Tournament Speculation Thread

[OSU2010]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I think the reason they do that is because chances are two teams from the same conference good enough to get in the NCAA's probably just played each other the previous weekend in their conference championships, this isn't always the case, but it you don't want the same teams playing against each other 4 days after they last played that same team.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I'm not saying this try and convince you, but it is Wednesday impacted in this case and not Saturday.

Others are discussing the avoidance of conference matchups. I don't like that dicatating anything here. This isn't MLB with the rule in place regarding the Wildcard. Seed them where they should be seeded and let them go. They don't worry about avoiding conference matchups in the D1 tournament. In fact, they've bunched up the WCHA teams quite a bit over the last handful of seasons. In the Regional at the Kohl Center 4 or 5 years ago UW played Denver and then North Dakota. It just makes no sense to me that in D3 hockey where there are certain rules in place specifically to limit travel that they'd mess with the seedings and actually increase the length of trips here. It's not like I'm complaining thinking my team got the shaft on travel since they got the top seed in the Region. I just like to see the seedings with as much integrity as possible.

Integrity is a word not understood by Egotists. That said, I realize that there are some true, devoted hockey supporters on the various NC$$ committees. Sadly though Egotists have a way to twist reality and ride others coattails and overcoming them usually means waiting for their incompetence to catch up with them - and it nearly always does - eventually.

 

[pete99race]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I think the reason they do that is because chances are two teams from the same conference good enough to get in the NCAA's probably just played each other the previous weekend in their conference championships, this isn't always the case, but it you don't want the same teams playing against each other 4 days after they last played that same team.

This did not happen this season in the MIAC, as St. Thomas and Gustavus last played each other on Nov. 19.....

 

[cetihcra]

They don't worry about avoiding conference matchups in the D1 tournament. In fact, they've bunched up the WCHA teams quite a bit over the last handful of seasons. In the Regional at the Kohl Center 4 or 5 years ago UW played Denver and then North Dakota. It just makes no sense to me that in D3 hockey where there are certain rules in place specifically to limit travel that they'd mess with the seedings and actually increase the length of trips here. It's not like I'm complaining thinking my team got the shaft on travel since they got the top seed in the Region. I just like to see the seedings with as much integrity as possible.

D1 has a rule eliminating intraconference first round matchups...UNLESS more than 4 teams from the same conference make the tournament. That was the case for several years with the WCHA, including that dreadful UW/DU matchup at Kohl.

In D3, I think they should add a caveat to the concept of eliminating first-round intraconference matchups: only if the two teams met the week before in their conference finals. In this year's case, I think UST should be playing at Gustavus.

r

 

[puckstopper]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

In the 2009-2010 season, Gustavus and St. Thomas met in the MIAC Conference Championship and then also met in the first round of the NCAA Tournament one week later.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The idea is to have teams, when possible playing new opposition. The fact that SNC has to play UST doesn't really bother me and should not bother real fans, because if SNC can't beat UST tonight, who's to say that they would be able to beat them on Saturday. You have to beat the team you have to face. That's why I'm not all that upset that in Women's tournament, Norwich has to play Amherst in the quarters, even though they are the number 2 seed. That's life. If they can't beat Amherst on Saturday afternoon in Northfield, why would we assume they could beat them the following week wherever the tournament goes.

I actually would rather the Norwich men were playing somebody other than the winner of PLY/WEN. I'd rather see a competitive game than a potential mismatch. I think it's loser's thinking to say that we didn't win because we had to play somebody too soon. Just win. Admittedly, having to play an extra game is a bit on the unfair side - should SNC have had a bye - probably. You've just got to play the hand you are dealt.

 

[Sir Nubs]

The idea is to have teams, when possible playing new opposition. The fact that SNC has to play UST doesn't really bother me and should not bother real fans, because if SNC can't beat UST tonight, who's to say that they would be able to beat them on Saturday. You have to beat the team you have to face. That's why I'm not all that upset that in Women's tournament, Norwich has to play Amherst in the quarters, even though they are the number 2 seed. That's life. If they can't beat Amherst on Saturday afternoon in Northfield, why would we assume they could beat them the following week wherever the tournament goes.

I actually would rather the Norwich men were playing somebody other than the winner of PLY/WEN. I'd rather see a competitive game than a potential mismatch. I think it's loser's thinking to say that we didn't win because we had to play somebody too soon. Just win. Admittedly, having to play an extra game is a bit on the unfair side - should SNC have had a bye - probably. You've just got to play the hand you are dealt.

