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

mookie1995
04-01-2019, 11:40 PM
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.

Au cntraire

When mtu would usually be in the top 25 will horrible records (just due to the fact they lost in volumes to other WCHA teams- that is a sign of glaring weakness).

BlackI
04-02-2019, 12:18 AM
So, where is the big ten. And ecac... and how confident are the Westys?
:D

dxmnkd316
04-02-2019, 07:23 AM
Au cntraire

When mtu would usually be in the top 25 will horrible records (just due to the fact they lost in volumes to other WCHA teams- that is a sign of glaring weakness).

Strength of schedule should be a very large part of the formula. So it makes sense that an extraordinary schedule gets you to the doorstep but doesnít get you in the door. Back in the old WCHA days, being near the bottom usually meant a top 3-5 schedule. They didnít win enough so they rarely made the tournament. Just like a team who only played bottom feeders would struggle to make it even if they won. It encourages a tougher schedule.

I donít see how thatís broken.

dxmnkd316
04-02-2019, 07:32 AM
So, where is the big ten. And ecac... and how confident are the Westys?
:D

Fewer big ten teams made it this year when they werenít as good. More teams made it last year when they were good.

The system worked. What do you want?

mookie1995
04-02-2019, 07:32 AM
Strength of schedule should be a very large part of the formula. So it makes sense that an extraordinary schedule gets you to the doorstep but doesnít get you in the door. Back in the old WCHA days, being near the bottom usually meant a top 3-5 schedule. They didnít win enough so they rarely made the tournament. Just like a team who only played bottom feeders would struggle to make it even if they won. It encourages a tougher schedule.

I donít see how thatís broken.

Home and away schedule also wasnít taken into account.

When those ďtopĒ teams pack their ooc schedule with home games vs bottom feeders they swim in a tainted pool.

When proving a system you search for holes, not try to find output that proves your point.

dxmnkd316
04-02-2019, 07:35 AM
Home and away schedule also wasnít taken into account.

When those ďtopĒ teams pack their ooc schedule with home games vs bottom feeders they swim in a tainted pool.

When proving a system you search for holes, not try to find output that proves your point.

Are you sure? The RPI weighted home and away games differently.

BlackI
04-02-2019, 08:06 AM
Fewer big ten teams made it this year when they werenít as good. More teams made it last year when they were good.

The system worked. What do you want?

An all hockey east final, silly.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-02-2019, 08:20 AM
#2 - The potential scarcity of crowd in Allentown, which is still far better than any other midwest site possible. I posted some numbers the other day, but just realized that my table wasnít updated. Allentown has averaged 5199 fans/game across two regionals. Western sites (not at a campus location, mind you) with better averages:
- St Paul (Xcel, 7625 avg, 4 regionals)
- Denver (Pepsi Center, 11183 avg, 1 regional)
- Sioux Falls (Premier Center, 8000 avg, 1 regional)

Also: Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Michigan all have higher averages for on-campus hosting. CC is close (5881 over two regionals).

So, in other words: I disagree that itís demonstrably better than any western site, much less ďfar betterĒ.


Fewer big ten teams made it this year when they werenít as good. More teams made it last year when they were good.
I also disagree with this. The B1G was good this year, we had a very good non-conference record and our worst team was only down at 32 in the pairwise.

The problem with the B1G this year was the lack of a basement to the conference. Seven points (in a 3 points/game league) separated 2nd from dead last. I havenít crunched the numbers on this, but I have a feeling that if there was more separation between MSU (and maybe UW) from the rest of the pack, the B1G easily steals more at large bids.

Lesson learned: parity in your conference is bad.


The system worked. What do you want?Regardless of what I said above: agreed 100%. The system is overall very good, repeatable and reliable. Itís far better than anything you see in any other college sport.

dxmnkd316
04-02-2019, 08:25 AM
. I posted some numbers the other day, but just realized that my table wasnít updated. Allentown has averaged 5199 fans/game across two regionals. Western sites (not at a campus location, mind you) with better averages:
- St Paul (Xcel, 7625 avg, 4 regionals)
- Denver (Pepsi Center, 11183 avg, 1 regional)
- Sioux Falls (Premier Center, 8000 avg, 1 regional)

Also: Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Michigan all have higher averages for on-campus hosting. CC is close (5881 over two regionals).

So, in other words: I disagree that itís demonstrably better than any western site, much less ďfar betterĒ.


I also disagree with this. The B1G was good this year, we had a very good non-conference record and our worst team was only down at 32 in the pairwise.

The problem with the B1G this year was the lack of a basement to the conference. Seven points (in a 3 points/game league) separated 2nd from dead last. I havenít crunched the numbers on this, but I have a feeling that if there was more separation between MSU (and maybe UW) from the rest of the pack, the B1G easily steals more at large bids.

Lesson learned: parity in your conference is bad.

