Bracketology

[redhawkman10]

Re: Bracketology

Or my favorite team could play better so we don't have to cross that bridge.

I don't think we will have too. If UND is going to get in the tourny they will be higher than a 4 seed. They have CC, SCSU, and Duluth left on their schedule as well as Tech. 3 teams in the tourny as of now. Splits won't help, they sweep two series they probably jump up to a 2 seed. Get swept once and split 2 others they are probably out. Im not sure what is going on with the sioux but they better turn it around quickly they are on their way out rather than in at this point. When its all said and done I don't think the sioux are lower than a 3 seed.

 

[BUPhD]

Re: Bracketology

Which is why I should pay more attention.... I think they will try to get Ferris and Miami into Ft. Wayne if they can. Would help attendance, Ft. Wayne isn't a big city and Miami's fan base couldn't support it by themself. Wouldn't see too much help from the other schools, well besides Cornell but dont know how they typically travel.

Actually Ft. Wayne regularly sells out that arena for Komets games. It's my hometown and its pretty big on hockey for a city its size. I was at the sold out annual New Year's Eve game and saw tons of college hockey jerseys and other apparel among the crowd.

Add to that that it's the first time for the city to host this sort of thing and you might get more than you'd think.

The one possible kink in it is if a local HS Boys BB team makes the state final four. That'd make a potential draw away from the 27th. But not likely too much impact.

 

[wasmania]

Re: Bracketology

Yeah, they will if it makes sense to, but not at the expense of having to make the #1 overall seed play against North Dakota, especially if the rules state that they don't have to if there are 5 or more teams from one conference.

***?? What do you guys think there is some special North Dakota rule? If they are a #4 seed it will be because they deserve it and are likely to get smoked in the first round, which as of today seems accurate. If the committee decides that it is unfair to pair the top seed against North Dakota as a #4 to improve the brackets then we have a smoke filled room and all this pwr discussion is just a circle joik (which of course it is).

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Bracketology

***?? What do you guys think there is some special North Dakota rule? If they are a #4 seed it will be because they deserve it and are likely to get smoked in the first round, which as of today seems accurate. If the committee decides that it is unfair to pair the top seed against North Dakota as a #4 to improve the brackets then we have a smoke filled room and all this pwr discussion is just a circle joik (which of course it is).

I think you need to read further in the discussion rather than just picking out a random post to comment on.

The discussion was in reference to the committee possibly making the #1 seed Miami play the #15 seed North Dakota instead of the #16 seed AHA Champion because as it currently sits, the #15 seed North Dakota would be matched up with #2 Denver, which is obviously an inter-conference match up.

Last season a similar situation presented itself and the committee made the switch to avoid the inter-conference match up. However, last year, it was to alleviate a CCHA match up and there were only 4 CCHA teams in the tournament. As it sits right now, there are 6 WCHA teams in the tournament, and there is a guideline that says that the committee doesn't have to make the switch if there are more than 5 teams from one conference in the tournament.

 

[NMU8405]

Re: Bracketology

I think you need to read further in the discussion rather than just picking out a random post to comment on.

The discussion was in reference to the committee possibly making the #1 seed Miami play the #15 seed North Dakota instead of the #16 seed AHA Champion because as it currently sits, the #15 seed North Dakota would be matched up with #2 Denver, which is obviously an inter-conference match up.

Last season a similar situation presented itself and the committee made the switch to avoid the inter-conference match up. However, last year, it was to alleviate a CCHA match up and there were only 4 CCHA teams in the tournament. As it sits right now, there are 6 WCHA teams in the tournament, and there is a guideline that says that the committee doesn't have to make the switch if there are more than 5 teams from one conference in the tournament.

I wish the CHA could have 5 teams in the tourny.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: Bracketology

***?? What do you guys think there is some special North Dakota rule? If they are a #4 seed it will be because they deserve it and are likely to get smoked in the first round, which as of today seems accurate. If the committee decides that it is unfair to pair the top seed against North Dakota as a #4 to improve the brackets then we have a smoke filled room and all this pwr discussion is just a circle joik (which of course it is).

you lost me when you said North Dakota would get smoked in the first round . They tied Miami, and is a very dangerous team come tourny time. Anything can happen and the rules are in place, were not making things up as we go. Moving them isn't to improve the bracket, its about bracket integrity. Just like there was no "Boston rule" or "Ohio St. rule" last year when they moved their 1 v 4 opponents last year.

