Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

  1. #21
    gfmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    7,830

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    I'll disagree with OP, because the amount of OOC are unevenly distributed. Yes, a Bradley-Terry method (e.g., KRACH) can work to help even that out, but it's still working with an uneven distribution.

    You could construct a scenario (whether it's a good one matters about how you feel about the leagues of smaller schools) where each league gets two bids: one for the regular season champion, one for the conference tournament champion, with two potential twists:

    1. If the RS champ wins the tournament, they get a first-round bye.
    2. If the RS champ wins the tournament, another at-large team can be added to the tournament.

    Is starting a tournament with four at-large bids and four teams from AHC and WCHA likely to fly? Prooooobably not, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

    GFM
    Geof F. Morris
    UAH BSE MAE 2002
    UAHHockey.com

  2. #22
    Black Bear since D-2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Central New York
    Posts
    3,737

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by FredsDeadFriend View Post
    I think its ridiculous that Regular Season Champs are ever excluded from the NCAA tourney. But I also understand that the conf tourney's need incentives for teams to want to win and fans to want to care about going to those tourney's, so the conf tourney champs should also get into the NCAA tourney.

    There are what now, 6 conferences? How often do all 6 regular season champs lose in the conf tourney's? Maybe the tourney should be expanded to 18 or 20 teams? Let in both the regular season and conf tourney champs, and that would allow for at least 6 non champs in the tourney every season, if not more. There could literally be 12 non champs get in, although unlikely. On average I would guess 9. How many get in now? 10 non conf tourney champs get in, but how many of those 10 didn't win their conf regular season?

    I think expansion to 18 teams is the only way to do things just right. But I doubt the NCAA cares about such things. Everything is about the money these days.
    The entire AQ-travesty seems to be about aping the NC$$ hoops model... Problem is, college hockey isn't a cash-cow at any level, and it's seriously moronic to apply that model here. There is absolutely no justification for that, no matter how you care to slice it.

    (And, lest anyone think that I have an ax to grind, I literally grew-up in the Air Force, but the Air Force simply didn't deserve a berth this year... I just want objective metrics from top to bottom, and no free passes.)
    Last edited by Fishman'81; 03-20-2018 at 08:14 PM.

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,496

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by ticapnews View Post
    I guess Minnesota wasn't that good.
    Well it looks like they were 9th in Krach. I don't get into the intricacies of the models, but a lot of people think Krach is more accurate indicator of a team the RPI.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Weston
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by gfmorris View Post
    I'll disagree with OP, because the amount of OOC are unevenly distributed. Yes, a Bradley-Terry method (e.g., KRACH) can work to help even that out, but it's still working with an uneven distribution.

    You could construct a scenario (whether it's a good one matters about how you feel about the leagues of smaller schools) where each league gets two bids: one for the regular season champion, one for the conference tournament champion, with two potential twists:

    1. If the RS champ wins the tournament, they get a first-round bye.
    2. If the RS champ wins the tournament, another at-large team can be added to the tournament.

    Is starting a tournament with four at-large bids and four teams from AHC and WCHA likely to fly? Prooooobably not, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

    GFM
    I like the idea of RS and Playoff Champ getting auto-bids. But I'd change your twists. If the RS Champ wins is also the Playoff Champ, the Playoff Runner-up gets the other bid.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,142

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    Well it looks like they were 9th in Krach. I don't get into the intricacies of the models, but a lot of people think Krach is more accurate indicator of a team the RPI.
    AIC was #1 in the BUTTITCH which many people are saying is the most accurate of them all. They have received exactly as many invitations to the 2018 NCAA Tournament as Minnesota.

  6. #26
    UR▼ UncleRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    SoPo
    Posts
    6,127

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy View Post
    You know, all a team has to do is win. 16 teams make it, if your team can't qualify, then they weren't all that good to begin with.
    I love it when people have the balls to sling poo that could end up on their face and not care.
    bigmrg74: "You can't drink the day away if you don't start early!"
    SledDog: "UncleRay seems to be the most sensible one here tonight."
    All great men are dead and I'm not feeling well.
    A Margarita! in every hand and another Margarita! in the other hand!

    And stay off the lawn!