Regardless of what I said above: agreed 100%. The system is overall very good, repeatable and reliable. Itís far better than anything you see in any other college sport.

I meant relative to last year. The big ten was not as good as last year.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-02-2019, 08:27 AM
I meant relative to last year. The big ten was not as good as last year.

*nods*

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-02-2019, 08:39 AM
Iím going to throw a bone to Grand Rapids and Van Andel, actually.

For the first three regionals that they hosted in the 16-team format (Ď04, Ď05, and Ď07), they averaged 5366 fans per game. Thatís better than Allentown, frankly. Is it great? No. But itís respectable and probably in line with what the NCAA hopes for, numbers-wise.

Of course, those regionals all had either Michigan or Michigan State playing. Plus Notre Dame, Wisconsin, and Minnesota sprinkled in there.

The problem are the other two regionals:
- Notre Dame, Bemidji State, Cornell and Northeastern
- Yale, Minnesota, North Dakota and Niagara

With basically just Notre Dame and the prayer of loads of travelers from Minny, NoDak and Cornell, itís no surprise that those regionals did poorly. No Michigan schools (not even Western or Tech, etc) is going to make attendance tough.

dxmnkd316
04-02-2019, 08:59 AM
I would certainly go to Grand Rapids. Iím actually hoping they put a regional there with the gophers. Or better yet, dump this stupid on campus big ten tournament format. Itís awful.

Grand Rapids would be fun for a change.

Numbers
04-02-2019, 09:00 AM
. I posted some numbers the other day, but just realized that my table wasn’t updated. Allentown has averaged 5199 fans/game across two regionals. Western sites (not at a campus location, mind you) with better averages:
- St Paul (Xcel, 7625 avg, 4 regionals)
- Denver (Pepsi Center, 11183 avg, 1 regional)
- Sioux Falls (Premier Center, 8000 avg, 1 regional)

Also: Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Michigan all have higher averages for on-campus hosting. CC is close (5881 over two regionals).

So, in other words: I disagree that it’s demonstrably better than any western site, much less “far better”.



The places you have just mentioned are "West". I wrote "Midwest." The point I was getting at is this:
If you can consider everything from St Paul to the Pacific "west", then the midwest sites are:
Any place in Michigan. Van Andel is the only one I know of which is a neutral site which has hosted a regional recently, and it hasn't been in the mix for a few years.
Cincinnati hosted.
So did Toledo.
Notre Dame hosted on campus, but since that was on campus, it's outside the realm of this discussion.
And, then Allentown.

Of these, Allentown is best. And, last year was much better than this year. That's my point. That, specifically, the area that's called 'midwest' doesn't have enough draw to make a regional really work well.

As I said, the 2 problems with the present system are:
A) #1 seeds playing much nearer to the #4 seed's home town (Providence this year is a case in point). {2s and 3s seem less of a problem, because there is much less of a metrical difference between them).
B) Lack of good possibilities for midwestern hosts, leading to Allentown being the "Midwest" regional, which contributes to #1. 2012-13 was the last time that 3 #1s were from further east than Allentown.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-02-2019, 09:44 AM
I would agree that everywhere in IN and OH has been a disaster.

I forgot if it was here or a different thread where someone bandied about other options in Michigan, and I noted rinks around Wisconsin and Illinois that one might imagine would make for good regional hosts.

I have to imagine that Milwaukee would get a good look if they ever bid. They have a fairly ideal situation: arena that seats in the mid-9000s in a good downtown area with loads of excellent bars/restaurants nearby thatís also seen a few Frozen Fours hosted across the street.

Numbers
04-02-2019, 10:00 AM
I would agree that everywhere in IN and OH has been a disaster.

I forgot if it was here or a different thread where someone bandied about other options in Michigan, and I noted rinks around Wisconsin and Illinois that one might imagine would make for good regional hosts.

I have to imagine that Milwaukee would get a good look if they ever bid. They have a fairly ideal situation: arena that seats in the mid-9000s in a good downtown area with loads of excellent bars/restaurants nearby that’s also seen a few Frozen Fours hosted across the street.


Rinks in Wisc and Ill would be interesting trials but who is going to bid to host?
UW won't because they know there is a chance they won't qualify, and that risk disaster. It's further from Michigan to Madison to Milwaukee than you think (getting around the lake). And, Minnesota is not guaranteed there (in the same way the committee puts Prov in Prov even when they don't host.)
In spite of rumors about U of Ill, there is not a host school close enough to any place in Illinois to make it worth it.

So, what to do? I don't know. But this is the problem.

dxmnkd316
04-02-2019, 10:13 AM
I would agree that everywhere in IN and OH has been a disaster.

I forgot if it was here or a different thread where someone bandied about other options in Michigan, and I noted rinks around Wisconsin and Illinois that one might imagine would make for good regional hosts.

