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.
NCAA Change the Tourney
- Thread starter steve66
- Start date
To seed the conference tournament, of course.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
What else do you call those 6 conferences as a group that everyone readily understands without the need for further explanation?
What else do you call those 6 conferences as a group that everyone readily understands without the need for further explanation?
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
YES I WOULD (for the umpteenth time...). Hockey and basketball are NOT football, where you need a "machine" to build a winning program due to the sheer sizes of the rosters and the accompanying expenses. Look at what BYU did with one star and four journeyman. That's my point - this perceived "elite" team concept is not really true. What is this fascination with ratings? All of this stuff is subjective. The only determinant should be WINNING. I don't think you're getting my point. I am not looking for the BEST teams. I feel as though the teams that had a SUCCESSFUL season should be rewarded. You act as though these "weak" conferences are going to flood the tournament. I didn't say to put in ten teams from America East. But the WINNER of the conference, who finished AHEAD of everyone else in the league by WINNING GAMES, deserves to go - NOT just a conference tournament winner who gets hot for three games. By your theory, why should BU, who won three games in a tournament, go to the NCAAs ahead of Vermont, who won 23 games (and 10-6 OUTSIDE the conference)? We're obviously not going to agree. You can be "incredulous" all you want. I fail to see how that game last night could have been any less "lousy" than what I propose. It was probably the worst game I've seen in years. And I suppose now you think that UConn is the "BEST" team in the country? If that's what you're trying to prove, good luck. I can go down the list of NCAA Champions and MANY of them were not the best team that year. That's my point - it's not about the BEST team. It's a TOURNAMENT and that's what the fun is - there are upsets and MANY teams have a chance to win - you want to make it a "club" for the elite teams. I don't believe that's the intention.
You'd really rather have Belmont in the tournament instead of Duke?
YES I WOULD (for the umpteenth time...). Hockey and basketball are NOT football, where you need a "machine" to build a winning program due to the sheer sizes of the rosters and the accompanying expenses. Look at what BYU did with one star and four journeyman. That's my point - this perceived "elite" team concept is not really true. What is this fascination with ratings? All of this stuff is subjective. The only determinant should be WINNING. I don't think you're getting my point. I am not looking for the BEST teams. I feel as though the teams that had a SUCCESSFUL season should be rewarded. You act as though these "weak" conferences are going to flood the tournament. I didn't say to put in ten teams from America East. But the WINNER of the conference, who finished AHEAD of everyone else in the league by WINNING GAMES, deserves to go - NOT just a conference tournament winner who gets hot for three games. By your theory, why should BU, who won three games in a tournament, go to the NCAAs ahead of Vermont, who won 23 games (and 10-6 OUTSIDE the conference)? We're obviously not going to agree. You can be "incredulous" all you want. I fail to see how that game last night could have been any less "lousy" than what I propose. It was probably the worst game I've seen in years. And I suppose now you think that UConn is the "BEST" team in the country? If that's what you're trying to prove, good luck. I can go down the list of NCAA Champions and MANY of them were not the best team that year. That's my point - it's not about the BEST team. It's a TOURNAMENT and that's what the fun is - there are upsets and MANY teams have a chance to win - you want to make it a "club" for the elite teams. I don't believe that's the intention.
I said the REGULAR SEASON winner AND the conference tournament winner should get in. Otherwise, let's just play the tournament and forget the regular season.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
So what? In America East, for example, the first two rounds were played at the University of Hartford, who finished 6th in the league and ended up with essentially two "home" games (since there's no line changing in basketball, it WAS a home game because they played in their gym). So in other words, we'll give about 10% weighting to the regular season, because it determines the "seedings," and 90% weight to the tournament, which is really the only thing that matters. That makes a lot of sense. You play 15-20 games for something with 10% weight and 3 games for something that has 90% weight. Fuzzy math...
And besides, since these leagues are so "lousy," what difference does it make where a team is seeded? A last-place team has just as much chance of winning, since the first place teams probably stink anyway, right?
So what? In America East, for example, the first two rounds were played at the University of Hartford, who finished 6th in the league and ended up with essentially two "home" games (since there's no line changing in basketball, it WAS a home game because they played in their gym). So in other words, we'll give about 10% weighting to the regular season, because it determines the "seedings," and 90% weight to the tournament, which is really the only thing that matters. That makes a lot of sense. You play 15-20 games for something with 10% weight and 3 games for something that has 90% weight. Fuzzy math...
