FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
FYP, and should answer your question.
FYP, and should answer your question.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
- Thread starter Numbers
- Start date
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
All good points. But if "attendance" (and let's not forget it's not just a "generic" term...it translates to actual PEOPLE) is not a priority, what does that say about the organization? Again, I use the basketball analogy. I cite statistics. If you give two teams 200 "scoring plays," the sample size is sufficient to say with a degree of certainty that the more talented team will win MOST of the time. That's just not the case in hockey. There may only be ONE goal scored in the entire game. With a sample size that small, the bracket "integrity" is just not that much of an issue IMO. Not enough to give it a HIGHER priority than, say, attendance. Just look at the banter on this board about how close all these games are projected to be. In the NCAA basketball tournament, a #16 seed has NEVER beaten a #1 seed since they went to the "expanded" format of 4,237 teams. It's like apples and oranges. These games, for the most part, are great games EVERY year. There are hardly any blowouts anymore. Why would you want to play in an empty arena just to preserve "bracket integrity?" I'm not saying make a #2 seed play a #3 seed in the first round. But what's the point? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound? Or more to the point, does it matter? If the fans can't go to the games, WHO CARES who wins? There...I said it. Is this going to become like "Rollerball" where everyone watches Jonathan smashing people in the face on TV while the corporate minions watch from their luxury boxes because nobody can afford to go? For the most part, these schools aren't going to travel nationally. Again, hockey is a REGIONAL sport. I don't care if some kid in Arizona makes it to Division 1...are you going to put a regional in Phoenix? I just don't get it. This drives me nuts every year. And I live within driving distance of FIVE regular regional sites. It's not about ME. It's about the FAN EXPERIENCE.
All good points. But if "attendance" (and let's not forget it's not just a "generic" term...it translates to actual PEOPLE) is not a priority, what does that say about the organization? Again, I use the basketball analogy. I cite statistics. If you give two teams 200 "scoring plays," the sample size is sufficient to say with a degree of certainty that the more talented team will win MOST of the time. That's just not the case in hockey. There may only be ONE goal scored in the entire game. With a sample size that small, the bracket "integrity" is just not that much of an issue IMO. Not enough to give it a HIGHER priority than, say, attendance. Just look at the banter on this board about how close all these games are projected to be. In the NCAA basketball tournament, a #16 seed has NEVER beaten a #1 seed since they went to the "expanded" format of 4,237 teams. It's like apples and oranges. These games, for the most part, are great games EVERY year. There are hardly any blowouts anymore. Why would you want to play in an empty arena just to preserve "bracket integrity?" I'm not saying make a #2 seed play a #3 seed in the first round. But what's the point? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound? Or more to the point, does it matter? If the fans can't go to the games, WHO CARES who wins? There...I said it. Is this going to become like "Rollerball" where everyone watches Jonathan smashing people in the face on TV while the corporate minions watch from their luxury boxes because nobody can afford to go? For the most part, these schools aren't going to travel nationally. Again, hockey is a REGIONAL sport. I don't care if some kid in Arizona makes it to Division 1...are you going to put a regional in Phoenix? I just don't get it. This drives me nuts every year. And I live within driving distance of FIVE regular regional sites. It's not about ME. It's about the FAN EXPERIENCE.
Last edited:
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
NO....I didn't (or else you don't know how to make your point very well). The NCAA seems to do just fine with other events. But I just don't think they understand hockey. So explain to me how the NCAA basketball tournament is "poorly executed" or how the NCAA golf tournament is "poorly executed" or how the NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships are "poorly executed." Do they put the water polo championships in Boston? Why not? We have millions of water polo players here. Are you getting it yet?
NO....I didn't (or else you don't know how to make your point very well). The NCAA seems to do just fine with other events. But I just don't think they understand hockey. So explain to me how the NCAA basketball tournament is "poorly executed" or how the NCAA golf tournament is "poorly executed" or how the NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships are "poorly executed." Do they put the water polo championships in Boston? Why not? We have millions of water polo players here. Are you getting it yet?
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
You can't make people travel hundreds (or thousands) of miles three times in one month. The events should be LOCAL until the fan base is large enough to support decent attendance (which will probably never happen, hence my first sentence).
You can't make people travel hundreds (or thousands) of miles three times in one month. The events should be LOCAL until the fan base is large enough to support decent attendance (which will probably never happen, hence my first sentence).
