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 Team Selection Options
- Thread starter DrunkTrainPolka
- Start date
Yeah, the 2018 tourney.
brassbonanza
Super Serial
That preference is ridiculous and arbitrary as the foremost criteria for placing teams.
The foremost criteria is, and should always be, to create the most competitively balanced bracket on the S-curve. Who played who in a conference tournament is nowhere near that level of importance.
Even in those instances where teams from the traditional power conferences didn't win the tourney as a four seed, there are numerous instances where they reached the Frozen Four and were a legit threat to win the tourney. Teams like Miami, UND, Providence, Notre Dame and others made it as a four seed and were competitive. The two true underdog teams to make it through two wins and make the Frozen Four were RIT and BSU, and there was no real threat they were going to win it all.
You could be correct. However, I would like to submit to you this proposition:
By what means do you actually choose 'competitively balanced' brackets? If you choose the PWR in a normal year, then I submit to you this idea:
In any normal year, I could easily choose to change the result of one non-conference game which did not include either of two teams who are being compared....one game....often from a win to a tie, and more often the winner of the game, and the result would be that the order of the 2 teams in question would switch.
Hypothetical example:
BC and Minn are 4 and 5 according to PWR (which is really just RPI any more).
I could change the result of Michigan at BU from a BU win to a Mich win, and the result would be that Minn is now 4 and BC 5.
This kind of thing is very common.
Remember a couple of years ago when UMD was the last team in and won the NCAAs. If any of 5 games on the last Saturday had a different result, Minnesota would have been in.
The reality is that our best metric, the PWR, makes differences which are, in truth, no differences at all, enough that we THINK there is a huge difference between the #5 and the #7 overall team.
In my example above, that game could have changed results because of an injury on the Michigan team. An injury on a squad that is not even among the teams being compared, and that flips "who is better."?
No. Not true.
I know that we can't do anything else, or there will be accusations of back room deals. But the truth is that the PWR is not good enough to actually make the fine comparisons that we want.
And, for that reason, I would much prefer NOT to see the 6th matchup of UND and SCSU in the Regional Final, especially when they just played a week ago. I would miuch prefer to see some 'new game' which has not been played all year.
But, maybe that's just me.
Hits on all the points:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2021/03/18_Bracket-ABCs--Final-Weekend.php
Numbers, I agree that in a year where we haven't had any non conference action, the committee should do everything they can to not put UND and SCSU together for a potential 6th meeting. If they simply can't find a relatively fair alternative, fine. But explore all options.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2021/03/18_Bracket-ABCs--Final-Weekend.php
Numbers, I agree that in a year where we haven't had any non conference action, the committee should do everything they can to not put UND and SCSU together for a potential 6th meeting. If they simply can't find a relatively fair alternative, fine. But explore all options.
brassbonanza
Super Serial
This whole post is a false equivalency of factors which create a fair S-curve.
Your points about PWR are correct with respect to creating a competitively balanced bracket. Random games can have an outsized effect in very specific spots, such as in the BU-Michigan example above. PWR also does not take into account non-box score considerations such as major injuries on a team. These are known shortfalls of the PWR system.
The problem with your argument is, you then insert an irrelevant data point - who played in a conference tournament - as the solution to a more competitively balanced bracket. Whether Team A played Team B in Conference Tournament X has absolutely no impact on creating a competitively balanced bracket. All it does is create arbitrary barriers for the selection committee.
Example:
Say Lowell wins the HE Tournament and 1-16 seedings look like this:
3. BC (1 seed - Bridgeport)
11. UMass (3 seed - Bridgeport)
12. BU (3 seed - Albany)
14. Lowell (4 seed - Bridgeport)
Bracket integrity says BC-UML in the first round. If you want to generally avoid inter-conference first round matchups, that's fair.
However, by your standards Lowell would get shipped west (instead of Albany) to avoid potential regional final game against BU because Lowell played BU in the conference tournament? That's patently absurd.
I
I think my point is being misunderstood. What I am trying to say is that any kind of loyalty to a serpentine bracket is not going to get what you want it to get, because this thing that we like to call 'competitive balance' actually does not exist. The truth is, there is no way of actually comparing what 'competitive balance' suggests. That's my reason for my PWR example above.
What that means is that I don't think the committee should be beholden to creating a serpentine bracket. A serpentine bracket looks fair, but there is really no way to know if it is or not. I think the committee should have the liberty to arrange some things "according as they see fit" in order to create a national tournament, with matchups which have not been played before. I would not make it the first requirement. And, in fact, my preference would be only to avoid Conference Finals rematches. But, it has to be a judgment call.
In this case, my reasoning goes:
The field is likely 10-6, so no eastern team is coming west.
That leaves only SCSU and UW as #2 seeds available for the Fargo region.
Considering there has been no non-conference play this year, I would rather have UND and UW potentially face each other. Especially since I think that if you sit down and talk about it, you are going to have a hard time distinguishing between those 2 teams.
Your HEA example is in an entirely different class for a few reasons:
1- BU and UML didn't play the finals.
2- They aren't the top seeds
3- The field is likely 10-6, so there is no good reason to fly an eastern team to a west regional, just to fly another western team back.
As I said, it's a judgment call, and the committee should have liberty to make such a call, and this year, I think it's the right thing to do.
