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.

Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

OZrebel said:
Oswego, haven't been relevant in 5 years, havent won it in over a decade. But yeah pitchforks and **** those guys. Let's just give the west the easy road again.

Is Oswego deserving of a Bye? Not in my opinion.

I'd prefer to host a first round anyways. Forget the bye, keep em fresh with games.
Click to expand...

See d3hockey referenced above.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

I had forgotten Curry and Geneseo are more than 500 miles away (In fairness, I tried to forget everything about that game). Some good insight before tomorrow.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

Boy that Webb guy has done his homework....it looks like:D
 
OZrebel said:
I'd propose a WSP auto final 4 bid, going unbeaten is a feat that is fitting of that reward. Then you have a quarter determining the second west team in. And let the east beat itself into a pulp with Genny and Nor being the gate keepers. Have a bottom 2 seeds as play ins. Pretty radical but not that crazy when you sit and think about it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this possibility this morning. That would certainly be an interesting looking bracket.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

joecct said:
See d3hockey referenced above.
Click to expand...

The difference between Oswego's strength of schedule and 2nd place in SOS is the difference between 2nd and 14th. Not sure about the "not deserving" part, they took on a tough non-conference schedule (Salve, Williams X2, Utica, Hobart) along with being in the conference that had a .611% for inter-conference records, only .005% behind the NEHC.

I'll obviously disagree with you about the relevancy part, but that's just semantics. To say they aren't deserving ignores all of the data.

OZrebel said:
Oswego, haven't been relevant in 5 years, havent won it in over a decade. But yeah pitchforks and **** those guys. Let's just give the west the easy road again.

Is Oswego deserving of a Bye? Not in my opinion.

I'd prefer to host a first round anyways. Forget the bye, keep em fresh with games.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

Does anybody have the link to the selection show? I couldn't find it on ncaa.com yet.
 
BKrosky said:
The difference between Oswego's strength of schedule and 2nd place in SOS is the difference between 2nd and 14th. Not sure about the "not deserving" part, they took on a tough non-conference schedule (Salve, Williams X2, Utica, Hobart) along with being in the conference that had a .611% for inter-conference records, only .005% behind the NEHC.

I'll obviously disagree with you about the relevancy part, but that's just semantics. To say they aren't deserving ignores all of the data.
Click to expand...

#OswegoPride
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

The more I look at Webb's Bracket B, the more I really like it for keeping bracket integrity more or less intact while conforming with the realities of the NCAA's requirements (sorry Norwich, for getting a 1st round game). I just wonder how much of a precedent the Curry example actually is. Curry is 584 miles from Geneseo, vs 884 miles between Oswego and St. Norbert. 84 miles is an extra hour and a half on the bus, whereas 884 miles would absolutely require a flight (I can't remember if Curry bussed it or not). Either way, it would be great if they were willing to fly the winner of that game out.

Edit: It was Colby, not Curry
 
Last edited:
KnightsOfTheRound said:
The more I look at Webb's Bracket B, the more I really like it for keeping bracket integrity more or less intact while conforming with the realities of the NCAA's requirements (sorry Norwich, for getting a 1st round game). I just wonder how much of a precedent the Curry example actually is. Curry is 584 miles from Geneseo, vs 884 miles between Oswego and St. Norbert. 84 miles is an extra hour and a half on the bus, whereas 884 miles would absolutely require a flight (I can't remember if Curry bussed it or not). Either way, it would be great if they were willing to fly the winner of that game out.
Click to expand...

Curry never played Geneseo in the NCAA’s ? Not sure where you got that? They have been to Plattsburgh, Middlebury, Elmira, Norwich??
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

nefan said:
Curry never played Geneseo in the NCAA’s ? Not sure where you got that? They have been to Plattsburgh, Middlebury, Elmira, Norwich??
Click to expand...

You're right! It was Colby. I told you all I tried to forget everything about that game :D
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

KnightsOfTheRound said:
The more I look at Webb's Bracket B, the more I really like it for keeping bracket integrity more or less intact while conforming with the realities of the NCAA's requirements (sorry Norwich, for getting a 1st round game). I just wonder how much of a precedent the Curry example actually is. Curry is 584 miles from Geneseo, vs 884 miles between Oswego and St. Norbert. 84 miles is an extra hour and a half on the bus, whereas 884 miles would absolutely require a flight (I can't remember if Curry bussed it or not). Either way, it would be great if they were willing to fly the winner of that game out.
Click to expand...

