PDA

View Full Version : 2019 NCAA Tournament Thread - Regionals are the best weekend of hockey all year



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

cetihcra
04-01-2019, 06:04 PM
A flight is a flight so Mankato's distance is irrelevant. However, Amherst is closer to Providence than Manchester (by a few miles) so the brackets should have been flipped, but we all know why they weren't.

Yes, we do. Though...flight is a flight, they still give 1-seeds the next closest regional by order of seed, like UMD in Allentown, by rule. Understanding that, for these purposes, there's no real difference between Providence and Manchester.

r

Jon
04-01-2019, 06:40 PM
Yes, we do. Though...flight is a flight, they still give 1-seeds the next closest regional by order of seed, like UMD in Allentown, by rule. Understanding that, for these purposes, there's no real difference between Providence and Manchester.

r
You just know the NCAA is trolling the entire college hockey community by not flipping the bracket.

Kepler
04-01-2019, 07:01 PM
Understanding that, for these purposes, there's no real difference between Providence and Manchester.

There was for PC.

CLS
04-01-2019, 07:01 PM
... by the way, you guys often say "ask the coaches what would they prefer" - that's fine, but the coaches' preferences and opinions are really secondary (or borderline irrelevant).

While I agree with your bottom line (pgb can attest to that; we’ve been debating this topic for many years), I disagree that the those opinions of the coaches are secondary or borderline irrelevant. In fact I believe that at least some portion of the Regionals would have been moved to home rinks several years ago if there hadn’t been significant blowback from the coaches. In fact I think that the blowback from the coaches has effectively made this a dead issue unless neutral ice regionals become totally nonfeasible.

https://www.uscho.com/2015/05/07/overwhelming-majority-of-coaches-dont-want-change-for-ncaa-regional-system/


In March, North Dakota athletic director Brian Faison, also an NCAA committee member, signaled that he would push for a return to campus sites for NCAA tournament games.
The “March” in the quote is March of 2015. Four years ago, an AD who at the time was the NCAA Hockey Committee Chair tried to move away from neutral site regionals to on-campus sites and it ain’t happened yet due largely IMO to resistance from the coaches.

Kepler
04-01-2019, 07:02 PM
Thanks, I guess. Didn't know there were gatekeepers here.

Oh, honey. There are gatekeepers everywhere.

manurespreader
04-01-2019, 07:08 PM
They showed the rule on tv. It can be reviewed ONLY for a major. There is no 2 minute ruling. As for stoppage in play, I forget which game it was (forgive me, I watched about 18 hours of hockey in the last 2 days), a guy was visibly unable to stand, yet play went on until the next whistle. So, same scenario there. Once play stopped, the refs said, "Hey, there might have been contact to the head, let's look. They did, and made the right call.
Apparently you miss my point. The refs might very well not have said that to themselves except that the hordes of Home fans from PC made it an issue. Sure, a good ref might have done that regardless, but we do not have good refs. Well once in a while we do, but not all that often.

pgb-ohio
04-01-2019, 07:12 PM
This is such a weak argument, that it really is borderline trolling. However, I'll respond, since I don't believe you are trolling.Says the guy who objects to name-calling.;)


The above mentioned examples all have head-to-head playoff series, and except for NFL, go for more than one game. Furthermore, and more importantly, the seeding and home court advantage is based on much more balanced and fair schedules (other than the finals, of course) - meaning, the teams play roughly the same opponents in the regular season. How do you compare the record of PC and Mankato this year? I understand the committee has to go by something (RPI, PairWise, or whatever), but you can argue that that is flawed too. I looked at the record Mankato had against the 16 tourney teams - 1 tie and 3 losses. PC - 3 wins, 1 tie and 4 losses. Mankato 4 games against tourney teams, PC had 8 games (one of the wins came against a Frozen Four bound team). Add the playoffs and the regionals into the mix and Mankato adds 1OT win and 1 loss, while PC adds another 2 wins. So there, you want to go by PairWise, fine, to me this was in no way 3 vs. 14 matchup.I actually agree with most of this. The stats guys can tell you better than I ever could why the Pairwise is flawed. But when enough people with training in field reach the same conclusion, I can accept their verdict. Trouble is, the Pairwise is the agreed upon rule. As you say, Tournament seeding has to be based on something. Unless you want to do a random draw.



I am. I think it's great for college hockey popularity...And with that, almost all of the disagreement between the two of us can vanish. The current format puts the West schools in a ridiculous situation, where the large majority of suitable rinks are blacklisted for being campus sites. Take that away, come up with a reasonably equitable rotation of sites, and I could accept the current system. Speaking only for myself, of course.



The problem with your "bonus" example is that you want to give it on a "mutually exclusive basis". You want to give it to some, but not all...Either this comes from another poster, or you're inventing it out of thin air. "Give it to some but not all" is my objection! Posters on your side of the debate are willing to give Home Crowd advantage to an Eastern school, but rarely to the West. Though somehow it's OK if you're North Dakota... All I'm saying is be consistent. If neutrality is all important, then apply that principle across the board. But if the rules change & we can choose sites to maximize game atmosphere and revenue, great! Of course that would lead to inequities in individual years. But if a diligent effort is made to balance things out over the long haul, reasonable fairness can be accomplished. That kind of compromise is fine. Blacklisting campus rinks wasn't a compromise. That decision remains an open wound, and it continues to fester.


