Tournament Speculation Thread

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Yes but Prof you are comparing two totally different playoff systems. If every school could play every school twice, Id have ZERO problem of a cut and dry best record wins. The numbers in DIII are pretty cut and dry with a little wiggle room. People make it sound like they take this team and or dont take this team because its personal. Its not. The numbers were there for UST. The numbers were there for Amherst over Plattsburgh. The numbers were there for SNC being the 5th overall seed and getting a play in game. If you go to a totally number based system it will be manipulated, period. You HAVE to leave SOME subjectivity in the process, and again if they were to list a top 15 do you want a 40 page paper the following dsy or released with the bracket as to why? Do you want a formula where its cut and dry and thats it? Sorry way too many poor leagues in DIII. If all leagues were equal and everyone played a similar sos maybe. How do you weigh owp and oowp and ooowp? At what point does SOS outweigh wins vs loses and wins loses vs who? I also agree that BB is way to big and that cuts down on how meaningful the reg season is. I LOVE the fact that when Plattsburgh goes to Norwich, Middlebury, Williams, Oswego ect mean SO much more then just a rival game. Even more for teams that only play a couple ranked teams a year (ala MCHA). I dont know there is just too many variables for one simple formula. It would be nice but we dont have enough ganes in region let alone out of region

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Yes but Prof you are comparing two totally different playoff systems. If every school could play every school twice, Id have ZERO problem of a cut and dry best record wins. The numbers in DIII are pretty cut and dry with a little wiggle room. People make it sound like they take this team and or dont take this team because its personal. Its not. The numbers were there for UST. The numbers were there for Amherst over Plattsburgh. The numbers were there for SNC being the 5th overall seed and getting a play in game. If you go to a totally number based system it will be manipulated, period. You HAVE to leave SOME subjectivity in the process, and again if they were to list a top 15 do you want a 40 page paper the following dsy or released with the bracket as to why? Do you want a formula where its cut and dry and thats it? Sorry way too many poor leagues in DIII. If all leagues were equal and everyone played a similar sos maybe. How do you weigh owp and oowp and ooowp? At what point does SOS outweigh wins vs loses and wins loses vs who? I also agree that BB is way to big and that cuts down on how meaningful the reg season is. I LOVE the fact that when Plattsburgh goes to Norwich, Middlebury, Williams, Oswego ect mean SO much more then just a rival game. Even more for teams that only play a couple ranked teams a year (ala MCHA). I dont know there is just too many variables for one simple formula. It would be nice but we dont have enough ganes in region let alone out of region

If you went to a quantitatively based system, everybody knows the ground rules going in. If We knew ahead of time that UST and Elmira were in the mix, wouldn't that have changed the mindsets of some other teams? If we have certainty and accountability, at least then there can't be cries of collusion when somebody is left out. Heck, I volunteer my computer rankings as fair and equitable - you could look at the standings and know who has what chances, and who needs to win.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

If you went to a quantitatively based system, everybody knows the ground rules going in. If We knew ahead of time that UST and Elmira were in the mix, wouldn't that have changed the mindsets of some other teams? If we have certainty and accountability, at least then there can't be cries of collusion when somebody is left out. Heck, I volunteer my computer rankings as fair and equitable - you could look at the standings and know who has what chances, and who needs to win.

But we did. Remember, the reason I said UST was going to get in is because a former committee member told me if you go by the criteria, UST is in. Guess what, they went by the criteria.

I wish things were less secret. I'm with Norm on that one. But, I, too, want a little subjectivity. Even if there was purely a number system, people would still complain. D-I hockey is very cut and dry and open. We all know who is getting in before it is announced, just not the match ups. Yet, we still hear a ton of complaints from the "17th" school.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

But we did. Remember, the reason I said UST was going to get in is because a former committee member told me if you go by the criteria, UST is in. Guess what, they went by the criteria.

I wish things were less secret. I'm with Norm on that one. But, I, too, want a little subjectivity. Even if there was purely a number system, people would still complain. D-I hockey is very cut and dry and open. We all know who is getting in before it is announced, just not the match ups. Yet, we still hear a ton of complaints from the "17th" school.

Exactly, it isn't "What they do", or "Why they do it", or for me, even "How they do it" - nothing is perfect - it is their "need" for secrecy - complete childish (or egotistical) BS.

 

[UCBadger]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Exactly, it isn't "What they do", or "Why they do it", or for me, even "How they do it" - nothing is perfect - it is their "need" for secrecy - complete childish (or egotistical) BS.

