems. The advantage of CRUNCH is it does not depend upon temperature of some rural Canadian outpost, rather it depends on snowfall. This is a much more neutral mark, which depends on long term performance. Just as a 15 team can beat a 2, some days it can get hotter than others. Snowfall requires consistent performance over several weeks.
Couple thoughts...
You could use chickens pecking for grain on a sheet of paper to select teams.
Look at the overall records of teams, 16 lowest get in. This allows for a few fewer AHA teams.
Bring on the complicated KRATCH and CRUNCH (Chef's Ranking Underachiving Non-Competitive Hockey) systems. The advantage of CRUNCH is it does not depend upon temperature of some rural Canadian outpost, rather it depends on snowfall. This is a much more neutral mark, which depends on long term performance. Just as a 15 team can beat a 2, some days it can get hotter than others. Snowfall requires consistent performance over several weeks.