NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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).

Way more advantage than if all three games are at the top seed <i>for sure</i> (as in the current proposal)? That's clearly incorrect.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Way more advantage than if all three games are at the top seed <i>for sure</i> (as in the current proposal)? That's clearly incorrect.

Listen, this isn't the NHL. There is plenty of precedent in the NCAA for something like the proposal. In a perfect world, they would go best of three for each round (and, actually, that would only add one week to the current set-up - Regional weekend the first rd., the bye week, have the quarterfinals, then FF week the national Semi-finals, and one week later, the Championship round), but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now, does that make it fair for everyone? No, but life isn't fair.

I'm sick of everyone worring about what's fair. It's this attitude that got us the everone wins a trophy mentality. Let's just have the teams get a trophy at the end of the regular season saying they tried real hard. Better yet, why have a "winner" and a "loser" for regular season games too? Let's just not count goals and give them participation certificates. Even better, if you score a goal, you hurt the feelings of the goalie and the other team! Let's just have a figure skating contest! Wait, it's still a competition then... Just have each team skate around in circles...

 

[Hammer]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The CCHA is going to be mad at you for wrecking their shootouts.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Listen, this isn't the NHL. There is plenty of precedent in the NCAA for something like the proposal. In a perfect world, they would go best of three for each round (and, actually, that would only add one week to the current set-up - Regional weekend the first rd., the bye week, have the quarterfinals, then FF week the national Semi-finals, and one week later, the Championship round), but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Now, does that make it fair for everyone? No, but life isn't fair.

I'm sick of everyone worring about what's fair. It's this attitude that got us the everone wins a trophy mentality. Let's just have the teams get a trophy at the end of the regular season saying they tried real hard. Better yet, why have a "winner" and a "loser" for regular season games too? Let's just not count goals and give them participation certificates. Even better, if you score a goal, you hurt the feelings of the goalie and the other team! Let's just have a figure skating contest! Wait, it's still a competition then... Just have each team skate around in circles...

Actually, <i>I've</i> got no problem with a best-of-three at the upper seed's site, but I was offering an alternative (which has flaws, but not the one you posited) for those who do.

And your 10:28 post still makes no sense .

 

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Want to host the first round? Win.

Is it that simple? I haven't done the math, but I'm not certain an undefeated AHA team would be in the top 8 in PWR. At least not last season.


Powers &8^]

 

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I'm sick of everyone worring about what's fair. It's this attitude that got us the everone wins a trophy mentality.

No, fairness is one of the bedrock principles of athletic competition, particularly at educational institutions.

Of course, fairness doesn't mean the playing field must be leveled by any means necessary. But the problem is not that there is an imbalance that someone has proposed leveling; the problem is that this proposal introduces a further imbalance beyond what already exists. Top seeds already have the inherent advantage of playing lower seeds in the first round; why introduce not just one but TWO extra advantages for those top seeds, by giving them not only a home game, but a two-out-of-three home series in the first round?

And even if you could justify it for the top 4 seeds, in what crazy world does the #8 seed deserve such a gigantic advantage over the #9 seed, when the difference between them could come down to a common opponent's winning percentage?


Powers &8^]

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

No, fairness is one of the bedrock principles of athletic competition, particularly at educational institutions.

Of course, fairness doesn't mean the playing field must be leveled by any means necessary. But the problem is not that there is an imbalance that someone has proposed leveling; the problem is that this proposal introduces a further imbalance beyond what already exists. Top seeds already have the inherent advantage of playing lower seeds in the first round; why introduce not just one but TWO extra advantages for those top seeds, by giving them not only a home game, but a two-out-of-three home series in the first round?

And even if you could justify it for the top 4 seeds, in what crazy world does the #8 seed deserve such a gigantic advantage over the #9 seed, when the difference between them could come down to a common opponent's winning percentage?


Powers &8^]

Probably the same crazy world where one team gets into the dance while another stays home due to a common opponent's winning percentage. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Of course, fairness doesn't mean the playing field must be leveled by any means necessary. But the problem is not that there is an imbalance that someone has proposed leveling; the problem is that this proposal introduces a further imbalance beyond what already exists.

The <i>problem</i> is the neutral site format has a severe lack of attendance/atmosphere. That's the problem that needs to be addressed.

And even if you could justify it for the top 4 seeds, in what crazy world does the #8 seed deserve such a gigantic advantage over the #9 seed, when the difference between them could come down to a common opponent's winning percentage?

Here, I'm very much in the "life's not fair" camp. It sucks to be the "first guy out", but the same inequity happens in the conference playoffs every year. Obsessing over that leads to inanitites like the basketball tournament inviting sixty-<i>five</i> teams.

 

[Handyman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Probably the same crazy world where one team gets into the dance while another stays home due to a common opponent's winning percentage. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

There is kind of a difference though. With the advantage the 8 seed will get in that series due to the new rules what was once supposed to be a pretty even matchup now becomes heavily favored towards the "better" team.

You think it is bad when fans whine now because some random HE game might affect their PWR (lets avoid the "It only counts once a year" argument for a second) imagine if your team is at 8 and because Harvard loses in the ECAC final your team then drops to 9. That is quite the penalty don't ya think?

