NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

[Puck Swami]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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.

Or UNO (14,500).

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

And your 10:28 post still makes no sense .

Ha! I didn't notice I switched the higher/lower seed wording.

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.

I think we can argue about the *best* format all we want - the bottom line ends up the coaches thought this was the best option, and the NCAA's gonna love the $$$ it brings in...

 

[Craig P.]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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

No. In fact, it's debatable whether hosting 2 teams in that arena would work.

(Fortunately, it'll be gone for the '11-'12 season.)

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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.

You're always going to have the randomness of the PWR. Keep in mind we've already been through this in the '80's. Then, it was smoke-filled rooms and not the PWR that provided the random bad luck. Someone would have to be the 2 and 3 seeds in the east and west. The 3 seeds would have to travel cross country to play the two seed from the opposite region, on their own ice. It worked fine.

I'm not lobbying for a move from the single elimination games. I don't necessarily think the current system is broken.

But I don't think going to a 2/3 system would mean no more upsets, or make them less interesting. Right now the teams use that exact format in their conference playoffs and we see plenty of upsets and interesting 3 game series. In fact, the most interesting series are usually the ones where the seeds are closest together, regardless of where the games are played.

 

[Stauber1]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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.

I think you are right. In fact, I propose the AHA Conference Tournament should be switched to single-elimination format played at the neutral sites of Albany and Worcester, with the finals in Boston. That would give the UConns and AIUs a more level playing field in reaching the national tournament, which would in turn raise their profile and help them recruit. It would no doubt be good for college hockey.

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.

Probably not many. Only 4 a year, I would imagine.

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.

The question is will the sentiment linger. If in the next 10 years RIT makes the NCAA Tournament 5 times (a generous speculation) and is beat in the first round each time (which is in all likelihood what would happen) will that media attention and fan knowledge remain? I kind of doubt it.

The chance to make it to the FF is what keeps the non-traditional powers going. RIT's run will result in a higher profile for that team among prospects, which means a better RIT team in the future, which is good for college hockey (increasing the level of play is always good). It also means a higher profile for college hockey in Rochester, which is also good for college hockey (witness the poor attendance at the regional a few years ago).

Actually, I would posit that the chance to make the tournament field, not the Frozen Four, is what keeps the non-traditional powers going. In terms of raising awareness and the profile of NCAA Hockey in non-traditional markets, see my previous comment about the AHA Conference Tournament.

The "haves" already have so many advantages, why give them two more they really shouldn't need, at the expense of keeping the "have-nots" healthy?


Powers &8^]

How about an AQ for a conference whose best team was just barely in the top 50% in the nation (based on any of the widely accepted ranking systems) for an advantage and attempting to keep the "have-not" conferences healthy?

Stauber1, it is admirable that you like college hockey the way it is, but it is not wrong for people to want the sport to grow; in fact, some believe that growth is essential for the sport to be healthy. A sport that does not have growth potential is a sport that athletic departments find it easy to eliminate. If you start losing teams like Bowling Green, the NCAA is going to start chopping NCAA tournament games. Nobody wants that.

I guess where we differ is that I don't think trying to mold hockey into another format is what will make the sport healthy. I think growing support for a program at a grassroots level, meaning developing that allegiance and excitement from within the fan base, is what keeps the sport healthy. I don't see the current format offering that. I do, on the other had, see having first round series played on-campus helping to ignite that kind of loyalty and emotion in the folks who attend. Certainly in a way that watching on TV a game in a 1/3 full arena with zero excitement will never do.

Yes, there was a buzz in Rochester after RIT accomplished what they did this past April. But I ask again, will that sentiment linger? Or will it be a blip in the school's athletic history, a flash in the pan? Look at Holy Cross, the first team outside the Big-4 to win an NCAA Tournament game. What did that win do for them in the long-term?
My argument is that should RIT host a first round series, win or lose, it would do more for the Tigers than this season did.

 

[Patman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

What the **** are you talking about?

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

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.

