Bracketology: March 5, 2008

[USCHO Newsbot]

With the question of Minnesota Duluth's eligibility resolved, Jayson Moy returns with an updated Bracketology.

Read more at uscho.com ...

[DaveD]

I don't know what you have against UNH, you keep saying that you don't have it in for them, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you keep icing them.

Why would you send UNH packing and keep BC in Worcester? UNH is a #1 seed! BC is a #3 seed. BC should be sent packing. It can't be due to attendance because UNH can bring as many fans as BC if not more to Worcester.

And what is it with you wanting to avoid the intraconference match ups with the WCHA. You have said it before. That rule doesn't apply when you have more than 5 in the tourney. I've said it before. That's the price you pay when you have 7 (oops, sorry, 8) in the tourney. They are going to have to play each other.

This is fun isn't it?

[undatsc2007]

Nice article Jason. Its getting quite interesting with 8 WCHA teams in there. What if the selection committee somehow did avoid all intraconference matchups? We could see an all WCHA Elite 8, topping the 2005 WCHA Frozen Four!

[nbetweennownthen]

8 WCHA teams is a joke. Congrats....they all beat up on each other during the season. Sure...let's reward that by putting three JOKES of teams into the tourney (Minn, Wisc, and UM-D). If these three get selected as at-large teams, I'm done with college hockey, because then, at the end of the day, it's no more subjective than the BS BCS or worse, figure skating.

[RedFrog]

West Regional:
15 Bemidji State vs. 1 North Dakota
12 Minnesota vs. 5 Colorado College

That would not be keeping the integrity of the bracket. Ah, but alas, I'm sure that's why you went with the first bracket instead of the 2nd.

[Brickman]

Originally Posted by nbetweennownthen

8 WCHA teams is a joke. Congrats....they all beat up on each other during the season. Sure...let's reward that by putting three JOKES of teams into the tourney (Minn, Wisc, and UM-D). If these three get selected as at-large teams, I'm done with college hockey, because then, at the end of the day, it's no more subjective than the BS BCS or worse, figure skating.

The pairwise ranking system is far and away the best system in college sports for finding the best teams in the country. It's simple, the WCHA is the best league in college hockey from top to bottom. Maybe teams from other leagues should schedule more non-conference games with the WCHA to boost their rankings. I'm tired of people whining about the WCHA teams ranked ahead of the other teams in the pairwise. If you want to be ranked higher don't play a cupcake schedule.

[Kato3108]

Originally Posted by nbetweennownthen

8 WCHA teams is a joke. Congrats....they all beat up on each other during the season. Sure...let's reward that by putting three JOKES of teams into the tourney (Minn, Wisc, and UM-D). If these three get selected as at-large teams, I'm done with college hockey, because then, at the end of the day, it's no more subjective than the BS BCS or worse, figure skating.

When you leave, don't forget your sour grapes. Saying Minnesota, Wisconsin and UMD are a joke IS a joke. You should understand that playing a weak schedule and having a good record is not an automatic qualifier to play in a post season tournament (ex: Notre Dame). If you exclude the "joke" teams of the WCHA based soley on their record, you are encouraging them to play a weak non-conference schedule. Most sane people understand the logic.

We just need to find a way to get Alaska-Anchorage in the mix... that would REALLY set you off

[kayaker24]

This Pairwise Ranking is ridiculous.
How does a #4 seed in Miami get a bracket where there opponnents could be a #8 or #11. Shouldn't they be playing a #5 or #6 or #7. Instead if Miami wins there first game they end up with the best chance to adavance to the final four. That sounds fair.
Can't we have one year where BC and UNH are not in the same bracket???? I would like to see more variety in the brackets instead of constantly pandering to the teams in the area. i understand the need for attendance but as stated in an earlier thread the NCAA gets paid regardless of attendance.

[kayaker24]

And how is North Dakota closer to home if it plays in Worcester instead of Madison. I think Moy has cleary lost it in this bracket.

[Luteplayers]

I think one problem with Jaysons methodology is that he says:
"Our first concern is avoiding intraconference matchups"

When in fact with 5 or more teams from one conference is in the tournament, the integrity of the bracket takes precedence over avoiding those interconference matchups.

[pgb-ohio]

Let me preface this by saying I mean absolutely no disrespect to UMD. They very well could be one of the top 16 teams in the country.

That said, I truly wish the "misprint" had been adopted as the actual NCAA policy. I really don't care how tough a schedule a team plays. If they can't even finish at .500, they have no business being in the national tournament.

There is a loose analogy to football bowl games here. You need a .500 record to be bowl eligible. Even if you have an exciting team, a fanbase that travels well, and so on -- no .500 record, no bowl game. Quite frankly, this is a very forgiving standard. If anything, the bar is set too low.

Remember also that even if you finish below .500, you can still get into the NCAA playoffs by winning your conference tournament.

Further, I think an arrangement that allows 8 teams from one league into the field of 16 is undesirable. The essence of the tournament is the interconference and East-West match-ups. Suppose we did get an all-WCHA elite eight. Why would a replay of the WCHA playoffs be a good thing?

Bottom Line: Restrict the field to teams with records of .500 or better. At the end of the day, that may limit the strongest league to 6 or 7 teams. That modest limitation would be a good thing, IMHO.

Naturally I'm talking about future seasons. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[TUSCHWI]

Originally Posted by Kato3108

When you leave, don't forget your sour grapes. Saying Minnesota, Wisconsin and UMD are a joke IS a joke. You should understand that playing a weak schedule and having a good record is not an automatic qualifier to play in a post season tournament (ex: Notre Dame). If you exclude the "joke" teams of the WCHA based soley on their record, you are encouraging them to play a weak non-conference schedule. Most sane people understand the logic.

We just need to find a way to get Alaska-Anchorage in the mix... that would REALLY set you off

Originally Posted by nbetweennownthen

8 WCHA teams is a joke. Congrats....they all beat up on each other during the season. Sure...let's reward that by putting three JOKES of teams into the tourney (Minn, Wisc, and UM-D). If these three get selected as at-large teams, I'm done with college hockey, because then, at the end of the day, it's no more subjective than the BS BCS or worse, figure skating.

Kato3108 is right on. Comparing the Pairwise to the BS BCS is uninformed. The BCS has 2/3rds of it based on subjective human polls. The Pairwise is entirely objectively based - there is no human element to it, like the BcS. Maybe the NCAA should tweak the RPI back to the percentages it used a few years ago, or again give bonus points for non-conference road wins. We'd love to play Miami up here at the Kohl Center, or a home/away series.

Complain all you want about 8 WCHA teams being in the mix but comparing the Pairwise to the BcS is like comparing apples to sour grapes.

[Deejer]

Originally Posted by nbetweennownthen

8 WCHA teams is a joke. Congrats....they all beat up on each other during the season. Sure...let's reward that by putting three JOKES of teams into the tourney (Minn, Wisc, and UM-D). If these three get selected as at-large teams, I'm done with college hockey, because then, at the end of the day, it's no more subjective than the BS BCS or worse, figure skating.

Your just complaining because Miami would be toast if the brackets lined up the way they did on this version. Good luck winning at the home of 15,000 screaming red-clad Badger fans....won't happen. Miami = burnt toast.

[jimbo15]

Originally Posted by Deejer

Your just complaining because Miami would be toast if the brackets lined up the way they did on this version. Good luck winning at the home of 15,000 screaming red-clad Badger fans....won't happen. Miami = burnt toast.

Miami won in front of 8,000 UNH fans last year with little problem. Wisconsin isn't as good as the UNH team whose fans Miami absolutely silenced last year. I think Miami would welcome the chance to play Bucky in his own backyard.

[pgb-ohio]

Originally Posted by TUSCHWI

Complain all you want about 8 WCHA teams being in the mix but comparing the Pairwise to the BcS is like comparing apples to sour grapes.

You're correct that the two systems aren't comparable.

But I'll put the questions to you: If a league qualifies all of its winning teams for the NCAA tournament, why isn't that more than good enough? How can having 8 teams from any single league a good thing, if one or more of them has a losing record?

If the regular season and league playoffs are worth anything, they should be able to eliminate half of the teams from NCAA consideration -- meaning the below .500 teams.

[Zim]

Originally Posted by pgb-ohio

Let me preface this by saying I mean absolutely no disrespect to UMD. They very well could be one of the top 16 teams in the country.

That said, I truly wish the "misprint" had been adopted as the actual NCAA policy. I really don't care how tough a schedule a team plays. If they can't even finish at .500, they have no business being in the national tournament.