I think my point is being misunderstood. What I am trying to say is that any kind of loyalty to a serpentine bracket is not going to get what you want it to get, because this thing that we like to call 'competitive balance' actually does not exist. The truth is, there is no way of actually comparing what 'competitive balance' suggests. That's my reason for my PWR example above.
What that means is that I don't think the committee should be beholden to creating a serpentine bracket. A serpentine bracket looks fair, but there is really no way to know if it is or not. I think the committee should have the liberty to arrange some things "according as they see fit" in order to create a national tournament, with matchups which have not been played before. I would not make it the first requirement. And, in fact, my preference would be only to avoid Conference Finals rematches. But, it has to be a judgment call.
In this case, my reasoning goes:
The field is likely 10-6, so no eastern team is coming west.
That leaves only SCSU and UW as #2 seeds available for the Fargo region.
Considering there has been no non-conference play this year, I would rather have UND and UW potentially face each other. Especially since I think that if you sit down and talk about it, you are going to have a hard time distinguishing between those 2 teams.
Your HEA example is in an entirely different class for a few reasons:
1- BU and UML didn't play the finals.
2- They aren't the top seeds
3- The field is likely 10-6, so there is no good reason to fly an eastern team to a west regional, just to fly another western team back.
As I said, it's a judgment call, and the committee should have liberty to make such a call, and this year, I think it's the right thing to do.
North Dakota has only played SCSU three times this year, thus far.
Well, A guy should admit it when he is wrong. Can someone tell me how it happened that SCSU played UMD 6 times in conference, but only played UND twice? I'm sure it has to do with the 'pod' thing they played at Omaha early.
That's not as bad. However, for this year, when I'm not sure how you separate SCSU and Wisconsin (does someone have some reasoning about that one?), I would rather place Wisconsin in the Fargo regional, if they can squeeze a bus trip out of 501 miles, rather than SCSU, just for the sake of a new opponent.
If the Badgers would have to fly, I'd say that doesn't need to happen.
That's not as bad. However, for this year, when I'm not sure how you separate SCSU and Wisconsin (does someone have some reasoning about that one?), I would rather place Wisconsin in the Fargo regional, if they can squeeze a bus trip out of 501 miles, rather than SCSU, just for the sake of a new opponent.
If the Badgers would have to fly, I'd say that doesn't need to happen.
The NCHC divided its eight teams into two different four teams subgroups. DU, CC, UNO and UND were in one, SCSU, UMD, WMU and Miami in the other.
During the pod in Omaha, each team was to play ten games. Two each against the four teams from the other subgroup, and then two against one of the teams from your own subgroup.
After the pod, teams would only play other teams from their subgroup, on campus.
Thus, UND played two games apiece against UMD, SCSU, WMU and Miami in the pod. They also played two games against DU in the pod.
After the pod, UND played four games against DU, and six each against CC and Omaha.
Thanks for the information.
The explanation of the schedule that I gave in my earlier post is also another reason many people associated with NCHC teams perhaps rank DU a little higher this year than others around the country tend to do. Their schedule didn't do them any favors.
In the 10 game pod, they played eight games against the four teams from the other subgroup, just like Omaha and UND did. However, DU drew UND as the team from its own subgroup that it would have to play in the pod, whereas Omaha drew CC, Duluth drew Miami and SCSU drew WMU (who were playing without their #1 goalie). All of this while DU was missing their best forward at the world juniors.
Then, when they come back after the holidays, they ended up getting shorted two of their games against CC because of CC's repeated Covid problems.
In the 10 game pod, they played eight games against the four teams from the other subgroup, just like Omaha and UND did. However, DU drew UND as the team from its own subgroup that it would have to play in the pod, whereas Omaha drew CC, Duluth drew Miami and SCSU drew WMU (who were playing without their #1 goalie). All of this while DU was missing their best forward at the world juniors.
Then, when they come back after the holidays, they ended up getting shorted two of their games against CC because of CC's repeated Covid problems.
Now, a completely odd idea....
How set is Quinnipiac as a #2? Suppose they lose on Saturday? What happens then?
We have:
#1s - NoDak, BC, Mankato, Minnesota
#2s - SCSU, Wisc, UMass, ??
Next tier of teams - Quinn, Michigan, UMD, BU, the LSSU/BSU winner, Providence?
Then - AIC, LSSU/BSU loser, Denver/Omaha, ECAC Winner
The committee has to select one of those as the final #2 team. You could make a strong argument that none of them deserve it. If QU loses, who would say that UMD is the next best team? Or, Michigan?
How set is Quinnipiac as a #2? Suppose they lose on Saturday? What happens then?
We have:
#1s - NoDak, BC, Mankato, Minnesota
#2s - SCSU, Wisc, UMass, ??
Next tier of teams - Quinn, Michigan, UMD, BU, the LSSU/BSU winner, Providence?
Then - AIC, LSSU/BSU loser, Denver/Omaha, ECAC Winner
The committee has to select one of those as the final #2 team. You could make a strong argument that none of them deserve it. If QU loses, who would say that UMD is the next best team? Or, Michigan?
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
If QU loses, I think they are probably a high #3 seed. It would probably come down to Duluth and Michigan for the final #2 seed...which could go either way.