NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Or maybe the NCAA believed BSU wasn't a strong number two seed and Michigan might be a stronger number three or four seed.

IMHO, that shouldn't matter. BSU was a 2 seed and UMich was a 3 seed. Why should an advantage ever be given to the "road" team - especially at the expense of the higher seed?

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.

Again, that's the advantage/incentive to finish with a high seed. See my comment above. You finish as a 1 or 2 seed, you don't have to travel. If you can travel and still make the FF - more power too you.

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

1/2 > Zero

Plus the hard core fans can still travel to watch their teams.

But may not want to.

Being one of those people that travels to regionals (Grand Forks, Bridgeport, Albany), I could plan my weekend. 2 days of hockey. What do I do if there may be a 3rd day? I'm certainly not going to want to miss the deciding game. But it'd be easier to know how much time off work I need, how many nights I need in a hotel, and if I'm flying (which hasn't been the case...too expensive last minute) being able to schedule a flight would be good.

I think this would keep you opposing fans away from the best of 3 unless it was nearby. I might even sit home the next weekend. Seeing my team play 1 game may not be worth the travel. Do you make a weekend of that, or just watch 2 games in one day and drive home without spending much money in the host town?


I personally don't like it.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

With this change, instead of two upsets, #4 seeds will need three upsets to reach the Frozen Four.

True, but with the change they would have 4 games to get those 3 upsets, whereas now they have to go 2 for 2.

If I were bored, I could use KRACH to compute the probability that RIT makes the Frozen Four under the current and changed tournaments, but I'm actually kinda busy today.

 

[redhawkman10]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

My one concern would be if they messed with how much they messed with the brackets to making traveling to another campus easier.

Looking at this year, for example:
Midwest
UAH traveling to Miami instead of to Fort Wayne. Not bad.
Michigan traveling to BSU instead of to Fort Wayne. An improvement.

East
RIT traveling to Denver instead of to Albany.
New Hampshire traveling to Cornell instead of to Albany. Not bad.

Northeast
Alaska traveling to BC instead of to Worcester. Probably an improvement, actually.
Yale traveling to North Dakota instead of to Worcester. An improvement for UND to be sure, but not great for Yale by any means.

West
Vermont traveling to Wisconsin instead of St. Paul. Not bad.
Northern Michigan traveling to St. Cloud State instead of to St. Paul. Negligible.

Not that it would matter much in the grand scheme of things, but you have to figure RIT and Alaska get switched in that 4 band- RIT to BC and Alaska to Denver don't seem to be bad trips. But we'd have to assume the super-regional sites would have one east and one west. Let's say for 2010, it's St. Paul for the Midwest and West, and Albany for the Northeast and East.

In the St. Paul super-regional- you'd have a team that played in Miami, a team that played at Bemidji, a team that played in Wisconsin, and a team that played at St. Cloud the weekend before. Not bad.

But in the Albany super-regional- you'd have a team that played in Boston, a team that played in North Dakota, a team that played in Denver, and a team that played in Ithaca the weekend before. 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.

This, of course, will also lead to large(r) arguments in seeding.

So lets recap:
First moves- to make games closer to home leads to this:


Second move-make sure home series are closer to their super regional.


Hmm, seems odd to have Vermont potentially out west for two weekends. UAH was originally going to St. Paul anyway. So let's switch them around.

Third move


There's no way to fix Yale/UND playing in North Dakota one weekend and Albany the next, so that stays put. All in all, six teams got moved- RIT to Northeast, Alaska to Midwest, Vermont to East, UAH to the West, Denver to the Midwest, Miami to East. That's a lot of chaos to sort out, without even looking to see what teams gain an advantage by this (though Wisconsin getting UAH, no offense to the Chargers, comes to mind-to the detriment of the No. 1 seeded Miami team).