And besides, since these leagues are so "lousy," what difference does it make where a team is seeded? A last-place team has just as much chance of winning, since the first place teams probably stink anyway, right?
moose97
New member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
"The big guys," or give an example, "like Tennessee." Like I said, I know what you ment, but your point (attendance at mid-majors) proves that BCS is poor terminology outside football.
Please learn to read. Thank you.
"The big guys," or give an example, "like Tennessee." Like I said, I know what you ment, but your point (attendance at mid-majors) proves that BCS is poor terminology outside football.
Please learn to read. Thank you.
Last edited:
PcFriars13
New member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
The flaw with your argument is that America East teams just aren't that great. If they truly were, then there'd be justification in what you're saying. In the 2009-2010 season, Providence College played UVM and beat them 106-64. Providence then finished in second to last place in the conference after only winning 4 conference games. Vermont was the second ranked team in the conference and they still lost by 40 to a very mediocre Big East team. They ended up winning the tournament and advancing to the NCAA tournament, where they promptly got annihilated by Syracuse.
(you can substitute America East for any other weak conference. this is just an example)
The flaw with your argument is that America East teams just aren't that great. If they truly were, then there'd be justification in what you're saying. In the 2009-2010 season, Providence College played UVM and beat them 106-64. Providence then finished in second to last place in the conference after only winning 4 conference games. Vermont was the second ranked team in the conference and they still lost by 40 to a very mediocre Big East team. They ended up winning the tournament and advancing to the NCAA tournament, where they promptly got annihilated by Syracuse.
(you can substitute America East for any other weak conference. this is just an example)
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
In practical terms, a 4th or 5th place team from the CCHA/Hockey East/WCHA might get bumped from the field to allow an additional team from AH/ECAC into the mix. In my view, bubble teams on either side of the question have a hard time claiming an entitlement to compete for the national title. So if your proposal was adopted, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
At the same time, if any league wants to protect its regular season champion, my understanding is that it already has the right to do so. Just designate your regular season champ as the winner of your autobid. Giving the autobid to the tournament champ is a league decision, not an NCAA mandate. So even if adding extra autobids isn't politically viable -- and it probably isn't -- there's still an option.
Do you really think that any athlete tanks the regular season because the post-season format isn't fully to his liking? Does anyone conclude that if the national tournament is unlikely, rivalry games are meaningless? Or that it doesn't matter if you play at home or on the road in the league playoffs? The answer to all three questions is obviously no. If you can't get fired up for regular season games you shouldn't be an athlete.
All teams will play hard under either format, regardless of conference affliation.
Personally, I wouldn't mind that. In anything resembling a normal year, this would change 0-2 bids at the bottom of the tournament field. Placing a greater emphasis on a "tournament of champions" might not be a bad thing. Each of these bids would be won on the ice, which would be good thing.
In practical terms, a 4th or 5th place team from the CCHA/Hockey East/WCHA might get bumped from the field to allow an additional team from AH/ECAC into the mix. In my view, bubble teams on either side of the question have a hard time claiming an entitlement to compete for the national title. So if your proposal was adopted, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
At the same time, if any league wants to protect its regular season champion, my understanding is that it already has the right to do so. Just designate your regular season champ as the winner of your autobid. Giving the autobid to the tournament champ is a league decision, not an NCAA mandate. So even if adding extra autobids isn't politically viable -- and it probably isn't -- there's still an option.
You've said this in multiple posts. It's nonsense and it only undermines your argument.
Do you really think that any athlete tanks the regular season because the post-season format isn't fully to his liking? Does anyone conclude that if the national tournament is unlikely, rivalry games are meaningless? Or that it doesn't matter if you play at home or on the road in the league playoffs? The answer to all three questions is obviously no. If you can't get fired up for regular season games you shouldn't be an athlete.
All teams will play hard under either format, regardless of conference affliation.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I edited the above post but you must have grabbed it before I did so. It was a mistake that I corrected...I meant to say what is there now.