Easy for you to say. If this would have happened to Norwich we'd never hear the end of it.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The idea is to have teams, when possible playing new opposition. The fact that SNC has to play UST doesn't really bother me and should not bother real fans, because if SNC can't beat UST tonight, who's to say that they would be able to beat them on Saturday. You have to beat the team you have to face. That's why I'm not all that upset that in Women's tournament, Norwich has to play Amherst in the quarters, even though they are the number 2 seed. That's life. If they can't beat Amherst on Saturday afternoon in Northfield, why would we assume they could beat them the following week wherever the tournament goes.

I actually would rather the Norwich men were playing somebody other than the winner of PLY/WEN. I'd rather see a competitive game than a potential mismatch. I think it's loser's thinking to say that we didn't win because we had to play somebody too soon. Just win. Admittedly, having to play an extra game is a bit on the unfair side - should SNC have had a bye - probably. You've just got to play the hand you are dealt.

Personally, I will ALWAYS have a problem with double "standards" (even substantial acknowledged adjustments for the sake of menial dollars and cents) and a lack of transparency. When it comes to national security there MIGHT be acceptable secrets, but when it comes to events sporting events heavily subsidized by public funds, transparency is a must. Saying "You've just got to play the hand you are dealt" is reality, but it doesn't mean the hand was dealt fairly and it sure don’t make it right.

 

[NorthernLite]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Personally, I will ALWAYS have a problem with double "standards" (even substantial acknowledged adjustments for the sake of menial dollars and cents) and a lack of transparency. When it comes to national security there MIGHT be acceptable secrets, but when it comes to events sporting events heavily subsidized by public funds, transparency is a must. Saying "You've just got to play the hand you are dealt" is reality, but it doesn't mean the hand was dealt fairly and it sure don’t make it right.

+1 for you Larry and you didn't even need to embed a link !!

 

[Checking Line]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The idea is to have teams, when possible playing new opposition. The fact that SNC has to play UST doesn't really bother me and should not bother real fans, because if SNC can't beat UST tonight, who's to say that they would be able to beat them on Saturday. You have to beat the team you have to face. That's why I'm not all that upset that in Women's tournament, Norwich has to play Amherst in the quarters, even though they are the number 2 seed. That's life. If they can't beat Amherst on Saturday afternoon in Northfield, why would we assume they could beat them the following week wherever the tournament goes.

I actually would rather the Norwich men were playing somebody other than the winner of PLY/WEN. I'd rather see a competitive game than a potential mismatch. I think it's loser's thinking to say that we didn't win because we had to play somebody too soon. Just win. Admittedly, having to play an extra game is a bit on the unfair side - should SNC have had a bye - probably. You've just got to play the hand you are dealt.

--NO one said anything about SNC being afraid of anyone. That is not the issue at all. The issue is one of simple economics which the NCAA clearly has no grasp of.

Why in the world would you send a Milwaukee school on 5 1/2 hour to 6 hour bus trip to Minnesota when they could have been sent on a 2 1/2 hour trip to Green Bay? And in the same vein, why would you send a Minnesota school on a 5 1/2 hour bus trip to Green Bay when they are about an hour and 20 minutes from the other Minnesota school???

Budgets are tight and fuel is rising fast--doesn't the NCAA have any sense? ANY???

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Easy for you to say. If this would have happened to Norwich we'd never hear the end of it.

Not from me.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I will simply say that looking at the NCAA criteria for a Pool C bid that destiny is not there. Now I am extremely happy for St. Thomas, I live in Green Bay and I am happy for the fact that 4 teams from the West got in.

BUT, logically with an 8-3 split (which I favor):

MSOE still goes to Minnesota

St Norbert is rewarded as a 1 seed in the West (which it seems to me a 1 seed should be) by not having to play on Wednesday

And this insane seeding in the West that now results in a Milwaukee team going to Minnesota and a Minnesota team having to come to Green Bay is eliminated.

Others who are far smarter about this process can no doubt shed more light, but in the past I seem to recall strength of schedule carrying more weight and that did not seem to happen here--it seems to be winning % and the fact that on selection Sunday the powers that be moved St. Thomas up in the West regional rankings.

I know, logic is not in the NCAA criteria either.

So again, congrats to St Thomas and they will be a worthy opponent for SNC and congrats to all the other teams that are in--good luck to all. Wish I could get to Lake Placid as my family and I were there in 2008 and it was awesome!! If you have not been there and you get the chance this time, go--you will remember it forever.

A very astute and gentlemanly post; you made all the obvious points with subtlety. (I should work on that approach, some fine day.)

In the meantime, I'll say that your post and many others on this thread simply serve to reinforce my dim view of the selection process. Clearly, it's a mess.

Some will say "live with it", "that's how it's always been", etc., but that type of comment doesn't even constitute a genuine argument. All it signifies is (at best) a vicarious sense of satisfaction as to where one's team lands in the fiasco, or (at worst) a feeling of helplessness re: the unstoppable juggernaut that is the D-3 selection process. (Yes, certain Oswego trolls, that was sarcasm.)

