Frozen 8 Playoffs

[binnyrus]

Championship playoff format . . .

I went to coach Miller's chalk talk prior to the Mankato series. At that time she said the 8 team playoff was to go like this:

1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v geographically closest
and so on based on geography.

Apparently this is to keep cost down. Needless to say she's not happy about this because that would put UMD against Wisconsin (given status quo in the rankings)- an early match-up that would eliminate one of the top 4.

Any one else heard this, or have reaction to it?

[dave1381]

I've also heard that, but I don't believe it's accurate.

This is what it says in the handbook, verbatim:
The Women’s Ice Hockey Committee will seed the selected participants as follows:
1. Teams will be seeded at the time of selection. The committee will not reseed during the tournament.
2. The highest-seeded team will be the home team in each contest.
Pairings shall be based primarily on the teams’ geographical proximity to one
another, regardless of their region, in order to avoid air travel in preliminary
rounds whenever possible. Teams’ seeding relative to one another may be
taken into consideration when establishing pairings if such a pairing does
not result in air travel that otherwise could be avoided. The NCAA Division
I Championships/Competition Cabinet shall have the authority to modify its
working principles related to the championship site assignment on a case-bycase basis.
The way I read this, and what I've always understood, is that the top four teams will be seeded and get to host. If they're only going to seed the top two teams (and it's standard practice in the majority of NCAA tournaments to seed only the top quarter of the bracket, see soccer, field hockey, etc.), then that's news to me. But going by the handbook, they say there is a "higher-seeded team" in each matchup, thus four teams have to be seeded. (The idea behind seeding teams is that you don't have seeded teams playing each other until as late as possible, so no 3 vs. 4 matchups if you seed four teams). But also, there aren't any other 8-team tourneys right now, so they don't have any precedent to go by. But in every other tourney in the country at least four teams are seeded (even if it's a four-team tourney) and in most tournaments it's only a quarter of the bracket that's seeded, if it's a 16+ team tournament. The idea that any sport would expand it's bracket and have the number of seeded teams cut in half is ludicrous.

Anyway, the way I also interpret the handbook is that the top four teams would be seeded, and everything else would be subject to geography. So you could get a 3 vs. 5, 4 vs. 6 first round or a 2 vs. 6, 3 vs. 7, 1 vs. 8 first round, but you wouldn't get a 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6 first round. Swapping seeds like that is certainly common in other tournaments, in the men's when you seed teams in each region, you're defining teams as 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, and there's no requirement that 1 plays 8 instead of 7 or 6, so that's to be expected.

Bottom line, the No. 2 team in the WCHA will get Wisconsin if Wisconsin doesn't finish in the top four, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Wisconsin does finish in the top four and doesn't get to host, then something's seriously wrong.

[binnyrus]

Bottom line, the No. 2 team in the WCHA will get Wisconsin if Wisconsin doesn't finish in the top four, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Wisconsin does finish in the top four and doesn't get to host, then something's seriously wrong.

The coach was very clear in stating that only the top two teams would play as seeded. She was rather animated about it . . . and was hoping that clearer thinking would prevail.

Why have an 8 team tournament if you're not going to play it that way? Isn't the goal to get the top 4 teams to the final??? It's hard to see Wisconsin losing any more games to teams below them, so I do anticipate a top 4 seed.

Minnesota, Dartmouth, UMD and Wisconsin have proven to be the top 4 teams throughout the season . . . I think the NCAA would be shooting itself in the foot should two of the top 4 play each other prior to the frozen four.

[bulldogfan]

That's ridiculous. @#$%ing NC$$'s. They take something that good for womens hockey (expanding the field to 8) and then they end up making things worse than what they were the previous 4 years. Nice job :mad:

[dave1381]

It's hard to see Wisconsin losing any more games to teams below them, so I do anticipate a top 4 seed. Minnesota, Dartmouth, UMD and Wisconsin have proven to be the top 4 teams throughout the season . . ..
You're assuming Wisconsin has to lose to someone below them to have Harvard, St. Lawrence or Mercyhurst pass them. You're wrong. All those teams can pass Wisconsin (though probably only one will) with a better RPI and better record in Last 16 games. And remember Wisconsin plays Ohio State - they lost to them once already. And losing to teams above you, which Wisconsin will unless they win the WCHA, does hurt you in the PWR too.

