PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Change the Tourney



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14]

chickod
04-06-2011, 10:19 AM
Fine, that's one way of doing it. What it would mean is that about 3/4 of the 31 Division I basketball conferences (including America East) would be kicked out of Division I. Those are the conferences that rarely win a first round game, and don't win second round games. Seems like an unnecessarily extreme measure to me, but have at it.:):rolleyes:

That's right. Exactly. Because they aren't treated at the same level anyway, so why not? They did it in football. Go ahead and roll your eyes. Just because I know that it will never ACTUALLY be done doesn't mean I can't have an opinion, and my opinion is that the "weaker" conferences are treated as second-class citizens. I get it - I understand WHY (can you spell M-O-N-E-Y ?); I'm just voicing my opposition. Let me put it another way (and I don't know who "your" team is - mine is BU) - wouldn't you rather see them have an actual "chance" to win a championship by competing against programs that exert the same effort and funding instead of watching them get clocked by a #1 seed year after year? Now everyone talks about VCU, Butler, etc. But they came in as #11 (or somewhere in that vicinity - I'm not going to go back and look it up) seeds. They didn't have to play a #1 seed year after year in the first round. Tell me how the conference's "rating" can ever go up if the only games they play are against the top four teams in the country? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The "weak" conference plays against the BEST teams so they become "weaker." My point is the NCAA would do the same thing in hockey if they had the chance, but there aren't enough leagues and/or teams. I'm illustrating this to show that they can't even give ONE MORE bid to an AHA team, so they're doing the same thing as they do in basketball.

chickod
04-06-2011, 10:28 AM
I sympathize with the idea that regular season champs belong in the NCAA tournament. The question is whether there's a viable optionto ensure that this happens.

Well, we can distill this entire discussion (at least from my perspective) down to the above quote. It PROVES that the post-season tournament is MORE IMPORTANT than the regular season. You just said it. And that's all I have been saying.


I'll also say that the prospect of two Atlantic Hockey teams in the NCAA tournament doesn't horrify me.

And for the person who said, "If the AHA regular season champ hadn't lost their post-season tournament they would have received a bid." (and I'm sorry I can't put my finger on the exact post right now) - that's the whole point - they should get a bid ANYWAY as the regular season champ. In some leagues, the regular season and post-season champ will be one and the same, so the MAXIMUM number of auto-bids among the five leagues in any given year is 10, and probably less. That leaves typically MORE than 6 at large bids. That's anywhere from 10-14% of ALL the teams in Division 1. I think that's pretty reasonable.

CLS
04-06-2011, 11:32 PM
That's right. Exactly. Because they aren't treated at the same level anyway, so why not? They did it in football. Go ahead and roll your eyes. Just because I know that it will never ACTUALLY be done doesn't mean I can't have an opinion, and my opinion is that the "weaker" conferences are treated as second-class citizens.Oh stop it!:mad: NOBODY has challenged your right to an opinion. In fact, I respect the fact that you have an opinion off the mainstream. What I don't respect is the fact that you don't seem to recognize that there might be reasonable people who might disagree. The beginning of this thread was a debate about how the regionals are set up. There were some strong differences of opinion. But the discussion was civil and enlightenting, because the participants recognized that other points of view might have some validity.

I get it - I understand WHY (can you spell M-O-N-E-Y ?)Not necessarily. There are some well meaning folks that recoginze that, in fact, that all conferences aren't made equal. And some -- in fact many -- people believe that the tournament should be for the best teams. You don't agree, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong or your position is morally superior. When the tournament went to 16 teams, one of the stipulations was that the AHA and the CHA got automatic bids. Many argued that they shouldn't get an autobid at all, and I find it more than a little amusing that some of the very people, including me, who are arguing with you now are the ones who were defending the autobids for the CHA and the AHA. And some of those same people recognize that your proposal won't happen, but rather than spitting into the wind, understand that though they believe the autobid for the AHA, and for the CHA when it existed are a good thing, accept it. Or believe that one autobid per conference is enough. Can you accept that they might think that for a "good reason", not because they're supporters of a power conference?
Let me put it another way (and I don't know who "your" team is - mine is BU) - wouldn't you rather see them have an actual "chance" to win a championship by competing against programs that exert the same effort and funding instead of watching them get clocked by a #1 seed year after year?For the record, I don't have a team. I'll be at the games tomorrow in a Hockey East sweatshirt, but I am a fan of college hockey and particularly of this tournament. And your question doesn't make sense to me because they HAVE and actual chance to win the tournament, without being given any easy route to the final. Bemidji and RIT made the FF under the current seeding rules. Air Force almost made the FF both years under the current seeding rules I rooted for Bemidji and if I had gone last year, I would have rooted for RIT. But I'm also for teams like Minnesota-Duluth, who play in a tough conference and don't have anywhere near the resources that their brethren at UMTC or North Dakota do. I'm also for Merrimack, who don't have a palace off Comm Ave to play in and show off to recruits.

