PDA

View Full Version : What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Numbers
03-23-2015, 10:53 AM
I have been noticing the committee chair continuing to suggest something might change in the way they arrange this tournament. I am curious if the posters here have any ideas of what they might do, or if anyone has a pet project of their own.

I have one possibility, but it turns out quite lengthy to write it all out, with example, so I want to wait for another post.

Any one?

Crimson on the Glass
03-23-2015, 10:56 AM
Top 4 PWR seeds host 4 team "regional" tournaments, followed by the neutral site frozen four. Would that work?

Yes, I realize that Harvard might still be playing way out west somewhere!

WeAreNDHockey
03-23-2015, 11:03 AM
As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.

I actually would advocate for the format that Crimson on the Glass suggests. Home ice + a best 2/3 as I believe the NCAA is gravitating towards gives far too much of an edge for the higher seeds. I believe the top four seeds have earned the right to have a home game, but a one game winner moves on format will limit that and make upsets a little more likely. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there are just too many NCAA teams that have no way of hosting 3 other schools should they end up as a one seed. And not just schools with no hockey history.

The empty seats we're going to see in the Compton in a few days will be the final nail in the coffin for truly neutral regionals. (truly neutral thanks to NDs rabid underachieving. They make Bart Simpson proud).

Numbers
03-23-2015, 11:11 AM
As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.

I actually would advocate for the format that Crimson on the Glass suggests. Home ice + a best 2/3 as I believe the NCAA is gravitating towards gives far too much of an edge for the higher seeds. I believe the top four seeds have earned the right to have a home game, but a one game winner moves on format will limit that and make upsets a little more likely. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there are just too many NCAA teams that have no way of hosting 3 other schools should they end up as a one seed. And not just schools with no hockey history.

The empty seats we're going to see in the Compton in a few days will be the final nail in the coffin for truly neutral regionals. (truly neutral thanks to NDs rabid underachieving. They make Bart Simpson proud).

This is interesting. I did not realize a 2-out-of-3 series was a possibility.

I was seeing more of a 3 weeks like this:
Week One: All Top8 seeds host a single elimination
Week Two: 2 Neutral Sites host 2 Quarterfinals each, with the overall bracket set so as to maximize the possibility of eastern teams being in the east and western teams in the west. This is single-elimination also
Week Three: Frozen Four as now

FlagDUDE08
03-23-2015, 11:21 AM
I would have thought the change would be to bring back the smoke filled room, in order to institute "more drama" into the selection process.

FlagDUDE08
03-23-2015, 11:22 AM
As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.

I actually would advocate for the format that Crimson on the Glass suggests. Home ice + a best 2/3 as I believe the NCAA is gravitating towards gives far too much of an edge for the higher seeds. I believe the top four seeds have earned the right to have a home game, but a one game winner moves on format will limit that and make upsets a little more likely. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there are just too many NCAA teams that have no way of hosting 3 other schools should they end up as a one seed. And not just schools with no hockey history.

The empty seats we're going to see in the Compton in a few days will be the final nail in the coffin for truly neutral regionals. (truly neutral thanks to NDs rabid underachieving. They make Bart Simpson proud).

Don't be shocked if they set a seating minimum, forcing schools with smaller capacities to play at neutral sites.

Kepler
03-23-2015, 11:23 AM
As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want.

Is there anything behind the certainty in this statement?

I for one would LOVE both these changes and have been loudly calling for them for years, but I've not heard anything to suggest they're likely. My impression is the NCAA really loves the regionals for some good reasons (cross-polinating of parts of the hockey community; the attempt to make college hockey a "Big Event" destination) and some bad reasons (great time for big fish to lord it over their little pond; G-7 style weekend get away for booze, broads, and Buicks).

Kepler
03-23-2015, 11:25 AM
Don't be shocked if they set a seating minimum, forcing schools with smaller capacities to play at neutral sites.

That would defeat the whole purpose.

They did not have that restriction back in the 80's. I wouldn't put it past the NC$$ to try to do it now, but I can't imagine the entire membership voting for it unless MI and MN have a lot of cash to spread around.

WeAreNDHockey
03-23-2015, 11:27 AM
Week Two: 2 Neutral Sites host 2 Quarterfinals each, with the overall bracket set so as to maximize the possibility of eastern teams being in the east and western teams in the west. This is single-elimination also


This or similar ideas have been talked about on USCHO for quite a few seasons now -- about as long as we've been talking about the horrible crowds and atmosphere at many of the regionals. But it still will involve a neutral site in the west with 4 teams and hardly any fans. It will eliminate bad crowds for the first round, but do nothing for second round games. Plus you have people making travel plans KNOWING they have only one day in a town. I think the choices are down to letting any school with a suitable rink bid to host (like Notre Dame did this season), leaving the format basically unchanged with the one tweak of even more movement within seed bands to ensure teams play as close to home as possible, or the 3 week/higher seeds host first two weekends format I posted.

WeAreNDHockey
03-23-2015, 11:35 AM
Is there anything behind the certainty in this statement?



Absolutely nothing, other than reading the tea leaves and between the lines of everything different coaches have been lobbying for and the fact the committee head seems highly amenable to the idea of higher seeds hosting initial rounds. I think the trend away from so many people finding live sporting events -- and especially those that might not involve a team they root for -- compelling things to spend their entertainment $$$ on plays a large part in this. Home games are the last bullet to fire here in assuring decent crowds.