I think Wisconsin deserves the No. 4 ranking in the polls right now, but they've left the door open for other teams to pass them in the PWR because they didn't play a stronger nonconference schedule. Yes, they beat Harvard once, but that alone plus a 1-6-1 record vs. Minnesota and UMD is not enough to guarantee their status as a top four seed in the current system. You need more wins against those 5-12th ranked teams or so. The record vs. teams above .500 category kills Wisconsin every season. Mark Johnson can rationalize his schedule all he wants, but unless the system gets changed, he's going to get screwed by it every year.

[binnyrus]

Can't disagree with that . . .

[dave1381]

The coach was very clear in stating that only the top two teams would play as seeded. She was rather animated about it . . . and was hoping that clearer thinking would prevail.

Well, I questioned the first post from the beginning because I don't think there's any chance that the committee is guaranteeing 1 v 8 and 2 v 7. If 7 and 8 are very close in the criteria, and swapping them would be better for geography and avoiding an intraconference matchup, then of course they're going to do 1 v 7 and 2 v 8. That's why I was saying the Hockey East champ is virtually guaranteed a date with Dartmouth if Dartmouth is No. 2.

[dave1381]

But also, there aren't any other 8-team tourneys right now, so they don't have any precedent to go by.
Actually, come to think of it, when men's lacrosse was 12 teams I'm pretty sure they still had four teams seeded.

Does anyone know of an NCAA sport where fewer than four teams are seeded?? I don't think there any, so this would be quite a new era of cheapness on the NCAA's part if this stuff about seeding only two teams is true.

[171]

If you are Providence or UNH...you should be playing Minnesota. Mercyhurst should be playing Dartmouth. For a one game knockout, playing close to home makes good financial sense in having Prov/UNH play Dartmouth and Mercyhurst play Minnesota. However, if I am the coach of Providence, UNH or Mercyhurst, I would rather be playing Dartmouth because I have played them during the season and I have some knowledge of their systems, etc that I can work on. With Minnesota I have nothing except a possible spanking.
IMO 1st vs 8th and 2nd vs 7th, etc, etc, regardless of cost.

[LakersFan]

Does anyone know of an NCAA sport where fewer than four teams are seeded??

Well, the only sport I can come up with is Div I-A football, which really doesn't help the discussion at all. Women's field hockey in Div II takes 6 teams, but the top teams from each region are seeded. Div. II Women's Lacrosse only takes 4, as do the men. Women's Hockey has nothing to compare with.

However, it states clearly in the Div I-AA football manual that the top four teams are seeded, then the rest placed by geographical proximity. Since the Women's hockey manual only talks about geographical proximity, we may have a situation in which we have two "west" regional quaterfinals (3 WCHA and Merychurst) and two "east" regional quaterfinals (3 ECAC and Hockey East).

Look, I am just happy that 8 teams make it in. I would be surprised if the top 8 did not consist of Minn, UMD, Wisc, Dartmouth, Harvard, St. Law., Mercyhurst and the winner of the Hockey East postseason tournement. Each team knows they need to win three games, regardless of location. I don't think we will be debating the 7th/8th team in unless Princeton pulls some upsets. Run a zambonni over one of the Great Lakes and lets play hockey.

"We play to win the game" - Herman Edwards

[dave1381]

Look, I am just happy that 8 teams make it in.
I'm not. You want the best four teams to be in your championship. If what Miller said is true, than it could guarantee that the four teams the NCAA believes to the best do not play in the championship. (Granted other sports, like women's soccer every year, guarantee this by seeding the top 16 of 64 teams in a totally incompetent way, but at least they try.) If women's hockey doesn't guarantee the top four teams don't play each other in the first round, it looks inferior to every other NCAA sport from my point of view.

[dave1381]

IMO 1st vs 8th and 2nd vs 7th, etc, etc, regardless of cost.
Demanding 1 v. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 is just not in line with reality. No NCAA tournament larger than four teams is fully seeded like that, not even men's basketball (although it is seeded within each region). Seeding the top four teams and arranging the others based on some combination of geography, merit, and avoiding intraconference matchups is in line with what most every other NCAA tournament gets. Seeding only two teams, what Miller described, is worse than what every other NCAA tournament gets.