  7. #27
    gfmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    7,830

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
    The entire AQ-travesty seems to be about aping the NC$$ hoops model... Problem is, college hockey isn't a cash-cow at any level, and it's seriously moronic to apply that model here. There is absolutely no justification for that, no matter how you care to slice it.
    I'll present a counter-argument: if the NCAA's goal is to have more schools at varying sizes and in varying geographies make the men's D-I tournament, they have a vested interest in propping up smaller conferences to provide new and smaller schools with a way to prove their mettle. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference/Atlantic Hockey and College Hockey America would not have come into being without the opportunity to get automatic qualifiers (or, in the CHA's case, a promise of it if they could hold on for five years to get approval). Who does that affect?

    Alabama-Huntsville: CHA > WCHA
    Bemidji State: CHA > WCHA (before realignment)
    Connecticut: MAAC/AHC > HE
    Quinnipiac: MAAC/AHC > ECAC

    This also doesn't fully consider that schools from those two small conferences have done well in the NCAAs:

    BSU: Third-place finish in their penultimate CHA season; they won three of the last six tournament titles and made the NCAAs as an at-large bid in 2009-2010
    Niagara: Defeated UNH in 1999-2000 after winning the CHA regular season and conference tournament titles and making the NCAAs as an at-large bid
    RIT: Third-place team in 2009-2010 in just their fifth Division I season

    Of the 15 teams (25%) who are or were in one of these two leagues, only Air Force, AIC, Army, Holy Cross, and Sacred Heart were Division I independents for any length of time immediately prior to the formation of those leagues. Alabama-Huntsville, Bemidji State, Bentley, Mercyhurst, and Quinnipiac were all in Division II (as was Minnesota State!); Canisius, Connecticut, and RIT were in Division III; and Robert Morris and Niagara was created from whole cloth. (Note that Arizona State and Penn State are not in this list as they weren't even in one of these conferences.)

    Simply put, more AQs = more teams in D-I. More teams mean more scholarships and more opportunities for young men to get an education and maybe make the NHL. While it is true that the top talent still goes to the higher-profile leagues, there is an increasing amount of AHL-and-higher talent coming out of these schools.

    I believe that removal of the AQ would cause as many as 10 teams to drop the sport.

    GFM
    Geof F. Morris
    UAH BSE MAE 2002
    UAHHockey.com

  8. #28
    gfmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    7,830

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by pdt1081 View Post
    I like the idea of RS and Playoff Champ getting auto-bids. But I'd change your twists. If the RS Champ wins is also the Playoff Champ, the Playoff Runner-up gets the other bid.
    I wouldn't want to reward the runner-up above a potential at-large. Second place is the first loser.

    GFM
    Geof F. Morris
    UAH BSE MAE 2002
    UAHHockey.com

  9. #29
    I got nothing Slap Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines
    Posts
    29,700

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by ticapnews View Post
    I guess Minnesota wasn't that good.
    Did he suggest otherwise?

  10. #30
    R!!!!...I!!!!!...T!!!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by FredsDeadFriend View Post
    Maybe the tourney should be expanded to 18 or 20 teams?
    I think expansion to 18 teams is the only way to do things just right. But I doubt the NCAA cares about such things. Everything is about the money these days.
    The NCAA Men's Hockey Tournament already has more teams in it than they would be allowed by usual NCAA minimum guidelines of approximately 1 tournament team for every 7 teams in the sport. By that, hockey should only get 8 or 9 (8.6, exactly) teams in the tournament. So increasing the tournament size even more beyond 16 is probably unlikely.
    Can't we all just get along?
    Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

  11. #31
    R!!!!...I!!!!!...T!!!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by gfmorris View Post
    BSU: Third-place finish in their penultimate CHA season; they won three of the last six tournament titles and made the NCAAs as an at-large bid in 2009-2010
    RIT: Third-place team in 2009-2010 in just their fifth Division I season
    Third Place? Did they re-institute the consolation game at the FF in 2009 and 2010 and I missed it? Cause I saw BSU and RIT lose in the Semis and both left town shortly thereafter.
    Can't we all just get along?
    Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

  12. #32
    Made in the USA
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    44,496

    My team got screwed! thread

    Isn't this thread mis-titled, and should be "My team got screwed!"?
    It was an honor to present your colors, RPI. Let's Go 'TUTE!
    May 14th, 2011, 11:00 PM ET: 2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    I'm not happy about it either, but Flag is correct (cue the Twilight Zone music!).
    Quote Originally Posted by French Rage View Post
    Ahh crap I agree exactly with what FlagDude said.
    Quote Originally Posted by jericho on rpitv's chat
    I never thought I would say this, but you are right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    And yet, even if Flaggy is complete tinfoil hat, every day it looks closer and closer to the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    So flaggy: you win.