 

[wasmania]

Re: Bracketology

you lost me when you said North Dakota would get smoked in the first round . They tied Miami, and is a very dangerous team come tourny time. Anything can happen and the rules are in place, were not making things up as we go. Moving them isn't to improve the bracket, its about bracket integrity. Just like there was no "Boston rule" or "Ohio St. rule" last year when they moved their 1 v 4 opponents last year.

So you ARE saying by virtue of the fact that they are north dakota that a #4 seed will not be appropriate because they will likely outperform this rank, overburdening whoever has to play them.

This is what I am talking about. Just because North Dakota has a history of winning in the NCAA's, this should not influence their current ranking or influence their pairing outside of established process.

 

[mcfarljd]

Re: Bracketology

So you ARE saying by virtue of the fact that they are north dakota that a #4 seed will not be appropriate because they will likely outperform this rank, overburdening whoever has to play them.

This is what I am talking about. Just because North Dakota has a history of winning in the NCAA's, this should not influence their current ranking or influence their pairing outside of established process.

No, you still don't get it. When there are more than 5+ teams from the same conference, avoiding first round conference matchups is out the window if it has an effect on bracket integrity. It doesn't matter if that #15 team is North Dakota or St Cloud, Miami at this point has earned the right to play the Atlantic Hockey autobid.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Bracketology

So you ARE saying by virtue of the fact that they are north dakota that a #4 seed will not be appropriate because they will likely outperform this rank, overburdening whoever has to play them.

This is what I am talking about. Just because North Dakota has a history of winning in the NCAA's, this should not influence their current ranking or influence their pairing outside of established process.

There are two rules at play:
1) Avoid matchups between two teams from the same conference
2) If a conference has 5+ teams qualify, rule 1 need not apply.

The WCHA currently places 6 teams in the field, therefore rule 1) does not apply. Rule 1 did apply last year because the CCHA only had 4 teams qualify.

It's that simple.

 

[Alton]

Re: Bracketology

There are two rules at play:
1) Avoid matchups between two teams from the same conference
2) If a conference has 5+ teams qualify, rule 1 need not apply.

It's that simple.

Yes and no.

The rule book also does not distinguish between the #13, #14, #15 and #16 teams. Nowhere does it say that #1 has to play #16--they could just as easily play #13.

We know that's not how they do it "in real life," though.

I also think that the committee will do everything that they can to avoid first-round intraconference matchups, even when that conference has 5 teams in the tournament. There's no rule saying they have to, as you point out, but there's also no rule saying they can't.

To quote the championship handbook, "conference matchups are avoided, unless it corrupts the integrity of the bracket. If five or more teams from one conference are selected to the championship, then the integrity of the bracket will be protected (i.e., maintaining the pairing process according to seed will take priority over avoidance of first-round conference matchups)."

Note the phrase according to seed. There is no distinction between the #13 team and the #16 team--they are all seeded the same (#4). I don't think "bracket integrity" extends to distinguishing among the four #4 seeds. Switching #15 with #16 does not "corrupt the integrity of the bracket," because they have done it in the past--not just to avoid intraconference matchups, but also to keep teams closer to home.

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: Bracketology

I get that the committee is trying to maintain 'bracket integrity', but I'd rather see them move teams around at all costs to always avoid league matchups in the first game. The whole point of the NCAA tourney, IMHO, is to see teams that don't ordinarily play each other face off, and the best of those will teams rise to the Frozen Four. Bracket integrity is a numeric measure, but the burden on the higher seed to have to play a league team again first defeats the purpose of a true national tournament.

As a Denver fan, DU has beaten North Dakota four times this season, but all of those games could've just as easily been losses as they were victories. To have to play them again in the first game would be an unfair assignment, in my book. Even if Denver was a #1 seed, I'd much rather play a #2 seed first from another conference than a #4 seed from the same conference. Intra-conference Tournament integrity trumps bracket integrity, at least if you ask me.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: Bracketology

So you ARE saying by virtue of the fact that they are north dakota that a #4 seed will not be appropriate because they will likely outperform this rank, overburdening whoever has to play them.

This is what I am talking about. Just because North Dakota has a history of winning in the NCAA's, this should not influence their current ranking or influence their pairing outside of established process.

