Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Yes.You mean this:?So because your team can get punched in the mouth you think it's a good idea for everybody?? That makes no sense. You think every team should at least have the chance to win their conference tournament? THEY DO!! All they have to do is play well enough in the regular season to deserve a playoff spot! Is it going to be tight between the last team to make it and the first to not make it? Yes, just like every tourney in the world. For the national tourney, is there much separating 14 from 15 from 16 from 17? No, so maybe we should bring them all. Let's 58 or 60 or however many teams we've got play in one ginormous tournament after the league tourneys. I mean, every team should at least have the chance to win their national tournament, to use your words, right?? Makes as much sense.

You're not listening. We are well aware that it is about the Benjamins, we don't have our heads in the sand. We just don't like it.

For those interested in some recent historical perspective on who wins the league tourneys and how well the last-place team does:

For the four big leagues during the past 10 years (8 for the CCHA), the average seed of the tourney winners have been WCHA 3.2, CCHA 2.4, ECAC 2.2, and HE 1.6. During that time no team ranked 9 or below has won their tourney. Two teams ranked in the bottom half won - Michigan in 2010 and Duluth in 2009 (both ranked #7). Only two other teams ranked outside of the top four have won: Harvard (6) and Minnesota (5), both in 2004.

During that time in HE the worst-placed team (#8 since teams below 8 are not tourney-eligible) have won 5 games. One was in OT. Two series were won. In the ECAC, #12 has won 11 games, 4 in OT, and 3 series (one of which was a QF series). In the CCHA, #11 has won six games, 3 in OT, for 3 series, one of which was a QF series, all in the last two years. In the previous 6 years, #12 went winless. And in the vaunted, everybody-should-get-a-chance WCHA, #10 (#12 for the past two years) has won a grand total of 1 playoff game. One. In OT.

My point? Why bother bringing the bottom-feeders to the tourney? The only thing they bring is a couple dollars. For the Cinderella stories? There aren't any. There are a few short Cinderella chapters here and there, but no stories. People say there isn't much that separates the bottom teams from the mid-level teams, or the mid-level teams from the top teams. These results show otherwise. For these 38 league tourneys, a paltry four were won by a team outside the top 4.

In my opinion: have the top four teams play for the tourney title. Let the next four play so the tourney is two weekends, brings a very occasional Cinderella, and for a couple bucks. And give 9 and below a beautiful pink participation trophy and a new wide-screen to watch the games on. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

Edit: Let's not discriminate against the AHA. In the past five years, the average seed of the tourney winner is 1.6. The last-placed team has played nine games in those five years, winning one - a 12 vs. 9 battle in a one-game east-west divided first round play-in.

I'm not picking on FS, it's just that he's left a paper trail.

How would you like this Cinderella story? UND is solidly ensconced in 15th place nationally, right behind #14, but well ahead of the #16 who is going to lose their slot to the AHA anyway. Then along comes this past year's Vermont team who, through luck, good bounces, and a fortuitous outbreak of the flu in Boston manages, somehow, to win the HE tourney. And goodbye, UND, hello UVM. Do you really believe that all of UND and half of the WCHA wouldn't lose their minds, saying a good-for-nothing team like UVM has no business playing in the tourney instead of UND? We'd need more straight jackets than Carter has liver pills.

And what about Huntsville? Are you willing to let them play in your league tourney, since every team should have that chance? Or since they don't have that chance, and we want to be fair and inclusive, maybe they should just get an invite to the national tourney. You know, so they don't feel left out.

I get the feeling that everybody is slowly backing away, grabbing their phones. Not sure whether to run away or to stay. Getting ready to call the cops or videotape the meltdown.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FG1NrQYXjLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[UMLWeatherman]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

You need to win the games you are supposed to win. If you can't then it doesn't matter who you lose to, you deserve to stay home.

Which is exactly why the regular season wins are the most important. You don't make it in to the top 8.. you deserve to stay out of the tourney and have no chance at an NCAA bid. Qualification to the HE tourney as a low seed is your chance at NCAAs, teams which cannot muster a top 8 seed in HE should not have that chance at the NCAAs.

 

[mwade]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FG1NrQYXjLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Actually he's speaking for a lot of HOCKEY EAST fans.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Actually he's speaking for a lot of HOCKEY EAST fans.

Uncle Ray* and i are (apparently ) good buddies...my post was A JOKE* about how he had posted 4 times in a row over the course OF A* few days with no other FAN* posting in between. I'm sorry if the confused you. hockey east fans

* I TOO LIKE CAPITAL LETTERS!

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

The floor, FS, is still yours. I'd love to hear an honest rebuttal, but very seriously doubt it will change my mind. The education in how differing minds work would be worth the read, however.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

The floor, FS, is still yours. I'd love to hear an honest rebuttal, but very seriously doubt it will change my mind. The education in how differing minds work would be worth the read, however.

