NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[Handyman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

If the goal is to weed out those that aren't "legitimate championship contenders", then isn't a series of games, rather than a one and done scenario more likely to accomplish that?

I know this isnt what you were saying I am just using your post as a way to get my comment out there...by making the Tourny aren't they automatically "contenders"?

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I wasn't necessarily implying that the "weeding out" is the goal to having auto-bid teams in the tournament, just that teams that manage to lose to an auto-bid essentially make the statement to the nation that they weren't championship material this time around despite earning a high seed, and have consequently been "weeded out". It happens in the one-and-done bouncy-ball tournament every year (just ask Kansas) and you don't hear anyone on TV whining about it as much as praising the tournament for its excitement and unpredictability.
And actually, a multi-game series does less "weeding out" of the favored teams than of the cinderellas by giving the favorite home team a second chance to make adjustments.

Because that's where we should look to for guidance? Dick Vitale? You realize those talking heads have a vested interest in upsets? They need material to gab for umpteen million hours. Of course they babble on about the virtue of the lucky bounce.

I'd like a system that produces a national champion, as much as is reasonably possible, who is the best team in the land.

Screw Cinderella.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I wasn't necessarily implying that the "weeding out" is the goal to having auto-bid teams in the tournament, just that teams that manage to lose to an auto-bid essentially make the statement to the nation that they weren't championship material this time around despite earning a high seed, and have consequently been "weeded out". It happens in the one-and-done bouncy-ball tournament every year (just ask Kansas) and you don't hear anyone on TV whining about it as much as praising the tournament for its excitement and unpredictability.
And actually, a multi-game series does less "weeding out" of the favored teams than of the cinderellas by giving the favorite home team a second chance to make adjustments.

For a little over 10 years they played NCAA tournament games on campus at the site of the higher seed.

In 1984, Bowling Green got hammered on the road in Boston by BU, 6-3 in the first game of their two game total goal series. They came back to win the second night and advanced, eventually winning their one and only championship.

The following year, Providence lost their first game in East Lansing to MSU, won the second night and eventually lost a very close championship game to RPI.

In 1988, LSSU won their first championship. They did so even though they lost their first game to Merrimack, the bottom seed in the western region. However, they won game two and eventually their first championship.

I am sure there may be other examples, especially in conference tournament play. None of those teams demonstrated, or made a statement, that they weren't championship material by their first game loss. In fact, the format then in use permitted those teams to demonstrate they truly were championship material with an ability to bounce back in the face of adversity.

A team like DU losing to RIT doesn't mean DU wasn't a very real contender for the title this year. It simply means that on a given night the bounces went RIT's way, and, RIT was perhaps the better team. I don't think it tells us anything about how real DU's chances were for winning. I believe it speaks more to the unpredictability of one and done tournaments.

As I posted much earlier, I'm a fan of one and done tournaments. However, hockey has a long history of deciding playoffs through a series of games between teams, a format that lets two teams start to wear on each other, causing the intensity to flourish, and eventually, hopefully, producing a champion that has truly perservered. I think there is something to be said for that.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

A team like DU losing to RIT doesn't mean DU wasn't a very real contender for the title this year. It simply means that on a given night the bounces went RIT's way, and, RIT was perhaps the better team. I don't think it tells us anything about how real DU's chances were for winning. I believe it speaks more to the unpredictability of one and done tournaments.

Everybody's assuming that DU was better than RIT. Even the RIT posters arguing for single elimination are assuming, implicitly or explicity, that DU was the better team. RIT wins a second game and "poof"; that stigma evaporates instantly. RIT IS the better team. Proved it on the ice.

I understand arguing for single elimination on the grounds that the logistical complications of multiple-game series preclude their use. I can not understand arguing that they have the virtue of advancing a lesser team.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

It happens in the one-and-done bouncy-ball tournament every year (just ask Kansas) and you don't hear anyone on TV whining about it as much as praising the tournament for its excitement and unpredictability.

There's a huge difference in variance between a 40-minute basketball game and a 60-minute hockey game. One basketball game is probably about equal to two or three hockey games in terms of variance, especially now that we're in an era of 95% save percentages.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

There's a huge difference in variance between a 40-minute basketball game and a 60-minute hockey game. One basketball game is probably about equal to two or three hockey games in terms of variance, especially now that we're in an era of 95% save percentages.

