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

Slap Shot
04-03-2019, 12:50 PM
See, to me, this kind of logic is unfair and I mentioned this in one of my other responses on this topic. It's fine you are trying to be fair to #1s, but then you disregard the fairness going to #2s. As far as the "metrical difference" goes - the difference in a #4 (the worst #1 seed) vs #13 (the best number #4 seed) matchup teams is very close to the difference in a #5 (the best #2 seed) vs #12 (the worst #3 seed). So, I really think it's unfair to #2s when the solution to the "Providence issue" disregards the fairness across the board. Of course, that adds another constraint, which is a problem in itself.

If it's still unfair for some it's less unfair than the current system.

dxmnkd316
04-03-2019, 12:53 PM
I knew including that one was only on a technicality, but I couldn't help it.

Technically correct, the best kind.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-03-2019, 02:09 PM
If it's still unfair for some it's less unfair than the current system.

I think Ill need some convincing for the premise here.

Is there actually anything unfair about the current setup?

Slap Shot
04-03-2019, 03:09 PM
I think I’ll need some convincing for the premise here.

Is there actually anything unfair about the current setup?

Are you new to this thread?

ExileOnDaytonStreet
04-03-2019, 03:15 PM
Are you new to this thread?

Its hard to keep track of all the unhinged rants in this and a few other threads :)

Kepler
04-03-2019, 03:22 PM
or from anywhere, ftm.

5,000 people went to a Women's basketball game without being held against their will? Wow.

1992 called.

<img src="https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/124/031/166.jpg" height="300" >

I hate all basketball and even I know this is a dumb, lame take.

Bruin
04-03-2019, 04:14 PM
If it's still unfair for some it's less unfair than the current system.

Yeah, but that's absolutely not an acceptable reason for changing the current format. Now, if you shifted unfariness towards a different aspect of it, then that can be discussed (for example: we can create a system that's fair to all higher seeds, but that would mean giving up the "no intra-conference" matchups). But to implement as system that is absolutely fair to #1 seeds, but disregards the results and seeding of #2 seeds is still unfair, for the same reason it was unfair to #1 seeds.

Bruin
04-03-2019, 04:15 PM
I think Ill need some convincing for the premise here.

Is there actually anything unfair about the current setup?

Statistically, no... (in my opinion).

Slap Shot
04-03-2019, 06:49 PM
Yeah, but that's absolutely not an acceptable reason for changing the current forma.

Sure it is.

Fishman'81
04-03-2019, 08:23 PM
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.

It doesn't matter what your conference-affiliation is, nor where you finish in that conference... All that matters is how you perform along a statistical continuum.

The entire conference-affiliation thing is at the root of the issue, as a matter of fact. The ridiculous AQ situation is the reason AIC leap-frogged a whole bunch of more deserving teams this year, for instance.

jjmc85
04-03-2019, 09:16 PM
It doesn't matter what your conference-affiliation is, nor where you finish in that conference... All that matters is how you perform along a statistical continuum.

The entire conference-affiliation thing is at the root of the issue, as a matter of fact. The ridiculous AQ situation is the reason AIC leap-frogged a whole bunch of more deserving teams this year, for instance.

Are you for eliminating the AQs?

cetihcra
04-03-2019, 10:13 PM
Are you for eliminating the AQs?

Dont go down that rabbit hole with him, hes been beating that drum in the D3 forum for years.

Eliminating AQs would drive more schools into the dumpster than the few we currently have.

r

mookie1995
04-04-2019, 01:25 AM
Dont go down that rabbit hole with him, hes been beating that drum in the D3 forum for years.

Eliminating AQs would drive more schools into the dumpster than the few we currently have.

r

NCAA is a collection of schools who form conferences.

Heck, mookie feels football should have an 8 team playoff and be filled with all conference winners. Rank the strongest 8 via ooc matchups weighted heavily on road victories. They get in and not decided until post conf championship :p

You want to join a super conference and eat that pie of $$$$, then win your conference to get in :)

Kepler
04-04-2019, 06:49 AM
It doesn't matter what your conference-affiliation is, nor where you finish in that conference... All that matters is how you perform along a statistical continuum.