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    33,921

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Want to make life interesting? Each league gets 1 bid.

    Right now the NCAA would be
    SCSU
    ND
    NMU
    AFA
    BU
    Princeton

    Wednesday nite
    AFA v NMU
    PU v BU

    Thursday
    AFA/NMU v SCSU
    PU/BU v ND

    Saturday
    Finals

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Ugh. Badgerland.
    Posts
    1,284

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Want to make life interesting? Each league gets 1 bid.

    Right now the NCAA would be
    SCSU
    ND
    NMU
    AFA
    BU
    Princeton

    Wednesday nite
    AFA v NMU
    PU v BU

    Thursday
    AFA/NMU v SCSU
    PU/BU v ND

    Saturday
    Finals
    I don't recall the 'Cats winning anything this year
    MTU Hockey fan since I was carried to a game in 1986 - for those counting... that's a lot of depressing hockey. Still love it.

    Surrounded by Badger Red in Wisconsin. Such an ugly color, but the beer and cheese are delicious...

    2014-15 WCHA (*Regular season portion) Pick-em Champion (**Forgeting a Week Methodology)

  15. #35
    cetihcra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Denver, Colorado -- VT awhile back
    Posts
    2,474

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Want to make life interesting? Each league gets 1 bid.

    Right now the NCAA would be
    SCSU
    ND
    NMU
    AFA
    BU
    Princeton

    Wednesday nite
    AFA v NMU
    PU v BU

    Thursday
    AFA/NMU v SCSU
    PU/BU v ND

    Saturday
    Finals
    Princeton isn't in if SCSU is in, or vice versa. How are you selecting these teams?

    r

  16. #36
    gfmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    7,830

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
    Third Place? Did they re-institute the consolation game at the FF in 2009 and 2010 and I missed it? Cause I saw BSU and RIT lose in the Semis and both left town shortly thereafter.
    I was just marking down information from USCHO and not spending the time trying to run stuff like that to ground.

    GFM
    Geof F. Morris
    UAH BSE MAE 2002
    UAHHockey.com

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    33,921
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinwi View Post
    I don't recall the 'Cats winning anything this year
    brain fart - MTU.
    brain fart 2 - DU

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    33,921
    Quote Originally Posted by cetihcra View Post
    Princeton isn't in if SCSU is in, or vice versa. How are you selecting these teams?

    r
    try this again. I upgafuked the conference champs.
    B1G - ND
    NCHC - DU
    HEA - BU
    ECAC - PU
    WCHA - MTU
    AHA - AFA

    Byes - ND & DU
    QF - BU/AFA and PU/MTU
    SF ND v PU/MTU & DU v BU/AFA
    F semi winners

  19. #39
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,281

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by gfmorris View Post
    You could construct a scenario (whether it's a good one matters about how you feel about the leagues of smaller schools) where each league gets two bids: one for the regular season champion, one for the conference tournament champion, with two potential twists:

    1. If the RS champ wins the tournament, they get a first-round bye.
    2. If the RS champ wins the tournament, another at-large team can be added to the tournament.
    Quote Originally Posted by pdt1081 View Post
    I like the idea of RS and Playoff Champ getting auto-bids. But I'd change your twists. If the RS Champ wins is also the Playoff Champ, the Playoff Runner-up gets the other bid.
    Back in 1994 Colorado College rose from last place the the previous season to win the WCHA regular season, but after being upset in the WCHA quarterfinals 2 games to 1, they were not selected for the NCAA tournament. There was much complaining about how autobids were awarded and how the regular season champion deserved an autobid. Supposedly the committee then added a "CC Rule" that the RS champion of each league would always be selected until the NCAA learned of the rule and let it be known that each league was to get only one autobid, determined by each league. I have no idea if such a rule was ever invoked, but no regular season champion missed the tournament until the formation of the MAAC in 1998-99, when no MAAC team made the NCAA tournament. The following season the CHA was formed and Niagara won the regular season and tournament titles and made the NCAA field as an at-large team. Then in 2001 Clarkson won the ECAC regular season, was upset in the quarterfinals 2 games to 1 and missed the NCAA tournament.