It's a figurative statement to emphasize how, IMO, the regular season just doesn't mean much relative to the POST-SEASON. I didn't say anything about the athletes "tanking" anything. In fact, I'm not even talking about the athletes. I'm talking about the administrative powers-that-be who make these decisions. As I said before, the players just play. I also understand that this is a theoretical discussion. We all know what drives everything - it's the same reason there will never be a playoff in Division 1 (I won't say "BCS") football. But that doesn't mean I still can't have an opinion about what I feel that the original "spirit" or intent of a national tournament was. You know, way BEFORE the NCAA "dance," the BIGGER, MORE PRESITIGIOUS tournament by FAR was the NIT. They didn't claim to prove anything about "the best" teams - only the "invitees." It was an honor to be invited. The champion was the champion, period. No speculation about who the "best team" in the country was. That's NOT THE POINT. How can anyone say that someone who wins a tournament in which you only have to win six games can nullify an entire season. So nobody has yet answered my question. Do you think that Connecticut is the BEST team in the country? Because if you don't, then you have proved my point. Why is there always this posturing and woofing about the "best?" It's a tournament - one team wins and that's it. That's why they say "NCAA Champion" - not NCAA "Best Team." If you REALLY want to prove who the "best team" is, then your argument about the "best" conferences is actually valid. Why even invite ANYONE from the "weak" conferences? In fact, let's forget conferences and just take the top 64 in RPI. Would that make everyone happy? And my answer again, is, just put everyone else in Division 2.
I edited the above post but you must have grabbed it before I did so. It was a mistake that I corrected...I meant to say what is there now.
It's a figurative statement to emphasize how, IMO, the regular season just doesn't mean much relative to the POST-SEASON. I didn't say anything about the athletes "tanking" anything. In fact, I'm not even talking about the athletes. I'm talking about the administrative powers-that-be who make these decisions. As I said before, the players just play. I also understand that this is a theoretical discussion. We all know what drives everything - it's the same reason there will never be a playoff in Division 1 (I won't say "BCS") football. But that doesn't mean I still can't have an opinion about what I feel that the original "spirit" or intent of a national tournament was. You know, way BEFORE the NCAA "dance," the BIGGER, MORE PRESITIGIOUS tournament by FAR was the NIT. They didn't claim to prove anything about "the best" teams - only the "invitees." It was an honor to be invited. The champion was the champion, period. No speculation about who the "best team" in the country was. That's NOT THE POINT. How can anyone say that someone who wins a tournament in which you only have to win six games can nullify an entire season. So nobody has yet answered my question. Do you think that Connecticut is the BEST team in the country? Because if you don't, then you have proved my point. Why is there always this posturing and woofing about the "best?" It's a tournament - one team wins and that's it. That's why they say "NCAA Champion" - not NCAA "Best Team." If you REALLY want to prove who the "best team" is, then your argument about the "best" conferences is actually valid. Why even invite ANYONE from the "weak" conferences? In fact, let's forget conferences and just take the top 64 in RPI. Would that make everyone happy? And my answer again, is, just put everyone else in Division 2.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
With your formula, this year’s tournament would have had 38 participants that would not have qualified as at-large teams. The 21 that actually did make the tournament won exactly one game.
I'll make an unresearched statement that I invite you to disprove: The NCAA basketball tournament has never been won by a team that would not have qualified as an at-large team. At most, Cinderella is a fairy tale.
With the system that you propose, I’d say that what would most likely happen is a basketball BCS. The power conferences would say screw this, create their own tournament, and the NCAA would be left with a tournament that gets all the attention of the football playoffs.
Signing off on this issue. I think we agree on what we'd like the tournament to be. We disagree strongly on how to achieve it.
Evidence? BYU? The school with an enrollment of 30,000 students that’s also a football factory?
With your formula, this year’s tournament would have had 38 participants that would not have qualified as at-large teams. The 21 that actually did make the tournament won exactly one game.
Nope. Never said that.
Agree, that is what the fun is. The fact is, though, that the upsets aren’t accomplished by teams by teams that qualify only because they won a conference tournament; they’re accomplished by teams that would qualify as at-large teams, regardless of whether or not they qualify as conference tournament winners.
I'll make an unresearched statement that I invite you to disprove: The NCAA basketball tournament has never been won by a team that would not have qualified as an at-large team. At most, Cinderella is a fairy tale.
Nope. Never said that either. I'm fine with the current number of autobids. I don't think there should be more, though.
