What's new
By:
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 Tourney Format Changing?

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

moose97 said:
And why is UMich traveling to BSU any better than Yale to UND?

And then you come to my whole argument this past March - who cares what's fair for the 3 &4 seeds? BSU did what it needed to do to get a 2 seed. How where they rewarded? With a partisan UMich croud as the higher seed since UMich fans could drive a couple hours no problem, while it was a 15 hour drive from northern Minnesota. For some reason, the NCAA felt that $$$ and attendance was more importaint than the play of the teams. I'd rather reward the 1 & 2 seeds with home games than move 3 & 4 seeds close in off-campus neutral sites (like was done for UMich and Yale).
Click to expand...

Or maybe the NCAA believed BSU wasn't a strong number two seed and Michigan might be a stronger number three or four seed.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

moose97 said:
Bemidji (and for that matter, SCSU, UMD and MSU) all have their own TV deals, and therefore, would have a local option to pick-up the games outside ESPN.
Click to expand...

With the local cable company, (Charter here in Duluth, not sure about Bemidji) available locally only. A step down from ESPNU or ESPN Plus syndication, both of which give out of area fans a fighting chance to see the game on television. Besides, those rights do not include NCAA tournament games, which are held by ESPN. The question is not whether a local station will want to broadcast the games; the question is whether ESPN will produce from every regional site and make the games available on ESPNU or syndication.

I hope it is not a deal-breaker with the powers-that-be, but it might be a significant consideration.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

alslammerz said:
Imagine those upsets happen-Yale and RIT have to travel out to North Dakota and Denver for a best of three series, and then come back east to play in Albany the next weekend. Yikes. Who do you switch? You could switch Miami and Denver in the 1 band. But the two western 2 teams besides North Dakota are from Minnesota- doesn't make sense to move them east either.
Click to expand...

I think your premise is flawed. If Yale won @ UND (whether on Saturday or Sunday the first weekend), they would fly home to New Haven anyway, then bus up to Albany probably Thursday evening, practice on Friday, skate-around Saturday morning, and play the quarterfinal game Saturday evening. Even if they played @ UND and then @ a Western quarterfinal location the next weekend, I really doubt they'd stay in a hotel for all 6/7 days between the games - they'd fly home and then fly back out west.

And lest there be ANY doubt - the NCAA would control the ticket sales, ticket prices, and TV rights to those first round games, not the schools - just like when regionals have been held at campus locations in the past. So hosts' TV deals, number of season ticket holders, and alcohol policies are irrelevant - those will belong to the NCAA. In fact, I'm sure that the hosts would still have to cover up their own paid advertising in the rink, same as the regional and FF rinks have to do now.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

We all know the weaknesses of the seeding system and debate it annually. Home ice advantage and two out of three is too much of an advantage for the higher seeded team, especially the 4-5 seeds when the seeding system is so controversial.

I see the advantages in atmosphere, but I'm a competitive purist, and I think having Bemidji and RIT in the FF is a good thing. That's much less likely to happen with this proposal.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Caustic Undertow said:
2. The tournament loses symmetry. Right it is a nicely divided win-and-advance production with four four-team regionals and then a four-team final. I have never been a huge fan of playoff formats where some rounds have different requirements for winning than others, and this format gives us some tournament games that you can lose and still have a chance to advance, and others that are one-and-done. Awkward.

3. The superregionals will still have the same problems that they had before, except for one day instead of two. They are kind of a bizarre way-station between an intense home-ice opening round and the Frozen Four. Weird.
Click to expand...

These are my main sticking points. I don't know what kind of attendance they think they'd get at a four team "super-regional" where there is no winner and just two teams moving on like in the 12-team, 2-regional format of old, except with only the one day instead of two. Yes, very awkward. So teams have to work exceptionally hard to get to the second round by winning a best of 3 (potentially on the road), then to get to the Big Dance have to only win once on a neutral site. Doesn't make much sense to me.
I wonder why they aren't considering having both the first and second round be best of 3? You need to use two weekends anyhow. Why not make the second one a money maker, too? That would, of course make it even harder for Cinderellas, but it wouldn't be as awkward as the one-day second round.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The only two reasons why this is popular:

1) Bemidji State 2009
2) RIT 2010
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

WildKitty said:
chools won't be happy to shell out a grand for each player's last-minute tickets. UNLESS NCAA reserves x tickets on flight to FF, team to pay upon winning regional. I'm sure this will never happen, but the more I look at it, the more I like it!
Click to expand...


