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.
Expand The Brackets?
- Thread starter FRICKER
- Start date
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Loss of the CHA champ next year is effectively a 1 team expansion over this year (one more at-large gets in). Don't like the idea of expansion or retraction from 16. The current tournament is tough to get into, but still includes some smaller schools capable of upset. We may need some tweaks as far as host sites for attendance reasons, but the size of the tournament should be left alone.
Loss of the CHA champ next year is effectively a 1 team expansion over this year (one more at-large gets in). Don't like the idea of expansion or retraction from 16. The current tournament is tough to get into, but still includes some smaller schools capable of upset. We may need some tweaks as far as host sites for attendance reasons, but the size of the tournament should be left alone.
Red Till I'm Dead!
I am not a COMMIE!!!
Re: Expand The Brackets?
College Baseball... love it
Maybe we should use the base-ketball format and let the tournament go on for 8 months on ESPN Ocho
College Baseball... love it
Maybe we should use the base-ketball format and let the tournament go on for 8 months on ESPN Ocho
GopherBigGuy911
The one you hate to love
Re: Expand The Brackets?
I ws thinking about posting a thread about this exact idea last night.....
I could see expanding the teams to 28 teams.
All 4 #1 seeds get a first round bye
teams 2-6 in each bracket would play the first round games. And then they would be re-seeded lowest seed still alive plays their regional #1
First Round games would be played on Thursday and Friday, Round of 16 Played Sat and Sunday.
This way you would have pretty much all winning programs with a chance to be Cinderella. Just my 2 Cents.
I ws thinking about posting a thread about this exact idea last night.....
I could see expanding the teams to 28 teams.
All 4 #1 seeds get a first round bye
teams 2-6 in each bracket would play the first round games. And then they would be re-seeded lowest seed still alive plays their regional #1
First Round games would be played on Thursday and Friday, Round of 16 Played Sat and Sunday.
This way you would have pretty much all winning programs with a chance to be Cinderella. Just my 2 Cents.
Last edited:
uwbadgers14
Registered User
Re: Expand The Brackets?
I would like to see the tournament with a few more teams in it but its not a popular idea with many of the people on these boards, for whatever reason...
I would like to see the tournament with a few more teams in it but its not a popular idea with many of the people on these boards, for whatever reason...
Puck Swami
New member
Re: Expand The Brackets?
No expansion is needed. If your team can't make the tourney under the PWR system in the top quartile of 58 NCAA teams or by winning the conference tourney (the second chance opportunity), your team doesn't deserve to be dancing. Period.
DU was the last team left out of the dance in 2006 and 2007, and the team didn't deserve a berth.
The PWR system is transparent, and every team knows exactly what they need to do to secure a spot.
No expansion is needed. If your team can't make the tourney under the PWR system in the top quartile of 58 NCAA teams or by winning the conference tourney (the second chance opportunity), your team doesn't deserve to be dancing. Period.
DU was the last team left out of the dance in 2006 and 2007, and the team didn't deserve a berth.
The PWR system is transparent, and every team knows exactly what they need to do to secure a spot.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Expand The Brackets?
We need to worry about having more D-I programs such that we can justify the 16-team field before we even think of asking for something beyond that. Get to 64 teams (that's 6 more programs, assuming no one else folds) and we're good with what we got.
I think we'd need to get to 70 teams before we even dream of an 18 team field, 80 teams before we think of a 20 team field.
I love the current system for the very reason you specified here. It's just unbiased numbers. To quote the Scoobs: Simple Math.
Until the committee breaks form from the PWR, we have no one bickering about bubble teams getting in because of "quality wins" or all the other BS you hear about with the basketball tourney.
There aren't any polling numbers used, like the BCS. The numbers don't factor in anything besides wins and losses. The only "bias" possible is in how we chose the weight factors for RPI and in how we define a TUC. Both of those factors are settled before the season begins. The selection process is pretty much as unbiased as determining the field for the Stanley Cup playoffs.
The only argument I've ever seen that's worth having is whether we should use KRACH instead of RPI. Every other complaint has been soundly rejected by 90% of this board. What's not to like about that?
We need to worry about having more D-I programs such that we can justify the 16-team field before we even think of asking for something beyond that. Get to 64 teams (that's 6 more programs, assuming no one else folds) and we're good with what we got.
I think we'd need to get to 70 teams before we even dream of an 18 team field, 80 teams before we think of a 20 team field.
I love the current system for the very reason you specified here. It's just unbiased numbers. To quote the Scoobs: Simple Math.
Until the committee breaks form from the PWR, we have no one bickering about bubble teams getting in because of "quality wins" or all the other BS you hear about with the basketball tourney.
There aren't any polling numbers used, like the BCS. The numbers don't factor in anything besides wins and losses. The only "bias" possible is in how we chose the weight factors for RPI and in how we define a TUC. Both of those factors are settled before the season begins. The selection process is pretty much as unbiased as determining the field for the Stanley Cup playoffs.
The only argument I've ever seen that's worth having is whether we should use KRACH instead of RPI. Every other complaint has been soundly rejected by 90% of this board. What's not to like about that?
Re: Expand The Brackets?