D-1 football and hockey were once in the same boat, but people complained about that situation, and now we have the BCS and the PWR. (Yes, they are both imperfect metrics, but miles beyond whatever convoluted logic D-3 hockey employs.)

So, email your AD, or even several ADs..? The squeaky wheel is always a solid bet for attention, and the Omnipotent/Unaccountable Committee has gotten away with murder for far too long. I'm sure that they feel comfy in their dark little vacuum right now, but that can be changed.

I realize that one could likely ask 1,000 people on the street which team won the D-3 hockey title last year, and see 1,000 blank stares in response, but that isn't my point... The only aspect of this entire travesty that is truly galling is how unfair it all is to the players.

 

[LakerFan99]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

A very astute and gentlemanly post; you made all the obvious points with subtlety. (I should work on that approach, some fine day.)

In the meantime, I'll say that your post and many others on this thread simply serve to reinforce my dim view of the selection process. Clearly, it's a mess.

Some will say "live with it", "that's how it's always been", etc., but that type of comment doesn't even constitute a genuine argument. All it signifies is (at best) a vicarious sense of satisfaction as to where one's team lands in the fiasco, or (at worst) a feeling of helplessness re: the unstoppable juggernaut that is the D-3 selection process. (Yes, certain Oswego trolls, that was sarcasm.)

D-1 football and hockey were once in the same boat, but people complained about that situation, and now we have the BCS and the PWR. (Yes, they are both imperfect metrics, but miles beyond whatever convoluted logic D-3 hockey employs.)

So, email your AD, or even several ADs..? The squeaky wheel is always a solid bet for attention, and the Omnipotent/Unaccountable Committee has gotten away with murder for far too long. I'm sure that they feel comfy in their dark little vacuum right now, but that can be changed.

I realize that one could likely ask 1,000 people on the street which team won the D-3 hockey title last year, and see 1,000 blank stares in response, but that isn't my point... The only aspect of this entire travesty that is truly galling is how unfair it all is to the players.

I doubt there is anyone on this board will say that the selection process is perfect. It's flawed, there is no doubt about that. Do you know why "The Oswego Trolls" have been on your case? It's because despite being one loss from being 4th place in a 5 team league, you were convinced Utica was getting Pool C. Until the last weekend, you seemed baffled that Utica wasn't being considered. Would Utica get in if there was a 16 team tournament? Yes. If the selection process was completely revamped to the way you think it should be, would Utica get into the current 11 team tournament? Not a chance. Bottom line: You want to get in? Win more games.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

A very astute and gentlemanly post; you made all the obvious points with subtlety. (I should work on that approach, some fine day.)

In the meantime, I'll say that your post and many others on this thread simply serve to reinforce my dim view of the selection process. Clearly, it's a mess.

Some will say "live with it", "that's how it's always been", etc., but that type of comment doesn't even constitute a genuine argument. All it signifies is (at best) a vicarious sense of satisfaction as to where one's team lands in the fiasco, or (at worst) a feeling of helplessness re: the unstoppable juggernaut that is the D-3 selection process. (Yes, certain Oswego trolls, that was sarcasm.)

D-1 football and hockey were once in the same boat, but people complained about that situation, and now we have the BCS and the PWR. (Yes, they are both imperfect metrics, but miles beyond whatever convoluted logic D-3 hockey employs.)

So, email your AD, or even several ADs..? The squeaky wheel is always a solid bet for attention, and the Omnipotent/Unaccountable Committee has gotten away with murder for far too long. I'm sure that they feel comfy in their dark little vacuum right now, but that can be changed.

I realize that one could likely ask 1,000 people on the street which team won the D-3 hockey title last year, and see 1,000 blank stares in response, but that isn't my point... The only aspect of this entire travesty that is truly galling is how unfair it all is to the players.

The point is that this system is the one that is used in all D3 sports. Unlike DI, where different sports have different ways of selecting teams for the National Championship - all D3 sports are mandated to use the same process. There will never be a process specifically tailored to hockey. The committee could and should adopt more transparent procedures, but the basic metrics and practices can only be changed if NCAA legislation changing selection rules for all sports are changed.

In addition - the BCS procedure is the worst possible procedure for selecting teams for a National Championship. The inclusion of the polls in the process, especially the coach's poll removes any objectivity from the process. I find it laughable that anyone would prefer that process to the one used in D3 hockey.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The point is that this system is the one that is used in all D3 sports. Unlike DI, where different sports have different ways of selecting teams for the National Championship - all D3 sports are mandated to use the same process. There will never be a process specifically tailored to hockey. The committee could and should adopt more transparent procedures, but the basic metrics and practices can only be changed if NCAA legislation changing selection rules for all sports are changed.