And what is the intention? Hate to be cynical here, but the intention is to create a tournament that has widespread interest, and the NCAA, for all its deficiencies has done that brilliantly in basketball. The formula for determining the at-large teams will always be controversial, just as it is in hockey, but both the hockey and basketball tournaments are big enough that I don’t really feel sorry for the teams that don’t make it, even if the system is flawed.
With the system that you propose, I’d say that what would most likely happen is a basketball BCS. The power conferences would say screw this, create their own tournament, and the NCAA would be left with a tournament that gets all the attention of the football playoffs.
Signing off on this issue. I think we agree on what we'd like the tournament to be. We disagree strongly on how to achieve it.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
So only the regular season and tournament winners from each conference get it? That eliminates half of our Frozen Four field.
That would make the regionals short and sweet. Hockey East and the WCHA kinda get screwed though.
BC v RIT
UND v Air Force
Michigan v Yale
Union v Miami
Winners advance to Frozen Four.
So only the regular season and tournament winners from each conference get it? That eliminates half of our Frozen Four field.
That would make the regionals short and sweet. Hockey East and the WCHA kinda get screwed though.
BC v RIT
UND v Air Force
Michigan v Yale
Union v Miami
Winners advance to Frozen Four.
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Sorry, no...we got onto a basketball tangent. Obviously there are not enough conferences in hockey for that to have any validity.
Stating the converse does not DISPROVE my statement and it doesn't change the fact that you can win with one superstar player in basketball - that is patently impossible in football. If Jimmer played for a mid-major school it would illustrate the point better.
Who cares? Again, the point is to REWARD teams for good play. I never said anything about Cinderella, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or anyone else. I don't care if they "would have" qualified as an at-large team or not. See, you just can't get that "formula" out of your head. What their "rating" is, regardless of how it's calculated, is irrelevant to me. If I play for East Overshoe and they don't PLAY "ranked" teams, how can I affect my team's RPI? I CAN'T!!! That's the point. But why should I be PENALIZED because I don't have any control over whether we play those teams? If you think I should, then what you're saying is that we belong in a LOWER DIVISION. You can't have it both ways.
I'll try to be more succinct about this once and for all. To me, it's real simple. Here are my points:
1) Treat ALL conferences EQUALLY or DROP THEM to a lower division.
2) REWARD REGULAR SEASON as well as conference tournament play.
3) If you can't win in your OWN conference, you don't deserve to play in a tournament against OTHER conferences.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!! End of discussion!!! (for me, anyway)
Sorry, no...we got onto a basketball tangent. Obviously there are not enough conferences in hockey for that to have any validity.
Stating the converse does not DISPROVE my statement and it doesn't change the fact that you can win with one superstar player in basketball - that is patently impossible in football. If Jimmer played for a mid-major school it would illustrate the point better.
Who cares? Again, the point is to REWARD teams for good play. I never said anything about Cinderella, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or anyone else. I don't care if they "would have" qualified as an at-large team or not. See, you just can't get that "formula" out of your head. What their "rating" is, regardless of how it's calculated, is irrelevant to me. If I play for East Overshoe and they don't PLAY "ranked" teams, how can I affect my team's RPI? I CAN'T!!! That's the point. But why should I be PENALIZED because I don't have any control over whether we play those teams? If you think I should, then what you're saying is that we belong in a LOWER DIVISION. You can't have it both ways.
I'll try to be more succinct about this once and for all. To me, it's real simple. Here are my points:
1) Treat ALL conferences EQUALLY or DROP THEM to a lower division.
2) REWARD REGULAR SEASON as well as conference tournament play.
3) If you can't win in your OWN conference, you don't deserve to play in a tournament against OTHER conferences.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!! End of discussion!!! (for me, anyway)
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
No matter how many words typed in all caps and no matter how many exclamation points, that's not how it works. In any sport, at any level, college or professional. The NCAA abandoned the "tournament of champions" concept in 1975, and has come to an excellent compromise--approximately half the field is made up of conference champions, and the other half of the field is filled in with the best remaining teams. It is an excellent compromise because it allows in all teams that win their local conference competitions, and also allows in good teams that happen to play in the same conference as other good teams. I don't see why anybody would be opposed to this model, but there you go. I would hate to have a post-season tournament where the second-best team in the nation might end up sitting at home.