To expand slightly on my original post. I think a national tournament should be tough to get into, there should be teams dissappointed that they didn't make it. With the conference winners and the next 10 best teams getting in I feel the best of the best is represented. Sure some teams that just sneak in _ like Miami last year _ are capable of winning a title, but I think the tournament should be a reward for being the best all year not to a .500 team that managed to get hot at the end. Michigan got hot at the end this year after a mediocre season, but needed to win the CCHA to get in and that is how I think it should be.
To expand slightly on my original post. I think a national tournament should be tough to get into, there should be teams dissappointed that they didn't make it. With the conference winners and the next 10 best teams getting in I feel the best of the best is represented. Sure some teams that just sneak in _ like Miami last year _ are capable of winning a title, but I think the tournament should be a reward for being the best all year not to a .500 team that managed to get hot at the end. Michigan got hot at the end this year after a mediocre season, but needed to win the CCHA to get in and that is how I think it should be.
Re: Expand The Brackets?
The tournament is fine the way it is. The regular season should mean something.
The way I look at it, the National Tournament begins with the Conference Tournaments. The Conference Tournaments give EVERY TEAM (except the 9th and 10 place teams in HE), regardless of how mediocre their regular season performance, a second chance. They can get in the National Tournament by winning their Conference Tournament.
Perhaps Providence and Northeastern have a beef, since they're the only teams that didn't get a "second chance", but I hope they have enough pride to admit that they don't really deserve the chance.
How many opportunities should mediocre teams get?
I agree completely.
The tournament is fine the way it is. The regular season should mean something.
The way I look at it, the National Tournament begins with the Conference Tournaments. The Conference Tournaments give EVERY TEAM (except the 9th and 10 place teams in HE), regardless of how mediocre their regular season performance, a second chance. They can get in the National Tournament by winning their Conference Tournament.
Perhaps Providence and Northeastern have a beef, since they're the only teams that didn't get a "second chance", but I hope they have enough pride to admit that they don't really deserve the chance.
How many opportunities should mediocre teams get?
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Aggregate score is better. And easier to fit into a weekend- no pesky Sunday games.
We can win 5-1 one day, and loose 6-4 and still win 9-7. Go back to the really old days of college hockey.
Aggregate score is better. And easier to fit into a weekend- no pesky Sunday games.
We can win 5-1 one day, and loose 6-4 and still win 9-7. Go back to the really old days of college hockey.
Re: Expand The Brackets?
I wouldn't expand the number of teams. In fact, they should probably go back to 12 if UAH has to drop hockey.
I wouldn't mind seeing the tournament lengthened by another week to go back to best-of-3 series in the first two rounds, but the odds of that happening are slim to none.
Thank God they are numbers. If a human being compared BU against Minnesota-Duluth and came up with the determination that BU had the better season, that person would be called a moron, and probably never allowed to make that kind of determination again. But if you put numbers to it, no matter how ridiculous, inaccurate, or ill-conceived, it's some great system.
I wouldn't expand the number of teams. In fact, they should probably go back to 12 if UAH has to drop hockey.
I wouldn't mind seeing the tournament lengthened by another week to go back to best-of-3 series in the first two rounds, but the odds of that happening are slim to none.
Thank God they are numbers. If a human being compared BU against Minnesota-Duluth and came up with the determination that BU had the better season, that person would be called a moron, and probably never allowed to make that kind of determination again. But if you put numbers to it, no matter how ridiculous, inaccurate, or ill-conceived, it's some great system.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Expand The Brackets?
Subjective is subjective. Objective is objective. Not hard to understand at all.
Subjective is subjective. Objective is objective. Not hard to understand at all.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Expand The Brackets?
This one would be the bestest:
http://www.bracketmaker.com/tmenu.cfm?edit=1&tid=356779&tclass=
This one would be the bestest:
http://www.bracketmaker.com/tmenu.cfm?edit=1&tid=356779&tclass=
WILD E WOLVERINE
Registered User
Re: Expand The Brackets?
No going back - 12 teams meaning a team could possibly need only 3 wins for a national championship...no way. I like the 16, if college hockey expands expand the tournament.
No going back - 12 teams meaning a team could possibly need only 3 wins for a national championship...no way. I like the 16, if college hockey expands expand the tournament.
Re: Expand The Brackets?
No matter how many or how few teams are in the field, there are always going to be one or two teams that just missed the cut.
Sixteen teams is plenty, and is actually well beyond the NCAA's normal ratio of total teams to tournament bids.
I'm sympathetic to Ferris' plight, but saying that they missed out "because of two close losses" is a gross over simplification. Are you suggesting that 'goal differential' should be considered? Do you really want to open that can of worms? Ferris' weak non-conference schedule and being permanently clustered with a perennially weak team like Western Michigan dealt them a severe handicap.
I do think that the model used to create the RPI gives too much weight to the "opponent's opponents" winning percentage, and not enough weight to the team's own record.
No matter how many or how few teams are in the field, there are always going to be one or two teams that just missed the cut.
Sixteen teams is plenty, and is actually well beyond the NCAA's normal ratio of total teams to tournament bids.
I'm sympathetic to Ferris' plight, but saying that they missed out "because of two close losses" is a gross over simplification. Are you suggesting that 'goal differential' should be considered? Do you really want to open that can of worms? Ferris' weak non-conference schedule and being permanently clustered with a perennially weak team like Western Michigan dealt them a severe handicap.
I do think that the model used to create the RPI gives too much weight to the "opponent's opponents" winning percentage, and not enough weight to the team's own record.