How would you be keeping bracket integrity by requiring the #3 seed to have a play in game and reward the #4 and #8 seeds with first round byes?? And by the way I'm really feeling you sorrow over here if NU is required to play in.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

KnightsOfTheRound said:
The more I look at Webb's Bracket B, the more I really like it for keeping bracket integrity more or less intact while conforming with the realities of the NCAA's requirements (sorry Norwich, for getting a 1st round game). I just wonder how much of a precedent the Curry example actually is. Curry is 584 miles from Geneseo, vs 884 miles between Oswego and St. Norbert. 84 miles is an extra hour and a half on the bus, whereas 884 miles would absolutely require a flight (I can't remember if Curry bussed it or not). Either way, it would be great if they were willing to fly the winner of that game out.
Click to expand...

If you are over 500 miles, you get to fly if the school chooses. The NCAA can't force you to bus. That's why there is the 500 mile rule in the first place.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

Norwich59 said:
How would you be keeping bracket integrity by requiring the #3 seed to have a play in game and reward the #4 and #8 seeds with first round byes?? And by the way I'm really feeling you sorrow over here if NU is required to play in.
Click to expand...

He said "more or less intact." He never claimed pure bracket integrity.

Either way, pure bracket integrity cannot be kept with the 500-mile rule. Webb's proposal gets closer to bracket integrity than other proposals.

EDIT: They just made Plattsburgh women (tied 2nd in PWR) play in the play-in game, because of the 500-mile rule. So much for their bracket integrity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

Norwich59 said:
How would you be keeping bracket integrity by requiring the #3 seed to have a play in game and reward the #4 and #8 seeds with first round byes?? And by the way I'm really feeling you sorrow over here if NU is required to play in.
Click to expand...

It sets up 1/8, 2/7, 3/6 and 4/5 quarterfinals. That's what I mean about bracket integrity. The rest that you mentioned is unavoidable due to the 500 mile rule.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

Norwich59 said:
How would you be keeping bracket integrity by requiring the #3 seed to have a play in game and reward the #4 and #8 seeds with first round byes?? And by the way I'm really feeling you sorrow over here if NU is required to play in.
Click to expand...

I would rather have the #3 seed have to play the worst team in the first round than the #1 seed have to play the #4 seed in the quarters. The way that Mathieu Webb has it seeded is the path of least resistance for the top 4 seeds to get into the quarterfinals and the final four. Yes the 3 seed has to play in the first round, but you are giving them the worst team in the rankings. The 4th seed having a bye vs the 3rd seed is irrelevant to me as in a perfect world, they would both have one. With the rules, it cannot be perfect this year someone has to pay. Does it make more sense to make life worse for the number 1 seed AND the number 4 seed by having them have to play each other to get in the final four or the number 3 seed having to play an extra game against the worst team instead of getting a bye in the first round. I am taking the situation that is better for two of the top 4 teams vs the one. Augs gets the extra benefit here in they fact they don't have to play in the first round, but they get "rewarded" by having to play the undefeated top rank team on the road. They are also the 8th ranked team, which is about the seed you would expect a top seed would play in the quarters.
 
Re: Bracketology 1.1 - before the conference tournaments. Don't be upset

BetterInLakePlacid said:
I would rather have the #3 seed have to play the worst team in the first round than the #1 seed have to play the #4 seed in the quarters. The way that Mathieu Webb has it seeded is the path of least resistance for the top 4 seeds to get into the quarterfinals and the final four. Yes the 3 seed has to play in the first round, but you are giving them the worst team in the rankings. The 4th seed having a bye vs the 3rd seed is irrelevant to me as in a perfect world, they would both have one. With the rules, it cannot be perfect this year someone has to pay. Does it make more sense to make life worse for the number 1 seed AND the number 4 seed by having them have to play each other to get in the final four or the number 3 seed having to play an extra game against the worst team instead of getting a bye in the first round. I am taking the situation that is better for two of the top 4 teams vs the one. Augs gets the extra benefit here in they fact they don't have to play in the first round, but they get "rewarded" by having to play the undefeated top rank team on the road. They are also the 8th ranked team, which is about the seed you would expect a top seed would play in the quarters.
Click to expand...

Got it, but you don't take any team for granted either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top