It's not like Lowell is 10-13. Lowell is 10-8-1 and in the title game. PC is 11-8-5. It wouldn't be a crime or a shame to pick them over PC. Obviously if they lose, 11-8 is better than 10-9 but there's not some huge, indisputable gap between these teams. That's why they are bubble teams.
USCHO Fan Forum
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NCAA Tourney Team Selection Options
- Thread starter DrunkTrainPolka
- Start date
manurespreader
Still upright
Those were both pretty good games last night. Makes you wonder though How BC could fold up like that in the third. I thought the UMass game was a lot closer than the score.
Best goalie in Hockey East (if not the country). Just had a really rough evening.I have a theory on that. If you saw the goals, Spencer Knight was just really, really bad. Hope he gets over it quick!
It's not like Lowell is 10-13. Lowell is 10-8-1 and in the title game. PC is 11-8-5. It wouldn't be a crime or a shame to pick them over PC. Obviously if they lose, 11-8 is better than 10-9 but there's not some huge, indisputable gap between these teams. That's why they are bubble teams.
This is an interesting question right now. I assume the reference to 10-13 is in reference to Denver.
But somewhere I thought I read or heard that what the committee is primarily interested in are the records in regulation. That is, it's going to initially not take into account overtime records because everyone went to the 3 X 3 for overtime, and a "win" in OT was going to count only 55% in the new pairwise.
If the committee does that, things get more interesting. I'd have to sit down and look at it, but I know Denver is something like 9-10 in regulation, and Omaha is 10-9. I think Providence and UML are similarly a game above or a game below .500 in regulation, but I haven't looked at it in the last couple of days.
brassbonanza
Super Serial
Let me preface this by saying I'd be shocked if Lowell gets in as an at-large. But since we don't know what the committee is using to decide, will they take into account the repeated quarantines for Lowell? Will they take into account a six game unbeaten right at the end of the year (assuming for this argument that they lose Saturday)?
If so, they should also consider that three of the wins in that streak are against one of the worst teams in the country in UVM.
Cross Check
Doggie Out! Afuera!
Does anyone think that if UMass beats UML, they end up getting the one seed in Bridgeport instead of BC? I don't think it's a ridiculous question.
All of this discussion should help us all to appreciate the PWR a lot more, even if it isn't perfect. It takes away a lot of this hand wringing, and "what about ...?"
Concerning BC and UMass, if UMass wins on Saturday...
Records (no OT): UMass 15-4-6. BC 14-3-6
H2H: BC 2, UMass 0, UMass in OT (1)
Record vs BU: Both schools 0-1-1
Record vs Providence: UMass 2-0-2 (won both in OT), BC 2-0
Record vs Northeastern: UMass 3-0, BC 2-0
BC has a better record, better H2H results, and still a better RPI even after Mass wins on Saturday. By something like .5700 vs .5625
It's maybe 'close', but you can't really justify that. BC gets the #1.
Concerning BC and UMass, if UMass wins on Saturday...
Records (no OT): UMass 15-4-6. BC 14-3-6
H2H: BC 2, UMass 0, UMass in OT (1)
Record vs BU: Both schools 0-1-1
Record vs Providence: UMass 2-0-2 (won both in OT), BC 2-0
Record vs Northeastern: UMass 3-0, BC 2-0
BC has a better record, better H2H results, and still a better RPI even after Mass wins on Saturday. By something like .5700 vs .5625
It's maybe 'close', but you can't really justify that. BC gets the #1.
Fair point.If so, they should also consider that three of the wins in that streak are against one of the worst teams in the country in UVM.
SCSUBlackandRed
New member
OK, to clear this up a bit....
#1s: NoDak, Minn, BC, Mankato
#2s: Wisc, SCSU, Mass, Quinn (they don't deserve this, but neither does anyone else)
#3s: UMD, Mich, BU, LSSU(Bemidji)
#4s: AIC, Bemidji, Providence, and the last team in Omaha
Fargo: UND v Bemidji::::Wisc v LSSU
Someplace out east: BC v AIC::::Quinn v BU
Albany: Minnesota v Providence::::Mass v UMD
Loveland: Mankato v Omaha::::SCSU v Mich
Those brackets isolate all the conference final games from each other until the F4. Only conference mates involved in the same regionals are HEA teams, and they aren't flying west, given the 10-6 split. (Oh, forgot SCSU and Omaha, but still).