Apropos of nothing: I wonder what the difference in variance is between a basketball game and the last 5 minutes of a 4th quarter...in a basketball game.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Apropos of nothing: I wonder what the difference in variance is between a basketball game and the last 5 minutes of a 4th quarter...in a basketball game.

I've always maintained that basketball has a d.c. offset problem.

 

[blockski]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

There's a huge difference in variance between a 40-minute basketball game and a 60-minute hockey game. One basketball game is probably about equal to two or three hockey games in terms of variance, especially now that we're in an era of 95% save percentages.

Exactly.

A tightly played, playoff hockey game will have a few scoring chances. Basketball has them by the boatload. Basketball's multiple possessions each serve to reduce the overall variance that any one game might have a 'fluky' outcome.

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Everybody's assuming that DU was better than RIT. Even the RIT posters arguing for single elimination are assuming, implicitly or explicity, that DU was the better team. RIT wins a second game and "poof"; that stigma evaporates instantly. RIT IS the better team. Proved it on the ice.

Well, RIT is the better team in a sample of 1. That's not exactly statistically significant.

In a sample of 5 games, if we assume KRACH ratings to be an accurate representation of how good a team is, Denver would likely win 4 of them, and RIT 1. Statistically, Denver is the better team, and RIT was only 20% likely to win the game.

Of course, the tournament doesn't particularly need statistically significant results.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Well, RIT is the better team in a sample of 1. That's not exactly statistically significant.

Hence the conundrum of attempting to apply true statistical methods and analysis to sports, especially playoffs. One rarely will get an adequate sample size within one season, series against one opponent, or playoff that can produce meaningful inferences (aside from maybe professional baseball where they play 2430 regular season games). Of course aren't the "samples" we refer to in truth the population as there are no other games played that we aren't accounting for? Stats are only meaningful if we understand their limitations.
Is RIT a "better" team than Denver? On the ice on that given day, yes. In a best-of-three series at Denver? We don't know. We can only extrapolate from what we know, which is that RIT was better on a neutral site for one game - insufficient data. On paper, one can come to the conclusion that Denver would probably win based on their number of NHL draft picks, big-game experience, etc., etc., but none of that is statistical evidence from which one can draw valid inferences about future results.... And we all know that trying to use predictions based on past results in sports is wrought with peril, esepecially in a post-season environment. Too many lurking variables.
I just figured as long as we're all showing off our statistics acumen, I'd throw in my two cents (or one, if you don't agree ).

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Exactly.

A tightly played, playoff hockey game will have a few scoring chances. Basketball has them by the boatload. Basketball's multiple possessions each serve to reduce the overall variance that any one game might have a 'fluky' outcome.

And yet, the upsets happen all the time anyhow - hmmmm. Otherwise, we'd all be winning our pools every year instead of throwing our sheets away after the first set of second round games on Saturday.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I can not understand arguing that they have the virtue of advancing a lesser team.

There isn't inherent virtue in "advancing a lesser team". There is, however, virtue in the possibility that in any given game, either team can win and advance. If it were only virtuous to advance the "better teams" why play the tournament at all? Technically, BC was the underdog to both Miami and Wisconsin, but still managed to crush them both and win the title. If only the supposed "better teams" as others declare them based on regular season performance are given the best chance to win, what fun is that? Let's just declare Miami the champion with Denver the runner-up. Whatever percentage of the time upsets occur, it's very intriguing to watch a game played on a level field and see what happens. If you take the heavy favorites and give them two more significant advantages, that takes some (not all, of course) of the excitement out of it.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

For a little over 10 years they played NCAA tournament games on campus at the site of the higher seed.

In 1984, Bowling Green got hammered on the road in Boston by BU, 6-3 in the first game of their two game total goal series. They came back to win the second night and advanced, eventually winning their one and only championship.

The following year, Providence lost their first game in East Lansing to MSU, won the second night and eventually lost a very close championship game to RPI.