At the same time, I also really like the idea. I think it would be really fun if sometime down the road, in the first round, Harvard were matched up with a BC or BU, and getting to play in Boston at a campus site rather than Worcester. It's also a great chance to see teams that never get on the schedule-for all the teams, and even to get some big name Western teams out to Eastern barns. I, for one, wouldn't mind getting a chance to broadcast playoff hockey from, say, Michigan, and it would be great to see a WCHA team or CCHA team skate into Lynah for the playoffs- Cornell fans would eat it up. Their first opponent, for karma's sake, will probably be whatever big name team is pushing this the most, but still, it would make for great tv, though tickets sales would get hurt. I think it would be great to see the NCAA playoffs with a better chance for the students to make it out to the games and see the real bands since most of them don't travel, and all of that pomp that makes college hockey great. But I certainly wouldn't want to be a bracketologist, and this is a system that could certainly cause some legitimate gripes as well.

So yeah, I'd recommend with reservations. It would be great to see some of the old time east-west rivalries get played out in the playoffs in someone's home barn, but I imagine the NCAA would try to move seeds to keep teams close to one another (sort of defeating the purpose for me, though it makes sense financially and even, gasp, academically) and that could play merry chaos with the fairness anyway.

maybe I am missing something (which isn't out of the realm of possibility), but Miami wouldn't be moved. The way it reads to me is the #1 seeds would Host the first round. So the 4 super regional sites would of been Miami, Denver, Wisconsin, and BC. Your attendance issues are solved, every single one of those regionals would be sold out. Granted buildings like Miami only hold 3500-4000, but packing the Kohl center and 15k is tempting rather than a half full xcell center. Even if this is stretched to the higher seed hosting, it still works and the NCAA makes 10x more than they do currently which is what they are all about.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

True, but with the change they would have 4 games to get those 3 upsets, whereas now they have to go 2 for 2.

If I were bored, I could use KRACH to compute the probability that RIT makes the Frozen Four under the current and changed tournaments, but I'm actually kinda busy today.

And if you're really bored, you could calculate a ten-year KRACH and PWR. Over 10 years, there might be enough interconference games to make KRACH more meaningful.

 

[redhawkman10]

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.

Ok but it works in baseball, would you succeed to the top seed hosting the super regional and it not being best 2 of 3? Yes they have home ice advantage but you aren't playing in front of empty buildings.

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Personally, as a fan of good program that is usually a long way from most regional sites, this idea really appeals to me. It's also a nice reward for finishing in the top eight, which puts a little extra emphasis on every game during the season, because hosting is always better than travelling.

I think back to all those higher-seeded Denver teams that were rewarded for strong finishes by being shipped to far away places, some of them among the most hostile venues in the sport. Denver was one of those top-ranked teams that lost to Michigan at Yost (2002), and lower-seeded Wisconsin at Madison (2008), which are two of the most difficult places to play. Nice reward.

Higher seeded DU has also lost in less intimidating, but still far-away venues in the last two years - losing to lower-seeded Miami at Minneapolis (2009) and even this year, losing to lower-seeded RIT at Albany. Had DU been able to play any of those four first round NCAA team on campus in a two out of three series, I am sure some of those Denver teams would have certainly advanced.

Hosting NCAA games on campus is a thrill that has not happened for the University of Denver since 1986 when Cornell came out west with Joe Nieuwendyk leading the way. In those days, it was a 2-game total-goals series (Essentially, a six-period hockey game played over two nights). Denver advanced in aggregate 7-6, and it was some of the most amazing hockey I've ever seen.

The one tweak I would like to see is play a two-game total goals series rather than a best two out of three. Sunday games are a drag when you are travelling a long distance, and you often miss another day of work.

 

[Slasher7]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

What this would do is maximize the chances of the top seeds making the Frozen Four and really limit any chance of an RIT or Bemidji making it. What are the chances that RIT beats DU twice at Magness or Holy Cross beating the Gophers twice at Mariucci? Probably not likely.