Now everyone talks about VCU, Butler, etc. But they came in as #11 (or somewhere in that vicinity - I'm not going to go back and look it up) seeds. They didn't have to play a #1 seed year after year in the first round.Who's "everyone"? I sure didn't talk about VCU or Butler. I did talk about Belmont. And you know why? Because there are many teams and many conferences who are in D1, not because they really have a commitement to have a competitive basketball program. It's because all D1 schools share in the TV money. Yes, it is about money, but not in the way you're presenting it.

Tell me how the conference's "rating" can ever go up if the only games they play are against the top four teams in the country? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The "weak" conference plays against the BEST teams so they become "weaker." My point is the NCAA would do the same thing in hockey if they had the chance, but there aren't enough leagues and/or teams. I'm illustrating this to show that they can't even give ONE MORE bid to an AHA team, so they're doing the same thing as they do in basketball.And I agree to a point. But the place to do that is in the regular season, not the tournament. The NCAA could to a lot to encourage more intraconference games. Propose something there, and I'll be right behind you. But all you do by trying to attempt that in the tournament is to breed resentment among the Duluths and Western Michigans and UMass Lowells of the world. Those are the people who would get screwed by adding more autobids.

Signing off. I won't be checking this again until after the tournament. Despite the tournaments imperfections, I'm expecting a great time.:)

billmich88888
04-07-2011, 09:53 AM
Actually, starting in 2001 the MAAC (precursor to the AHA) earned an auto bid due to fullfilling the necessary requirements (membership level, continuity...etc) the tournament was at 12 teams and stayed there for 1 more year. In 2003 the CHA had earned an auto-bid and seeing this on the horizon, the ncaa expanded the field from 12 to 16 in time for 2003. Expansion wasn`t predicated on certain conferences getting an auto-bid. Those conferences earned them independantly. By the same rules, the BTHC won`t get an auto big until year 3 of their existence ( barring an exemption, which I believe is very likely to be given to them)

pgb-ohio
04-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Well, we can distill this entire discussion (at least from my perspective) down to the above quote. It PROVES that the post-season tournament is MORE IMPORTANT than the regular season. You just said it. And that's all I have been saying.That's not the case. Acknowledging that an issue has two legitimate sides in no way proves which argument is best.

Many posters rejected your position out of hand. My take was that your defense of the regular season champs was worth considering. Your underlying theory, not so much. To me, the discussion of which portion of the schedule is more important is distracting, if not irrelevant. The real question is whether a regular season champion has earned a spot in the post-season. I'm willing to entertain that possibility -- but not because the regular season is less important or not important.

So our *agreement* is pretty limited. Personally, I'm opposed to potentially doubling the number of autobids, or shifting all of the autobids to the regular season champs. That said, I still think it's possible to tweak the current system to accomodate *most* regular season champs that would otherwise be left out. In long run, there wouldn't be much impact on at-large bids; in some years there would be no impact at all.

But note that the minor repair I proposed didn't gain any traction. I'd be reluctant to claim that either of us proved anything.;)

CLS
04-12-2011, 01:15 PM
Actually, starting in 2001 the MAAC (precursor to the AHA) earned an auto bid due to fullfilling the necessary requirements (membership level, continuity...etc) the tournament was at 12 teams and stayed there for 1 more year. In 2003 the CHA had earned an auto-bid and seeing this on the horizon, the ncaa expanded the field from 12 to 16 in time for 2003. Expansion wasn`t predicated on certain conferences getting an auto-bid. Those conferences earned them independantly.You probably did a much more accurate job of stating it than I did. Autobids to AHA and CHA and expansion to 16 may not have been quid pro quo but they were coincident and probably related. There had been agitation for expansion of the tournement for some time, but the NCAA hadn't expanded, among the reasons being that according to norms of the % of participating teams that make the tournament, 12 was the right number. But the NCAA recongized that if that there was a lot of complaining about worthy teams not making the tournament, there would be even more complaining if two at-large bids were eliminated so that the AHA and CHA could have their autobids. So the net effect of the autobids for AHA and CHA and expansion to 16 was to add two at-large bids and two autobids. Some people argued that the CHA and AHA shouldn't get autobids, but should have to make it as at large teams. Some of us (who are now arguing against more autobids) defended the autobids to AHA and CHA as good for the sport then.