[binnyrus]

If anyone else has the opportunity to go to a coach's "chalk talk" (I believe MN is also doing some of this), AND if there's a Q/A period, jump in and ask the question. It would be nice to know if there's any consistency in how the coaches view how the 8 team format is supposed to work.

[dave1381]

well, no... just listen/read any coach interviews... how many times have you heard a coach say, "I want to be one of the top four teams that gets home ice." this year. I know Bob Deraney has said that several times. I think others have as well. If what Miller says is true, D-I women's hockey coaches have been played for fools all year that a top four spot will get you home ice.

[CrimsonFan79]

Question: Why don't the women follow the men's selection criteria by assuring tournament champions a spot in the Final Eight (even though the men are now the Final 12)? Suppose UNH finishes first in Hockey East but loses to Providence in the tournament final. According to the rankings, Providence doesn't make the Final Eight unless it finishes first. The men do not guarantee first place finishers a spot in the tournament but do reward tournament winners. Cornell had to sweat it out a few years ago in 2002 when Harvard beat them in the ECAC tournament final. They were not a lock to get invited to the NCAAs even though they finished first in the regular season.

Also, I'm not convinced Harvard is a lock to make the Final 8 as their record outside the conference is 1-5-1. All five losses have been on home ice which really hurts. Unless we beat Dartmouth during the regular season and win the tournament, it is conceivable that we could be left out. If this were the men, they definitely would be left out given their record and assuming they don't win the tournament.

[dave1381]

CrimsonFan79 - Women's hockey now gives autobids to conference postseason champions and no one else, just like the men now They didn't do it before this season becaues the tournament was only four teams, and giving three autobids would take away just about all importance from the season. I like it that way. Teams that win their regular season titles and not their postseason titles can get in at-large like anyone else if they deserve it.

As for Harvard's NCAA prospects, they certainly aren't a lock to make it at-large, but they certainly are on pace to make it. You don't seem to be too familiar with the NCAA selection criteria, so take a look at the Pairwise Rankings on USCHO which simulate the criteria, and provide explanations. The breakdown of nonconference vs. conference games doesn't matter a bit, a game is a game is a game. Why should one type of game be more important than the other when picking teams for a national tournament? Your condemnation of Harvard's nonconference play ignores they're superb 10-1-1 performance within the conference. Home vs. road also doesn't matter a bit in the eyes of the NCAA. And I don't think most teams have much of a home ice advantage in women's hockey, with a few exceptions (see UNH), so I don't think it should matter too much, also note that Harvard played a far tougher home nonconference schedule than anyone in the country. Your claim that they'd be left out if this was the men is inaccurate, because the women and men have pretty close to the same selection criteria, and it was exactly the same back in 2001.

[unofan]

Not really sure what your beef is...

The automatic bids for the ECAC/WCHA/HEA are going to the tournament winners as far as I know. And regardless, the NCAA just gives bids to the conferences, the conferences themselves decide how to award them.

And the men's tournament is 16 teams, not 12.

[binnyrus]

Relevant story from today's Duluth News-Tribune:

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/sports/10794365.htm

[dave1381]

Well, the only sport I can come up with is Div I-A football, which really doesn't help the discussion at all. Women's field hockey in Div II takes 6 teams, but the top teams from each region are seeded. Div. II Women's Lacrosse only takes 4, as do the men. Women's Hockey has nothing to compare with.
I am right that there were no NCAA D-I championships (in head-to-head, team sports) last calender year with fewer than four seeded teams, and I don't care what D-II and D-III do. That is what Stotts, etc. should be petitioning about. Asking for the entire bracket to be seeded is out of line, because no other bracket is fully seeded at the national level.

[unofan]

Relevant story from today's Duluth News-Tribune:

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/sports/10794365.htm

BTW, the UMD mom who is citing Title IX as a reason to avoid this is barking up the wrong tree. Seeding and travel expenses have nothing to do with gender equity.

Of course, she's probably the same mom who went to court to have the Minn girls high school tournament moved to the X like the boys tournament rather than Ritter.