Tournament Speculation Thread

[Scott Biggar]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I'm saying get rid of the at-large bids. You can't win your conference (however that is determined) you can't win a national title, even if your conference is way the heck better than some other conference who will send their champion.

So would there still be some kind of minimum conference size to be eligible to send a team to the national tournament?

If yes, then removing the at large bids would screw the teams left in small conferences. I think we can all agree that most of the conferences that have fallen below the current minimum number of teams in the last two decades are not through the fault of the teams that have remained, and yet they would be the ones hurt in this proposal.

If the answer to the above question is no, then this proposal would result in the existing larger conference splintering into many more smaller ones, thereby allowing more teams into the tournament.

I don't think the NCAA would ever agree to allowing the number of conferences dictate the number of NCAA tournament participants.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

So would there still be some kind of minimum conference size to be eligible to send a team to the national tournament?

If yes, then removing the at large bids would screw the teams left in small conferences. I think we can all agree that most of the conferences that have fallen below the current minimum number of teams in the last two decades are not through the fault of the teams that have remained, and yet they would be the ones hurt in this proposal.

If the answer to the above question is no, then this proposal would result in the existing larger conference splintering into many more smaller ones, thereby allowing more teams into the tournament.

I don't think the NCAA would ever agree to allowing the number of conferences dictate the number of NCAA tournament participants.

Grand fathering existing conferences and requiring all new startups to meet the minimum required size in effect at the time of application should prevent splintering and eliminating the at large pool C doesn't have to eliminate Pool B so as to allow a provision for independent teams to have a chance. Note that grand fathering existing conferences could create a two-school conference if the NCHA was around at the time, so it certainly has its complexities. That said, IMO, eliminating the at-large bids would be mor acceptable than involving a “secret” ranking into the process. Win and your in is always an acceptable method to qualify, being chosen in secret NEVER is, in fact, personally I would NOT lower myself to partake in the whims of a secret poll. A right to privacy such as a private individual casting a political vote is one thing, a quasi-public entity conducting business in secret, from which nothing positive can be gained from such secrecy is unconscionably wrong.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

So would there still be some kind of minimum conference size to be eligible to send a team to the national tournament?

If yes, then removing the at large bids would screw the teams left in small conferences. I think we can all agree that most of the conferences that have fallen below the current minimum number of teams in the last two decades are not through the fault of the teams that have remained, and yet they would be the ones hurt in this proposal.

If the answer to the above question is no, then this proposal would result in the existing larger conference splintering into many more smaller ones, thereby allowing more teams into the tournament.

I don't think the NCAA would ever agree to allowing the number of conferences dictate the number of NCAA tournament participants.

First of all, you are hanging out with Atlantic Hockey this weekend. You have no say in this matter.

Secondly, of course, there are logistical issues to be decided, and I certainly would not want a change like this (like it would ever happen anyway...) to be done carte blanche without any thought to the fallout.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

First of all, you are hanging out with Atlantic Hockey this weekend. You have no say in this matter.

Secondly, of course, there are logistical issues to be decided, and I certainly would not want a change like this (like it would ever happen anyway...) to be done carte blanche without any thought to the fallout.

Atlantic Hockey over the opportunity to hang with the Prez - bad option.

 

[jerrynu26]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I think Prez is already in Rochester.......

 

[LakerFan99]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Yes.

But if the conference wanted to forgo a tournament and just send their RS champion, I'm okay with that. Either way, I'm saying get rid of the at-large bids. You can't win your conference (however that is determined) you can't win a national title, even if your conference is way the heck better than some other conference who will send their champion.

I kind of agree and disagree with this. One of the nice things about having at large bids is that it introduces the option of having an underdog or a cinderella. You don't see it too much in D-III hockey, but think of a VCU or a Butler. Butler didn't play anyone good in the regular season, but made it to 2 straight final fours. Granted, they won their conference, but you get my point. If Oswego wins the RS title in the SUNYAC and a Buff State were to win the SUNYAC tourney, it's nice to see someone who's not expected to win get into the tourney.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I think Prez is already in Rochester.......

As is Scott Biggar

Though one is at the Blue Cross Arena & the other at Ritter

 

[Irishdave]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Thanks for taking the time between Mensa meetings to post.

I take it back I did not know he was clairvoyant. How did he knew I was a member?
BTW they only meet once a month here. The newsletter is quite good.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I take it back I did not know he was clairvoyant. How he knew I was a member?
BTW they only meet once a month here. The newsletter is quite good.

My chapter meets only by teleconference, I'd link their newsletter but it is encrypted

BTW, my favorite part of their page is the "Forgotten your password?" link!

 

[bakdraft21]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

whats Mensa LOL

 

[The Real Georgia Peach]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I used to be in MENSA but was thrown out for being a know-it-all....

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

I kind of agree and disagree with this. One of the nice things about having at large bids is that it introduces the option of having an underdog or a cinderella. You don't see it too much in D-III hockey, but think of a VCU or a Butler. Butler didn't play anyone good in the regular season, but made it to 2 straight final fours. Granted, they won their conference, but you get my point. If Oswego wins the RS title in the SUNYAC and a Buff State were to win the SUNYAC tourney, it's nice to see someone who's not expected to win get into the tourney.