...With that being said, I challenge you to give me an alternative 16 team bracket for this year, with these NCAA requirements:Way ahead of you. I've already done so, on the other thread that's currently running.


1. Protect the bracket integrity (i.e. keep 1-16, 2-15, etc.)I rewarded teams for winning conference championships, moving the six champs plus the top two at-large teams into the into the top 8 spots. Granted, that's not a small change. But otherwise I used the Pairwise numbers and went 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc.

2. Avoid interconference matchups.Worked out perfectly on the first try; didn't need to make any trades. But I would have moved a team up or down one spot to avoid intra-conference match-ups.

3. Put the top seeds closer to homeIn my hypothetical format, the top 8 seeds played AT home.

4. … (let's waive the attendance consideration)Why waive it? I'll speak to that. I believe the % of seats filled would be much, much better under my format. I didn't add up the total capacity of the 8 rinks; there might be some loss of seats. Still, I think the capacity numbers would be acceptably close. Total revenue would depend on the ticket prices charged. But sure, any loss of capacity and/or revenue is an "imperfection."


I guarantee you you will not find a perfect bracket.Because there's no such thing as a perfect bracket. I like my bracket a lot, but it has some downside. Every conceivable option does. But one of my favorite features is that the right to host is earned on the ice.


The committee did the right thing this year.And this last item illustrates why the topic is so unwieldy. Criticize the system, and people race to the conclusion that you're criticizing this year's committee. Not necessarily so.

In general, I AGREE that the committee did the right thing this year. The problem is the format -- the rules of the game. The Providence Home Ice situation, and the fact it keeps recurring, does provide an example of the fundamental problems with current format. But in any given year, the committee's hands are tied by the rules as they currently exist. If I had been on this year's committee, I might very well have voted for the bracket they produced. The bracket integrity was indeed appealing. Even though unearned home crowd advantage is a big problem, it can be the lesser of the evils. Especially when sites have been pre-chosen and cannot be changed. But I would have continued to insist that, moving forward, policy change is needed.

Jon
04-01-2019, 07:26 PM
Oh, honey. There are gatekeepers everywhere.

USCHO 2019: There are gatekeepers everywhere.

ticapnews
04-01-2019, 07:43 PM
The Gatekeepers are Due on Maple Street

BlackI
04-01-2019, 08:02 PM
Right. Calling a man by a female title is perfectly reasonable.

I'm just glad he recognizes my regal greatness. :)

If you played chess, you’d know your power. ;)

Fishman'81
04-01-2019, 09:36 PM
I actually agree with most of this. The stats guys can tell you better than I ever could why the Pairwise is flawed. But when enough people with training in field reach the same conclusion, I can accept their verdict. Trouble is, the Pairwise is the agreed upon rule. As you say, Tournament seeding has to be based on something. Unless you want to do a random draw.


The KRACH is generally accepted as the best calculus, yet the PWR generally mirrors it, as does the RPI. I think we're fine for stats.

mookie1995
04-01-2019, 10:24 PM
The KRACH is generally accepted as the best calculus, yet the PWR generally mirrors it, as does the RPI. I think we're fine for stats.

Says you

BlackI
04-01-2019, 10:47 PM
If you played chess, you’d know your power. ;)

Queen ;)

pgb-ohio
04-01-2019, 11:19 PM
While I agree with your bottom line (pgb can attest to that; we’ve been debating this topic for many years), I disagree that the those opinions of the coaches are secondary or borderline irrelevant. In fact I believe that at least some portion of the Regionals would have been moved to home rinks several years ago if there hadn’t been significant blowback from the coaches. In fact I think that the blowback from the coaches has effectively made this a dead issue unless neutral ice regionals become totally nonfeasible.

https://www.uscho.com/2015/05/07/overwhelming-majority-of-coaches-dont-want-change-for-ncaa-regional-system/


The “March” in the quote is March of 2015. Four years ago, an AD who at the time was the NCAA Hockey Committee Chair tried to move away from neutral site regionals to on-campus sites and it ain’t happened yet due largely IMO to resistance from the coaches.CLS Bottom Line: Vouched For.


The KRACH is generally accepted as the best calculus, yet the PWR generally mirrors it, as does the RPI. I think we're fine for stats.That's the general consensus, as I've understood it. Part of me is frustrated that we can't just switch to KRACH and be done with it. Using the "state of the art" stat might give people a little more confidence in the seeding numbers. But I wouldn't say it's the pressing issue.