In 1988, LSSU won their first championship. They did so even though they lost their first game to Merrimack, the bottom seed in the western region. However, they won game two and eventually their first championship.

I am sure there may be other examples, especially in conference tournament play. None of those teams demonstrated, or made a statement, that they weren't championship material by their first game loss. In fact, the format then in use permitted those teams to demonstrate they truly were championship material with an ability to bounce back in the face of adversity.

A team like DU losing to RIT doesn't mean DU wasn't a very real contender for the title this year. It simply means that on a given night the bounces went RIT's way, and, RIT was perhaps the better team. I don't think it tells us anything about how real DU's chances were for winning. I believe it speaks more to the unpredictability of one and done tournaments.

I don't disagree with anything you say here, but I will say that when a team knows ahead of time that the post-season is a single elimination, each game takes on ultimate importance and should be treated as such. If they can't muster enough to win, they aren't good enough (this time). Not that a team goes into game 1 of a best-of-three thinking it can take a game off by any means, but as you laid out in your post, sometimes they can get away with it.

As I posted much earlier, I'm a fan of one and done tournaments. However, hockey has a long history of deciding playoffs through a series of games between teams, a format that lets two teams start to wear on each other, causing the intensity to flourish, and eventually, hopefully, producing a champion that has truly perservered. I think there is something to be said for that.

I agree with you in theory here. However, I don't believe a series of games that are all played in one team's arena are the best way of accomplishing that. A disproportionate number of home games in favor of the higher seed is a given, but the entire series at home is too much, in the interest of fairness. I do not mean to imply that the road teams can't win by any means, but it does make it much more difficult.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Dude, do me a favor, go back and watch games from that era then watch them now, it is night and day. But hey, anytime you want to bet on the upsets in games in this format I'm your huckleberry.

Before BSU was in the business of earning at-large berths, they lost to Denver 4-3 in OT in the first round - and that was in 2005, the year Denver won it all. The only real difference between 2005 and now is that instead of losing by a goal or two, the #4's are starting to win their first round games.

As far as upsets go, I would've picked Michigan over BSU regardless of playoff format this past season. I don't know who else would have / could have pulled off an upset under a best of 3, assuming all matchups stayed the same. We definitely would have seen more than one upset in the 2009 tournament under a best of 3, I think. Vermont over Yale, Cornell over Northeastern, and Princeton over Duluth would have all been realistic possibilities.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Everybody's assuming that DU was better than RIT. Even the RIT posters arguing for single elimination are assuming, implicitly or explicity, that DU was the better team. RIT wins a second game and "poof"; that stigma evaporates instantly. RIT IS the better team. Proved it on the ice.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the first game wasn't played on the ice? Or are you saying that one game says nothing (or little) but two games says a lot? If so, I disagree. Two says more than one, but it doesn't say absolutely that one team is "better", whatever that means. Otherwise, Stanley Cup series would always go to the team that wins the first two games.

I don't believe that even a seven game series determines who's "better". I don't believe for a minute that Montreal was "better" than Washington, or that they're the equal of Pittsburgh.

. . . I can not understand arguing that they have the virtue of advancing a lesser team.

Probably because you come from the viewpoint of

I'd like a system that produces a national champion, as much as is reasonably possible, who is the best team in the land.

Screw Cinderella.

I'm sure many, probably most, people agree with you, or at least think they do. I like Cinderella. I doubt that RIT would have won a two game series against DU. But I know that I wouldn't have as much interest in seeing both games; in fact I'd probably skip the first. Why would I be more interested in the second? Because the first game doesn't say much. One team or the other is going to win and, essentially, start the second game with a lead. But for the second game, I know that, going into the game, both teams know exactly what they need to do to win, and at the end of the night, I'll know who the winner is. I like knowing into the game that either team might win, even the team I don't believe is as good. I like knowing that an underperforming team doesn't get a mulligan.

If two game series are so much better, and the goal of the tournament is to determine who is the best team in the land, I don't see why two game series aren't being proposed for the later rounds. Seems to me they're more important there, because in the later rounds, the teams ought to be more evenly matched.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the first game wasn't played on the ice?

It's an expression, Fannie May.

Or are you saying that one game says nothing (or little) but two games says a lot?

