PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Tourney Format



AldenPartridge1819
03-02-2011, 03:07 PM
This is just for fun. I know this will never happen with the current regulations, but I just wanted to see what people thought about this idea.


12 Team Tournament: 8 East, 4 West

East: 6 Conference Winners plus 2 At-Large
West: 3 Conference Winners plus 1 At-Large
*I don't care what system is used for At-Large as long as it's a known metric*

Keep the time-frame we're using this season with two full weekends before the championship.

East: Rank the teams between 1-8
West: Rank the teams between 1-4

First Weekend:
@E1
E1 v E8
E4 v E5
Winners play the next day

@E2
E2 v E7
E3 v E6
Winners play the next day

@W1
W1 v W4

@W2
W2 v W3

Second Weekend:
Remaining two East teams @ higher seed

Remaining two West teams @ higher seed


Third Weekend:
Best two-out-of-three Championship Series
East Winner v West Winner @ Campus site (Alternate East/West every year)

In my opinion nothing beats championship games played on campus. I know it limits traveling fans, but the atmosphere is unreal.


So, just as an example using the current rankings and higher seeds, this tournament would look like:

East:
@Oswego
Oswego v Curry
Norwich v Williams

@Elmira
Elmira v Mass-Dartmouth
Plattsburgh v Castleton

West:
Hamline @ St. Norbert
UWS @ Adrian

*I've flipped the rankings of Castelton/Williams and Hamline/UWS to avoid 1st round intra-conference match-ups. Also there is no 500 mile rule because we will be saving money by playing a total of 6 games at only 2 sites in the east on the 1st weekend.

AldenPartridge1819
03-03-2011, 10:43 AM
Almost 200 views and not one response? I can take a hint.

I'm sorry for wasting all of your time with my clearly outlandish idea. I'll go back to my hole now.:o

PSUChamps2001
03-03-2011, 11:12 AM
Dont ya love it....all the whining and complaining people do on here, yet they can't even show how they would do things...amazing isn't it..

oldguard
03-03-2011, 11:51 AM
I don't think you need to go back into your hole, I like your "out-of-the-box" thinking.

Unfortunately the 12 team thing would throw the NCAA for a loop, because it does not fit the established ratio. However, it seems like a very simple and practical system, saves money and keeps the home fans of at least one team very involved. Too bad it makes sense, therefore it probably will not happen.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
03-03-2011, 02:58 PM
This is just for fun... (Commenting on the rest of this post, but for aesthetic reasons I'm shortening it significantly in the quote)

Check your rep :)

Now, as oldguard said, this makes a lot of sense (and thank you for posting this - some really good ideas here!), but it almost makes too much sense for DIII :P

I do have a few comments to make, however:

1. The 2 full weekends thing is actually by accident this year. Usually, it's Play-ins the Tuesday after Conference Championships, Quarterfinals that Saturday, Finalfour (I think that spelling of the term complies with the trademark regulations?) the following weekend. It got changed this year to avoid conflict with the WCHA Final Five. Am I saying that we shouldn't make this change permanent? No. But of course, your way of doing it (i.e. filling all 3 weekends) makes more sense then this year's week off.

2. I honestly don't like the idea of dictating that is MUST be West vs. East in the Finals. That's nice and aesthetically pleasing, but what if Plattsburgh and Oswego both went 23-0-2 in the regular season, with the 2 ties to each other, and went to 2OT in the SUNYAC Final, etc, and nobody else had at least 20 wins. Would you not want to see those 2 in the best-of-three format finals? Ensuring that they meet in the single-elimination semifinal would mean that the championship may effectively be decided in 1 game, rather than the intended three. (Yes, there would still be a possibility of an upset in the finals, but a minimal one.) My suggestion would be to have you SEMIFINAL match ups be determined by overall seed (or, since NCAA like fixed brackets, the overall seed of the host in each QF "pod"), that way, barring any upsets, the two best teams face off in a best-of-three final, not in a single elimination final.

3. Regardless of how you structure it, the NCAA will still put in a 500-mile restriction. That's just the way they are. And honestly, it makes (financial) sense to use the 500-mile rule in this structure anyway. I'm going to give you a hypothetical bracket here. Tell me if you think they will actually save money by using this without a 500mi rule:

E1 Curry
E2 Fredonia
E3 USM
E4 Plattsburgh
E5 Oswego
E6 Colby
E7 Salem
E8 Elmira

Under your system, we have the following teams travelling:

To Curry:
Plattsburgh (255mi)
Oswego (348 mi)
Elmira (365mi)

To Fredonia
USM (597mi)
Colby (674mi)
Salem (546mi)

In particular, sending USM and Colby to Fredonia would be absolutely ridiculous in place of sending Colby TO Maine. Now, if we enforced a 500mile rule, which I acknowledge is a bit complicated in the West, we would end up just switching the host sites (USM, Colby, Salem to Curry, and Platty, Oz, and Elmira to Fredonia). Yes, this would increase the travel length of Plattsburgh, but would eliminate flight and decrease travel length for the other 5 significantly.

So, if this format did occur, I would actually be in favor of continuing the 500 mile rule, at least in the east.

joecct
03-03-2011, 05:15 PM
The Bracket as it now stands:

With the expected shipping of Adrian to Elmira we have, in effect, a 9/2 bracket.... :)

Byes
Oswego
St. Norbert
Elmira

Playins
Hosted by Norwich & Plattsburgh & ??
On the road: ECAC-NE, ECAC-W, and ??