Numbers
04-01-2019, 11:32 PM
There are 2 pressing issues here, as I see it:

#1 - The Providence home ice situation, which, in the last handful of years has resulted in a #4 seed twice qualifying for the Frozen Four
#2 - The potential scarcity of crowd in Allentown, which is still far better than any other midwest site possible

Along the way, there are things which can be noted, such as:
First, the committee is in no way charged with maintaining the most bracket integrity possible. That goal, which is fairly recent, in fact, comes mostly from the current members of the committee themselves, and from those of us who read such things as this board. In reality, any distribution of 2s, 3s, and 4s meets the criteria that the committee is given.
Second, the point above shows that, without doubt, the chief aim of the committee has become the number of people present. It's no longer a sporting event...it's an entertainment money maker. Of course, we all knew this already.
This little discussion address the Providence situation. Since it is obvious that the NCAA is after money, the only sporting solution to the Prov situation is a system which cannot result in a #4 playing in their home city when other options are possible (in other words, you rewrite the rules to specifically prohibit this, OR, you create a different system which makes more money).

It is my opinion that the only system which can make more money is to play on campus...either at the higher seed, or use pgb's idea/

Does anyone have another idea?

alan
04-02-2019, 12:11 AM
Does anyone have another idea?

Stop making up bogus excuses and win the games you’re supposed to win. Or host a regional.

Fishman'81
04-02-2019, 12:20 AM
Says you

Says anyone with the slightest grasp of the calculi involved... But, as I mentioned, all three current metrics generally arrive at the same place over the course of a season.

Bruin
04-02-2019, 12:26 AM
Says the guy who objects to name-calling.;)

No, I object to the name-calling in advance, in case you disagree with one's opinion. "Yeah, if you don't agree with me, then you are a clown". I specifically said I did not believe you were trolling.


The stats guys can tell you better than I ever could why the Pairwise is flawed. But when enough people with training in field reach the same conclusion, I can accept their verdict. Trouble is, the Pairwise is the agreed upon rule. As you say, Tournament seeding has to be based on something.

Agreed. And the logic in overcoming the flaws of Pairwise (or Krach, or any other method) is that over the years it will, statistically, be fairly accurate (or in other words, the inaccuracies will be averaged out). I would argue that the same principle (albeit less mathematical) can be applied with the team placement issues - over the years, everyone gets the same share of "unfairness". Seems you are arguing that there's systematic unfairness towards the teams from the West - that may be true, and I am not arguing for or against that statement.


Either this comes from another poster, or you're inventing it out of thin air. "Give it to some but not all" is my objection! Posters on your side of the debate...

Well, I'm not inventing anything... I haven't seen (from the "posters on your side of the debate") anyone advocating for fairness for number #2 seeds, in their matchups against #3 seeds. Coupled with fairness in 1 vs 4 matchup, and in addition to other (NCAA self-imposed) criteria, there is absolutely no way the current system can ever be fair to all the teams participating.


If neutrality is all important

As far as I know, it is not all important. I have explained my belief, based on what I heard from an insider, what the biggest stumbling block was in the system where campuses were hosting the regionals (revenue sharing, not the fairness).


But if the rules change & we can choose sites to maximize game atmosphere and revenue, great! Of course that would lead to inequities in individual years. But if a diligent effort is made to balance things out over the long haul, reasonable fairness can be accomplished. That kind of compromise is fine.

Agree, and it goes along my reasoning of "averaging" the "fairness" or "unfairness" across the years.


Blacklisting campus rinks wasn't a compromise. That decision remains an open wound, and it continues to fester.

Agree, again, and it is unfortunate, in my opinion, that that decision still stands.


Way ahead of you. I've already done so, on the other thread that's currently running.

I rewarded teams for winning conference championships, moving the six champs plus the top two at-large teams into the into the top 8 spots. Granted, that's not a small change. But otherwise I used the Pairwise numbers and went 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc.
Worked out perfectly on the first try; didn't need to make any trades. But I would have moved a team up or down one spot to avoid intra-conference match-ups.
In my hypothetical format, the top 8 seeds played AT home.

Sorry, the way my question played in my head, meant a 16-team bracket in current format. It was also clear in my head that I meant to say "intra"-conference match-ups, not "inter" :p Thank you for correcting that...

I think it's enough on this topic until next year. I'm already getting private messages asking me to give you a break, because you are "legit"... haha.

Bruin
04-02-2019, 12:36 AM
There are 2 pressing issues here, as I see it:

#1 - The Providence home ice situation, which, in the last handful of years has resulted in a #4 seed twice qualifying for the Frozen Four

So, wait, let's be serious here. I understand the argument, in general, about fairness, but to single out Providence, for actually qualifying for the Frozen Four, is utterly unfair to Providence College. Throughout the years, there were plenty cases where the local teams or hosts (and yes, I understand that Providence wasn't hosting - I really don't see that being an issue) came in as #3 or #4 seeds, but they are not mentioned because... they didn't qualify for the Frozen Four? How dare PC do that?


It's no longer a sporting event...it's an entertainment money maker. Of course, we all knew this already.

It hasn't been a (primarily) sporting event for a long time! Not since we needed fancy scoreboards, nice arenas, cross country travel for teams, games in Ireland, etc.


The only sporting solution to the Prov situation is a system which cannot result in a #4 playing in their home city when other options are possible (in other words, you rewrite the rules to specifically prohibit this

And right there you'd lose a huge portion of not-so-big pool of the bidders for regional sites.

Bruin
04-02-2019, 12:40 AM
Oh, honey. There are gatekeepers everywhere.

Nice... I set that one up :D