Lets see... you've talked about UConn and UML in your post... good job.

I see this as the "they're taking this away from us" behavior. Yes, the road becomes harder for a weaker team. RIT has so far been the only school in Atlantic Hockey whose fans have acted like they deserve something. You want to dispute that then fine... but I believe it. I don't believe its all of you... but its certainly some of you and I've noted it before.

Bottom line is access to the Frozen Four is not something that is a right. RIT has no right to it, nobody has a right to it. It'd be "great" if all lesser schools made the Frozen Four... if we follow along with that logic we should open the whole thing to a single elimination 58 team tournament... but that's not how it works. Ideally the tournament should be designed to advance the best teams in the least amount of games.

RIT has no right to access to the national semifinals... worse it exposes flaws in the current format in advancing the better teams. The reality is hockey is only better than baseball amongst the 5 major sports (football, basketball, hockey, baseball, and soccer) in parity inherent to the sport.

I think ideally, as it was said, it should probably all be best-of-3... but we don't have the time or resources for that.

 

[blockski]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

No. In fact, it's debatable whether hosting 2 teams in that arena would work.

(Fortunately, it'll be gone for the '11-'12 season.)

A welcome change.

The point still stands, however. What happens under that plan when a team earns a chance to host a regional, but their arena isn't capable of doing so? Having the #1 seeds host regionals is probably not particularly attractive in terms of logistics.

It's a lot easier if you're just hosting a series, but that also means you have to make sure that the arena is available for three days just in case you make it.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

The point still stands, however. What happens under that plan when a team earns a chance to host a regional, but their arena isn't capable of doing so? Having the #1 seeds host regionals is probably not particularly attractive in terms of logistics.

It's a lot easier if you're just hosting a series, but that also means you have to make sure that the arena is available for three days just in case you make it.

This is a problem with the proposed top-8 hosting too. Basically, every D-I team will have to block off that weekend *just in case* they host a first round best-of-3. Now, for schools that have their own rink, this isn't a problem. I'm thinking what about Bemidji State or Minnesota State? They play in city run facilites, and would have to block off not only the first round of WCHA play-offs, but now the first round of NCAA play-offs too (bring on the jokes that several schools, including BSU and MSU will never have to worry)...

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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^]

I beg to differ.

Had RIT gone completely undefeated, not even changing a single non-conference result, they would have finished sixth in the PWR. A really weak-looking six, with zero non-conference wins, but six nonetheless.

While the formula for RPI does generally favor the strength of schedule components over raw winning percentage, having a REALLY good win percentage will show through no matter what.

 

[moose97]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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^]

Look at it this way - BSU played 56% of its schedule against the #45 (UAH), 46 (Niagara) and 47 (RMU) ranked teams in the final RPI. That's 20 of 36, plus 2 vs. #40 AFA and 2 more vs. #44 WMU for a total of 24 of 36 vs. RPI #40 or worse - 67%. Sure, they had nice wins over TUC Miami, UMD and NMU, but even going 23-9-4 through the regular season got them a #8 seed.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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.

. . .

Possibly Priceless, but with on-campus sites, a lot of the attendees would be students or locals, both of who have plenty of other activities to keep their attention. With the current system, most of the attendees have traveled to the site and bought tickets for all three games.

As someone who goes to Regionals depending on where they are, and not because of who's there, I wouldn't like it either. With the current system, I can buy my tickets ahead of time, and plan for my travel.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

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.

I don't know why this is a big hang up. It ain't rocket science. The coaches will have no problem dealing with it.

I think the one legit concern is if there's a blow out the first night, though I know from painful, personal experience that the series ain't over 'till it's over.

 

[unhpuckfan2001]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

now it's just an idea, but if we routinely had the regionals in venues where there was most likely going to be atmosphere, Say The Fleet center, or Joe Louis, or the Pepsi Center, or XCEL, and if we had them there every year for say 5 or 6 years straight, wouldn't we preserve at least some neutrality for teams like DU and at the same time boost revenue and fun as well.
I'm not sure I like the 3 game set up, and 3 games at home guarantees, imho that the home team moves on.