There is a loose analogy to football bowl games here. You need a .500 record to be bowl eligible. Even if you have an exciting team, a fanbase that travels well, and so on -- no .500 record, no bowl game. Quite frankly, this is a very forgiving standard. If anything, the bar is set too low.

Remember also that even if you finish below .500, you can still get into the NCAA playoffs by winning your conference tournament.

Further, I think an arrangement that allows 8 teams from one league into the field of 16 is undesirable. The essence of the tournament is the interconference and East-West match-ups. Suppose we did get an all-WCHA elite eight. Why would a replay of the WCHA playoffs be a good thing?

Bottom Line: Restrict the field to teams with records of .500 or better. At the end of the day, that may limit the strongest league to 6 or 7 teams. That modest limitation would be a good thing, IMHO.

Naturally I'm talking about future seasons. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

If W/L record were the most important criteria, then the tournament could simply be seeded based on record. The PWR was devised to reward teams that play a tougher schedule. There is no question that tUMD would be far above .500 if they played in the CCHA, likewise; Notre Dame would likely be around .500.

[vizoroo]

Realistically, the WCHA won't have 8 teams in the tourney. After the WCHA
tournament, somebody's numbers have to go down. But if one of the bubble teams wins the Final Five, now, that could be interesting.

[calduper]

I like how SCSU gets away with being in the only regional without another WCHA team. It's too bad they will probably go out in the first round again.

[TUSCHWI]

Originally Posted by pgb-ohio

You're correct that the two systems aren't comparable.

But I'll put the questions to you: If a league qualifies all of its winning teams for the NCAA tournament, why isn't that more than good enough? How can having 8 teams from any single league a good thing, if one or more of them has a losing record?

If the regular season and league playoffs are worth anything, they should be able to eliminate half of the teams from NCAA consideration -- meaning the below .500 teams.

Ohh, you just reminded me of something I meant to add: Pairwise aside, etc., I would rather not have 8 teams from any league in the tournament. I just enjoy watching teams from other leagues (and DirecTV has been wonderful for that reason). So I think I agree with you - as long as Wisconsin gets in , I'll be happy.

And about that .500 rule, I'm almost certain the NCAA did have that in place a few years back (teams would jump in and out of the Pairwise whenever they got back to .500) and that may not a bad rule to have in place. I'm not sure...there's pros and cons....i dont' want to see college hockey become like football where my beloved Wisconsin schedules Cal-Poly for its 12th game.

[fs1]

This may seem petty to some but I have a comment/question for Mr Moy regarding his latest bracketology and his explanation for it. When he starts to list the teams he says "Given these facts, here are the top 16 of the current PairWise Rankings (PWR), and the conference leaders (through all games of March 4, 2008)", why does he list Michigan ahead of North Dakota (and yes I am a North Dakota fan)(but that has nothing to do with the way he lists them)? He lists all the other teams exactly in the order his website's pairwise listing ranks them except for the top 2 teams. WHY IS THAT? ARE YOU LETTING YOUR MICHIGAN BIAS OUT? How is it that he lists all the other teams, ties included, exactly as his website lists them except for the top ranked team being listed second? Later then when he breaks the ties he lists North Dakota first but why not earlier when he 1st listed all the others in their correct order? Again is there bias involved? Sorry its not Michigan or Miami anymore, maybe it will be again in the future but as of now it IS NOT THEM! In all his past bracketologies he listed the teams in the same order his webiste lists them in their pairwise ranking, but for some reason this time he doesnt?

Then in the end he moves North Dakota from the midwest to the northeast region but yet he keeps the #16 team with the number 2 seed michigan? Would it kill him to then switch the #16 and #15 seeds to keep them with the respective #1 and # 2 seeds as it is suppose to be according to the rules? Army is clearly the #16 seed and is suppose to be with the #1 seed which even though he obviously doesnt like it is North Dakota! His brackets would not be affected with a 1st round interleague matchup and the integrity would be perfect in respect to the 1-16 and 2-15 seeds!

I believe he knows how it is suppose to be yet he just cant do it! Michigan may well turn out to be the overall number one seed in the end but as of today it is not, and his bracketology is always as of "today". He can gladly review his past ones and see that he always lists the teams exactly as the pairwise itself lists them,except for this one time! And in the past he has always kept the clear #16 with #1, again except for this time!

Seems to me Mr Moy made his bias clear to all of us!
Please ,seriously please explain your rational to me!