The NCAA handles all travel costs for the "travel party" of any team in an NCAA Championship tournament (save the smallest of non-revenue sports).
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

CLS said:
especially the 4-5 seeds when the seeding system is so controversial.
Click to expand...
5 seeds in a 16 team tournament :confused:

CLS said:
I see the advantages in atmosphere, but I'm a competitive purist, and I think having Bemidji and RIT in the FF is a good thing. That's much less likely to happen with this proposal.
Click to expand...

In the case of AHA teams, it is much much less likely to happen (sadly).
In the case of Bemidji, I don't know if you noticed but the Beavers were in the overall #4 to # 7 range all season. Not exactly a cinderella or long-shot to make the FF like many thought they were in '08-'09. Turns out they were actually just that good. Although going forward, they are no longer part of the "mid-major" world, so the point would be moot anyhow.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I love the idea, but I would have loved it even more if it had been in place last decade. :D

One thing though: since the top 8 teams are going to have such a big advantage, the selection and seeding have to be deterministic.

Rank 1-16 strictly by pairwise (or whatever). Assign each team a "home" and "road" super regional from the two SRs available for a given year. Then play the home site round. Reseed the 8 survivors, 1 vs 8 at 1's "home," 2 vs 7 at 2's "home." When only 1 SR has open slots, that's where the rest go.

No special dispensation for SR hosts -- if the rules banish them to the road, so be it.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

moose97 said:
And why is UMich traveling to BSU any better than Yale to UND?

And then you come to my whole argument this past March - who cares what's fair for the 3 &4 seeds? BSU did what it needed to do to get a 2 seed. How where they rewarded? With a partisan UMich croud as the higher seed since UMich fans could drive a couple hours no problem, while it was a 15 hour drive from northern Minnesota. For some reason, the NCAA felt that $$$ and attendance was more importaint than the play of the teams. I'd rather reward the 1 & 2 seeds with home games than move 3 & 4 seeds close in off-campus neutral sites (like was done for UMich and Yale).
Click to expand...

Maybe not an improvement, but at the very least, it's Michigan to Minnesota rather than Indiana, and Yale to North Dakota rather than Albany. I'm not saying that it's better to have North Dakota-Yale at Albany, I'm saying travel wise it's a tough hit for Yale.

LynahFan said:
I think your premise is flawed. If Yale won @ UND (whether on Saturday or Sunday the first weekend), they would fly home to New Haven anyway, then bus up to Albany probably Thursday evening, practice on Friday, skate-around Saturday morning, and play the quarterfinal game Saturday evening. Even if they played @ UND and then @ a Western quarterfinal location the next weekend, I really doubt they'd stay in a hotel for all 6/7 days between the games - they'd fly home and then fly back out west.
Click to expand...

Maybe (should be noted that they ended up not being able to move anyway). My point is that as much as I'd love the NCAA to say they are just going to stick with the same formula they used for seeding in the past, (actually a purer form since they will need to worry about attendance at all), it wouldn't surprised me if they started moving teams around to make travel easier to both the first round on campus site, and then to make sure those mostly work in terms of travel for the super-regionals. And looking at all the moves that might have meant in 2010 shows that this could potentially be a lot of tweaks.

As I said, I don't mind this in theory. BC is never going to ask Alaska to come out to Conte for a series, so to get them in the playoffs would be cool. But if we're going to do it, let's try to keep the bands as 1,8,9,16 - 2,7,10,15 - 3,6,11,14 - 4,5,12,13 because to me, the fun of this would be getting to see new teams play in your barn. It's the NCAA, though, so I imagine that they'd start looking at things and raising similar concerns as I outlined in my earlier post (which was my attempt to think like the NCAA, not my only woeful feelings about Yale's travel schedule).
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

TigerFan86-87 said:
5 seeds in a 16 team tournament :confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry 2/3 :o Hadn't finished my coffee



In the case of AHA teams, it is much much less likely to happen (sadly).
In the case of Bemidji, I don't know if you noticed but the Beavers were in the overall #4 to # 7 range all season. Not exactly a cinderella or long-shot to make the FF like many thought they were in '08-'09. Turns out they were actually just that good. Although going forward, they are no longer part of the "mid-major" world, so the point would be moot anyhow.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I meant Bemidji 2009
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I may be in the minority, but I'll be happy either way.