I really don't have anything else to say other than what I've said. I am glad Hockey East is going to allow every team to play in the conference tournament for the following reasons:

1) It brings equality between the conferences.
2) It allows for Cinderella Stories.
3) I don't believe 22 regular season games is enough to separate teams enough to warrant exclusion of teams.

I understand that you disagree. Perhaps it is just that we are happy with what we are familiar with. I don't remember Hockey East fans being upset that all 8 teams used to make the Tournament prior to the addition of Massachusetts in 1995. Certainly there were years where the bottom teams were absolutely awful, yet all 8 teams made the Tournament. Of course, perhaps I just didn't hear about fans getting upset and wanting only 6 teams to be a part of the tournament like they did prior to the addition of Merrimack (not including the '85 tournament where all 7 teams made it). Either way, I don't see us agreeing on this issue. So, we can agree to disagree. Ultimately, the Hockey East Tournament will still be a great showcase of college hockey, regardless if 8 or 12 teams are included.

 

[fiqure8]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

I really don't have anything else to say other than what I've said. I am glad Hockey East is going to allow every team to play in the conference tournament for the following reasons:

1) It brings equality between the conferences.
2) It allows for Cinderella Stories.
3) I don't believe 22 regular season games is enough to separate teams enough to warrant exclusion of teams.

I understand that you disagree. Perhaps it is just that we are happy with what we are familiar with. I don't remember Hockey East fans being upset that all 8 teams used to make the Tournament prior to the addition of Massachusetts in 1995. Certainly there were years where the bottom teams were absolutely awful, yet all 8 teams made the Tournament. Of course, perhaps I just didn't hear about fans getting upset and wanting only 6 teams to be a part of the tournament like they did prior to the addition of Merrimack (not including the '85 tournament where all 7 teams made it). Either way, I don't see us agreeing on this issue. So, we can agree to disagree. Ultimately, the Hockey East Tournament will still be a great showcase of college hockey, regardless if 8 or 12 teams are included.

An extra game (s) Play off games bring in cash...........another cash grab Too few games in college anyways.......

 

[Split-N]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

...I am glad Hockey East is going to allow every team to play in the conference tournament...

Where do we pick up our participation trophies?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Like it or not Hockey East is going to a 12 team playoff. As a Merrimack fan, I like this because my team does have a chance. As a hockey fan I dislike the lack of importance placed of the regular season.

Why does it diminish the regular season? The regular season champ is going to make the NCAAs regardless and speaking from experience the additional teams have rarely if ever tarnished the final conference tournament setup.

Where do we pick up our participation trophies?

At the pretend store that gives them out.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Hockey East does not have an advantage over other conferences because of the different tourney format, but I already addressed that earlier in the thread. Whatever.

As for the 22 league game issue, it depends on the season. As I've said before, 22 games were more than enough to determine that Vermont didn't deserve to be in the playoffs last year. Some years, a team might lose out by one point, but in others you will see some truly terrible teams at the bottom of the standings.

 

[GoUNH]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

1) It brings equality between the conferences.

.

Should we make it co-ed as well?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Hockey East does not have an advantage over other conferences because of the different tourney format, but I already addressed that earlier in the thread. Whatever.

Then I question your understanding of the Pairwise system, and I completely disagree. We will just have to agree to disagree because I am done debating this issue.

 

[Patman]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Then I question your understanding of the Pairwise system, and I completely disagree. We will just have to agree to disagree because I am done debating this issue.

Please enlighten me as to what you are trying to argue here?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Please enlighten me as to what you are trying to argue here?

Hypothetical:
Team A is the #1 seed in the WCHA
Team B is the #1 seed in Hockey East
Teams A and B have nearly identical RPI rankings, which is the only thing that separates them in the Pairwise Rankings
Team C is the #12 seed in the WCHA and beating this team would actually lower your RPI
Team D is the #8 seed in the WCHA and beating this team would slightly increase your RPI
Team E is the #12 seed in Hockey East and beating this team would keep your RPI the same
Team F is the #8 seed in Hockey East and beating this team would slightly increase your RPI

Team A has to play Team C, and even if they win, their RPI cannot go up (nor can it go down due to the rule that your RPI cannot go down as a result of a win). Team A plays Team C twice, wins both games, their RPI remains the same.

Team B gets to play Team F. Team B wins both games, and their RPI goes up slightly, jumping them over Team A in the Pairwise.

Had Team A been able to play Team D, their RPI numbers would have increased slightly, keeping up with Team B, and Team A would have maintained their advantage in the Pairwise. Likewise, had Team B been forced to play Team E, their numbers would have remained neutral, and they would not have been able to jump Team A (even if Team A had to play Team C).