No its common sense, what I am saying is with their remaining schedule they are either out or atleast a 3 seed. Follow along here, they play 3 teams inside the top 10 of the PWR, win 4 of 6 they jump up big time. Lose 4 of 6 they are most likely out. And who they are has no relevance to their ranking. There is a rule that the selection committee must avoid inter conference matchups in the first round unless the league has more than 5 teamsin, then they are no longer obligated to do so. Currently they are slated to play another WCHA team, but won't get moved because there is 6 WCHA teams in the tourny and they will protect the integrity of the bracket and the #1 overall seed.So they will and move UND to play Miami to avoid that inter conference match up. If you read carefully you might understand a little better.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: Bracketology

Yes and no.

The rule book also does not distinguish between the #13, #14, #15 and #16 teams. Nowhere does it say that #1 has to play #16--they could just as easily play #13.

We know that's not how they do it "in real life," though.

I also think that the committee will do everything that they can to avoid first-round intraconference matchups, even when that conference has 5 teams in the tournament. There's no rule saying they have to, as you point out, but there's also no rule saying they can't.

To quote the championship handbook, "conference matchups are avoided, unless it corrupts the integrity of the bracket. If five or more teams from one conference are selected to the championship, then the integrity of the bracket will be protected (i.e., maintaining the pairing process according to seed will take priority over avoidance of first-round conference matchups)."

Note the phrase according to seed. There is no distinction between the #13 team and the #16 team--they are all seeded the same (#4). I don't think "bracket integrity" extends to distinguishing among the four #4 seeds. Switching #15 with #16 does not "corrupt the integrity of the bracket," because they have done it in the past--not just to avoid intraconference matchups, but also to keep teams closer to home.

Good stuff. Give an example outside of last year that they switched #15 and #16 because of travel?

You are right the difference between 15 and 16 theoretically isn't much. But look at the difference of opponent there is a big difference between RIT and UND. ( no disrespect to RIT, but there is a big difference ) Now with that said it isn't because of North Dakota, if that was Yale or Michigan it would be a big difference still. Last year they didn't have much choice to do what they did, this year they have a loop hole that would allow them to avoid moving the 16 away from the 1.

You are also correct that it doesn't say specifically the 1 plays 16 and so on, but more so implied. That is how it is on every other NCAA level the top seed plays the lowest seed and so on. I dont know but would be willing to bet that it doesn't say that in the NCAA basketball rule book as well but thats how they operate. IF they weren't to do that there is no reason to rank them 1 through 16, just have 4 groupings and then the rest of the field.

Frankly I could care less who Miami plays, you are going to have to play tough teams regardless to get to Detroit and/or win the whole thing. IMO it was more beneficial to Miami that we were a 4 seed and had to Beat Denver and UMD to get to D.C. last year. I would welcome a tougher first round matchup, because I believe you would have to be more focused rather than a lesser opponent where you can stumble like we saw last year and years past.

 

[wasmania]

Re: Bracketology

If you read carefully you might understand a little better.

I understand plenty there, Mr. Dynasty, go joik yourself a soda.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Bracketology

No its common sense, what I am saying is with their remaining schedule they are either out or atleast a 3 seed. Follow along here, they play 3 teams inside the top 10 of the PWR, win 4 of 6 they jump up big time. Lose 4 of 6 they are most likely out.

This doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me. What if they split 3-3? What if a ton of other things happen?

If they can finish as a 3 seed and if they can finish out of the tournament, then I guarantee there are literally billions of scenarios where they finish as a 4 seed. There are 245 regular season games left to play, each of which can end in a win, loss, or tie. 3 possibilities to the 245th power = 7.8e116 possibilities, not even counting the conference tournaments. I guarantee there are billions and billions of scenarios where NoDak ends as a 4 seed.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Bracketology

This doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me. What if they split 3-3? What if a ton of other things happen?

If they can finish as a 3 seed and if they can finish out of the tournament, then I guarantee there are literally billions of scenarios where they finish as a 4 seed. There are 245 regular season games left to play, each of which can end in a win, loss, or tie. 3 possibilities to the 245th power = 7.8e116 possibilities, not even counting the conference tournaments. I guarantee there are billions and billions of scenarios where NoDak ends as a 4 seed.

Quit being smart. This is a message board.

 

[Alton]

Re: Bracketology

Good stuff. Give an example outside of last year that they switched #15 and #16 because of travel?

In 2007: #1 Minnesota, #2 Notre Dame, ... , #15 Air Force, #16 Alabama-Huntsville. Minnesota went to the Denver Regional, Notre Dame to the Grand Rapids Regional. #15 Air Force played #1 Minnesota in Denver and #16 Alabama-Huntsville played #2 Notre Dame in Grand Rapids.