John J. MacInnes
Coach Emeritus
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Finally, you have a salient point.
What works in the basketball tournament is immaterial. Basketball teams can move in and out of locker rooms with much greater ease than hockey teams, and don't require resurfacing of their playing surface. And locker room facilities are a non-issue for golf or swimming/diving.
Once I saw this claim about "millions" of water polo players in Boston, that explained your arguments. I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate.
Finally, you have a salient point.
What works in the basketball tournament is immaterial. Basketball teams can move in and out of locker rooms with much greater ease than hockey teams, and don't require resurfacing of their playing surface. And locker room facilities are a non-issue for golf or swimming/diving.
Once I saw this claim about "millions" of water polo players in Boston, that explained your arguments. I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Too many good posts to know which one to quote to start this comment.
OP here.
As to "bracket integrity" as it relates to this discussion... Strict bracket integrity is a myth. It is true that we need PWR and RPI to select the field. No one disagrees with that - hockey is too difficult a sport to use any sort of eye test with if you want to choose the best teams, and everyone agrees we want an objective rather than subjective way to choose the teams for the tournament.
But, for bracketing purposes, I would guess that if someone went back and changed even one win to a tie or one tie to a win among the teams ultimately ranked 8 - 15 in this year's PWR, that you would get a big difference in the rankings. Think about what that means.... One penalty called or uncalled in the first 1/4 or a 3rd period that led to a goal (or didn't). One lucky save or lucky bounce. Any of those things vastly changes the overall seeding. It defies logic to assume that the original seeding are that definite that a reasonable committee can't adjust a little without destroying "bracket integrity."
That's why if I proposed a system, I would do this:
Round One - Top 8 host at home.
Round Two - 2 games at a West Region, and 2 at an East Region. One Saturday, one Sunday (or Friday and Saturday).
Round Two traveling fans get a week without travel. They can see 2 games easily. One hotel overnight max, so less expense.
And, the bracket design would place the best chance of West teams in the West, and East teams in the East.
So, this year, I would have the same Round One games as we see. For Round Two I would move the Omaha/Harvard winner to the east to play the BU/Yale winner. So, the bracket would be: MSUM/RIT v MTU/SCSU; UND/PC v UMD/UMn; BU/Yale v Harvard/Omaha; Miami/QU v DU/BC with the first two games in the West.
The Nat'l Semis would be: MSUM bracket v Miami bracket (as currently).
It should normally be possible to do something similar.
Too many good posts to know which one to quote to start this comment.
OP here.
As to "bracket integrity" as it relates to this discussion... Strict bracket integrity is a myth. It is true that we need PWR and RPI to select the field. No one disagrees with that - hockey is too difficult a sport to use any sort of eye test with if you want to choose the best teams, and everyone agrees we want an objective rather than subjective way to choose the teams for the tournament.
But, for bracketing purposes, I would guess that if someone went back and changed even one win to a tie or one tie to a win among the teams ultimately ranked 8 - 15 in this year's PWR, that you would get a big difference in the rankings. Think about what that means.... One penalty called or uncalled in the first 1/4 or a 3rd period that led to a goal (or didn't). One lucky save or lucky bounce. Any of those things vastly changes the overall seeding. It defies logic to assume that the original seeding are that definite that a reasonable committee can't adjust a little without destroying "bracket integrity."
That's why if I proposed a system, I would do this:
Round One - Top 8 host at home.
Round Two - 2 games at a West Region, and 2 at an East Region. One Saturday, one Sunday (or Friday and Saturday).
Round Two traveling fans get a week without travel. They can see 2 games easily. One hotel overnight max, so less expense.
And, the bracket design would place the best chance of West teams in the West, and East teams in the East.
So, this year, I would have the same Round One games as we see. For Round Two I would move the Omaha/Harvard winner to the east to play the BU/Yale winner. So, the bracket would be: MSUM/RIT v MTU/SCSU; UND/PC v UMD/UMn; BU/Yale v Harvard/Omaha; Miami/QU v DU/BC with the first two games in the West.
The Nat'l Semis would be: MSUM bracket v Miami bracket (as currently).
It should normally be possible to do something similar.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Somehow, I'd think they'd make the round 2 games be Friday and Sunday. After all, squeaky does Saturday and Monday.
Somehow, I'd think they'd make the round 2 games be Friday and Sunday. After all, squeaky does Saturday and Monday.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
It is possible. In fact...it's been done before. See, we can learn from history. In the "old days" (at least in the East), we had the old ECAC Tournament. Teams would host the first round in their own rink. Then we had the semis on Friday and the final on Saturday at Boston Garden. The tournament winner would get an automatic bid to the Final Four. The committee would select the second team to represent the East. So you had fans (of the bottom half of the seedings, of course) traveling to ONE location ONE time. (Note: the "week off" in between is a result of the NCAA not wanting to put the Hockey "Frozen Four" up against the bouncy ball "Final Four" the same weekend, so I don't think there is much that can be done about that. But according to your scenario, this is a good thing, since it gives fans that "week off" from travel) Then you had the Final Four. That was it. Done.
You can't paint every sport with the same brush, and, as you say, this color suits hockey the best, IMO.
It is possible. In fact...it's been done before. See, we can learn from history. In the "old days" (at least in the East), we had the old ECAC Tournament. Teams would host the first round in their own rink. Then we had the semis on Friday and the final on Saturday at Boston Garden. The tournament winner would get an automatic bid to the Final Four. The committee would select the second team to represent the East. So you had fans (of the bottom half of the seedings, of course) traveling to ONE location ONE time. (Note: the "week off" in between is a result of the NCAA not wanting to put the Hockey "Frozen Four" up against the bouncy ball "Final Four" the same weekend, so I don't think there is much that can be done about that. But according to your scenario, this is a good thing, since it gives fans that "week off" from travel) Then you had the Final Four. That was it. Done.
You can't paint every sport with the same brush, and, as you say, this color suits hockey the best, IMO.
Last edited:
My comment about it being was in regards to adjusting the brackets so there might be decent draws in both Regions.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
But that's why I was describing. "Back then," the East regional was only teams from the East, and the West regional only teams from the West. Nobody was flying cross-country to appease bracket integrity. This is essentially what you are accomplishing. It's like in MLB before they had inter-league play. Part of the intrigue was playing against a team you had never seen from a region whose teams you hadn't played. At least for me. I liked it that way.
But that's why I was describing. "Back then," the East regional was only teams from the East, and the West regional only teams from the West. Nobody was flying cross-country to appease bracket integrity. This is essentially what you are accomplishing. It's like in MLB before they had inter-league play. Part of the intrigue was playing against a team you had never seen from a region whose teams you hadn't played. At least for me. I liked it that way.
John J. MacInnes
Coach Emeritus
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
The first year of the expanded 8 team tournament was 1981. Here were the matchups:
Wisconsin at Clarkson
Michigan Tech at Providence
Cornell at Northern Michigan
Colgate at Minnesota
The first year of the expanded 12 team tournament was 1992. Michigan State and Wisconsin played in the East Regional, Clarkson played in the West Regional.
What's also similar about those two years? The eastern teams got all ****y because the Final Four ended up being all western teams.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
The first year of the expanded 8 team tournament was 1981. Here were the matchups:
Wisconsin at Clarkson
Michigan Tech at Providence
Cornell at Northern Michigan
Colgate at Minnesota
The first year of the expanded 12 team tournament was 1992. Michigan State and Wisconsin played in the East Regional, Clarkson played in the West Regional.
What's also similar about those two years? The eastern teams got all ****y because the Final Four ended up being all western teams.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
I didn't say anything about an "expanded" format. I'm talking WAY before then (you know, 1970s?) "East was East and West was West and never the twain shall meet" - Gene Pitney
For example...after quarterfinal games in home rinks of higher-seeded teams...
<u>Quarterfinals - March 8, 1977</u>
Clarkson 6 - Providence 3
UNH 4 - Brown 3
Cornell 7 - RPI 5
BU 8 - BC 7
(last time I checked all these teams were from the EAST, but maybe you know geography better than I)
<u>Semi-Finals at Boston Garden - March 11, 1977</u>
UNH 10 - Cornell 9 (2 OT)
BU 7 - Clarkson 6
<u>Finals at Boston Garden - March 12, 1977</u>
BU 8 - UNH 6 - Championship
Cornell 5 - Clarkson 4 - Consolation
Got it yet?