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!

Silly, I am a Plattsburgh fan, not an OZ fan.

Ok, maybe this week, since they will be representing the SUNYAC

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

D-I hockey is very cut and dry and open. We all know who is getting in before it is announced, just not the match ups. Yet, we still hear a ton of complaints from the "17th" school.

Actually, we don't...

As the season winds down, anyone with the time and the desire to do so may look at the PWR and figure out exactly what will happen to any particular team under any combination of circumstances. Ergo, there is remarkably little criticism leveled at the selection process, because it's no secret what is required to get in the field. What bitterness there is is pretty-much reserved for coaches, refs,The Gods, etc.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

The bloated DI basketball field is an example of what happens when the field gets exp anded. Since the purpose of the tournament is to determine a national champion, the only teams that should be crying are those that have a legitimate chance at the title, and the field goes way beyond that. If there are 35 (or so, I don't know, and don't really care the exact number) at large berths, the team that is number 36 shouldn't be complaining - there is no way that they should be competing for a national championship.

I tend to agree with you in principle on this one. (...But then again, who saw Virginia Commonwealth advancing to the FF last year from a play-in game?)

I despise AQs in general- they tend to render the bulk of the season moot -but I'd be able to live with them more comfortably if they were only awarded to the RS champions of the anointed conferences. To hand 'em out like candy to whomever has a hot weekend is the kind of cheap gimmick that should be the sole domain of a TV-driven sport such as D-1 hoops.

Having said that, I must point out that D-1 basketball awards 51% of its berths to AQs, while D-3 hockey thus earmarks 64% of their field... This sort of thing is even more egregiously cynical/absurd in the latter case, where there is no NCAA money to be made, and therefore absolutely no *apparent* reason to do it.

I say: go with something like KRACH, or your ranking-system (either will work for me), and let the kids decide it on the ice.

 

[jerrynu26]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I tend to agree with you in principle on this one. (...But then again, who saw Virginia Commonwealth advancing to the FF last year from a play-in game?)

I despise AQs in general- they tend to render the bulk of the season moot -but I'd be able to live with them more comfortably if they were only awarded to the RS champions of the anointed conferences. To hand 'em out like candy to whomever has a hot weekend is the kind of cheap gimmick that should be the sole domain of a TV-driven sport such as D-1 hoops.

Your beef is not with the NCAA on this. It is the conferences themselves decide how to pick them team selected for the AQ, not the NCAA. If they wanted, they could pick the RS champion, and have the playoffs omitted, or hold them for fun. All the NCAA has to do with the AQ's is verify the conference meets the eligibility for an AQ.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Your beef is not with the NCAA on this. It is the conferences themselves decide how to pick them team selected for the AQ, not the NCAA. If they wanted, they could pick the RS champion, and have the playoffs omitted, or hold them for fun. All the NCAA has to do with the AQ's is verify the conference meets the eligibility for an AQ.

Back in the day when there were only four DI leagues and 12 teams in the NCAAs, the NCAA gave a bid to both the regular season champ and the playoff champ of each league. Then along came the MAAC, later to become "Atlantic" Hockey (how can a league with Air Force Academy call itself "Atlantic"?), and the CHA to mess that process up. Although they joined later, more evidence that it is all RIT's fault.

 

[Dyce]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Your beef is not with the NCAA on this. It is the conferences themselves decide how to pick them team selected for the AQ, not the NCAA. If they wanted, they could pick the RS champion, and have the playoffs omitted, or hold them for fun. All the NCAA has to do with the AQ's is verify the conference meets the eligibility for an AQ.

It's also worth noting that this option has been exercised in the past in at least one instance. Back when the NESCAC only allowed its members to participate in one postseason tourney, this was exactly how they made their selection.

 

[Ozz]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I tend to agree with you in principle on this one. (...But then again, who saw Virginia Commonwealth advancing to the FF last year from a play-in game?)

I despise AQs in general- they tend to render the bulk of the season moot -but I'd be able to live with them more comfortably if they were only awarded to the RS champions of the anointed conferences. To hand 'em out like candy to whomever has a hot weekend is the kind of cheap gimmick that should be the sole domain of a TV-driven sport such as D-1 hoops.

Having said that, I must point out that D-1 basketball awards 51% of its berths to AQs, while D-3 hockey thus earmarks 64% of their field... This sort of thing is even more egregiously cynical/absurd in the latter case, where there is no NCAA money to be made, and therefore absolutely no *apparent* reason to do it.

