PDA

View Full Version : Time to expand NCAA bracket???



Pages : [1] 2

FRICKER
03-29-2013, 01:14 AM
I, for one, don't want to punish teams like Niagara & Canisus their automatic seeding in the sixteen teams in the D1 bracket. However, I also don't think it is right to deny hard charging programs like Michigan and other top clubs like Western Michigan and BU (andpossibly a few others) their chance to pursue a natio al title. All of them could legitimately conend.

In basketball, with 68 teams, the NCAA can afford to have some "super dark horses" in the field. Just like the number of scholarships hockey is given, the low number (16) adversely impacts
hockey.

One of my sons suggests play in games, maybe two or more, flexible to expand the field before the final 16. Thoughts/coments.

The Rube
03-29-2013, 01:17 AM
Per NCAA rules, the tourney is already in exemption status (IIRC it's 25% of teams that exist can make the playoffs). When it expanded to 16 teams, college hockey was under that rule. As teams folded, the NCAA didn't change the playoffs. If college hockey kept to the rule, the tourney would now probably be 12 again. There will be NO expansion at all. Period.

Bonin21
03-29-2013, 01:19 AM
To answer your original question even without the factual evidence: no.

Ralph Baer
03-29-2013, 04:55 AM
Per NCAA rules, the tourney is already in exemption status (IIRC it's 25% of teams that exist can make the playoffs). When it expanded to 16 teams, college hockey was under that rule. As teams folded, the NCAA didn't change the playoffs. If college hockey kept to the rule, the tourney would now probably be 12 again. There will be NO expansion at all. Period. I don't think that there were ever as many as 64 teams. There were more than the current number, but not quite 64. I agree with everything else that you wrote.

As to the "super dark horses" in squeakball, aren't those usually the autoqualifiers like Canisius would be in hockey?

Snively65
03-29-2013, 07:15 AM
I don't think that there were ever as many as 64 teams. There were more than the current number, but not quite 64. I agree with everything else that you wrote.

As to the "super dark horses" in squeakball, aren't those usually the autoqualifiers like Canisius would be in hockey?

Exactly. All Michigan needed to do was win their conference tourney like Wisconsin and Canisius did, and they could have in, too.

sterlippo1
03-29-2013, 07:19 AM
no, shrink it to 12 and go back to the old format

Happy
03-29-2013, 07:21 AM
nope

goblue78
03-29-2013, 07:26 AM
Exactly. All Michigan needed to do was win their conference tourney like Wisconsin and Canisius did, and they could have in, too.

The conference tournaments are play-in games. The only teams with possible complaints are teams that didn't make their conference playoffs, even though they won their last game. (Assuming a one-game streak is enough to fulfill FRICKER's "hard-charging" criterion.) Thus, except for the Ivy League, every basketball team is already in the tournament. Similarly, Harvard was in the NCAA Hockey tournament -- they just lost their play-in game.

Mile High Hockey
03-29-2013, 07:29 AM
This is what the Tourney would have looked like under the old format...

1. Quinnipiac
2. Minnesota
3. Massachusetts Lowell (1st Round Bye - Clarkson Rule)
4. Notre Dame
5. Miami
6. Boston College
7. New Hampshire
8. North Dakota
9. St. Cloud State (CC Rule)
10. Union
11. Wisconsin
12. Canisius

Then a tournament that would have looked something like this...

East Regional 1
#4 - New Hampshire vs. #5 - St. Cloud State
#1 - Quinnipiac (Bye)

West Regional 1
#4 - North Dakota vs. #5 - Union
#1 - Minnesota (Bye)

East Regional 2
#3 - Boston College vs. #6 Canisius
#2 - Massachusetts Lowell (Bye)

West Regional 2
#3 - Miami vs. #6 Wisconsin
#2 - Notre Dame (Bye)

JohnsonsJerseys
03-29-2013, 08:17 AM
I don't think it is right to deny hard charging programs like Michigan and other top clubs like Western Michigan and BU

Well I'll say this, if you want to make a case to expand the tourney, you'll need some better examples. Western is the best example in this group that maaaaaybe deserves a shot and they are a real stretch. Of their 19 wins, they racked up 15 of them in a conference that only had four teams over .500. And Michigan?... please. Just because you've been in the tourney every year for two decades doesn't mean they deserve to get in with a sub 0.500 record. BU wouldn't have been in even if you removed the auto qualifiers so again not much of a case there.