That's the way I would do it.
Now, watch as the results the rest of the week blow this totally up.
That looks like a really balanced and competitive bracket. BC looks to have the most favorable route to the FF in this scenario.
Travelwise it's pretty good but I don't think there is any chance they don't send either SCSU or UMD to Fargo. They'll take the one bus trip vs. two flights.
With the BC loss, it's pretty clear UND is the #1 overall seed. Pretty strong argument in normal years AIC is #16 and should be their first round opponent. Although in this year's field, think you could argue the way you have your #4's listed, they aren't #16.
And if UML wins HE, they are in instead of Providence. And if Northern Michigan wins the WCHA, the loser of the other semi (BSU or LSSU) is out.
All of this discussion should help us all to appreciate the PWR a lot more, even if it isn't perfect. It takes away a lot of this hand wringing, and "what about ...?"
Concerning BC and UMass, if UMass wins on Saturday...
Records (no OT): UMass 15-4-6. BC 14-3-6
H2H: BC 2, UMass 0, UMass in OT (1)
Record vs BU: Both schools 0-1-1
Record vs Providence: UMass 2-0-2 (won both in OT), BC 2-0
Record vs Northeastern: UMass 3-0, BC 2-0
BC has a better record, better H2H results, and still a better RPI even after Mass wins on Saturday. By something like .5700 vs .5625
It's maybe 'close', but you can't really justify that. BC gets the #1.
BC beat BU in OT, they aren't 0-1-1
BC beat BU in OT, they aren't 0-1-1
Committee is counting OT games as only 55-45, so I took all OT games, and counted them ties for this analysis.
OK, to clear this up a bit....
#1s: NoDak, Minn, BC, Mankato
#2s: Wisc, SCSU, Mass, Quinn (they don't deserve this, but neither does anyone else)
#3s: UMD, Mich, BU, LSSU(Bemidji)
#4s: AIC, Bemidji, Providence, and the last team in Omaha
Fargo: UND v Bemidji::::Wisc v LSSU
Someplace out east: BC v AIC::::Quinn v BU
Albany: Minnesota v Providence::::Mass v UMD
Loveland: Mankato v Omaha::::SCSU v Mich
Those brackets isolate all the conference final games from each other until the F4. Only conference mates involved in the same regionals are HEA teams, and they aren't flying west, given the 10-6 split. (Oh, forgot SCSU and Omaha, but still).
That's the way I would do it.
Now, watch as the results the rest of the week blow this totally up.
Sending the top 2 seed to play the number 1 overall seed? Nope this would be ridiculous. FS23's bracket is way more reasonable.
I don't see how Wisconsin would automatically be viewed as the top 2 seed. I can see a case for St. Cloud. Take your pick. It certainly *seems* like one of them is going to Fargo. From what I watched the last few days, St. Cloud is better than Wisconsin. But that's a small sample.
SCSUBlackandRed
New member
A: Atlantic Hockey x 2, ECAC x 1 and one last spot to assign where ever you want (blind draw from a hat is fine with me). No conference will have more than four.
Five bids from a single conference, any conference, especially during THIS SEASON with little to no play between conferences makes no sense because there is almost zero data to support it. The only argument I hear is "Well, they're usually better..." That may be true and usually the #16 seed doesn't upset the #1 seed. But you know what, every once in a while it happens and more often than not that team comes out of Atlantic Hockey.
If this was any other year where there were actual games played and Atlantic Hockey went 1-20-0 against other conferences, then fine, they get one bid because the data supports that decision. THIS YEAR that data doesn't exists so the top teams in AH deserve the same shot as the top teams from other conferences. There was no NCAA rule against playing other conferences, teams choose not to do so for the most part and isolated themselves. So now we've reached the end of the season and all we really have is comparisons WITHIN conferences. As such, each conference brings their best and let the pucks fall where they may.
A statement I've made many times, if you are not even one of the best in your conference, then your chances of winning the championship are slim to none. Might as well give someone else from another conference a chance (with a winning record) so for once we can see more games between different conferences in the NCAA tourney, rather than rehashing conference tourney games we just saw the week before. There is nothing dumber in a national tourney than one or two conferences filling half the field and they have to play each other again because there are only four regionals (another reason no conference should ever get more than four). Play between two team in the same conference is what you had all Fall and Winter to watch.
