The definitive tournament speculation thread

[norm1909]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Clearly some people don't want an explanation - just to complain...

I accept your resignation to the fact that you lack the mental capacity to come up with anything else to mumble. As long as Brucey keeps you warm in bed, is all that matters, light boy.

 

[Josh Carey]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

The NCAA Division III is the largest division - in terms of student athletes - the total cost is insignificant - pennies per student athlete - and yes, pennies add up, but this is a once a year national tournament. What they did is the equivalent of saying "despite the fact that the puck crossed the goal line with 1 second remaining, allowing the goal would result in a loss for the team with the better geographic proximity, so it is being disallowed".

The Valiants and rest of the ECAC-West knew before the season began their conference didn't have an automatic qualifier, making it explicit the winner of that game did not get a bid to the tournament based on winning that game. If the league or its members have a problem with that, they can add two more teams in the future. The problem is applying more significance to that goal than ever should have been given to it.

Several things:

1) In 2012, when the MASCAC has a bid, will the ECAC-West champion deserve one of the three Pool C bids - regardless of their record?

2) Should the MASCAC be outraged their champion isn't in the tournament? Where's your post crying about Salem State?

3) Let's say a one win Lebanon Valley team made the 5 team (!) ECAC-West playoffs by beating a 0 win Utica team. Then won three games in a row to win the conference title. They are now 4-24 on the season. Do they deserve a bid, if the conference had no automatic qualifier?

The past history of the $election Committee made it easy to predict 'how this thing would shake out'. I'm willing to hear objective explanations as to why Plattsburgh's at large bid earns them a bye and St Norbert gets a play-in.

The objective explanation is that the system agreed to by all the parties' representative (NCAA) before the season began correctly produced this result. If a member institution has a problem with it they can leave the NCAA or lobby to have it changed.

People claiming to support true sportsmanship and not being outraged at an injustice is just hypocritical.

On the list of injustices in the world, where teams go in a lower tier division hockey tournament for the opening round (that will very likely have no effect on the final four teams) is a pretty insignificant injustice. Nor does anyone, including the NCAA, say this tournament supports "true sportsmanship." In the strictest sense, if it did, the top 11 teams would get in, defined however you want.

For comparison, the top 11 teams in terms of winning percentage this year are: Adrian, Oswego, Norwich, St. Norbert, Middlebury, Fitchburg State, Wentworth, Manhattanville, Marian, Gustavus Adolphus and Plattsburgh. So saying that Manhattanville deserves to be in based on their goal with one second left (they won, right?) is similar to advocating for a team with Fitchburg, Wentworth and Marian (none of whom won their conference, you'll note).

We all know how far you get beating a dead horse.

As opposed to posting on a message board?

 

[Josh Carey]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

1st time in 26 years that ECAC West champ hasn't went to the tournament.

The NCAA had it all set up on Saturday night winner moves on to NCAA's. It should have been settled on the ice Saturday and it was. Mville took care of business and got screwed.

If Manhattanville doesn't want to get "screwed" (subjective term) they should join a conference with a sufficient number of teams to qualify for an at large bid.

 

[Josh Carey]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Interesting note. Assume the top seeds win the Opening Round games. That would give us the following Quarterfinal matchups (with the teams' overall rank in the tournament listed).

1. Norwich
8. Elmira

4. Middlebury
5. Plattsburgh

2. Oswego
7. Bowdoin

6. Gustavus Adolphus
3. St. Norbert

But a tournament with a Quarterfinal round that plays out exactly to seed (or one off if you flip Bowdoin/GAC) isn't just, right?

 

[jerrynu26]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

I accept your resignation to the fact that you lack the mental capacity to come up with anything else to mumble. As long as Brucey keeps you warm in bed, is all that matters, light boy.

I think you are proving his point.

 

[Chris Lerch]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

If Manhattanville doesn't want to get "screwed" (subjective term) they should join a conference with a sufficient number of teams to qualify for an at large bid.