Like I said, I am all for home games for top seeds, but 2/3 is just too much of an advantage. Maybe that seems fair for the top seeds (i.e. 1-4) but usually the 5-10 seeds are rather equal and you are now, statistically speaking, taking what could be ripe upsets and making them predictable and uninteresting.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Like I said, I am all for home games for top seeds, but 2/3 is just too much of an advantage.

If you go to campus sites, what's the alternative to best two out of three? One game? Two game, total goals?

 

[lord k]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Personally I like single elimination. It just makes it more exciting. I think the regionals should be played at the 4 #1 seeds rinks. You want to host a regional and gain the advantage, play well all season long.

If they were to do the super regional thing it may be better to just have one super regional. Get all the fans you can to one place for a few days of hockey.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

If you go to campus sites, what's the alternative to best two out of three? One game? Two game, total goals?

I've never understood the logic of two game, total goals. It seems to me that it would be more logical to do one six period game spread over two days.

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I've never understood the logic of two game, total goals. It seems to me that it would be more logical to do one six period game spread over two days.

That's exactly what a two-game, total goals series is....a six period game spread over two days. Most goals wins.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

That's exactly what a two-game, total goals series is....a six period game spread over two days. Most goals wins.

Thanks Swami.

The "two games" part of it implies to me that the two games are separate entities and that total goals was the tiebreaker in case each team won one game.

 

[Priceless]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

How would people like this (using this year's results)

(at Oxford, OH)
Friday:
#4 Alabama-Huntsville at #1 Miami 4pm
#3 Michigan vs. #2 Bemidji State 7pm
Saturday:
#3 Michigan at #1 Miami 8pm

(at Boston, MA)
Friday:
#4 Alaska at #1 Boston College 3pm
#3 Yale vs #2 North Dakota 6pm
Saturday:
#3 Yale at #1 Boston College 5pm

(at Denver, CO)
Saturday:
#4 RIT at #1 Denver 3pm
#3 New Hampshire vs #2 Cornell 6pm
Sunday:
#4 RIT vs #3 New Hampshire 6pm

(at Madison, WI)
Saturday:
#4 Vermont at #1 Wisconsin 1pm
#3 Northern Michigan vs #2 St. Cloud 4pm
Sunday:
#2 St Cloud at #1 Wisconsin 4pm

Times are flexible, but those give you an idea.

The top 4 seeds host and get home-ice. For the middle seeds, it is neutral ice the first night, with the potential for playing the host in the second. You eliminate some of the chance by giving the top seeds the advantage of hosting, but you still keep it one game so Cinderella still has a shot.

 

[blockski]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The thing is, you'd have to be sure that any one of the potential top seeds has the ability to host a game - they need to have all the proper video review equipment, they need to have enough locker rooms, they need to have hotel rooms reserved for 4 teams, etc.

It was never clear from this discussion if the NCAA intended for the Super Regionals to be hosted on campus or at pre-determined sites.

2009, for example, would have had Notre Dame as a host. Would that really work, hosting 4 teams in that arena?

 

[unofan]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Thanks Swami.

The "two games" part of it implies to me that the two games are separate entities and that total goals was the tiebreaker in case each team won one game.

They are, and it is. A penalty at the end of game 1 doesn't carry over to game 2, as far as I recall. You're also allowed to redo your rosters to accomdate injuries/suspensions/the like between games. And if a team wins both "games" - clearly they scored the most goals, too (by at least 2). The total goals only comes into play when Team A wins game 1 and team B wins game 2.

It still leads to wierd situations like Team B being up 4-1 in Game two and pulling their goalie because they lost game one 4-0.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

How well attended would this game

(at Denver, CO)...
Sunday:
#4 RIT vs #3 New Hampshire 6pm

be?

It seems to me if you're going to do this, you should take geography and minimizing travel into account.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

They are, and it is. A penalty at the end of game 1 doesn't carry over to game 2, as far as I recall. You're also allowed to redo your rosters to accomdate injuries/suspensions/the like between games. And if a team wins both "games" - clearly they scored the most goals, too (by at least 2). The total goals only comes into play when Team A wins game 1 and team B wins game 2.

It still leads to wierd situations like Team B being up 4-1 in Game two and pulling their goalie because they lost game one 4-0.

Thanks.

It seems to me that doing it as one six period game would remove the wierd situations. In your scenario, Team B would still pull the goalie, but it would be because they're behind 5-4, which is normal. The wierd situation I was thinking about would be a team trailing by one goal in the first game not pulling the goalie. If you lose by one, the other team still has to win the next day, but if you lose by two, the other team can play for a tie in the second game. That affects strategy and IMO that's a bad thing.

 

[Priceless]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

How well attended would this game

be?

It seems to me if you're going to do this, you should take geography and minimizing travel into account.

I think people who bought tickets the first night would be interested in seeing if the "Cinderella" team could knock off another team to go the the Frozen Four.

If we're just going to base this on capacity, just make Ohio State, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin the hosts and be done with it.