Tournament Speculation Thread

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Enough already with this crap...........put all the teams names in a hat and pull'em out,the first 8 or so get to play........

As long as it is done publicly (televised Selection Show) - I prefer that over collusion (aka "secrecy")!

 

[Ozz]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Good proof that the AQ doesn't do much to ensure the "THE BEST teams are represented in the NCAA Tournament". Eliminate the AQ if a conference title (and banner) aren't enough to ensure a fight to the conference finish then too bad.

Eliminate the AQ, add in the post season results, and PUBLICLY choose the "THE BEST teams to compete in the NCAA Tournament".

I dsiagree. Eliminating the AQs and choosing "the best" teams to compete becomes far too subjective.

 

[Ozz]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I want to see THE BEST teams represented in the NCAA Tournament, not a team that got hot for one night.

We should add 2 "Pool D" bids. The Pool D bids would be awarded to two teams after the Round of 8 who were already eliminated. This would make the field at Lake Placed 6 teams and this also ensures that just in case Wentworth had one hot night, Norwich would still make it to Placid...because I want to see the "THE BEST" teams represented in Lake Placid.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I dsiagree. Eliminating the AQs and choosing "the best" teams to compete becomes far too subjective.

True, if you ignore the stats/performace, but establish a ranking based on performance (kept in line by OWP & OOWP) and you can make it black & white. Would the existing performance criteria suffice? No, but could sufficent performance criteria be devoloped? Yes.

 

[PSUChamps2001]

We should add 2 "Pool D" bids. The Pool D bids would be awarded to two teams after the Round of 8 who were already eliminated. This would make the field at Lake Placed 6 teams and this also ensures that just in case Wentworth had one hot night, Norwich would still make it to Placid...because I want to see the "THE BEST" teams represented in Lake Placid.

No its my point we should all go back to 2/mini or 3 game series in both playoffs and NCAAs

 

[joecct]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Good proof that the AQ doesn't do much to ensure the "THE BEST teams are represented in the NCAA Tournament". Eliminate the AQ if a conference title (and banner) aren't enough to ensure a fight to the conference finish then too bad.

Eliminate the AQ, add in the post season results, and PUBLICLY choose the "THE BEST teams to compete in the NCAA Tournament".

Then the 100's of student-athletes who compete in the WIAC, MASCAC, MCHA, and ECAC-NE plus the bottom feeders in the rest of the conferences may as well punt.

Did you know that there is approximately a 50% turnover in the tournament participants every year? The repeaters can be considered the "elite" programs and usually make it to the National semifinals. For the others, there is the thrill of having a shot (slim) of catching lightning in a bottle.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Then the 100's of student-athletes who compete in the WIAC, MASCAC, MCHA, and ECAC-NE plus the bottom feeders in the rest of the conferences may as well punt.

Did you know that there is approximately a 50% turnover in the tournament participants every year? The repeaters can be considered the "elite" programs and usually make it to the National semifinals. For the others, there is the thrill of having a shot (slim) of catching lightning in a bottle.

Ok, I'll buy that - we live in the 21st century, the century of letting the fans decide (ala American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and countless other franchises) let the NCAA open up the voting to pick 2 teams from the list "bottom feeders" for the NCAA play-ins, that ought to enhance "the thrill of having a shot (slim) of catching lightning in a bottle", and still make sure the top 8 of "THE BEST teams" get in.

 

[Dyce]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I agree, I would rather they eliminate AQs and pick the best field possible. A true National Championship tournament, rather than a tournament of conference champions. The NCAA has gone somewhere in the middle, with their AQs and Pool-C picks, and that's just fine -- at the end of the day, I've never been able to say "That National Champion doesn't deserve it".

Without Pool-C bids, Oswego and Plattsburgh wouldn't have won recent Championships, as both were at-large entrants in their 2007 and 2001 respective title runs. Did they not deserve to be there?

r

Well, Plattsburgh did actually win the 'YAC in '01 (beat Potsdam on Sunday back when the finals were a full three-game series), but yeah, that Oswego team looms large.

 

[Dyce]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Also, am I understanding correctly in that an AQ-only tournament would render the entire non-conference schedule (comprising over half of the season for some teams) irrelevant beyond the location of one game per team (an important game, but still)?

 

[cetihcra]

Well, Plattsburgh did actually win the 'YAC in '01 (beat Potsdam on Sunday back when the finals were a full three-game series), but yeah, that Oswego team looms large.