I enjoyed the years when UND got to host teams in the quarterfinals in their own building. It was a nice reward for a good regular season and conference playoff performance, and make no doubt about it, it's a nice advantage.

Plus, the opportunity to increase the likelihood of the 4 best teams that year making it to the Frozen Four, to be decided in a one and done format was also enticing.

Upsets still happened. Just not as frequently. You could also see the situations where a team like BSU gets to host a school like Michigan, something that otherwise has little chance of occurring. Think of the atmosphere on campus for that series.

On the other hand, as a sports enthusiast I am a huge fan of one game, single elimination events, and the runs that underdogs can go on.

I see it as a win-win situation.

By the way, for those interested, here is a bit of history of results back when on-campus preliminary tournament games were played.

Beginning in '77 there were a couple of single elimination games, play-in type games, on campus, to determine the Frozen Four. The home team was 3-2 in those games between 1977 and 1980.

Beginning in 1981 they went to 8 teams with quarterfinal rounds on campus at the higher seed, two game total goal series. The home team won 21 series, while losing 7. Both Wisconsin in '81 and Bowling Green in '84 managed to go on the road and win the two game series and go on to win the championship.

In 1988 an extra round was added, with the four highest seeds receiving a one week rest. Again, these were two game, total goals series. The home team won 20 of 24 series.

The 1991 season was closest to what is now proposed. For that year only they played on campus in best 2 out of 3 series. Again, the top 4 seeded teams received first round byes. The home team won 6 of the 8 series. UAA and Clarkson provided the upsets. That season's champion, NMU, received a first round bye.

In 1992 they went to regionals.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I don't like it. Not one bit.

Until 2008, no #4 seed had ever made the Frozen Four since the 16-team format was instituted. This change will virtually ensure that next year's #4 seeds are the last to have the chance to do so.

With this change, instead of two upsets, #4 seeds will need three upsets to reach the Frozen Four. The AHA tournament winner, hampered by the dismal SOS of the rest of their league, will have to be content with making the tournament and perhaps forcing the opening-round series to three games, rather than having a real chance at the Frozen Four.

I also don't like what it does to the scheduling. Either you have to push the Frozen Four back a week, or you give teams only six days to prepare for the Frozen Four (meaning only three days to make travel arrangements, at most).

But the most important issue is the demise of Cinderella. This is bad for everyone except the perennial contenders. The haves get more and the have-nots get less.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

This is great for the fans who follow the teams all year but can't miss work or afford to travel to the Regionals.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

i did some quick figures this morning for attendence reasons-- i think the NC$$ would like this for this reason $$$$$$$$

east regional first round games att = 4073
had it been sold out in DU for 2 games and 3 games= 12052 - 18078
had it been sold out in cornell for 2 games and 3 games = 8534 - 12801

northeast regional first round games att = 6572
had it been sold out in BC for 2 games and 3 games = 15768 - 23652
had it been sold out in UND for 2 games and 3 games = 23268 - 34902

mid west regional first round games att = 4133
had it been sold out at Miami for 2 games and 3 games = 6400 - 9600
had it been sold out at BSU for 2 games and 3 games = 5000 - 75

West regional first round games att = 7281
had it been sold out at SCSU for 2 games and 3 games = 11526 - 17289
had it been sold out at wisc. for 2 games and 3 games = 30000 - 45000

and very seldom is a regional right now sold out one that i can think of was 06 with UND UM UM and holy cross at the ralph of 11800 or so for the first round

I do like the upset special just as much as the next guy, but I do believe that the season games record should have more weight!!

Like puck swami said having DU go play RIT next to RIT and UND go play yale next to Yale is a disavantage for them for having a good record all year. not saying that is why they lost just replying to post..

so I am kinda torn on the topic BUT seeing UM having to win 2 games at BSU would be awesome to see!! and would make getting into top 8 in pairwise more important, just like getting in top of conf. to get home ice.

and it will give us more hockey!!!

More Thoughts?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top