Also, in 2003, #1 Cornell played #14 Mankato State while #2 Colorado College played #16 Wayne State in Ann Arbor. This may have been to avoid intra-conference matchups, but there were 5 WCHA teams in the tournament--and aren't people saying that there is no obligation to avoid them if there are 5 teams from one conference? But if you look at 2003, it's a lot like this situation--5 WCHA teams, 2 1-seeds, 1 3-seed and 2 4-seeds. They ensured that the 2 1-seeds did not play the 2 4-seeds, even though there were 5 WCHA teams in the tournament (and it hurt the #1 overall seed Cornell).

That is how it is on every other NCAA level the top seed plays the lowest seed and so on.

People think that because basketball does something, then every NCAA sport does it. Tell this to a fan of a west coast NCAA baseball team. They will tell you (correctly) that they don't get the benefit of a high seed because the tournament is seeded geographically. If Cal State Fullerton is the #1 team in the nation, they will still end up playing one of the top #4 seeds (like Pepperdine, for example) rather than one of the worst #4 seeds. The NCAA puts the team in bands, but seeds the bands geographically. The same is true in Softball, Lacrosse, Volleyball and so on. You can't expect to play the worst team in the nation just because you are the #1 overall seed, but you can expect to play the worst team in the region.

 

[wasmania]

Re: Bracketology

Good stuff. Give an example outside of last year that they switched #15 and #16 because of travel?

You are right the difference between 15 and 16 theoretically isn't much. But look at the difference of opponent there is a big difference between RIT and UND. ( no disrespect to RIT, but there is a big difference ) Now with that said it isn't because of North Dakota, if that was Yale or Michigan it would be a big difference still. Last year they didn't have much choice to do what they did, this year they have a loop hole that would allow them to avoid moving the 16 away from the 1.

Again this is my point. In this example there is not a big difference between RIT and UND. For pairing purposes, they are both #4 seeds, which makes them the same (thank you alton for your explanation). Where in the rulebook does it say that teams given the same seed that are historically good are treated differently than unheralded teams by making sure that the top seed doesnt have to play them?

 

[ts8801]

Re: Bracketology

Again this is my point. In this example there is not a big difference between RIT and UND. For pairing purposes, they are both #4 seeds, which makes them the same (thank you alton for your explanation). Where in the rulebook does it say that teams given the same seed that are historically good are treated differently than unheralded teams by making sure that the top seed doesnt have to play them?

There is the rule book then what actually happens, you can't say the selection committee is going to look at what ever team ends up being the #15 seed and the AHA champ which, might crack the top 30 in KRACH or RPI as being equal because they are in the same band. It has nothing to do with the #15 team being historically better its the fact that the AHA champ is only in the tourney because of the auto-bid.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: Bracketology

In 2007: #1 Minnesota, #2 Notre Dame, ... , #15 Air Force, #16 Alabama-Huntsville. Minnesota went to the Denver Regional, Notre Dame to the Grand Rapids Regional. #15 Air Force played #1 Minnesota in Denver and #16 Alabama-Huntsville played #2 Notre Dame in Grand Rapids.

Also, in 2003, #1 Cornell played #14 Mankato State while #2 Colorado College played #16 Wayne State in Ann Arbor. This may have been to avoid intra-conference matchups, but there were 5 WCHA teams in the tournament--and aren't people saying that there is no obligation to avoid them if there are 5 teams from one conference? But if you look at 2003, it's a lot like this situation--5 WCHA teams, 2 1-seeds, 1 3-seed and 2 4-seeds. They ensured that the 2 1-seeds did not play the 2 4-seeds, even though there were 5 WCHA teams in the tournament (and it hurt the #1 overall seed Cornell).



People think that because basketball does something, then every NCAA sport does it. Tell this to a fan of a west coast NCAA baseball team. They will tell you (correctly) that they don't get the benefit of a high seed because the tournament is seeded geographically. If Cal State Fullerton is the #1 team in the nation, they will still end up playing one of the top #4 seeds (like Pepperdine, for example) rather than one of the worst #4 seeds. The NCAA puts the team in bands, but seeds the bands geographically. The same is true in Softball, Lacrosse, Volleyball and so on. You can't expect to play the worst team in the nation just because you are the #1 overall seed, but you can expect to play the worst team in the region.

Thanks for the examples, wasn't being a smart *** just wanted to see how many times it has happened. You are correct baseball does it in bands rather than 1 vs 64. They do it geographically, so you are correct in that sense. But they don't deny that and it isn't defined in their rules that they do it 1 vs 64 or in bands but they do it in a way that works for them.