Ohhhhh, my bad -- I went back and looked at game results and saw a Potty win and forgot they did a series back then!

r

 

[NUProf]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Ohhhhh, my bad -- I went back and looked at game results and saw a Potty win and forgot they did a series back then!

r

I would like to see the league tournaments go to a series system - 2/3 preferred but the mini game possible series is better than an one game playoff. Maybe if the Pool C selections are based on regular season play only - the problem with the current system that is overlooked is that in leagues like the ECAC E, in which everybody gets in - the number 1 seed takes a hit in their SOS metric up until the finals - Norwich's SOS was hurt by having to play UNE in the first round and USM in the semis.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I dsiagree. Eliminating the AQs and choosing "the best" teams to compete becomes far too subjective.

You still just don't seem to understand the distinction between the concepts of "objective" and "arbitrary"...

For the 1,000,000th time, an AQ being assigned a berth by dint of a pre-ordained mandate (such as conference affiliation) is an "arbitrary" thing, while a team getting one via a metric that holds each and every team up to the same exact yardstick is more along the lines of an "objective" process, political divisions notwithstanding.

Do you follow?

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I would like to see the league tournaments go to a series system - 2/3 preferred but the mini game possible series is better than an one game playoff. Maybe if the Pool C selections are based on regular season play only - the problem with the current system that is overlooked is that in leagues like the ECAC E, in which everybody gets in - the number 1 seed takes a hit in their SOS metric up until the finals - Norwich's SOS was hurt by having to play UNE in the first round and USM in the semis.

That's an excellent point.

D-3 seems to want to have it both ways; they (maybe) use a few objective metrics as loosely as they care to, but they don't own-up to any accountability for the final tweaking of the selections....And to consider the window-dressing that are conference-tournaments as the be-all/end-all in 68% of the cases is absurd.

I shot my way through two semesters of statistics many years ago, but I don't consider a thorough layer of pertinent numbers to necessarily constitute "dam*ed lies"...

I will say this: use any measure that is blind to prejudice decide the field, change the D-3 Charter to allow that, and if any school that grosses three million in tuition per year balks at the travel expenses incurred, then let the president of the institution in question visit his team's locker room to break the news to the guys, at the risk of death by blunt trauma.

Please!

 

[Irishdave]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

This has been shot down before,
but if we were to divide the east region into two regions, have each region hold a tournament and send one team, with an at large team from the host region, to the final four
I think we could cut down travel costs and ensure a larger gate for the final four.(each region would host every third year)
Yes it is St Patrick's day and maybe I have had a couple.

 

[Irishdave]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Looks like the NCAA committee picked "right" the #1s in both regions are meeting for the championship.(just happens that they are #2 and #5 in the last D3 pole)

NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS

MEN 

Rank
EAST	 	 	 
1	Oswego State
2	Norwich
3	Amherst
4	Plattsburgh State	
5	Elmira	
6	Bowdoin	
7	Neumann	
8	Hobart	
9	Utica	
10	Middlebury	
11	Manhattanville	
12	Williams		
13	Castleton		
14	Wentworth Institute	
15	Buffalo State	
WEST	 	 	 
1	St. Norbert	
2	Gustavus Adolphus	
3	Wisconsin-Stevens Point	
4	St. Scholastica	
5	St. Thomas (Minn.)	
6	St. Olaf	
7	Wisconsin-River Falls

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Looks like the NCAA committee picked right the #1s in both regions are meeting for the championship

NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS

MEN 

Rank
EAST	 	 	 
1	Oswego State
2	Norwich
3	Amherst
4	Plattsburgh State	
5	Elmira	
6	Bowdoin	
7	Neumann	
8	Hobart	
9	Utica	
10	Middlebury	
11	Manhattanville	
12	Williams		
13	Castleton		
14	Wentworth Institute	
15	Buffalo State	
WEST	 	 	 
1	St. Norbert	
2	Gustavus Adolphus	
3	Wisconsin-Stevens Point	
4	St. Scholastica	
5	St. Thomas (Minn.)	
6	St. Olaf	
7	Wisconsin-River Falls

Seeing how Norwich played the Went/Plym winner, Norwich was the #1 E seed, Oswego was #2...

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Looks like the NCAA committee picked "right" the #1s in both regions are meeting for the championship.(just happens that they are #2 and #5 in the last D3 pole)

NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS

MEN 

Rank
EAST	 	 	 
1	Oswego State
...

How did you get your hands on the final (secret) rankings

I can understand why they want to keep them secret - they didn't change anything - they are the same as the last public rankings

 

[Irishdave]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

How did you get your hands on the final (secret) rankings

I can understand why they want to keep them secret - they didn't change anything - they are the same as the last public rankings

Oops This is the last published rankings sorry