Most folks who watch football would make the argument the SEC is the best conference, but you don't see them getting all the National Championship playoff spots just based on that fact. They had the whole regular season to show they were the best in the SEC and get their shot at a national title. How many football bowl games feature two teams from the same conference? Zero. Because no one wants to watch that. So do we get that year after year in the hockey tourney? We've already seen it in the regular season. People want to see how different conferences stack up against each other. Trust me I lived the worst case scenario this year with MTU's schedule. SIXTEEN "non-conference" games all against conference teams. At least the Big mixed it up with ASU and they got ONE team outside their conference.
You're confusing the ability of a team to win a game in the tournament with who deserves to be in based on strength of regular season play. You also seem to believe that you can't use past history in determining strength of conferences this year, to at least use it as a factor. You're very alone in that belief.
If you think it's harder to finish 2nd in the AHA or the WCHA then to finish 3rd or 4th in HE or NCHC, I don't know what to tell you. Four straight National Champions (and not even the regular season champ each time) and a dominating non-conference record since the inception of the league would tell you "usually they are better" well actually ALWAYS they are better as a league. While team composition will change a bit each year, the leagues themselves generally don't have massive shifts in strength relative to the other conferences.
Two time defending National Champions UMD finished 3rd in the NCHC this year. Quite a few players from those championship teams are back this year and that's the best they could do. And if you watched them play at all, you really wouldn't be looking forward to getting them in your region this year. As far as "rehashing conference tourney games from the week before", it's a pretty easy solve. Don't jam the top teams from a conference in the same region because of stupid travel or attendance excuses. Think another poster in this thread put together a bracket that was fair and pretty much spread teams out so we don't have that. I would have liked them to send more East schools West but with the West likely getting 10 bids this year, that really isn't that big of a concern.
And you might have missed why teams didn't play non-conference games this year even though there wasn't a rule against it. It's basic common sense to try to limit contact in these "unprecedented times." Really hate that phrase but it is what it is.
All that said, can't wait to get back to letting PWR determine the field. It's not perfect, but it's better than this.
Here is the problem that I have with JJ's argument (and he is by no means alone in the college hockey world in making it.)
Let's say you put in Army, or put in AIC if they don't win the AHA tourney. Do they have a chance to upset someone? Absolutely. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again, whether it's Holy Cross or AIC or whomever.
But here is the deal. Do Army or AIC or teams like that have a chance to win the tournament? No. Absolutely not. The very, very best that could ever be hoped for would be two wins. There is simply no chance for a team like that to make a run through four games against the best programs in college hockey.
I believe that on the men's side, like on the women's side, there will be an effort on the committee this year to do some things like throw in a second AHA team, or "balance" things out a little more than they would be if we were using pairwise. They'll do it because they can, and because they're not going to get the chance again, in all likelihood.
But what I don't like about that is this. A team like Denver, like Omaha, like Providence or like UML, they actually could win the tournament. We've seen instances, even in recent years, where a middling team from a "power conference" has suddenly gone on a run in the NCAA's and won it all. For four games, they were good enough. We've never seen that from a Holy Cross, from an AIC, from a RIT or Princeton.
I think there should be the autobids. Then I think the field should be filled with those teams most capable of winning four games and coming home champions.
Let's say you put in Army, or put in AIC if they don't win the AHA tourney. Do they have a chance to upset someone? Absolutely. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again, whether it's Holy Cross or AIC or whomever.
But here is the deal. Do Army or AIC or teams like that have a chance to win the tournament? No. Absolutely not. The very, very best that could ever be hoped for would be two wins. There is simply no chance for a team like that to make a run through four games against the best programs in college hockey.
I believe that on the men's side, like on the women's side, there will be an effort on the committee this year to do some things like throw in a second AHA team, or "balance" things out a little more than they would be if we were using pairwise. They'll do it because they can, and because they're not going to get the chance again, in all likelihood.
But what I don't like about that is this. A team like Denver, like Omaha, like Providence or like UML, they actually could win the tournament. We've seen instances, even in recent years, where a middling team from a "power conference" has suddenly gone on a run in the NCAA's and won it all. For four games, they were good enough. We've never seen that from a Holy Cross, from an AIC, from a RIT or Princeton.
I think there should be the autobids. Then I think the field should be filled with those teams most capable of winning four games and coming home champions.