    As for byes, the NCAA tournament had them from 1988 through 2002. In 1988 no teams won both league titles, in 1989 only one did, in 1990 all four did and in 1991 three teams did. Of the 8 teams only one, Clarkson in 1991, failed to get a bye. Again there was much complaining about how a regular season and tournament champion deserved a bye, with many calling for a "Clarkson Rule" to insure that would happen. To my knowledge no such rule was ever invoked by the committee, but no other double champion from Hockey East, ECAC, CCHA or WCHA missed the bye until Michigan in 2002. Niagara (CHA, 2000) and Mercyhurst (MAAC, 2001) also won both leagues titles, but did not receive byes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
    The entire AQ-travesty seems to be about aping the NC$$ hoops model... Problem is, college hockey isn't a cash-cow at any level, and it's seriously moronic to apply that model here. There is absolutely no justification for that, no matter how you care to slice it.
    Actually you have it backwards, since the automatic qualifiers in the basketball tournament are not the ones bringing in the money, it is the at-large teams from the power conferences that bring in the money. In fact, with 32 automatic qualifiers in the men's basketball tournament they could eliminate 36 teams from the tournament, but again, there would go the money.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfmorris View Post
    Simply put, more AQs = more teams in D-I. More teams mean more scholarships and more opportunities for young men to get an education and maybe make the NHL. While it is true that the top talent still goes to the higher-profile leagues, there is an increasing amount of AHL-and-higher talent coming out of these schools.
    This is currently happening in men's DI lacrosse. Just eight years ago there were only six conferences with autobids (the ACC was to small) and 60 teams. This year there are ten conferences (including the ACC) with autobids and 71 teams, with 2 more programs starting up next year.

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
    The NCAA Men's Hockey Tournament already has more teams in it than they would be allowed by usual NCAA minimum guidelines of approximately 1 tournament team for every 7 teams in the sport. By that, hockey should only get 8 or 9 (8.6, exactly) teams in the tournament. So increasing the tournament size even more beyond 16 is probably unlikely.
    It is much closer to 1 in 5 in men's basketball (68 out of 351, or 19.37%), so that would be back to 12 teams for hockey. However, the NCAA uses different numbers for different sports, so that is not a fixed ratio. For example, in men's lacrosse the NCAA had a 16 team tournament for 60 teams in 2010, slightly more than 1 out of 4 teams. With expansion to 71 teams they originally added 2 teams to go to 18, but dropped one and now have 17 teams, slightly less than 1 out of 4. In field hockey it is an 18 team field for 78 teams overall, just over 23%, or slightly less than 1 out of 4 teams and women's ice hockey has 8 out of 36 teams, 22%. So well men's hockey has one of the highest ratios, if not the highest, it is not as far out of wack as you make it seem.

    But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

    Sean
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

    Watch BU Hockey highlights
    NCAA Hockey Financials
    Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

  20. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    779

    Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    It is much closer to 1 in 5 in men's basketball (68 out of 351, or 19.37%), so that would be back to 12 teams for hockey. However, the NCAA uses different numbers for different sports, so that is not a fixed ratio. For example, in men's lacrosse the NCAA had a 16 team tournament for 60 teams in 2010, slightly more than 1 out of 4 teams. With expansion to 71 teams they originally added 2 teams to go to 18, but dropped one and now have 17 teams, slightly less than 1 out of 4. In field hockey it is an 18 team field for 78 teams overall, just over 23%, or slightly less than 1 out of 4 teams and women's ice hockey has 8 out of 36 teams, 22%. So well men's hockey has one of the highest ratios, if not the highest, it is not as far out of wack as you make it seem.

    But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

    Sean
    64 out of 297 baseball teams make the CWS, that's 21.5%, even more than men's hoops

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •