What's new
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?

If 87% of the top seeds advanced in those dates you mentioned how is the upset rate 30%?
87% refers to the bye teams advancing to the frozen four (#1-#2 seeded teams). Out of the 16 teams seeded #1-2 in those four years, only Michigan State and LSSU failed to advance (14/16 = 87.5%).

The ~30% upset rate refers to the first round only (non-bye teams seeded #3-6 in each regional). Five of the 16 teams seeded #3 or #4 lost to a #5 or #6 seed in those years.

Parity or not, I don't see these percentages changing much if the format goes to best of 3's.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The "haves" don't. The teams that finish in the top 8 in the PWR do. The two are mutually exclusive. Want to host the first round? Win.
What?

Do you mean that the "haves" are never in the top 8 in the PWR? Or that the top 8 in PWR never include any "haves"? That's what "mutually exclusive" means.

I hope you meant to say that the two aren't the same. True, but there's a significant overlap. This year's top 8 included one "have not", six "haves", and one borderline "have", depending on your definition.

The only thing that was exceptional about this year is that usually there's no Bemidji, and the top eight usually include seven or eight haves.

Sorry, but the "haves" do have advantages. Bigger recruiting and athletic budgets, wealthier alumni, better facilities, glitzier campuses, in many situations more glamorous athletic programs.

"Just win" is a lot harder for the UAH's and RIT's of the world than it is for the BC's and Wisconsins.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Yeah, I don't think too many people nation-wide realize what that two game winning streak did for RIT hockey on campus and throughout the entire Rochester area. The increase in attention that team brought to themselves, the NCAA Tournament and the Frozen Four was stunning. Prior to this year's post season, I nearly always had to explain to people what the Frozen Four was and I had to let them in on the fact that RIT was now in Division I (and what that actually meant, for that matter). Occasionally, people who knew I was a big RIT hockey fan would ask me how they were doing as though there were no way to find out anything about them otherwise (and in a way, that was true). And even on campus, there was an awareness, but outside of the couple thousand regular game attendees, there didn't seem to be much interest (although it had increased significantly since the move to D-I). Now, however... WHAT A DIFFERENCE! The campus came together and was totally energized with school spirit like never before. How many other schools had hundreds of students, faculty, staff, and alumni outside in the cold welcoming their team's bus back to campus at 2:00 am after winning only a regional championship? Probably not many. Even more amazingly, the Rochester community was energized by the team's heroics. The media attention from all TV stations, the newspaper and sports talk radio was immense for nearly two weeks. Previous to that, if they got an actual article and highlights on the news, it was a good weekend. Now, many many more people here are aware of the formerly hidden gem we had at Ritter every season. Now I can't wear an RIT hockey shirt or hat anywhere without someone commenting on it, and actually knowing what they're talking about. I have also never seen as much Orange dotted throughout crowds at Rochester Amerks games as I see now. These seem to be people who were always Amerks fans, but now are excited about another team representing the Flower City on a national stage. The entire city kind of fell in love with these guys. There were viewing parties for the tournament games at multiple bars throughout the area, not just around the campus.
It's all been rather incredible and can't help but increase the profile of NCAA hockey in a city that was primarily a Buffalo Bills / New York Yankees / Syracuse Orange / Minor league baseball and hockey city. But under the new proposed format, this may never happen again (and not just in Rochester). Not that it would be impossible, but highly unlikely.
It would just be a shame if that had not happenned for RIT and Rochester. Although, on a personal note, I am now feeling much more pressured to get my tickets early since the local demand for tickets is going way way up. I can see the one home game at Blue Cross Arena selling out in '10-'11, which would be amazing at 11,500 people (something the Amerks haven't even done in a few seasons, btw).

All this entire post tells me is that RIT thinks they are bigger than they really are... again.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

All this entire post tells me is that RIT thinks they are bigger than they really are... again.
Isn't it worthwhile to let RIT revel in their accomplishment? Their story is one that college hockey teams nationwide can take inspiration from. Sure, they got hot (and a bit lucky) at the right time, but if all it takes is a bit of luck and opportunity to jump-start support for a hockey program, I'm all for that.

I like the proposed format for the intense on-campus atmospheres that would be ignited, but at the same time, you have to respect the integrity of an all neutral-site tournament.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

What?

Do you mean that the "haves" are never in the top 8 in the PWR? Or that the top 8 in PWR never include any "haves"? That's what "mutually exclusive" means.

I hope you meant to say that the two aren't the same. True, but there's a significant overlap. This year's top 8 included one "have not", six "haves", and one borderline "have", depending on your definition.
.
Yes, that is what I meant to say...knew that didn't sound right.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

but at the same time, you have to respect the integrity of an all neutral-site tournament.
Regionals were played on campus sites as recently as 2009. It's not like neutral sites have been around for 50 years and we're trying to buck some long-held tradition here. :p

I say it's better to reward the high seeds with home ice and create a real atmosphere for these games than to continue this silly attempt at equalizing everything at the expense of atmosphere and attendance. It's not like upsets will disappear completely - they still occurred nearly 1/3 of the time in the first round when the best of 3 format last existed.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

87% refers to the bye teams advancing to the frozen four (#1-#2 seeded teams). Out of the 16 teams seeded #1-2 in those four years, only Michigan State and LSSU failed to advance (14/16 = 87.5%).

And of course, keep in mind that the upset rate was only around 30% in the first round between '88-'91 when the 3-6/4-5's squared off.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

During 1988-1991, there were only 8 teams in the tourney, so there were no 3/6 or 4/5 matchups, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The 12-team tourney format lasted 11 years (1992-2002) and the only year that LSSU earned a bye (1993), they lost in the national final to Maine.

Bye teams that failed to advance:

1992: SLU, Maine, Minnesota
1994: Michigan
1995: CC
1997: Clarkson
1998: MSU, UND, BU
1999: Clarkson, UND
2000: Wisconsin
2001: St. Cloud
2002: BU, Denver

That's 15 who failed to advance, so the success rate of bye teams was actually 29/44 = 66%.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Isn't it worthwhile to let RIT revel in their accomplishment? Their story is one that college hockey teams nationwide can take inspiration from. Sure, they got hot (and a bit lucky) at the right time, but if all it takes is a bit of luck and opportunity to jump-start support for a hockey program, I'm all for that.

I like the proposed format for the intense on-campus atmospheres that would be ignited, but at the same time, you have to respect the integrity of an all neutral-site tournament.

I think it helps other small programs like RIT to think they can be "next year's RIT" and make a run. I can't imagine RIT sustaining consistent national success like this past year, but it did put them on the map. Who knows. Maybe even Brown can make a run some day (probably not). It does give hope to all the 'have nots' that they could have their day in the sun.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

During 1988-1991, there were only 8 teams in the tourney, so there were no 3/6 or 4/5 matchups, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The 12-team tourney format lasted 11 years (1992-2002) and the only year that LSSU earned a bye (1993), they lost in the national final to Maine.
http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_91.htm
http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_90.htm
http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_89.htm
http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/6History/ncaa_88.htm

According to their bracket history, 1987 was the last year of the 8 team tournament.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Although I like this format, the end result might be less TV coverage of games held in smaller venues.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Yep, and worse of all, people are far more likely to buy nosebleed seats, and then move down into an empty lower bowl. The NCAA should slash Tickets on lower demand regionals, and block off access to upper levels until they've got enough tickets sold to fill lower levels first.

Except there are a lot of people who think the upper level seats ARE the better seats. The suckiest seats in the arena are the bottom 2/3rds of the lower bowl. Not being able to buy an upper level ticket would be the difference between me going to a regional and staying home.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Ah, my bad - the 6-team regionals were 92-02. There were bye teams from 88-02.

Still, I think it makes sense to look at all the bye teams, so from 88-02, bye teams advanced 43/60 = 72% of the time.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The "haves" don't. The teams that finish in the top 8 in the PWR do. The two are mutually exclusive. Want to host the first round? Win.

While that is true remember that the scheduling is not equal. Minnesota and UND can schedule OOC games at home against most schools whereas the likes of R.I.T. will have more trouble. It is much easier to win when you have the schools come to you and you know that. That will only get worse now.

Now if the NCAA mandated how teams could schedule, I am with you all the way. Since they don't, the "haves" will outschedule the "have nots" and I know you know that :)

I am all for top seeds getting home games, but 2/3 and the Super Regional are not positives in my mind.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

If this plan was this past season, as related to the games I saw:

Albany Regional
1st round, Cornell vs UNH:
NO WAY Cornell loses to UNH in a best of three @Lynah. UNH brought a game that first night that was seldom seen throughout the season. One upset gone.