SCSUBlackandRed
New member
I don't see how Wisconsin would automatically be viewed as the top 2 seed. I can see a case for St. Cloud. Take your pick. It certainly *seems* like one of them is going to Fargo. From what I watched the last few days, St. Cloud is better than Wisconsin. But that's a small sample.
I'd put Wisconsin ahead of SCSU due to actually winning the B10 regular season and a second place finish in their tourney vs. SCSU second in both regular season and tourney. If UMass wins the HE tourney, could make an argument for them as the top 2 seed as well. Probably falls flat when you start comparing records vs. likely NCAA tourney teams. And they aren't getting sent west regardless.
I don't think there's a definitive difference between them though, so I wouldn't go as far as "ridiculous" in sending Wisconsin to Fargo. That said, still think the committee goes the "travel" excuse and sends SCSU to Fargo.
Concerning SCSU and Wisconsin.....
It's my preference to place the #2s in the tournament in such a way that conference tournament games don't repeat themselves. The facts are that:
Minn and NoDak are conf champs, and #1 seeds.
SCSU and Wisc are going to be #2 seeds.
It is very likely that the other 2 #2 seeds are Eastern teams.
The committee won't criss cross fly #2 seeds across the country, meaning that SCSU and Wisc will be in Loveland and in Fargo.
Since NoDak and SCSU just played, I prefer to put Wisconsin in NoDak's bracket to avoid a repeat matchup.
I know that this hasn't been the committee's usual operation. It is simply my preference.
As to the rest...
Lowell beating BC has messed a few things up, but I am perhaps now more sure that Mass, SCSU and UW are #2s. Especially if UMass wins on Saturday, which is now a much easier road.
So, penciling in QU for the last #2 (now watch THEM lose on Saturday.....!!!), It seems like the bracket SHOULD have the following qualities:
Fargo: No Dak and Wisconsin for the above reasons
Loveland: Mankato and SCSU because I rank Minnesota above Mankato (swap this if it's your preference)
Albany: Minnesota and Massachusetts (UMass is slightly weaker than SCSU, but if they win Saturday, this becomes even less of an issue)
Bridgeport: BC and Quinnipiac
What I don't like about this is that BC potentially gets the easiest 2nd round matchup, and there would be an argument to be made that they are actually the 4th #1.
In short:
To reduce flights:
Fargo: UND, Wisc...Loveland: MSUM, SCSU.....Albany: Minn, Mass......Bridgeport: BC, QU
To be 'fair":
Fargo: UND, QU.....Loveland: MSUM, SCSU....Albany: Minn, Mass......Bridgeport: BC, UW
It's my preference to place the #2s in the tournament in such a way that conference tournament games don't repeat themselves. The facts are that:
Minn and NoDak are conf champs, and #1 seeds.
SCSU and Wisc are going to be #2 seeds.
It is very likely that the other 2 #2 seeds are Eastern teams.
The committee won't criss cross fly #2 seeds across the country, meaning that SCSU and Wisc will be in Loveland and in Fargo.
Since NoDak and SCSU just played, I prefer to put Wisconsin in NoDak's bracket to avoid a repeat matchup.
I know that this hasn't been the committee's usual operation. It is simply my preference.
As to the rest...
Lowell beating BC has messed a few things up, but I am perhaps now more sure that Mass, SCSU and UW are #2s. Especially if UMass wins on Saturday, which is now a much easier road.
So, penciling in QU for the last #2 (now watch THEM lose on Saturday.....!!!), It seems like the bracket SHOULD have the following qualities:
Fargo: No Dak and Wisconsin for the above reasons
Loveland: Mankato and SCSU because I rank Minnesota above Mankato (swap this if it's your preference)
Albany: Minnesota and Massachusetts (UMass is slightly weaker than SCSU, but if they win Saturday, this becomes even less of an issue)
Bridgeport: BC and Quinnipiac
What I don't like about this is that BC potentially gets the easiest 2nd round matchup, and there would be an argument to be made that they are actually the 4th #1.
In short:
To reduce flights:
Fargo: UND, Wisc...Loveland: MSUM, SCSU.....Albany: Minn, Mass......Bridgeport: BC, QU
To be 'fair":
Fargo: UND, QU.....Loveland: MSUM, SCSU....Albany: Minn, Mass......Bridgeport: BC, UW