Keep it the way it is.

 

[unofan]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Ok but it works in baseball, would you succeed to the top seed hosting the super regional and it not being best 2 of 3? Yes they have home ice advantage but you aren't playing in front of empty buildings.

Of course for baseball you can lose 4 times and still win the national title; there's essentially 4 "rounds" (regional, super regional, brackets 1/2 in Omaha, and the Championship Series). And were it not for the 10 days of games in Omaha, the tournament would lose money even using campus sites.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Any format that gives my team more chances to win the title I am all for.

Plus the national championship should be about finding the best team, not the best team on that day. Single elimination tournaments are most times not a true indicator of the best teams.

 

[XCTiger]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I would be a huge fan of this if I was associated with a perennial power. Lets face it, it decreases the probablility that those strong programs will be embarassed by an upstart. The handful of teams that have won championships over the last decade or so will be the only ones to win in the future. The programs in power will stay in power, with almost no chance for any other programs to grow. Might as well accelerate the contraction of NCAA hockey now........

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Any format that gives my team more chances to win the title I am all for.

Plus the national championship should be about finding the best team, not the best team on that day. Single elimination tournaments are most times not a true indicator of the best teams.

Hockey is such a terrible sport for single elimination, basketball too.

It is what it is, but it bothers me because hockey doesn't work well for single elimination.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I would be a huge fan of this if I was associated with a perennial power. Lets face it, it decreases the probablility that those strong programs will be embarassed by an upstart. The handful of teams that have won championships over the last decade or so will be the only ones to win in the future. The programs in power will stay in power, with almost no chance for any other programs to grow. Might as well accelerate the contraction of NCAA hockey now........

Really? You think RIT or BSU would drop hockey if they never win a D-I national title? Look at Ferris State or St. Cloud State or the Alaska schools. As it is they have very little chance of winning a N/C, but they are all doing just fine.

And as an aside - I think it's a fantastic idea - and I've covered Bemidji State for the last 11 seasons. This after covering North Dakota and Minn-Duluth before that, and attending NMU. Now, it will be more difficult for BSU to get a 1 or 2 seed than it was last year, but think of how sweet it will be when it happens again. Plus, BSU proved that a team from the CHA (or even AHA) could get an at-large top-2 seed. Now, it isn't easy, but if an AHA team wins a few tough OOC games and just about rns the table in conference, they sure could replicate BSU's feat. The RIT fans were universaly considered the top fans in this past regional and FF. How crazy would Ritter be if the first rd. was there?

 

[Timothy A]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Theoretically, it's more important to me the best 4 teams end up in the FF, and not a Cinderella. The best teams need to be there, not the more fortunate. Cinderalla's make a nice story, but not great hockey.

The next weekend, after the best 2 out of 3, I'd have a round robin series at the super regionals. The 2 highest point scoring teams from each regional go onto the FF, where the region 1 teams play the region 2 teams in the semi's.

I hate the total goal idea. If a team in game 1 gets blitzed 7-1, the series is over 99.727823% of the time.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Theoretically, it's more important to me the best 4 teams end up in the FF, and not a Cinderella. The best teams need to be there, not the more fortunate. Cinderalla's make a nice story, but not great hockey.

RIT notwithstanding, the BSU/Maimi game last year was 2-1 at the half-way mark, and was just 3-1 until there were 2 minutes left...

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

One part of this new arrangement I'm not a huge fan of is the advantage it gives some teams at the margins. While the 1-16 matchup is pretty clear who the superior or more "deserving" team is to host, the 8-9 or the 7-10 is a lot murkier. You're handing one team an enormous advantage based on a razor thin and probably debatable margin.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Ok but it works in baseball, would you succeed to the top seed hosting the super regional and it not being best 2 of 3? Yes they have home ice advantage but you aren't playing in front of empty buildings.