I have to imagine that Milwaukee would get a good look if they ever bid. They have a fairly ideal situation: arena that seats in the mid-9000s in a good downtown area with loads of excellent bars/restaurants nearby that’s also seen a few Frozen Fours hosted across the street.

100% agree. 100%. Illinois and especially Wisconsin would be attractive choices. At least for what I'm looking for as a fan. In order, I want:
1. Driving distance < 6-7 hours or flights under $250 (I know that's limiting) - 65%
2. Good food and bars - 15%
3. Good hotel choices with ample room - 15%
4. An arena that isn't a dump - 5%
5. Extra credit if there are attractive non-hockey things to do

If the Gophers had ended up in Fargo, I might have gone (unless the Sioux were in it, then f-ck that with a cactus). For me personally, the biggest problem with regionals and travel is that there's only the guarantee of one game for my team. YMMV. It's hard to justify a big travel budget for a one-game event. So it has to be an attractive place for other activities. Grand Rapids is beer mecca. Milwaukee has all sorts of things to find yourself trouble. A burb of Chicago would be great. Madison areas would be outstanding. Minneapolis/St. Paul have just about everything. I'd imagine Des Moines isn't as bad as I imagine. The Quad Cities would be a half-decent choice. Indianapolis, South Bend*, Omaha, all would be great. I don't even mind Detroit/Ann Arbor.

I really think they need to end the ridiculous campus prohibition. Maroosh**, AmSoil, Kohl, and even REA would be excellent places to host and would certainly sell tickets. If places like Duluth could host, I imagine any Minnesota team placed there would nearly sell it out. I get the issue of having low-seeded hosts getting an unfair advantage by playing essentially at home, but the problem isn't made any worse by hosting at home arenas. Home ice advantage comes mostly from fans in the seats. There may be some marginal boosts by familiarity and whatnot, but I imagine the hosts wouldn't get their home locker room if they weren't the home team (as it should be). Imagine if the host school had to come out of what normally is a visitor's locker room. That might work against them. Personally, I wouldn't mind playing the Badgers in Kohl or the Bulldogs in AmSoil. Assuming the tickets are distributed or are available fairly.

Sorry for the meandering post.

*Though I don't think Compton is a great arena because of the bizarre design choices made in seat orientation and seat size.
**Yeah, I know, big ice

pgb-ohio
04-02-2019, 10:15 AM
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.Very much agree with your approach that the "inaccuracies" can average out over the years. Success, however, requires that the system itself be well designed.

To borrow a word from CLS, the current system is untenable right now in the CCHA states. And only a little better in the Upper Midwest. Blacklisting the campus rinks is the culprit. It would be really helpful if posters from the East could simply acknowledge that, and participate in the search for a solution. Instead, "I'm not taking a position; it's not my fight" is a typical reaction. That's what I hear you saying in the above comment. If you care about the long term health of the regionals -- and I believe you do -- you should engage and try to move the puck forward.


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.I wanted to take this item seriously, and tried to look at it from the point of view of each of the 8 teams seeded #2 or #3 this year. My conclusion? Nobody's talking about it because none of those teams were treated unfairly. Including Ohio State. Given the constraints of this year's rules & sites, of course.

Do you have a specific example from a previous tournament?


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).That is an interesting story, and I'm going to let your information percolate for a while. Even though it didn't work out for Hockey East, having a conference host a set of regionals might be a productive idea for the West. Why not? Conferences have served as hosts for the FF.

BTW, I don't blame Hockey East for a moment for walking away from a lousy deal. But again, the situations in the East & West are quite different. The East has the AHL rinks available, in locations proximate to college hockey fans. The West doesn't. We've been struggling with this problem for years, "insiders" included. Maybe negotiations between 1 or 2 of the Western conferences & the NCAA could succeed, due to the greater urgency.

Kepler
04-02-2019, 10:26 AM
I’m going to throw a bone to Grand Rapids and Van Andel, actually.

For the first three regionals that they hosted in the 16-team format (‘04, ‘05, and ‘07), they averaged 5366 fans per game. That’s better than Allentown, frankly. Is it great? No. But it’s respectable and probably in line with what the NCAA hopes for, numbers-wise.

Seconded. NY teams banished to there can drive across ON to G.P. and V.A. is in the goldilocks zone for NC$$ rinks.

Midwest regional sites are always going to be messy.

mookie1995
04-02-2019, 10:28 AM
Are you sure? The RPI weighted home and away games differently.

Not saying pwr is better with ranking than krach

BUT krach had major issues with last place wcha teams being top 25 and not settling issues with h/a problems.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-02-2019, 11:43 AM
Your theory that UW wouldnít host is speculative at best.

And as for Illinois: the CCHA hosted a moderately successful regional in St Louis of all places back in 2011. Whatís more prohibitive is a combination of closeby schools and ease of other fans getting there.

Chicago lacks one (Wisconsin and Notre Dame are it for nearby schools), but is very ideal for others.