In short, I don't see it happen. The NCAA already spends way too much time bending the bracket rules in the name of putting butts in the seats. Adding more entry games that will have even less interest isn't going to get off the ground any time soon.

Ryan J

West Texas Wolverine
03-29-2013, 08:28 AM
I don't think that there were ever as many as 64 teams. There were more than the current number, but not quite 64.
By my calculations, the greatest number of teams playing D-I hockey was 60, from 1999-2003:

CCHA 12
MAAC 11 (Metro Atlantic Athletic Conf.)
ECAC 12
WCHA 10
HEA 9
CHA 6 (College Hockey America)

Today we have 59.

JF_Gophers
03-29-2013, 08:35 AM
hard charging and struggling to get to a .500 record Michigan? they didn't deserve to get in a 57 team tournament this season.

claver2010
03-29-2013, 08:50 AM
no

chickod
03-29-2013, 09:04 AM
no, shrink it to 12 and go back to the old format

And if we're talking about attendance, quite frankly I believe it was probably better under the "old" format. You would have two games each day and two teams would advance to the Frozen Four. In essence, a "super" regional with six Eastern teams and six Western teams. Six teams bring more fans than four, and if you look at recent attendance, it's hard to make a case for having FOUR regionals, because typically two of them have "poor" attendance anyway. Combine them, save expenses and have a more exciting weekend.

billmich88888
03-29-2013, 09:06 AM
Mile high hockey,
You forgot to list 6 from east/west and then
swap 5&6 to the opposite region

ClOuD 9
03-29-2013, 09:18 AM
This is what the Tourney would have looked like under the old format...

1. Quinnipiac
2. Minnesota
3. Massachusetts Lowell (1st Round Bye - Clarkson Rule)
4. Notre Dame
5. Miami
6. Boston College
7. New Hampshire
8. North Dakota
9. St. Cloud State (CC Rule)
10. Union
11. Wisconsin
12. Canisius

Then a tournament that would have looked something like this...

East Regional 1
#4 - New Hampshire vs. #5 - St. Cloud State
#1 - Quinnipiac (Bye)

West Regional 1
#4 - North Dakota vs. #5 - Union
#1 - Minnesota (Bye)

East Regional 2
#3 - Boston College vs. #6 Canisius
#2 - Massachusetts Lowell (Bye)

West Regional 2
#3 - Miami vs. #6 Wisconsin
#2 - Notre Dame (Bye)
Actually like this one better than what we have this weekend. That said, don't think the NCAA is likely to shrink the tournament down.

UncleRay
03-29-2013, 09:24 AM
I, for one, don't want to punish teams like Niagara & Canisus their automatic seeding in the sixteen teams in the D1 bracket.First, Niagara earned their trip with what they did during the regular season, unlike your "hard-charging" teams. Second, as has been pointed out, the "super dark horses" in the basketball field are the automatic qualifiers - the best team from a poor league, or a poor team from a good league that managed to win their conference tourney. Third, as has been pointed out, the national tourney starts with the league tourneys. There were only four teams left out of consideration this year: two independents, and the bottom two from Hockey East. Next year, every DI team with the exception of the two worst nWCHA teams will be playing in the post season for the National Championship. Fourth, we've gone over this what feels like a hundred times already. This year. Fifth, spell-check is your friend, especially when drunk posting at one in the morning.

Win or go home. And quit whining.

FlagDUDE08
03-29-2013, 09:27 AM
Given who is posting this, perhaps to shut him up we need to introduce the Michigan autobid. Michigan makes the tournament no matter what. :rolleyes:

pgb-ohio
03-29-2013, 09:37 AM
Answer to thread title: No.

I would oppose a return to the 12 team format. The previous set-up gave a large advantage to the four teams with byes. Too large, IMHO.

That said, I agree with all of the other criticisms. There's no need to expand beyond the NCAA field beyond 16. The conference tournaments already give "late bloomers" a second chance to qualify.

Note that the NCAA used to try to reward late bloomers by putting extra weight on the last 20 games of regular season. That was dropped, and rightfully so. At-large bids should be based on the full body of work.

Zudnic
03-29-2013, 09:52 AM
There are 58 D-I teams. 16 qualifying tourney teams is almost 1 in 4. That's plenty.