Except that is not all that matters because we wittingly designed a system where that's not all that matters. Not to get all Sartre on you but there is no trumpet blast reality of values except what we arbitrarily define, and the vast majority of us want a system where there are AQs in order to reward the non-factory conferences. You personally may not like that. But, and I mean this with all due respect, you personally matter very, very little.

And let's face it, what really matters is the NC$$'s cynical orientation towards money, and what the NC$$ wants is to grow the sport and invite in the dullard usual suspect schools it can make the most off, so there will be AQs until all those schools are included. Then AQs will be abolished, because of the abject stupidity and greed of late stage capitali-- er, I mean, because of Objective Sniff Fairness.

ticapnews
04-04-2019, 08:01 AM
Without the AQs we go back to a 12-team tournament. Maybe 14.

mookie1995
04-04-2019, 08:33 AM
Without the AQs we go back to a 12-team tournament. Maybe 14.

Would truly guess due to dropped programs. Hard to sell some teams knowing they would never, ever get into a national tourney

Fishman'81
04-04-2019, 09:57 AM
Take it easy, my brothers... I was merely pointing-out to mookie that the KRACH does not take into account where a team finishes in its conference, nor should it.

And, yeah, some form of an AQ is probably a practical necessity, but why not award it on the basis of the much larger body of work that is the RS? (I do realize that AIC did both this season, but BC -at 14-21- was one game away from an NCAA berth.)

pdt1081
04-04-2019, 10:40 AM
Take it easy, my brothers... I was merely pointing-out to mookie that the KRACH does not take into account where a team finishes in its conference, nor should it.

And, yeah, some form of an AQ is probably a practical necessity, but why not award it on the basis of the much larger body of work that is the RS? (I do realize that AIC did both this season, but BC -at 14-21- was one game away from an NCAA berth.)
Knowing the team still has a chance to get in the tournament is what makes the league playoffs worth watching. Otherwise, they're just playing for a trophy that gets displayed for a year.

chickod
04-04-2019, 10:59 AM
Take it easy, my brothers... I was merely pointing-out to mookie that the KRACH does not take into account where a team finishes in its conference, nor should it.

I disagree. What's the point of having conferences, then? Here's an example:

I'll use the America East conference in basketball. Here are the top two teams:

<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<td>Team</td>
<td>Conf.</td>
<td>Overall</td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Vermont</td>
<td>14-2</td>
<td>27-7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Stony Brook</td>
<td>12-4</td>
<td>24-9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Only ONE team from this conference goes to the NCAA tournament. Yet, 800 teams from the B1G go every year, even though some of these teams lose repeatedly to the top five teams in the conference. Why? Because the conference is considered "stronger." Great. But if you PLAY for one of these teams, you have no control over the schedule, or who you play. You're just trying to win games. Why should Stony Brook be penalized because they didn't play a "strong" schedule? The players did what they were asked to do...they won 24 out of 33 games. Compared to the competition THEY PLAYED AGAINST, they did well. That's all they can control. Why should a team that finished SEVENTH in their league get to go to the tournament over them? If they couldn't WIN against teams in their conference, why do they get picked over teams that won, in some cases, ten more games? I don't buy the argument about "strength of conference." Who cares? Just make Division 1 ONE conference then and pick the top 64 teams. The goal is not to get the "best" 64 teams...it's to reward those teams that excelled against THEIR competition. Otherwise, just relegate all those conferences to Division 2 because what's the point? If you're in a stronger conference, that means you recruited BETTER talent so you SHOULD be better. Which means you should be able to WIN against better competition. So by denying a team based on "strength of schedule," you have diminished WINNING. Why would I go to a school where I have to basically go 30-1 (if I don't win my conference tournament) to qualify?

This isn't an argument against AQs. This is an argument that a team should be judged against the competition it plays. If it is successful, it should be rewarded. Otherwise just have one giant conference and take the top x number of teams.

MTUHuskies
04-04-2019, 01:34 PM
Take it easy, my brothers... I was merely pointing-out to mookie that the KRACH does not take into account where a team finishes in its conference, nor should it.

And, yeah, some form of an AQ is probably a practical necessity, but why not award it on the basis of the much larger body of work that is the RS? (I do realize that AIC did both this season, but BC -at 14-21- was one game away from an NCAA berth.)

Conferences have the choice which team they send to the NCAA tournament. Every conference has opted to give the conference tournament winner the AC to have a greater chance to get more than one team in.