Re: NCAA Change the Tourney
While I am clearly a novice when it comes to college hockey, I do have some experience in reconciling different opinions to reach an agreeable consensus.
What appears to me to be happening here is that many of us are skipping from step 1 to step 3 without following step 2; or are introducing step 2 considerations after step 3 proposals have already been made.
Step 1: Identify the problem. Done. No need to repeat;
Step 2: Identify priorities, parameters, constraints. This is the step at which broad-based agreement is important, as it helps in developing....
Step 3: Propose solutions that solve the problem that also are consistent with priorities and constraints of Step 2.
One obvious constraint is that the number of teams selected be a multiple of 4: 12, 16, 24 are the most likely numbers, with 16 the most likely.
Second is that you have autobids and seeding.
Then you have to find what other criteria are important, on a relative basis. "sure, attendance is important, but money is more important than attendance" or just the opposite for that matter is one example. What criteria are important, and how important is each each one relative to all the others? Do you assign a weighting system? (you could add up the weights assigned to each criteria to rank your proposed solutions, for example).
There seems to be a conflict over 12 vs 16 team field, and also a concern over how to structure the post-season (two weekends of games, or three? for example. Timing and scheduling of games, for another. These go beyond location alone).
One thing that could be done with a 16-team field that would have the advantages of a 12-team field would be analogous to Big East basketball tournament: seeds 1 - 4 get bye into quarterfinals; seeds 5 - 8 get bye into sweet sixteen, seeds 9 -16 play first round. This kind of format works over over three scheduled weekends instead of two (keep the 'off week' in there somewhere if needed, adjust schedule accordingly). It might address several different concerns raised by others:
> first round might be at higher-seeded team's home ice (teams 5 - 8 that is; there'd be a one-game 9 vs 16 etc and winners play 5 - 8 accordingly
> next round everyone would know well in advance where 1 - 4 are playing (at least two weeks' advance notice if not more);
> then you have final four (excuse me, frozen four) after that.
That is not so much a proposal as an example, based on criteria which seem implicit in other people's proposals, of how the criteria can be used to shape the proposal (e.g, keep 16 teams while also improving prospects for attendance in early-roudn games while also retaining pre-scheduled Regionals the last playing weekend before the Frozen Four).
Just a thought; the main criteria seem to be attendance, ease of access to fans, scheduling logistics, money, and respecting the seeding. Depending on how people rank these criteria; they will be drawn toward different solutions.
While I am clearly a novice when it comes to college hockey, I do have some experience in reconciling different opinions to reach an agreeable consensus.
What appears to me to be happening here is that many of us are skipping from step 1 to step 3 without following step 2; or are introducing step 2 considerations after step 3 proposals have already been made.
Step 1: Identify the problem. Done. No need to repeat;
Step 2: Identify priorities, parameters, constraints. This is the step at which broad-based agreement is important, as it helps in developing....
Step 3: Propose solutions that solve the problem that also are consistent with priorities and constraints of Step 2.
One obvious constraint is that the number of teams selected be a multiple of 4: 12, 16, 24 are the most likely numbers, with 16 the most likely.
Second is that you have autobids and seeding.
Then you have to find what other criteria are important, on a relative basis. "sure, attendance is important, but money is more important than attendance" or just the opposite for that matter is one example. What criteria are important, and how important is each each one relative to all the others? Do you assign a weighting system? (you could add up the weights assigned to each criteria to rank your proposed solutions, for example).
There seems to be a conflict over 12 vs 16 team field, and also a concern over how to structure the post-season (two weekends of games, or three? for example. Timing and scheduling of games, for another. These go beyond location alone).
One thing that could be done with a 16-team field that would have the advantages of a 12-team field would be analogous to Big East basketball tournament: seeds 1 - 4 get bye into quarterfinals; seeds 5 - 8 get bye into sweet sixteen, seeds 9 -16 play first round. This kind of format works over over three scheduled weekends instead of two (keep the 'off week' in there somewhere if needed, adjust schedule accordingly). It might address several different concerns raised by others:
> first round might be at higher-seeded team's home ice (teams 5 - 8 that is; there'd be a one-game 9 vs 16 etc and winners play 5 - 8 accordingly
> next round everyone would know well in advance where 1 - 4 are playing (at least two weeks' advance notice if not more);
> then you have final four (excuse me, frozen four) after that.
That is not so much a proposal as an example, based on criteria which seem implicit in other people's proposals, of how the criteria can be used to shape the proposal (e.g, keep 16 teams while also improving prospects for attendance in early-roudn games while also retaining pre-scheduled Regionals the last playing weekend before the Frozen Four).
Just a thought; the main criteria seem to be attendance, ease of access to fans, scheduling logistics, money, and respecting the seeding. Depending on how people rank these criteria; they will be drawn toward different solutions.
Last edited:
