What's new
By:
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.

The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

mnstate0fhockey said:
If there are 5 Hockey East Teams, there is a rule in place allowing conference teams to play first round that wasn't in place then.

So, I would expect you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe the 5 team rule is more of a defacto rule in case you have, for example, 3 teams from Conference A as #2 seeds, and 2 teams from Conference A as #3 seeds. In that scenario, you HAVE to have an intra-conference matchup. I would agree with Priceless in this case, and that Minnesota would play New Hampshire. The committee has shown time and time again that if they CAN avoid intra-conference matchups, they will. The only thing set in stone is a #1 seed has to play a #4 seed.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

UNH is down 2-0 at the start of the 2nd, ways to go still.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

New Hampshire isn't putting four past Hallebuyck. This game is over. Providence and Vermont are in.
Mankato is up 2-0 over Ferris in their game. The #1 seed in Cincinnati is out there just waiting for the Badgers to take it.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I believe the 5 team rule is more of a defacto rule in case you have, for example, 3 teams from Conference A as #2 seeds, and 2 teams from Conference A as #3 seeds. In that scenario, you HAVE to have an intra-conference matchup. I would agree with Priceless in this case, and that Minnesota would play New Hampshire. The committee has shown time and time again that if they CAN avoid intra-conference matchups, they will. The only thing set in stone is a #1 seed has to play a #4 seed.
Click to expand...

Just saying, there are options that didn't exist in 2003. So bringing that up as precident isn't as cut and dry as it's being made sound.

If they want to, they CAN avoid the intra-conference matchup. Move BC to Cincy.

I'll be surprised if MN isn't playing the AHA champ next weekend.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

mnstate0fhockey said:
Just saying, there are options that didn't exist in 2003. So bringing that up as precident isn't as cut and dry as it's being made sound.

If they want to, they CAN avoid the intra-conference matchup. Move BC to Cincy.

I'll be surprised if MN isn't playing the AHA champ next weekend.
Click to expand...

They could certainly move BC to Cincy. They very well might. We probably won't know because it doesn't look like New Hampshire is going to win. However, I'm just saying that I would guess Priceless is correct, and they would do similar to what the did in 2003. Ultimately, it would come down to whether the committee would rather protect the top seed, or lose $$ and punish BC. It could go either way.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
They could certainly move BC to Cincy. They very well might. We probably won't know because it doesn't look like New Hampshire is going to win. However, I'm just saying that I would guess Priceless is correct, and they would do similar to what the did in 2003. Ultimately, it would come down to whether the committee would rather protect the top seed, or lose $$ and punish BC. It could go either way.
Click to expand...

And all I'm saying is that, in 2003, a rule wasn't in place allowing them to have two conference teams play in the first round if 5 or more teams from the conference make it. So, 2003 isn't apples-to-apples. And why even put the rule in place if you don't intend to use it? The integrity of the bracket should carry more weight than avoiding conference matchups. Hence the new rule IMO.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Ohio State up 2-0 in the 1st, can the B1G get 3 teams in...
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

This isn't the correct thread to ask but it seems the closest active thread. Does anyone know when the NCAA selection show is?
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

mnstate0fhockey said:
Just saying, there are options that didn't exist in 2003. So bringing that up as precident isn't as cut and dry as it's being made sound.

If they want to, they CAN avoid the intra-conference matchup. Move BC to Cincy.

I'll be surprised if MN isn't playing the AHA champ next weekend.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think this debate would be different if we were discussing North Dakota instead of Minnesota ;)
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Ralph Baer said:
This isn't the correct thread to ask but it seems the closest active thread. Does anyone know when the NCAA selection show is?
Click to expand...

Noon tomorrow on ESPNU.

But we'll have the bracket before finals are even in :p
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

mnstate0fhockey said:
And all I'm saying is that, in 2003, a rule wasn't in place allowing them to have two conference teams play in the first round if 5 or more teams from the conference make it. So, 2003 isn't apples-to-apples. And why even put the rule in place if you don't intend to use it? The integrity of the bracket should carry more weight than avoiding conference matchups. Hence the new rule IMO.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

As for the "integrity of the bracket" argument, even though you think it should carry more weight, the committee has shown time and time again that they don't care so much about perfect integrity as they do getting the right teams in the right spots. For example, the committee put North Dakota in the St. Paul Regional with Minnesota in 2012, even though North Dakota was the last #1 seed, and Minnesota was either the 7 or 8 overall (i.e. one of the last #2 seeds).

As for the rule, I'm not sure where it even is located. I always thought it was a defacto rule. It has only been used once, and that was where there was no possible way to avoid an intra-conference matchup in 2008. Again, my guess is that the committee would have UNH against Minnesota, and keep BC in Worcester. But...we will likely never know minus a big comeback by the Wildcats and a few other results going a specific way.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
As for the "integrity of the bracket" argument, even though you think it should carry more weight, the committee has shown time and time again that they don't care so much about perfect integrity as they do getting the right teams in the right spots. For example, the committee put North Dakota in the St. Paul Regional with Minnesota in 2012, even though North Dakota was the last #1 seed, and Minnesota was either the 7 or 8 overall (i.e. one of the last #2 seeds).

As for the rule, I'm not sure where it even is located. I always thought it was a defacto rule. It has only been used once, and that was where there was no possible way to avoid an intra-conference matchup in 2008. Again, my guess is that the committee would have UNH against Minnesota, and keep BC in Worcester. But...we will likely never know minus a big comeback by the Wildcats and a few other results going a specific way.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree :)
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

mnstate0fhockey said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure WHY you are disagreeing though. Other than what you hope the committee would do, do you have any historical evidence that would lend credence to your argument? I'm just trying to figure out your logic. I'm also not saying you're wrong. I am just perhaps a bit more cynical in the committee's motives than you are. :)
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I'm not sure WHY you are disagreeing though. Other than what you hope the committee would do, do you have any historical evidence that would lend credence to your argument? I'm just trying to figure out your logic. I'm also not saying you're wrong. I am just perhaps a bit more cynical in the committee's motives than you are. :)
Click to expand...

The only instance in recent memory that I can think of where the #1 overall got shafted like that was in 2003, and I think the committe realized how unpopular that move was. If you'd like to know what I really think they would have done, I think they would have moved BC. We'll never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top