Yes. One doesn't say nothing, but 2 out of 3 says a lot more.

If so, I disagree. Two says more than one, but it doesn't say absolutely that one team is "better", whatever that means. I don't believe that even a seven game series determines who's "better". I don't believe that even a seven game series determines who's "better". I don't believe for a minute that Montreal was "better" than Washington, or that they're the equal of Pittsburgh.

Nothing is going to say "absolutely", but I think you'd be in a pretty small minority with your claim that more games doesn't do a better job at determining the better team, a concept (the "better" team) which most people understand to mean: who would win if they played each other?

I doubt that RIT would have won a two game series against DU. But I know that I wouldn't have as much interest in seeing both games; in fact I'd probably skip the first. Why would I be more interested in the second? Because the first game doesn't say much. One team or the other is going to win and, essentially, start the second game with a lead. But for the second game, I know that, going into the game, both teams know exactly what they need to do to win, and at the end of the night, I'll know who the winner is. I like knowing into the game that either team might win, even the team I don't believe is as good. I like knowing that an underperforming team doesn't get a mulligan.

I'd say you like entertainment more than you like hockey.

If two game series are so much better, and the goal of the tournament is to determine who is the best team in the land, I don't see why two game series aren't being proposed for the later rounds.

The current proposal starts from the problem of attendance. If the regionals were successful it is highly doubtful we'd be having this discussion. Campus sites are being proposed to solve that problem. Now, taking campus sites as a given, the next question is, how many games? One would be dopey. A series makes more sense, and has the virtue of being much better at determining the better team to advance.

In a better world, the later rounds would also be 2 out of 3, but the logistics of that is much harder.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

In a sample of 5 games, if we assume KRACH ratings to be an accurate representation of how good a team is, Denver would likely win 4 of them, and RIT 1. Statistically, Denver is the better team, and RIT was only 20% likely to win the game.

Of course, the tournament doesn't particularly need statistically significant results.

There isn't inherent virtue in "advancing a lesser team". There is, however, virtue in the possibility that in any given game, either team can win and advance. If it were only virtuous to advance the "better teams" why play the tournament at all? Technically, BC was the underdog to both Miami and Wisconsin, but still managed to crush them both and win the title. If only the supposed "better teams" as others declare them based on regular season performance are given the best chance to win, what fun is that? Let's just declare Miami the champion with Denver the runner-up.

But KRACH, and even the regular season in leagues where teams don’t play each other much, do not determine the better team. Until the playoffs, they are all we got but they are thin gruel compared to teams actually playing each other.

There seems to be a difference that I wasn’t aware of until now. I want the top teams in the nation to play each other, with the goal of determining the best of the best. While I know that view is shared by many, I’m learning that it’s not universal. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. After decades of being slightly mystified at the spectacle that is the NCAA basketball tournament, it should have sunk in, but it didn’t.

Vive la difference, I guess.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I want the top teams in the nation to play each other, with the goal of determining the best of the best.

The only way to do that is a round-robin format with best-of-nine series. And even then, the best team might get upset on some random flukiness.

With an elimination tournament format, sometimes a weaker team beats a stronger team. It happens, and it's part of the charm of the format.


Powers &8^]

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The only way to do that is a round-robin format with best-of-nine series.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Which is one reason why a playoff system in which the “better” team doesn’t always win isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

There are many points that we disagree on, but I don’t think it’s necessary to argue them. I used to feel the same way you do, but I don’t think I was a better or worse person or any dumber or smarter when I did. I remember reacting with disgust when the top division of the Massachusetts high school tournament changed from two game elimination to single game elimination.

The better team usually does win. Upsets don’t happen with so much frequency in the NCAA tournament that it’s like flipping a coin. Luck is sometimes a factor definitely. If that were the only factor, then I’d agree with two out of threes. But a lesser team outhustling and outworking a better team can be a factor also; they shouldn't have to do it twice. A better team taking a lesser team for granted can be a factor also; teams don’t deserve second chances for that.

As a fan and as a player, the most satisfying wins were when I or my team beat a “better” team. And the best lessons were when I or my team lost to a lesser team. I think it’s a good thing that happens with the frequency it does.