Whether you are opposed or not, we are limited to this model for our sport. That's one of the non-negotiable aspects of NCAA tournaments--the idea of automatic bids for up to 50 percent of the field, and at large bids for the rest. Also non-negotiable is the idea of making legitimate comparisons among the candidates for at large bids based on more information than just the winning percentage. Given these limitations, we're pretty much stuck with 1 automatic bid for each of the 5 eligible conferences and 7 or 11 at large bids to fill out the 12 or 16-team tournament. The NCAA tries to keep the tournament field between 20 and 30 percent of the total teams as well, so anything smaller than 12 or bigger than 16 is almost certainly off the table.
No matter how many words typed in all caps and no matter how many exclamation points, that's not how it works. In any sport, at any level, college or professional. The NCAA abandoned the "tournament of champions" concept in 1975, and has come to an excellent compromise--approximately half the field is made up of conference champions, and the other half of the field is filled in with the best remaining teams. It is an excellent compromise because it allows in all teams that win their local conference competitions, and also allows in good teams that happen to play in the same conference as other good teams. I don't see why anybody would be opposed to this model, but there you go. I would hate to have a post-season tournament where the second-best team in the nation might end up sitting at home.
Whether you are opposed or not, we are limited to this model for our sport. That's one of the non-negotiable aspects of NCAA tournaments--the idea of automatic bids for up to 50 percent of the field, and at large bids for the rest. Also non-negotiable is the idea of making legitimate comparisons among the candidates for at large bids based on more information than just the winning percentage. Given these limitations, we're pretty much stuck with 1 automatic bid for each of the 5 eligible conferences and 7 or 11 at large bids to fill out the 12 or 16-team tournament. The NCAA tries to keep the tournament field between 20 and 30 percent of the total teams as well, so anything smaller than 12 or bigger than 16 is almost certainly off the table.
billmich88888
Registered Person
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
+1 to Alton`s post
+1 to Alton`s post
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Here is an idea that probably would never fly yet seems to have some advantages...
get rid of all the conference post-season tournaments.....instead, put teams into a somewhat broader nationwide post-season tournament based on their order of finish within their conference, and have several 'wild card' slots based on 'objective' measures, up for grabs among all remaining conference teams after that.....
Conference tourney weekend becomes opening round of national tourney, and we slot in more teams, say 24 overall, with the top eight places receiving a first round bye.
This is roughly how the Champions League soccer tournament in Europe works, and it is sort of how the NFL playoffs work too. Imagine a hybrid between those two.
Here is an idea that probably would never fly yet seems to have some advantages...
get rid of all the conference post-season tournaments.....instead, put teams into a somewhat broader nationwide post-season tournament based on their order of finish within their conference, and have several 'wild card' slots based on 'objective' measures, up for grabs among all remaining conference teams after that.....
Conference tourney weekend becomes opening round of national tourney, and we slot in more teams, say 24 overall, with the top eight places receiving a first round bye.
This is roughly how the Champions League soccer tournament in Europe works, and it is sort of how the NFL playoffs work too. Imagine a hybrid between those two.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I fully understood the thrust your original comment, and that it was figurative. You weren't literally asking that the regular season be cancelled. But both then and now, you were arguing that the regular season is relatively unimportant. Both then and now, I'm disagreeing with you.
Yes, "tanking" was my word, not yours. It was part of a series of 3 examples evidencing why the regular season is important...
What's more puzzling to me is this: If the regular season is believed to be relatively meaningless, why should the regular season champion should be rewarded with an autobid? If it's all about the post-season, rewarding the champions of the conference tournaments should be your top priority. The current system does that.
But you should be. The views of the athletes, the season ticketholders and others who are the backbone of a program must be considered. And I assure you, for people in those groups, the regular season is important.
I fully understood the thrust your original comment, and that it was figurative. You weren't literally asking that the regular season be cancelled. But both then and now, you were arguing that the regular season is relatively unimportant. Both then and now, I'm disagreeing with you.
Yes, "tanking" was my word, not yours. It was part of a series of 3 examples evidencing why the regular season is important...
What's more puzzling to me is this: If the regular season is believed to be relatively meaningless, why should the regular season champion should be rewarded with an autobid? If it's all about the post-season, rewarding the champions of the conference tournaments should be your top priority. The current system does that.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
I'm not following you. Is that a hypothetical "if?" I just explained that Vermont was the regular season champion (in America East BB) and did NOT get an autobid - or ANY bid, for that matter (even though IMO they should have). And if it is a hypothetical "if," then you are proving my point again, because I said BOTH the regular season champion AND the conference tournament champion SHOULD receive a bid. To not do so renders the regular season "meaningless," IMO (forget the "but they use it for the seedings" baloney). Now as far as hockey goes, that DOESN'T happen now. Before you say, "Yes it does," the regular season champion gets a bid BECAUSE THEIR PWR is going to be high enough. But that's not the same thing as an "autobid," and that's proven by the fact that CHA ONLY gets a bid for their TOURNAMENT champion (unless, of course, a team has a high enough RPI). I'm saying that the regular season winner and the tournament winner should get autobids (that would be ten teams) and then you can pick six more "at large." That's NOT the same thing as five autobids and 11 at large teams. If you're thinking "well, if we give autobids to all the regular season champs then we may have to give TWO (oh my gosh) bids to CHA teams, so what? Again, if they're not "good enough" to be treated the same as the other leagues, then kick them out of Division 1.
I'm not following you. Is that a hypothetical "if?" I just explained that Vermont was the regular season champion (in America East BB) and did NOT get an autobid - or ANY bid, for that matter (even though IMO they should have). And if it is a hypothetical "if," then you are proving my point again, because I said BOTH the regular season champion AND the conference tournament champion SHOULD receive a bid. To not do so renders the regular season "meaningless," IMO (forget the "but they use it for the seedings" baloney). Now as far as hockey goes, that DOESN'T happen now. Before you say, "Yes it does," the regular season champion gets a bid BECAUSE THEIR PWR is going to be high enough. But that's not the same thing as an "autobid," and that's proven by the fact that CHA ONLY gets a bid for their TOURNAMENT champion (unless, of course, a team has a high enough RPI). I'm saying that the regular season winner and the tournament winner should get autobids (that would be ten teams) and then you can pick six more "at large." That's NOT the same thing as five autobids and 11 at large teams. If you're thinking "well, if we give autobids to all the regular season champs then we may have to give TWO (oh my gosh) bids to CHA teams, so what? Again, if they're not "good enough" to be treated the same as the other leagues, then kick them out of Division 1.
moose97
New member
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
First off, welcome to 2011 - the CHA doesn't exist anymore.
Now, if you substitute AHA, something like two of the last three years, the regular season champ would have gotten in had they not won the AHA Tourney. Happened to the CHA last year (remember BSU as a #2 seed vs. Michigan in Ft Wayne, and UAH as the #4 seed in the same regional?) too. Your argument might have some merit in basketball, and occasionally in hockey.
That being the case, I really don't care. Floor basketball is stupid.
First off, welcome to 2011 - the CHA doesn't exist anymore.
Now, if you substitute AHA, something like two of the last three years, the regular season champ would have gotten in had they not won the AHA Tourney. Happened to the CHA last year (remember BSU as a #2 seed vs. Michigan in Ft Wayne, and UAH as the #4 seed in the same regional?) too. Your argument might have some merit in basketball, and occasionally in hockey.
That being the case, I really don't care. Floor basketball is stupid.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Chickod,
Let's try this. While I disagree with a good percentage of your reasoning, sorting through every point looks like more trouble than it's worth. Let's just say we agree the regular season is meaningful, but disagree about whether the "meaning" can be spoiled by the lack of a post-season bid. Beyond that, it's probably best to agree to disagree.
Without regard to your reasoning, here's my take on the autobid issue:
I sympathize with the idea that regular season champs belong in the NCAA tournament. The question is whether there's a viable option to ensure that this happens.
Alton has explained that our tournament must be mix of autobids and at-large bids. Still, we could give regular season champs autobids, provided a sufficient number of at-large bids remained. Our tournament had the so-called "CC Rule" on the books for a while, and that was certainly post-1975. And as I previously mentioned, a new rule at the national level isn't a must. Individual conferences are free to give their autobid to their regular season champ if they so choose. (though the rule obviously couldn't be changed during a season)
I'll also say that the prospect of two Atlantic Hockey teams in the NCAA tournament doesn't horrify me. I'd expect each to be "deserving," if not competitive. Note that the Men's CHA no longer exists, but that your arguments still apply to the AH, and perhaps others in an odd year.