Manhattanville has little control over this, nor do the other ECAC West teams. The ECAC does not have the authority to re-align its conferences. The ECAC West is doubly hurt by the strength of the majority of the teams in the league. I could see breaking a 26 year old tradition if LV or even Utica won it. But this was so close.

But, as we have seen in recent years, it's all about the SOS, whether you can control it or not. I wish D-III would just use the freaking pairwise and get out of the smoke filled room. EVERY D-I team knows exactly where they stand in terms of getting in to the tournament. The process is transparent.

 

[joecct]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Several things:

1) In 2012, when the MASCAC has a bid, will the ECAC-West champion deserve one of the three Pool C bids - regardless of their record?

2) Should the MASCAC be outraged their champion isn't in the tournament? Where's your post crying about Salem State?

Josh

Good points. I think I'm hammering a dead horse, but if there was no MASCAC this season, would Elmira still have made the tournament as the 4th Pool C team??

Salem lost all the comparisons to the ECAC-W (as did RS Champ Fitchburg). We did not deserve a bid. I hope that in the smoke filled room yesterday that Salem WAS looked at (for all of 15 seconds) before being eliminated from Pool B.

 

[norm1909]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

The Valiants and rest of the ECAC-West knew before the season began their conference didn't have an automatic qualifier, making it explicit the winner of that game did not get a bid to the tournament based on winning that game. If the league or its members have a problem with that, they can add two more teams in the future. The problem is applying more significance to that goal than ever should have been given to it.

Several things:

1) In 2012, when the MASCAC has a bid, will the ECAC-West champion deserve one of the three Pool C bids - regardless of their record?

2) Should the MASCAC be outraged their champion isn't in the tournament? Where's your post crying about Salem State?

3) Let's say a one win Lebanon Valley team made the 5 team (!) ECAC-West playoffs by beating a 0 win Utica team. Then won three games in a row to win the conference title. They are now 4-24 on the season. Do they deserve a bid, if the conference had no automatic qualifier?



The objective explanation is that the system agreed to by all the parties' representative (NCAA) before the season began correctly produced this result. If a member institution has a problem with it they can leave the NCAA or lobby to have it changed.



On the list of injustices in the world, where teams go in a lower tier division hockey tournament for the opening round (that will very likely have no effect on the final four teams) is a pretty insignificant injustice. Nor does anyone, including the NCAA, say this tournament supports "true sportsmanship." In the strictest sense, if it did, the top 11 teams would get in, defined however you want.

For comparison, the top 11 teams in terms of winning percentage this year are: Adrian, Oswego, Norwich, St. Norbert, Middlebury, Fitchburg State, Wentworth, Manhattanville, Marian, Gustavus Adolphus and Plattsburgh. So saying that Manhattanville deserves to be in based on their goal with one second left (they won, right?) is similar to advocating for a team with Fitchburg, Wentworth and Marian (none of whom won their conference, you'll note).



As opposed to posting on a message board?

I agree that Elmira objectively deserves to have gotten in over Manhattanville, the ECAC-W does not have an auto qualifier (saddly for Manhattanville), and the use of objective critrea is valid, and the $election Committee appears to have done the right thing here.

My "beef" is with the lack of objective criteria in giving Plattsburgh (my team) a bye, while giving St Norbert a play-in (beyond “objecting” to the cost).

This message board, available to the public has ears - unlike other alternatives.

 

[powerofyellowandblack]

Re: If money matters ....

Re: If money matters ....

“Flights will be kept to a minimum.”, regardless of the criteria – it is a once a year tournament, they need to do what is right.

No, they don't. They have proven this time and time again.

 

[chico53]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

I agree that Elmira objectively deserves to have gotten in over Manhattanville, the ECAC-W does not have an auto qualifier (saddly for Manhattanville), and the use of objective critrea is valid, and the $election Committee appears to have done the right thing here.

My "beef" is with the lack of objective criteria in giving Plattsburgh (my team) a bye, while giving St Norbert a play-in (beyond “objecting” to the cost).

This message board, available to the public has ears - unlike other alternatives.