I'm still on the fence about this possible change, but wanted to chime in with regards to venues.

Fleet Center = too big for regionals. 17,000, plus the expense of renting that building when both the Bruins and Celtics are already playing . . .

Most buildings that are the right size for hosting a regional game (thinking mostly about Manchester, NH's VWA since that's what I know best) have a lot of other stuff going on. Remember, there's days of work that go into preparing a building for NCAA Regionals. You have to strip the building of almost advertisements, re-work the boards, etc . . . I know that when UNH hosts in Manchester, they start prepping the building on Thursday (for a Saturday / Sunday set of games). You have to pay close of all other events for 4 days.

Manchester's regionals sell well because typically an east team is a #1 seed (see BU in 2009) and gets sent there, and tickets sell. UNH is the host school and under the current format they are guaranteed to play there if they make the tourney; around January / February, if it looks like UNH will make the NCAA's again, tickets start selling for Manchester. Last years attendance was in the 8500 realm for both games.

For anybody interested, if the current format remains, UNH will most likely be hosting the regionals in Manchester every other year through 2017. They've been told the NCAA loves the work they do, and the ticket sales are hard to argue with. They also put in the most competitive bid of any other interested venues.

 

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

I don't know why this is a big hang up. It ain't rocket science. The coaches will have no problem dealing with it.

I think the one legit concern is if there's a blow out the first night, though I know from painful, personal experience that the series ain't over 'till it's over.

It isn't a big hangup; but if you can eliminate some of the wierd situations with a simple change, I don't see why you don't do it. If it's a simple change, why make the coaches "deal with it" if there's no reason to make them? What is the bad thing about calling it a six period game, played over two days?

 

[Bakunin]

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.

5 of the 16 teams that had home ice advantage in the best of three first round in '88-'91 lost. Is a 30% upset rate too low for you?

Upset rate over the past eight seasons in the first round (since we went to 16 teams):
2010: 4/8
2009: 6/8
2008: 4/8
2007: 5/8
2006: 3/8
2005: 0/8
2004: 1/8
2003: 1/8
Total: 24/64 = 37.5%

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Yes, there was a buzz in Rochester after RIT accomplished what they did this past April. But I ask again, will that sentiment linger? Or will it be a blip in the school's athletic history, a flash in the pan? Look at Holy Cross, the first team outside the Big-4 to win an NCAA Tournament game. What did that win do for them in the long-term?

I believe RIT has a better chance at maintaining some (certainly not all) of the spike in interest mid-to-long-term than Holy Cross did. It appears that RIT has much more support (infrastructure and $$$) behind the team, and its continued success and improvement than some of its AHA counterparts. It seems like they have every intention of being one of the favorites for the conference championship every year. And no, they aren't going to make a FF run every year. So the massive swell of media and fan attention isn't going to resurrect every April. But just the fact that it happened once got people's attention, which means more ticket sales to people who may not have ever gone to a college game before, or just weren't really aware of what RIT and NCAA hockey are all about. I posit that a certain percentage of those fans will like what they see, come back, and remain RIT Tiger fans for the indefinite future. That is what I meant by raising the profile of college hockey in formerly ignorant markets like Rochester. As long ast the Tigers remain a top-tier team in AHA and make the NCAA's on a relatively regular basis, I think they can maintain a higher level of support on campus and locally. My hope is that the NCAA tournament remain a venue through which programs can achieve such things on occasion. In the proposed format, it is quite unlikely.

My argument is that should RIT host a first round series, win or lose, it would do more for the Tigers than this season did.