QF
East 6/7 winner @ Oswego
MIAC @ St. Norbert
Adrian @ Elmira
Winner of ??? @ Norwich vs. winner of ??? @ Plattsburgh

Semifinals
Norwich/Plattsburgh pod vs. Oswego pod
Elmira pod vs. St. Norbert pod

?? are: NESCAC and one more Pool C

anyone got something better??
And if everyone holds serve, the national semifinals are barn burners

AldenPartridge1819
03-04-2011, 08:59 AM
So, if this format did occur, I would actually be in favor of continuing the 500 mile rule, at least in the east.

Nate,

Great hypothetical situation. I guess after reading all that I have decided that I just don't agree with the 500 mile rule. I think that an eastern team is an eastern team and a western team is a western team. I understand that the NCAA will never agree, but bracket integrity should be above travel costs, IMO.

NUProf
03-04-2011, 07:01 PM
Nate,

Great hypothetical situation. I guess after reading all that I have decided that I just don't agree with the 500 mile rule. I think that an eastern team is an eastern team and a western team is a western team. I understand that the NCAA will never agree, but bracket integrity should be above travel costs, IMO.

Problem is that the NCAA doesn't care about anything except costs in DIII championships. To a certain extent, I don't really care either, because you either win or you don't. You should be better than everyone else to win the tournament. eom

norm1909
03-04-2011, 09:42 PM
...Under your system, we have the following teams travelling:

To Curry:
Plattsburgh (255mi)
Oswego (348 mi)
Elmira (365mi)

To Fredonia
USM (597mi)
Colby (674mi)
Salem (546mi)

In particular, sending USM and Colby to Fredonia would be absolutely ridiculous in place of sending Colby TO Maine. Now, if we enforced a 500mile rule, which I acknowledge is a bit complicated in the West, we would end up just switching the host sites (USM, Colby, Salem to Curry, and Platty, Oz, and Elmira to Fredonia). Yes, this would increase the travel length of Plattsburgh, but would eliminate flight and decrease travel length for the other 5 significantly.

So, if this format did occur, I would actually be in favor of continuing the 500 mile rule, at least in the east.

What if the East Tournament (second weekend) was to be held in permanent location, such as Utica or Lake Placid, I don't have time to find the mileage, but that might reduce the potential for the 500-mile rule to have an impact.

one_to7
03-04-2011, 09:48 PM
Problem is that the NCAA doesn't care about anything except costs in DIII championships. To a certain extent, I don't really care either, because you either win or you don't. You should be better than everyone else to win the tournament. eom
You can be better and not win.


If you have to win 3 games and have a 90% chance to win the first 3, and another team has a 60% chance to win their first 3 (assuming each team is equal and has a 50/50 chance to beat each other), team A will make and win more final games than team B. That doesn't mean that team A is better than team B though.

Of course if we can all just agree that winning the title doesn't automatically make someone "the best team that year", then it's all moot :)

NUProf
03-05-2011, 07:22 AM
You can be better and not win.


If you have to win 3 games and have a 90% chance to win the first 3, and another team has a 60% chance to win their first 3 (assuming each team is equal and has a 50/50 chance to beat each other), team A will make and win more final games than team B. That doesn't mean that team A is better than team B though.

Of course if we can all just agree that winning the title doesn't automatically make someone "the best team that year", then it's all moot :)

I agree that a series is a much better way to do things. I just don't agree with those who say we would have won if we hadn't had to play so and so - that means that you don't think your team is worthy or winning a championship. The way to win is to beat whoever you have to play eom.

Irishdave
03-05-2011, 07:44 AM
Under your plan the west's 24 teams are given an equal standing as the 49 East teams,
just does not seem "fair"

It makes a west team's road a lot easier (no 2 game weekend)

Now if the east was split into two regions and the final four rotated between the three regions
Each region would hold its own tournament, sending 1 team.
Plus an at large team from the hosting region (a little like the NFL's wild card) you'd have a final four with a built in attendance grabber of having 2 teams from the hosting region.
Of course this is just out of the cereal box thinking

berbs91
03-05-2011, 08:23 AM
Under your plan the west's 24 teams are given an equal standing as the 49 East teams,
just does not seem "fair"

It makes a west team's road a lot easier (no 2 game weekend)

Now if the east was split into two regions and the final four rotated between the three regions
Each region would hold its own tournament, sending 1 team.
Plus an at large team from the hosting region (a little like the NFL's wild card) you'd have a final four with a built in attendance grabber of having 2 teams from the hosting region.
Of course this is just out of the cereal box thinking

Makes sense... kind of like Major Junior Hockey in Canada. Although, I would have the non-region particpants send their champions and the region participants send the winners of the semi-finals.

AldenPartridge1819
03-05-2011, 12:06 PM
I like the idea of three regions with the hosting region sending two.

It would be hard to separate the east into two regions without serious realignment however.

Irishdave
03-06-2011, 12:10 AM
Some time ago someone posted either a chart showing mileage or an online calculator, from the NCAA site anyone have the link?


EDIT Found it
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/TES/exec/miles