2nd round, UNH vs. RIT:
EVEN IF Cornell lost to UNH, NO WAY the second-night UNH team defends against the second-night RIT team. And even if THIS was the BO3 @Whittemore, judging by the changes UNH didn't make against VT in the HE championship.... One upset preserved.

I was amazed by the hockey UNH put on the ice against Cornell. We didn't let them have their game, and honestly, Big Red didn't look like the team they brought to the Whitt in January, either. Two consecutive nights of that kind of hockey was unheard of this past season.

I was appalled by the hockey UNH put on the ice against RIT. They didn't let us have our game, and UNH did not look like the previous night's team. However, two consecutive nights of sucky hockey was not as rare for UNH this past season. Hence my reasoning above.

I get that repeat spectators think of the BO3 as a mountain, and perpetual contenders think of it as a molehill. Consider: if your team gets beat two times out of three, can you really claim that the better team got beat? Four times out of five? That's where Cinderellas come from: they're the teams who WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO WIN, teams that, on paper, were NOT the better team. By taking a larger sample, the NCAA would get a more accurate result.

As for home ice advantage: let's not give the have's everything! :p
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Ah, my bad - the 6-team regionals were 92-02. There were bye teams from 88-02.

Still, I think it makes sense to look at all the bye teams, so from 88-02, bye teams advanced 43/60 = 72% of the time.
That percentage is awfully close to the 11 of 16 top seeds advancing through the best of three first round.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

All this entire post tells me is that RIT thinks they are bigger than they really are... again.

What the **** are you talking about? :confused:

Try reading it again. That post had absolutely NOTHING to do with "how big RIT thinks they are", whatever the **** that means. :rolleyes:

It was merely a statement about the impact that the run RIT made had on the campus and the city and how under the new format it most likely wouldn't have happened.

I'm really not sure what you're problem is with anything I wrote. I was using RIT as a recent and relevant example (that is coincidentally close to my heart) of my point about the new format. I'm sure that if the same thing happened for UConn, Storrs would be similarly energized (unless the bouncy-ball team were making another Final Four run at the same time) and could propel that program to new levels of support that it desperately needs (attendance- and money-wise). Could you just imagine what a strong program at a well known school like UConn would do for the profile of the AHA and D-I hockey in Connecticut and even nation-wide? Of course, personnally, I hope that doesn't happen since they're in the same conference as RIT, but you get my point.
Not to mention that despite being an HEA team, UMass-Lowell could probably use a similar run themselves to re-energize that program. And if that ever does happen, I hope Coach McDonald (RIT alum, btw) is still there to see it. I think he's a good coach with a bright future.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

15 teams have won all but 3 NCAA Hockey championships and 18 teams have won them all. The haves do not need any more advantages. They have enough just by who they are. If you really want to fill arenas let the top teams be the visitors which would not be fair either so why not make it a best 2 of 3 with the first game at the lower seed and the next two scheduled at the higher seed. That way the higher seed does still have an advantage, you get an awesome crowd for game 1 and probably the other games as well since it is not overkill.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

so why not make it a best 2 of 3 with the first game at the lower seed and the next two scheduled at the higher seed. That way the higher seed does still have an advantage, you get an awesome crowd for game 1 and probably the other games as well since it is not overkill.


This would be a hugely costly and difficult scenario due to travel and timing issues, probably killling off any profit the tourney would generate.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

15 teams have won all but 3 NCAA Hockey championships and 18 teams have won them all. The haves do not need any more advantages. They have enough just by who they are. If you really want to fill arenas let the top teams be the visitors which would not be fair either so why not make it a best 2 of 3 with the first game at the lower seed and the next two scheduled at the higher seed. That way the higher seed does still have an advantage, you get an awesome crowd for game 1 and probably the other games as well since it is not overkill.

Spin-off of this idea: Top seed gets two games at home. If they don't win both, the next weekend is one game at the lower seed's site. Use the current layoff weekend before the FF as the super regional. FF the same weekend as now.
 
Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Spin-off of this idea: Top seed gets two games at home. If they don't win both, the next weekend is one game at the lower seed's site. Use the current layoff weekend before the FF as the super regional. FF the same weekend as now.

Way too much advantage for the higher seeded team. There's a reason in best-of seven series the key games (1,5,7) are all at the lower seed's place(except in the stupid 2-3-2 set-up).
 
Back
Top