I say: go with something like KRACH, or your ranking-system (either will work for me), and let the kids decide it on the ice.

You are contradicting yourself because you said you dislike the AQs and yet you want to let 'the kids decide it on the ice'. Well the AQs DO let the kids decide it on the ice. Would never happen, but I think it would be cool if the NCAA field was 9 teams with the winner of the each conference tourny getting in. No need for rankings, committees, Josh Carey, etc...

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Actually, we don't...

As the season winds down, anyone with the time and the desire to do so may look at the PWR and figure out exactly what will happen to any particular team under any combination of circumstances. Ergo, there is remarkably little criticism leveled at the selection process, because it's no secret what is required to get in the field. What bitterness there is is pretty-much reserved for coaches, refs,The Gods, etc.

I never said we hear criticism of the process. I said we hear complaints from the "17th school."

So, actually we do.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I despise AQs in general- they tend to render the bulk of the season moot -but I'd be able to live with them more comfortably if they were only awarded to the RS champions of the anointed conferences. To hand 'em out like candy to whomever has a hot weekend is the kind of cheap gimmick that should be the sole domain of a TV-driven sport such as D-1 hoops.

I hate to break it to you, but the AQ is decided by the conference NOT the NCAA.

It is the conference that can decide whether the RS champion gets the AQ. It is the conference that can decide whether the playoff champion gets the AQ. Heck, the conference can select the AQ based on a straw poll for all the NCAA cares.

All the NCAA does is give an AQ to the conference. The conference decides how it is handed out.

I'm all in favor of the AQ. In fact, I would love to totally eliminate the at-large bids. That's right, you heard me correctly. If you can't win in the playoffs, you don't deserve another playoff chance. One and done -- that's what playoffs is all about. The D1 BB conference playoffs are a complete joke because it doesn't matter whether you win your conference or not. Why even both having them -- other than to make money for the conference...

 

[spwood]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Why even both having them -- other than to make money for the conference...

Ding, ding, ding!!!!! Give that man a cigar!

Seriously, though, you honestly think Plymouth St. deserves a shot at the national title and Oswego deserved to have its season end in early March? I think you deserve whatever happens to you if you need an at-large bid to get in the NCAA, but there should be at-large bids.

Another conversation, though, is strength of schedule. I know the almighty ECAC-West is hands down the best conference in God's universe, but that's partially because they only have five teams. If you only took the top five teams in each conference and eliminated those games against the cellar-dwellers, wouldn't every conference have an other-worldly strength of schedule. I know this only works when all five teams are pretty good (which is the case in the ECAC West), but the more teams the conference has, the more impossible it becomes to compete with the smaller conference, right? Add say Scranton, Lebanon Valley and newcomer Nazareth to the conference, is there any chance the other teams still have the best strength of schedules in the country?

 

[spwood]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

(how can a league with Air Force Academy call itself "Atlantic"?)

Hey, the Air Force flies over all of the oceans - they cover all of the possibilities!

 

[OZFEST]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I hate to break it to you, but the AQ is decided by the conference NOT the NCAA.

It is the conference that can decide whether the RS champion gets the AQ. It is the conference that can decide whether the playoff champion gets the AQ. Heck, the conference can select the AQ based on a straw poll for all the NCAA cares.

All the NCAA does is give an AQ to the conference. The conference decides how it is handed out.

I'm all in favor of the AQ. In fact, I would love to totally eliminate the at-large bids. That's right, you heard me correctly. If you can't win in the playoffs, you don't deserve another playoff chance. One and done -- that's what playoffs is all about. The D1 BB conference playoffs are a complete joke because it doesn't matter whether you win your conference or not. Why even both having them -- other than to make money for the conference...

So you would rather not see Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Syracuse in this years NCAA Hoops Tourney?

 

[OZFEST]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Originally Posted by NUProf
(how can a league with Air Force Academy call itself "Atlantic"?)

Hey, the Air Force flies over all of the oceans - they cover all of the possibilities!

Same reasoning behind Boise State in the Big Ea$t

 

[Ozz]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

So you would rather not see Kentucky, South Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Syracuse in this years NCAA Hoops Tourney?

Did South Carolina really just ge lumped into the same group as Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, and Syracuse? Now THAT is funny...

 

[OZFEST]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Did South Carolina really just ge lumped into the same group as Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, and Syracuse? Now THAT is funny...

My Bad- NORTH Cacka-lacky. Or I should say 'Heel' not a 'Cock'