As a result of the structures of their conference tournaments, Team B gets to play more guaranteed meaningful (read: meaningful to the PWR) games. Team A is limited in how many meaningful games that they can play (basically a max of 2). Consequently, this gives an advantage to Team B.

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Hypothetical:
Team A is the #1 seed in the WCHA
Team B is the #1 seed in Hockey East
Teams A and B have nearly identical RPI rankings, which is the only thing that separates them in the Pairwise Rankings
Team C is the #12 seed in the WCHA and beating this team would actually lower your RPI
Team D is the #8 seed in the WCHA and beating this team would slightly increase your RPI
Team E is the #12 seed in Hockey East and beating this team would keep your RPI the same
Team F is the #8 seed in Hockey East and beating this team would slightly increase your RPI

Team A has to play Team C, and even if they win, their RPI cannot go up (nor can it go down due to the rule that your RPI cannot go down as a result of a win). Team A plays Team C twice, wins both games, their RPI remains the same.

Team B gets to play Team F. Team B wins both games, and their RPI goes up slightly, jumping them over Team A in the Pairwise.

Had Team A been able to play Team D, their RPI numbers would have increased slightly, keeping up with Team B, and Team A would have maintained their advantage in the Pairwise. Likewise, had Team B been forced to play Team E, their numbers would have remained neutral, and they would not have been able to jump Team A (even if Team A had to play Team C).

As a result of the structures of their conference tournaments, Team B gets to play more guaranteed meaningful (read: meaningful to the PWR) games. Team A is limited in how many meaningful games that they can play (basically a max of 2). Consequently, this gives an advantage to Team B.

Hockey East fans are going to argue (rightly for wrongly) that the WCHA should have cut their bottom four teams from the playoffs, because that would have solved that potential hypothetical. It is a moot point now anyways.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Hockey East fans are going to argue (rightly for wrongly) that the WCHA should have cut their bottom four teams from the playoffs, because that would have solved that potential hypothetical. It is a moot point now anyways.

While this is true, the only Hockey East fan to chime in on this particular issue has claimed that this is not an advantage for Hockey East. I was then asked to better state my argument, which is why I used this hypothetical.

 

[Patman]

While this is true, the only Hockey East fan to chime in on this particular issue has claimed that this is not an advantage for Hockey East. I was then asked to better state my argument, which is why I used this hypothetical.

So, you are saying playing lower ranked teams is disadvantageous... Why not cut the threat of a bottom team making it out of the first round by just not letting them have one.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Then I question your understanding of the Pairwise system, and I completely disagree. We will just have to agree to disagree because I am done debating this issue.

And I'm questioning your understanding of the actual differences between the playoff formats. It's not nearly as big a difference as you're making it out to be. But as you say, we can agree to disagree. I had a lengthy post on the topic earlier in the thread and don't particularly care to revisit it.

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Hockey East to Expand Playoff Format

Hypothetically, FS appears to be right with his numbers. But as HBB-GH pointed out, that has been an issue that the WCHA could have solved for themselves by eliminating teams with a negative drag on RPI. If a team can't increase your RPI, what are they doing in the tourney??

I have a huge problem with FS's train of thought that seems to run, "since my guy is in harm's way, I want your guy to be in harm's way, also." I absolutely hate that way of thinking. Why not push to rid your tourney of bottom feeders by saying, "since their guy isn't put in harm's way, I don't want our guy to be put in harm's way either." Push for a positive instead of a negative. It is the same reason I hate Red Sox fans always yelling, "Yankees suck!" instead of, "Go Sox!!" Or BU fans yelling, "BC sucks" (at a game with Maine), instead of, "BU is the best!" Work to build your team up instead of tearing the other team down.

[rant over.]
[for now]

 

[Jon]

Hypothetically, FS appears to be right with his numbers. But as HBB-GH pointed out, that has been an issue that the WCHA could have solved for themselves by eliminating teams with a negative drag on RPI. If a team can't increase your RPI, what are they doing in the tourney??

I have a huge problem with FS's train of thought that seems to run, "since my guy is in harm's way, I want your guy to be in harm's way, also." I absolutely hate that way of thinking. Why not push to rid your tourney of bottom feeders by saying, "since their guy isn't put in harm's way, I don't want our guy to be put in harm's way either." Push for a positive instead of a negative. It is the same reason I hate Red Sox fans always yelling, "Yankees suck!" instead of, "Go Sox!!" Or BU fans yelling, "BC sucks" (at a game with Maine), instead of, "BU is the best!" Work to build your team up instead of tearing the other team down.

[rant over.]
[for now]

Margarita time?

Under no circumstance did I need to see more PC games during that lovely stretch where they kept finishing in the basement.