Any Westerner who has watched the NCAA over the years could see this bracket coming. Unless forced into it, the NCAA simply did not want to pay to send two teams to faraway Lake Placid. So they came up with whatever plan they needed to ensure that occurred. Fairness never even came into consideration. In hindsight, UST's win at GAC really didn't matter. The NCAA simply would have paired CSS and GAC (at one arena or the other, probably at GAC) and shipped Adrian to SNC Anyway. Both those teams could have gone undefeated and this still would have happened.

The East better enjoy this one while they can. With next year's tournament set for Minneapolis, the moneychangers at the NCAA will simply reverse direction and do everything in their power to ensure, at the very least, a 2-2 split. The West has understood the economics of the NCAA and D-III hockey for a long time. While they may not like it, most coaches have learned to deal with it.

 

[Josh Carey]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Manhattanville has little control over this, nor do the other ECAC West teams. The ECAC does not have the authority to re-align its conferences. The ECAC West is doubly hurt by the strength of the majority of the teams in the league. I could see breaking a 26 year old tradition if LV or even Utica won it. But this was so close.

But, as we have seen in recent years, it's all about the SOS, whether you can control it or not. I wish D-III would just use the freaking pairwise and get out of the smoke filled room. EVERY D-I team knows exactly where they stand in terms of getting in to the tournament. The process is transparent.

Chris, one of the most well-reasoned responses to the discussion of process. I'd be interested to hear more how the ECAC is limited by alignment of its conferences. Surely somebody somewhere could apply for some kind of waiver?

SOS is king, and I think my "top 11 winning percentages" post points out why that's legitimate. Does anybody really think Marian and Fitchburg are top 10 teams in the country? And again, I think not having the PairWise isn't as big an issue as the tournament size or flight rule. With the exception of Elmira-M'ville (which will be solved when the MASCAC gets its bid and neither team gets a bid in that case), nobody is complaining about the teams that got in - they're complaining about where they got sent. Which is a function of the *** backwards 11 team bracket and 500 mile rule.

But I think you do hit the Elmira-M'ville issue on the head in that it's only this big a deal because it was so close. That being said, it's funny when people cry "conspiracy" and then get upset when the committee follows its own rules and doesn't do something conspiratorial.

 

[Josh Carey]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Any <strike>Westerner</strike> observer who has watched the NCAA over the years could see this bracket coming.

Fixed that for you.

The East better enjoy this one while they can. With next year's tournament set for Minneapolis, the moneychangers at the NCAA will simply reverse direction and do everything in their power to ensure, at the very least, a 2-2 split.

And simply not true. The teams get put in, then they get screwed by travel restrictions. In 2007, three teams flew west. This year in the women's tournament, three teams will (likely) fly west. Let's not pretend a western FF means three western teams because it doesn't and we've already seen that. In '07 Superior was "suppose" to get in to give two western FF teams and hope for a host team at the FF. They didn't.

I'll say it again: There is no conspiracy.

 

[Ozz]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Let's see how I did.



Originally Posted by Matt Rennell
Play-ins
Curry @ Manhattanville
Adrian @ St. Norbert
St. Thomas @ Gustavus Adolphus

NCAA Quarterfinals
Curry/Manhattanville @ Oswego
Bowdoin @ Norwich
Plattsburgh @ Middlebury
UST/GAC winner vs. Adrian/SNC winner (highest remaining seed hosts)



The bracket itself I nailed down, only errors was bumping Oswego back ahead of Norwich and giving Manhattanville the Pool B over Elmira.

I'll take it.

But if you take a look at a prediction from you on 3/6/10 @ 11:49 PM, then you nailed it on the head!

Here is another bracket projection where the NCAA could have a max of 2 flights and a minimum of 1 flight for the entire tournament.

East
Norwich
Oswego
Middlebury
Plattsburgh
Bowdoin
Elmira
Curry

West
St. Norbert
GAC
St. Thomas
Adrian

NCAA Play ins
Adrian @ St. Norbert
St. Thomas @ GAC
Curry @ Elmira

NCAA Quarterfinals
UST/GAC vs. Adrian/SNC
Bowdoin @ Oswego
Curry/Elmira @ Norwich
Plattsburgh @ Middlebury

Which would set up a potential FF of

GAC/St. Norbert vs. Bowdoin/Oswego
PSU/Midd vs. Elmira/Norwich

 

[chico53]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Fixed that for you.