You're absolutely correct, however...
Unfortunately, as long as they are in the AHA, a # 1 or # 2 seed (and therefore, any chance of hosting a tournament first round) is pretty much impossible. So they, Niagara, Air Force, RMU, etc... will most likely have to settle for the auto-bid, a # 4 seed, and a shot at pulling an upset of a # 1 seed, at least for now and the foreseeable future.
I will concede that there may be an outside shot at an at-large coming from AHA eventually (especially with the addition of two quality programs beginning next season). But with only 7 NC games, the PWR numbers are going to have a hard time getting any higher. Someone is going to have to schedule a brutal 7 game NC schedule and win most of them to have a shot.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

Lets see... you've talked about UConn and UML in your post... good job.

I see this as the "they're taking this away from us" behavior. Yes, the road becomes harder for a weaker team. RIT has so far been the only school in Atlantic Hockey whose fans have acted like they deserve something. You want to dispute that then fine... but I believe it. I don't believe its all of you... but its certainly some of you and I've noted it before.

Bottom line is access to the Frozen Four is not something that is a right. RIT has no right to it, nobody has a right to it. It'd be "great" if all lesser schools made the Frozen Four... if we follow along with that logic we should open the whole thing to a single elimination 58 team tournament... but that's not how it works. Ideally the tournament should be designed to advance the best teams in the least amount of games.

RIT has no right to access to the national semifinals... worse it exposes flaws in the current format in advancing the better teams. The reality is hockey is only better than baseball amongst the 5 major sports (football, basketball, hockey, baseball, and soccer) in parity inherent to the sport.

I think ideally, as it was said, it should probably all be best-of-3... but we don't have the time or resources for that.

Again... You're reading way more into my posts than is intended. I don't think I, nor any other RIT fans think the Tigers have a "right" to anything except a chance, like everyone else. My point is just that without a legitimate chance at a "cinderella", so to speak, ever winning a tournament first round, the NCAA (and many teams) will miss out on the chance to grow fan bases for the teams and college hockey as a whole.
And besides, all of the **ssing and moaning about the upsets is coming from the Denvers, Wisconsins, Minnesotas, BCs, etc out there who (understandably) don't want their teams to lose. Who does, after all? The way I look at it is if you're a # 1 seed in a regional and can't manage to defeat an "auto-bid team" (whether its in one game or a best of 15 - doesn't matter), you've been weeded out as a legitimate championship contender anyhow. Prior to the tournament, if you asked a Denver fan, coach, or player who they'd rather face on a neutral site in round 1, RIT or Miami, I'm pretty sure they'd have all chosen RIT, with good reason. OK, now go out and win the game like you're supposed to. If you don't, you deserve what you get, and RIT deserves to move on. Do I think after beating DU that RIT was one of the 8 best teams in the nation? Come on, really? no. But that doesn't mean they didn't deserve to be there. Similarly, were they the 4th best team in the nation because the whipped UNH? no. But by the same logic, they certainly earned their way there.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

And besides, all of the **ssing and moaning about the upsets is coming from the Denvers, Wisconsins, Minnesotas, BCs, etc out there who (understandably) don't want their teams to lose. Who does, after all? The way I look at it is if you're a # 1 seed in a regional and can't manage to defeat an "auto-bid team" (whether its in one game or a best of 15 - doesn't matter), you've been weeded out as a legitimate championship contender anyhow. Prior to the tournament, if you asked a Denver fan, coach, or player who they'd rather face on a neutral site in round 1, RIT or Miami, I'm pretty sure they'd have all chosen RIT, with good reason. OK, now go out and win the game like you're supposed to. If you don't, you deserve what you get, and RIT deserves to move on.

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?

 

[TigerFan86-87]

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 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.

 

[Handyman]

Re: NCAA Tourney Format Changing?

5 of the 16 teams that had home ice advantage in the best of three first round in '88-'91 lost. Is a 30% upset rate too low for you?

Upset rate over the past eight seasons in the first round (since we went to 16 teams):
2010: 4/8
2009: 6/8
2008: 4/8
2007: 5/8
2006: 3/8
2005: 0/8
2004: 1/8
2003: 1/8
Total: 24/64 = 37.5%

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.

The game is vastly different, if you think Yale was going to beat UND 2/3 last year to move on I have some prime real estate in Siberia to sell you comrade.