Kepler
03-23-2015, 11:35 AM
Absolutely nothing, other than reading the tea leaves and between the lines of everything different coaches have been lobbying for and the fact the committee head seems highly amenable to the idea of higher seeds hosting initial rounds. I think the trend away from so many people finding live sporting events -- and especially those that might not involve a team they root for -- compelling things to spend their entertainment $$$ on plays a large part in this. Home games are the last bullet to fire here in assuring decent crowds.

Thanks. I hope it works out as you say.

Crimson on the Glass
03-23-2015, 11:42 AM
As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.
One potential issue with this (as well as my suggestion) is when the top half is dominated by one side of the country while the bottom half features a lot of team form the other side of the country. Kind of like this year. Other than BU right down the street, the nearest game for a hometown fan of Harvard, BC, Yale, Quinnipiac and Providence would be somewhere out in Michigan I think. And the current PWR rankings approach does result in clustering of conference success (OOC wins raising all boats).

Though I guess as long as top seed teams can fill their own seats, attendance would be fine.

Kepler
03-23-2015, 11:46 AM
One potential issue with this (as well as my suggestion) is when the top half is dominated by one side of the country while the bottom half features a lot of team form the other side of the country. Kind of like this year. Other than BU right down the street, the nearest game for a hometown fan of Harvard, BC, Yale, Quinnipiac and Providence would be somewhere out in Michigan I think. And the current PWR rankings approach does result in clustering of conference success (OOC wins raising all boats).

We haven't seen this have really egregious results, yet, though it is possible particularly if the number of interleague connections decreases more.

For now I think it's actually a reason to prefer home best of 3 series in the rounds of 16 and 8. The geographical balance of the regional system is an artificial hindrance to rank-ordering the advantages of the seeding with the teams who have earned them. The worst offense is, of course, home regional hosts, which are the devil and must be eliminated in all cases. Your building size and your athletic budget should have exactly zero impact on where you play. This isn't the Senate: you can't just buy your way in.

Numbers
03-23-2015, 11:47 AM
This or similar ideas have been talked about on USCHO for quite a few seasons now -- about as long as we've been talking about the horrible crowds and atmosphere at many of the regionals. But it still will involve a neutral site in the west with 4 teams and hardly any fans. It will eliminate bad crowds for the first round, but do nothing for second round games. Plus you have people making travel plans KNOWING they have only one day in a town. I think the choices are down to letting any school with a suitable rink bid to host (like Notre Dame did this season), leaving the format basically unchanged with the one tweak of even more movement within seed bands to ensure teams play as close to home as possible, or the 3 week/higher seeds host first two weekends format I posted.

I see your point totally. When I was working on this, I had a vague notion of "Where would I put the West Region in my example", and the answer seems to be Xcel energy Center. That's about the only site in the Western College Hockey World where, absent the local team's presence, you have a chance at decent crowds, simply because Minnesotans like hockey, and there are many close schools to choose from (NoDak, Duluth, Mankato, Wisconsin, etc....). And, it's hardly fair for the X to host such a thing every year, because in a year like this one, Gophers as a lower seed would have too much advantage should they advance.

I am more interested in your 2-out-of-3 idea. And, partly, that surprises me because the Women's Tourney has campus games for the Quarterfinals (which are Round One), and it's single elimination. I am totally on board with 2/3 better, because it's more representative of quality. Also, I think on campus you sell enough tickets that the NCAA makes up the $$ for the hotel bills. But, I am surprised that they would consider 2/3.....

mookie1995
03-23-2015, 11:52 AM
Mookie wants to see western teams. He holds that as a very important component to staging a NATIONAL tournament

The 1990 "regionals" had Sioux visiting WBA followed by BU heading to Munn.
In kith cases BU lost the opener then won the last two to make the frozen four so home and road teams can win in these instances

Numbers
03-23-2015, 11:54 AM
One potential issue with this (as well as my suggestion) is when the top half is dominated by one side of the country while the bottom half features a lot of team form the other side of the country. Kind of like this year. Other than BU right down the street, the nearest game for a hometown fan of Harvard, BC, Yale, Quinnipiac and Providence would be somewhere out in Michigan I think. And the current PWR rankings approach does result in clustering of conference success (OOC wins raising all boats).

Though I guess as long as top seed teams can fill their own seats, attendance would be fine.

As another example, last year's hosts would have been: Minnesota, NotreDame, Wisconsin, Ferris State, BC, Union, Lowell and Quinnipiac. That's as even as you can get. So, while it's possible the PWR can skew things one way, it's not often that it will be so much so as this year.

Numbers
03-23-2015, 11:57 AM
Mookie wants to see western teams. He holds that as a very important component to staging a NATIONAL tournament

The 1990 "regionals" had Sioux visiting WBA followed by BU heading to Munn.
In kith cases BU lost the opener then won the last two to make the frozen four so home and road teams can win in these instances

Mookie can look at this year's bracket. 3 of the 4 #1s have east v west. The 2 v 3 games have DU v BC and Omaha v Harvard. That's a pretty good mix.

I suppose if they did the "First 2 rounds on campus" they would reseed after Round One?

FreshFish
03-23-2015, 12:00 PM
the committee head seems highly amenable to the idea of higher seeds hosting initial rounds.

assuming the facilities managers' can arrange the schedules accordingly....not a problem if your team is the only one to use the home, hockey-only arena, I suppose, but if it's a multi-purpose space?

Ralph Baer
03-23-2015, 12:11 PM
I would have thought the change would be to bring back the smoke filled room, in order to institute "more drama" into the selection process.

I hope that you aren't serious. The smoke-filled room this year would probably have resulted in 3 B1G schools. Undoubtedly some would like that, but ...

Kepler
03-23-2015, 12:26 PM
I hope that you aren't serious.

Summing up every response to every Flag post? :D