And simply not true. The teams get put in, then they get screwed by travel restrictions. In 2007, three teams flew west. This year in the women's tournament, three teams will (likely) fly west. Let's not pretend a western FF means three western teams because it doesn't and we've already seen that. In '07 Superior was "suppose" to get in to give two western FF teams and hope for a host team at the FF. They didn't.

I'll say it again: There is no conspiracy.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to not be right. If the NCAA used the same logic for their D-I basketball tournaments, a school like Cornell (which won the Ivy League men's title this year) would never get in because you simply know that the ACC's sixth place team is better.

I'll say it again. The NCAA operates the tournament on a shoestring budget and does as little as possible to encourages western teams to fight the good fight. The western coaches understand this but what choices do they have? They are outnumbered and they know it. So you make the best you can of a bad situation and move on.

 

[spwood]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

As long as Brucey keeps you warm in bed, is all that matters, light boy.

For all your "intelligence", this is the best you can do? Your obsession with Bruce is childish at best, but you are way off in my allegience. My opinion has nothing to do with my work during the hockey games and everything to do with being an alumnus that cares about the school on the whole and not just one specific sport or team.

 

[norm1909]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

For all your "intelligence", this is the best you can do? Your obsession with Bruce is childish at best, but you are way off in my allegience. My opinion has nothing to do with my work during the hockey games and everything to do with being an alumnus that cares about the school on the whole and not just one specific sport or team.

Clearly some people don't want an explanation - just to complain...

I am not obsessed with Bruce, Bruce is simply the problem, I am obsessed with the problems, because they make a mockery of sportsmanship - plan and simple.

 

[spwood]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Clearly some people don't want an explanation - just to complain...

I am not obsessed with Bruce, Bruce is simply the problem, I am obsessed with the problems, because they make a mockery of sportsmanship - plan and simple.

Yes, but now you blame him for the NCAA selections and the process. He is just one member of the committee, but you single him out by name and talk about issues that have existed since long before he was involved with the process.

The fact that Josh or Matt actually predicted this bracket at one point actually says the committee did what they were asked to do, given the criteria that were understood by the folks at USCHO.com. Having a beef with the NCAA on the whole, well that's a whole different discussion. One, I suspect, you'll find many fewer dissenting opinions.

 

[Matthew Webb]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

But a tournament with a Quarterfinal round that plays out exactly to seed (or one off if you flip Bowdoin/GAC) isn't just, right?

A tournament, this year, that has St. Norbert playing on Wednesday is not right. That is correct.

 

[norm1909]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Yes, but now you blame him for the NCAA selections and the process. He is just one member of the committee, but you single him out by name and talk about issues that have existed since long before he was involved with the process.

The fact that Josh or Matt actually predicted this bracket at one point actually says the committee did what they were asked to do, given the criteria that were understood by the folks at USCHO.com. Having a beef with the NCAA on the whole, well that's a whole different discussion. One, I suspect, you'll find many fewer dissenting opinions.

He is the chair, the leader, he needs to lead, and he needs to make public the rationale. Simply stating Geographic Proximity doesn't make it any more right than making slavery legal prior to the civil war. History is full of those who chose to do what was right, not what they were instructed to do. If it is wrong, it is wrong, the leader be it Bruce, Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, is the central target.

If you sincerely say you are not biased in your opinion of Bruce because of your working relationship with him, then that is between you and your maker, I’ll take your word for it. You have impressed me by some of your actions, particularly some off the ice, compassion for children who some might neglect is admirable.

Bruce has done some things right, he handled this well.

 

[chico53]

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

A tournament, this year, that has St. Norbert playing on Wednesday is not right. That is correct.

True ... but not surprising. It was the committee's Queen Victoria moment. ("Let them eat cake.")