I didn't say anything about an "expanded" format. I'm talking WAY before then (you know, 1970s?) "East was East and West was West and never the twain shall meet" - Gene Pitney
For example...after quarterfinal games in home rinks of higher-seeded teams...
<u>Quarterfinals - March 8, 1977</u>
Clarkson 6 - Providence 3
UNH 4 - Brown 3
Cornell 7 - RPI 5
BU 8 - BC 7
(last time I checked all these teams were from the EAST, but maybe you know geography better than I)
<u>Semi-Finals at Boston Garden - March 11, 1977</u>
UNH 10 - Cornell 9 (2 OT)
BU 7 - Clarkson 6
<u>Finals at Boston Garden - March 12, 1977</u>
BU 8 - UNH 6 - Championship
Cornell 5 - Clarkson 4 - Consolation
Got it yet?
Last edited:
Ok. Got it. What I am proposing is not that strict. I want to keep the Top 8 nationwide as hosts for Round One, and simply adjust the bracket a little so the local fan interest is MORE LIKELY, not guaranteed, to have local draws, in Round Two.
Some fans might still need to fly. I am assuming they traveled to the conference finals. So they get a week off. And we hope they are not all flying across the country.
scoreboard
Registered User
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
I'm trying to follow along but I'm a little confused. The above tournament was the ECAC tournament for that year. Of course the teams were all from the east. It was the only eastern conference at the time. There are now three. The tournament had nothing to do with the NCAA's (except for the selection of the NCAA representatives from the east) so it would have been impossible to have a western team involved. Not sure how it relates to the situation of today.
I'm trying to follow along but I'm a little confused. The above tournament was the ECAC tournament for that year. Of course the teams were all from the east. It was the only eastern conference at the time. There are now three. The tournament had nothing to do with the NCAA's (except for the selection of the NCAA representatives from the east) so it would have been impossible to have a western team involved. Not sure how it relates to the situation of today.
Crimson on the Glass
New member
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Having the top two ECAC teams represent the whole of the East in the Frozen Four seems appealing to me, but it's not really very fair these days, is it? Some pretty good teams like BU, for example, are no longer in the ECAC, as I understand it.
John J. MacInnes
Coach Emeritus
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
Yeah, chuckles, I got it that you found results OF A CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT.
I agree that those should be local.
Yeah, chuckles, I got it that you found results OF A CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT.
I agree that those should be local.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
The point is that the tournament STARTED with eight teams (just like most leagues will include their top eight teams, except for Hockey East which now includes all 400 of their teams in the post-season tournament). Of course, you have to have more than eight now, because you have three leagues (in the East). What I'm saying is that the "final" regional tournament could have eight teams, with the first round at campus sites and the semis and finals at ONE regional location. Same thing in the West. So you have 32 teams (16 from the West and 16 from the East), you pare that down to TWO in each region. Those two go to the Frozen Four. YES...you don't have "crossover." I am advocating going back to true "Regional" regionals, so that you could cut back on travel (and I realize you wouldn't cut back AS MUCH in the West, but we can't do anything about the fact that that part of the country is more "spread out").
For example...we could have something like this (using today's teams - and I'm only going to use the East for brevity):
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<td><b>Hockey East</b></td>
<td><b>Atlantic</b></td>
<td><b>ECAC</b></td>
<td><b>Wild Card</b></td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>BU</td>
<td>Canisius</td>
<td>Harvard</td>
<td>Providence</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>UNH</td>
<td>Mercyhurst</td>
<td>St. Lawrence</td>
<td>BC</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lowell</td>
<td>RIT</td>
<td>Colgate</td>
<td>Cornell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Vermont</td>
<td>Robert Morris</td>
<td>Quinnipiac</td>
<td>Yale</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
How the leagues choose their four representatives is their business. The point is, you would have 12 teams plus 4 wild cards. The top eight would play on campus sites (higher seeded team). In the 2nd round, you would again play on campus sites and finally, the semis and finals would go to one REGIONAL location which could be rotated each year. You would come out with two teams. Doing the same in the West would give you your Frozen Four.
(sorry...I don't know where the big "gap" came from...I simply inserted an HTML table...
)
The point is that the tournament STARTED with eight teams (just like most leagues will include their top eight teams, except for Hockey East which now includes all 400 of their teams in the post-season tournament). Of course, you have to have more than eight now, because you have three leagues (in the East). What I'm saying is that the "final" regional tournament could have eight teams, with the first round at campus sites and the semis and finals at ONE regional location. Same thing in the West. So you have 32 teams (16 from the West and 16 from the East), you pare that down to TWO in each region. Those two go to the Frozen Four. YES...you don't have "crossover." I am advocating going back to true "Regional" regionals, so that you could cut back on travel (and I realize you wouldn't cut back AS MUCH in the West, but we can't do anything about the fact that that part of the country is more "spread out").
For example...we could have something like this (using today's teams - and I'm only going to use the East for brevity):
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<td><b>Hockey East</b></td>
<td><b>Atlantic</b></td>
<td><b>ECAC</b></td>
<td><b>Wild Card</b></td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>BU</td>
<td>Canisius</td>
<td>Harvard</td>
<td>Providence</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>UNH</td>
<td>Mercyhurst</td>
<td>St. Lawrence</td>
<td>BC</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lowell</td>
<td>RIT</td>
<td>Colgate</td>
<td>Cornell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Vermont</td>
<td>Robert Morris</td>
<td>Quinnipiac</td>
<td>Yale</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
How the leagues choose their four representatives is their business. The point is, you would have 12 teams plus 4 wild cards. The top eight would play on campus sites (higher seeded team). In the 2nd round, you would again play on campus sites and finally, the semis and finals would go to one REGIONAL location which could be rotated each year. You would come out with two teams. Doing the same in the West would give you your Frozen Four.
(sorry...I don't know where the big "gap" came from...I simply inserted an HTML table...
)
Last edited:
The point is that the tournament STARTED with eight teams (just like most leagues will include their top eight teams, except for Hockey East which now includes all 400 of their teams in the post-season tournament). You don't have to have all eight teams from the same league. What I'm saying is that the "final" regional tournament could have eight teams, with the first round at campus sites and the semis and finals at ONE regional location. Same thing in the West. So you have 32 teams (16 from the West and 16 from the East), you pare that down to TWO in each region. Those two go to the Frozen Four. YES...you don't have "crossover." I am advocating going back to true "Regional" regionals, so that you could cut back on travel (and I realize you wouldn't cut back AS MUCH in the West, but we can't do anything about the fact that that part of the country is more "spread out").
For example...we could have something like this (using today's teams - and I'm only going to use the East for brevity):
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<td>Hockey East</td>
<td>Atlantic</td>
<td>ECAC</td>
<td>Wild Card</td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>BU</td>
<td>Vermont</td>
<td>New Hampshire</td>
<td>Lowell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>RIT</td>
<td>Canisius</td>
<td>Mercyhurst</td>
<td>Robert Morris</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Harvard</td>
<td>Quinnipiac</td>
<td>St. Lawrence</td>
<td>Colgate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Providence</td>
<td>Holy Cross</td>
<td>Yale</td>
<td>Cornell</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
How the leagues choose their four representatives is their business. The point is, you would have 12 teams plus 4 wild cards. The top eight would play on campus sites (higher seeded team). In the 2nd round, you would again play on campus sites and finally, the semis and finals would go to one REGIONAL location which could be rotated each year. You would come out with two teams. Doing the same in the West would give you your Frozen Four.
(sorry...I don't know where the big "gap" came from...I simply inserted an HTML table...
Absolutely hate this.
First, we can only have 16 teams by NCAA rule.
Second, we want the top 16, and we need to use an objective system like the PWR.
I think we can use those 16 teams and have Round One hosted on campus by the higher seeds. And then Round Two at neutral sites. One East and one West, chosen by prior bids. But the brackets need some adjustment. They don't need to be strict serpentine. And, it should still be possible to have east v west in each round.
Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?
You're entitled to your opinion. When I said 32, the first two round(s) would be handled by each league, so it's not part of the NCAA Tournament. You would end up with 8 from the East and 8 from the West.
Yes, obviously, I am not in favor of a crossover. That's my opinion. I liked it better when they were separate. (sorry that the teams were in the wrong columns...I didn't have a chance to edit it before you responded)
You're entitled to your opinion. When I said 32, the first two round(s) would be handled by each league, so it's not part of the NCAA Tournament. You would end up with 8 from the East and 8 from the West.
Yes, obviously, I am not in favor of a crossover. That's my opinion. I liked it better when they were separate. (sorry that the teams were in the wrong columns...I didn't have a chance to edit it before you responded)