In addition - the BCS procedure is the worst possible procedure for selecting teams for a National Championship. The inclusion of the polls in the process, especially the coach's poll removes any objectivity from the process. I find it laughable that anyone would prefer that process to the one used in D3 hockey.

I am with you here. The willingness of a quasi-public enterprise to operate in stated secrecy (i.e. the final rankings never being made public) serves NO purpose than to undermine the integrity of the "process" and to promote ridicule. Yes, there is a time and place for secrecy even in public institutions, such as financial bidding, some personnel issues, etc, but there is NO place or justification for the childish, egotistical, - particularly since it is clearly used as a final step, to bend the otherwise established publically available critera.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I doubt there is anyone on this board will say that the selection process is perfect. It's flawed, there is no doubt about that. Do you know why "The Oswego Trolls" have been on your case? It's because despite being one loss from being 4th place in a 5 team league, you were convinced Utica was getting Pool C. Until the last weekend, you seemed baffled that Utica wasn't being considered. Would Utica get in if there was a 16 team tournament? Yes. If the selection process was completely revamped to the way you think it should be, would Utica get into the current 11 team tournament? Not a chance. Bottom line: You want to get in? Win more games.

Who said anything about Utica? They played their way out of contention some weeks ago, from anyone's perspective.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The point is that this system is the one that is used in all D3 sports. Unlike DI, where different sports have different ways of selecting teams for the National Championship - all D3 sports are mandated to use the same process. There will never be a process specifically tailored to hockey. The committee could and should adopt more transparent procedures, but the basic metrics and practices can only be changed if NCAA legislation changing selection rules for all sports are changed.

In addition - the BCS procedure is the worst possible procedure for selecting teams for a National Championship. The inclusion of the polls in the process, especially the coach's poll removes any objectivity from the process. I find it laughable that anyone would prefer that process to the one used in D3 hockey.

The BCS is pretty bad, but it compares favorably to what we're dealing with in D-3. (Alabama was not sent to a lesser team for a play-in game, for example.)

And I find any suggestion that the D-3 rules are sacrosanct laughable. They can do anything they like, whenever they like, to improve the situation... We're not talking about having to convene a Constitutional Convention.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The BCS is pretty bad, but it compares favorably to what we're dealing with in D-3. (Alabama was not sent to a lesser team for a play-in game, for example.)

And I find any suggestion that the D-3 rules are sacrosanct laughable. They can do anything they like, whenever they like, to improve the situation... We're not talking about having to convene a Constitutional Convention.

No, but they do have to pass through the NCAA Convention, which is just about as challenging a process. For the most part, football, basketball, baseball, soccer are happy with the rules they way they are. They have been tweaked in the last couple of years - introducing an SOS measure that combines OWP and OOWP, but the general process is the same as it has been for a while. I think that for accountability reasons, the final rankings should be reported, and I also think that ranking 1/3 of the teams in a region is too many - sometimes they really seem to be stretching to come up with the 11-15 slots in the East, for example. In the system they use, a win against #5 and a win against #15 (or against a team that fell out of the rankings) have the same effect on a team's credentials. Lots of things could be better, but it's just unlikely that there will be anything but incremental change - I understand there were some tweaks to the process this year that may or may not have been helpful.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

You would certainly know of these details better than I, but I'm not so sure that any earth-shaking meeting is required... ( D-1 hockey changed their TUC formula in mid-season last year with profound playoff implications, and without any fanfare/red tape.)

In an attempt to call the dogs off an errant trail, I'll say this:

1. Nothing personal intended, Prof. You're obviously a nice person, plenty smart, and a true fan of the game... But with all due respect, you seem determined to defend the indefensible. I don't believe for one second that you truly buy into the process, or consider it either equitable or immutable. (Not putting words in your mouth, just speculating here.)

2. Oswego trolls, it hasn't been about Utica for a while now; it's pretty-much always been about how ludicrous the process is. Kindly redirect your energy: you're barking up the wrong tree.

3. It doesn't have to stay this ridiculous forever. A little justified outrage is in order. (If I went to SNC I would be picketing somebody, somewhere, even though they survived the play-in... And I might have my panties in a bunch if I was a Hobart guy,too.)

At the very least, there should be no closed-room BS... Let the players decide things, not a few cloistered stuffed-shirts.

 

[DIIIFan]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I remember when we went to the finals against Platty in 87 and Don Unger saying that the NCAA will never allow 2 teams from the same conference the oppertunity to play for the NCAA Championship. Now if the stars and moons had been in order that would have happened last year. But since 87 it has't. For myself I think it is a good thing.
OSwego '89