Not sure what you mean by "works in baseball". That's how they do it? Works well? I don't know the history, but I'm guessing that either it's always been done that way, so who's to know whether some other sysetm would produce a better result? And what do you consider a better result?

And no I wouldn't buy the top seed hosting the super regional or the first round game even if it weren't two out of three. But like I said, I'm a competitive purist and if given the choice between a system that produces what I perceive as an unfair advantage, and a system that has games in empty buildings, I'd pick the empty buildings.

 

[Patman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I would be a huge fan of this if I was associated with a perennial power. Lets face it, it decreases the probablility that those strong programs will be embarassed by an upstart. The handful of teams that have won championships over the last decade or so will be the only ones to win in the future. The programs in power will stay in power, with almost no chance for any other programs to grow. Might as well accelerate the contraction of NCAA hockey now........

Really? The preception of "they can't make it" was true 2 years ago and those leagues were making progress. The problem was the CHA had a geographic issue and no new programs were being created.

While Bemidji and RIT have certainly changed preceptions and attitudes I don't see how this is going to lead in the backwards direction for these programs. On the other hand they certainly won't be accelerated to the degree that they have been. I can understand not being in favor... but the reaction is too strong.

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The handful of teams that have won championships over the last decade or so will be the only ones to win in the future. The programs in power will stay in power, with almost no chance for any other programs to grow. Might as well accelerate the contraction of NCAA hockey now........

Actually, I think it is it's the opposite. It's important for college hockey's "mealticket" programs to stay strong, as the league tourney revenues from the large fan bases of those schools floats not only the big leagues like the WCHA and CCHA, but the TV visibility of the sport in general. Michigan generates far more eyeballs and brand recognition than Ferris State does. If there is total parity, I think college hockey will be weakened. If the mealticket schools aren't winning and making money, the small schools will suffer far worse fates, as the league revenues dry up and TV visibility drops. That's when you get contraction.

 

[Priceless]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

And if you're really bored, you could calculate a ten-year KRACH and PWR. Over 10 years, there might be enough interconference games to make KRACH more meaningful.

KRACH from 2002-2010

1	Denver U		361.10
2	North Dakota		345.00
3	Minnesota		337.20
4	Boston Coll		331.90
5	CO College		328.00
6	Michigan		322.80
7	New Hampshire		293.20
8	Boston Univ		283.10
9	Wisconsin		272.90
10	Miami		        236.00
11	St Cloud		229.40
12	Cornell		        215.70
13	Mich State		202.70
14	Maine		        197.00
15	Minn-Duluth		187.80
16	MSU-Mankato		179.30
17	Notre Dame		163.40
18	Vermont		        160.90
19	Northern Mich		160.10
20	Ohio State		151.50
21	Mass-Lowell		131.70
22	Mass-Amherst		128.30
23	Ferris State		126.60
24	NE-Omaha		126.40
25	NorthEastern		125.80
26	Harvard		        124.10
27	AK-Fairbanks		117.50
28	Dartmouth		106.40
29	St Lawrence		106.30
30	Bemidji State		101.40
31	Providence		101.20
32	Michigan Tech		 97.97
33	AK-Anchorage 		 94.07
34	Colgate		         91.36
35	Yale		         88.27
36	Clarkson	         87.78
37	Lake Superior		 80.17
38	Union		         80.12
39	Western Mich		 75.82
40	Quinnipiac		 75.75
41	Niagara		         70.14
42	Princeton		 69.61
43	Merrimack		 65.39
44	Bowling Green		 65.34
45	RPI		         56.42
46	Brown		         53.41
47	AL-Huntsville		 52.80
48	RIT		         43.86
49	Robert Morris		 43.47
50	Air Force		 38.86
51	Mercyhurst		 31.00
52	Sacred Heart		 28.00
53	Holy Cross		 24.90
54	Canisius                 20.53
55	Army		         20.12
56	Bentley		         18.87
57	Connecticut		 14.43
58	American Intl		  8.32