On the other hand, if an AQ-only system had been in place this year, either Oswego or Plattsburgh would have been excluded, one way or the other... And most likely Oswego, since conference tournaments seem to be everyone's darlings.

I'm 100% certain that Laker fans would have a much different take on this whole all-AQ idea if their guys were polishing the golf clubs right now, instead of preparing to bring home another trophy.

 

[joecct]

I take it back I did not know he was clairvoyant. How did he knew I was a member?
BTW they only meet once a month here. The newsletter is quite good.

Was? As in you are no longer a MENSA member??

Do we now have definative proof that alcohol destroys brain cells??

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Yes.

But if the conference wanted to forgo a tournament and just send their RS champion, I'm okay with that. Either way, I'm saying get rid of the at-large bids. You can't win your conference (however that is determined) you can't win a national title, even if your conference is way the heck better than some other conference who will send their champion.

So you're saying that either Wentworth or Plymouth State deserved to eliminate either Oswego or Plattsburgh out-of-hand this year, in your scenario..? (Never mind the chaos that including mighty conference-champion Assumption would have added to the mix.)

That is patently ridiculous, Russ.

You back-pedal with the best of them, yes, but your time might be better-spent learning how to employ contractions.

 

[Irishdave]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

Was? As in you are no longer a MENSA member??

Do we now have definative proof that alcohol destroys brain cells??

No, I think it was 35 years of other people's children -------- wait what are we talking about?

 

[Ozz]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

So you're saying that either Wentworth or Plymouth State deserved to eliminate either Oswego or Plattsburgh out-of-hand this year, in your scenario..? (Never mind the chaos that including mighty conference-champion Assumption would have added to the mix.)

That is patently ridiculous, Russ.

You back-pedal with the best of them, yes, but your time might be better-spent learning how to employ contractions.

In Russ' scenario (which I tend to agree with) Plattsburgh would have eliminated Oswego, not Wentworth or Plymouth State.

No it not patently ridiculous because in Russ scneario, you win and you advance. Why do we even bother having a tournment if you're just going to advance the 'best' teams? If what you say is true, it was patently ridiculous that Neumann got a chance to play for the National Championship a few years ago. Was Neumann better than Oswego that year? Was Neumann better than Plattsburgh that year? Was Neumann better than St. Norbert that year? Probably not, just as Wentworth and Plymouth State are probably not as good as Oswego this year. So we should have just put Oswego, Plattsburgh, St. Norbert, and Norwich in Lake Placid that year and said sorry to Neumann.

I think what Russell is conveying that you are not understanding is that the conference tournaments would simply be an extension of the NCAA tournament. You could call it the NCAA tournament and just call each 'conference' a 'region' (i.e the SUNYAC region, the NESCAC region, the ECAC-W Region, etc.)

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: Tournament Speculation Thread

6 years ago we would have laughed at the MCHA as it would have been a guaranteed BYE week for who ever got to play them. The ECAC NE "COULD" get better in the years to come, just as the ECAC West COULD go down. Likely? Maybe not to an absolute extreme.

My only issue is, we want to see the "best" teams not only in the NCAA's but the Final Four and the Championship. If, for example, Oswego and Plattsburgh were to go 23-0-2, tieing the regular season matchups. Oswego and Plattsburgh both played the Easts 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th yadda yadda...and beat them 7-0, 8-0, 10-0....they face each other in the SUNYAC finals (back to a 2 game mini game) Tie both nights, tie the mini game, and someone wins in the 3rd overtime on a fluke goal. Now one team gets to go on and beat the rest of the teams, while the clear 2nd best team in the nation does not. I do not believe there is just ONE season which is what you propose. There are three...the Regular season, Conf Playoffs, and NCAA's.

Does Wentworth ect deserve a bid over Oswego? The same reason NO number 16 has EVER beaten a number 1 in the BB tourney. YES. Because you can't say one year the ECAC NE is no good, then what happens in 5 years when they go undefeated and beat several ranked teams. Same thing that goes for the ECAC West (if any when they get a bid)...what happens when they suck??

The system is not that broke and I will never be for a one formula - one way type of system. There is just too many ways for teams to circumvent the system, on purpose or not. By having several criteria, and subjectivity, it allows for a COMMITTEE to say "hey great record, but you played no one" or "you have some loses, but wow what team wouldn't have had that many loses". Obviously there is a middle ground. We cried and cried for years that the committee kept ignoring the criteria, now that they follow it, we cry they are??

I want to see THE BEST teams represented in the NCAA Tournament, not a team that got hot for one night. We need both. I think if the tourney were expanded to a 16 team league, that would probably make up the ratio of great to good teams, we would be a tad happier. Yes, "team 17 got screwed", would still come into play. Just like Drexel being the 69th team or first out of the NCAA got screwed, but like they had a chance? I don't think the 17th team in the DIII Hockey would have a chance, but the 12th could have, even the 13th and 14th probably.

 

[cetihcra]

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...

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

 

[norm1909]

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 -- a 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

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".

 

[bakdraft21]

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........