We also have to take into account that the BTHC will be part of the mix in a couple of seasons. When that occurs, we'll be back to six conferences. Using your proposed rule without modification, we could have a maximum of 12 teams getting into the tournament with autobids. That number runs afoul of the 50% constraint Alton refers to. And yet, it's very difficult to imagine that a high percentage of the regular season champs wouldn't also qualify as at-large teams.
It would be interesting to take a look back at the full run of the 16 team tournament, and determine just how many regular season champs have been excluded from the field. My guess is that the range is 0-2, and the average is well under 1 per year.
Another Option: If the previous paragraph is correct, having a maximum of 8 autobids would be sufficient to address every realistic scenario. And it seems to me that we could tweak the current arrangement to allow for up to 8 autobids without running afoul of the larger NCAA. In other words, take the six conference tournament champs, and up to 2 regular season champs who wouldn't otherwise qualify. In that ultra-rare year with 3 regular season champs who don't qualify as at-large teams, the weakest team in the pairwise rankings would lose out.
Also, regular season co-championships would not result in additional autobids. A tiebreaking procedure would be required. Last, but importantly, by making sure that there's a minimum of 8 at-large bids that are free and clear of autobid constraints, we protect the deserving second place teams that Alton refers to.
I honestly don't feel that strongly about this issue. But if we really want to give a little more weight to regular season championships when selecting the tournament field, this minor repair would accomplish that.
Chickod,
Let's try this. While I disagree with a good percentage of your reasoning, sorting through every point looks like more trouble than it's worth. Let's just say we agree the regular season is meaningful, but disagree about whether the "meaning" can be spoiled by the lack of a post-season bid. Beyond that, it's probably best to agree to disagree.
Without regard to your reasoning, here's my take on the autobid issue:
I sympathize with the idea that regular season champs belong in the NCAA tournament. The question is whether there's a viable option to ensure that this happens.
Alton has explained that our tournament must be mix of autobids and at-large bids. Still, we could give regular season champs autobids, provided a sufficient number of at-large bids remained. Our tournament had the so-called "CC Rule" on the books for a while, and that was certainly post-1975. And as I previously mentioned, a new rule at the national level isn't a must. Individual conferences are free to give their autobid to their regular season champ if they so choose. (though the rule obviously couldn't be changed during a season)
I'll also say that the prospect of two Atlantic Hockey teams in the NCAA tournament doesn't horrify me. I'd expect each to be "deserving," if not competitive. Note that the Men's CHA no longer exists, but that your arguments still apply to the AH, and perhaps others in an odd year.
We also have to take into account that the BTHC will be part of the mix in a couple of seasons. When that occurs, we'll be back to six conferences. Using your proposed rule without modification, we could have a maximum of 12 teams getting into the tournament with autobids. That number runs afoul of the 50% constraint Alton refers to. And yet, it's very difficult to imagine that a high percentage of the regular season champs wouldn't also qualify as at-large teams.
It would be interesting to take a look back at the full run of the 16 team tournament, and determine just how many regular season champs have been excluded from the field. My guess is that the range is 0-2, and the average is well under 1 per year.
Another Option: If the previous paragraph is correct, having a maximum of 8 autobids would be sufficient to address every realistic scenario. And it seems to me that we could tweak the current arrangement to allow for up to 8 autobids without running afoul of the larger NCAA. In other words, take the six conference tournament champs, and up to 2 regular season champs who wouldn't otherwise qualify. In that ultra-rare year with 3 regular season champs who don't qualify as at-large teams, the weakest team in the pairwise rankings would lose out.
Also, regular season co-championships would not result in additional autobids. A tiebreaking procedure would be required. Last, but importantly, by making sure that there's a minimum of 8 at-large bids that are free and clear of autobid constraints, we protect the deserving second place teams that Alton refers to.
I honestly don't feel that strongly about this issue. But if we really want to give a little more weight to regular season championships when selecting the tournament field, this minor repair would accomplish that.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
Fine, that's one way of doing it. What it would mean is that about 3/4 of the 31 Division I basketball conferences (including America East) would be kicked out of Division I. Those are the conferences that rarely win a first round game, and don't win second round games. Seems like an unnecessarily extreme measure to me, but have at it.