By the same rules, the BTHC won`t get an auto big until year 3 of their existence ( barring an exemption, which I believe is very likely to be given to them)Wouldn't it be a hoot if the NCAA didn't give them an exemption and none of them made it?

nudgy_olsen
04-12-2011, 02:33 PM
justifying an autobid for a conference champ is redundant, as they are most likely going to be an at-large candidate anyway. you're just arguing over a technicality. and if this is being suggested to accommodate for lesser strength conferences then that isn't objective and fair to everyone, so it should be ruled out based on that. you want equality amongst treatment of conferences but want this rule to do it? nope lol

Priceless
04-12-2011, 03:09 PM
justifying an autobid for a conference champ is redundant, as they are most likely going to be an at-large candidate anyway. you're just arguing over a technicality.

No, you aren't.

The tournament champion of the "autobid conferences" would have only earned an-large berth in 2009 when Air Force finished #14. Other than that, no tournament champion has been rated high enough to get an invite. The highest-ranked champion was Holy Cross in 2006 (#21). Bemidji State finished #8 but did not win the conference autobid.

The autobid is absolutely needed for those conference(s) to earn an invitation to the Big Dance.

Rover
04-12-2011, 03:27 PM
I'm curious if anybody feels the way I do upon completion of what seemed to be a successful tournament, which is that the whole NCAA hockey tourament process really doesn't need any wholesale changes after all. I think I can sum up my feelings in two thoughts: 1) No more St. Louis for the regionals, and 2) do a better job of making regionals more attractive (lower ticket prices, better promotion).

billmich88888
04-12-2011, 03:32 PM
No, you aren't.

The tournament champion of the "autobid conferences" would have only earned an-large berth in 2009 when Air Force finished #14. Other than that, no tournament champion has been rated high enough to get an invite. The highest-ranked champion was Holy Cross in 2006 (#21). Bemidji State finished #8 but did not win the conference autobid.

The autobid is absolutely needed for those conference(s) to earn an invitation to the Big Dance.

if air force hadn`t won their tourney, they certainly would have ranked below the line to get an at large bid....

nudgy_olsen
04-12-2011, 03:35 PM
No, you aren't.

The tournament champion of the "autobid conferences" would have only earned an-large berth in 2009 when Air Force finished #14. Other than that, no tournament champion has been rated high enough to get an invite. The highest-ranked champion was Holy Cross in 2006 (#21). Bemidji State finished #8 but did not win the conference autobid.

The autobid is absolutely needed for those conference(s) to earn an invitation to the Big Dance.

what? nobody is talking about tournament champions, i said conference champions, as did all the other posters before me. sigh. everyone already agrees having tournament auto bids is a good idea. the gray area is conf. champs. but anyway. nice relevant post, lol. its funny to think you were so eager to respond and mash that reply button so hard that you didnt even stop to read it. but its generally true that people dont really read things, they just respond to what they want to have read. lol the funniest part is that you truncated my comment down to spotlighting the word conference and you still didn't bother to read it correctly. lol

Priceless
04-12-2011, 03:52 PM
if air force hadn`t won their tourney, they certainly would have ranked below the line to get an at large bid....

They would have been #20, well below the cut line.


what? nobody is talking about tournament champions, i said conference champions, as did all the other posters before me. sigh. everyone already agrees having tournament auto bids is a good idea. the gray area is conf. champs. but anyway. nice relevant post, lol. its funny to think you were so eager to respond and mash that reply button so hard that you didnt even stop to read it. but its generally true that people dont really read things, they just respond to what they want to have read. lol the funniest part is that you truncated my comment down to spotlighting the word conference and you still didn't bother to read it correctly. lol

Let me rephrase, since you seem to be a stickler.


No, you aren't.

The regular season champion of the "autobid conferences" would have only earned an-large berth in 2009 when Bemidji State finished #8. Other than that, no regular season champion has been rated high enough to get an invite.

The autobid is absolutely needed for those conference(s) to earn an invitation to the Big Dance.

CLS
04-12-2011, 03:54 PM
I'm curious if anybody feels the way I do upon completion of what seemed to be a successful tournament, which is that the whole NCAA hockey tourament process really doesn't need any wholesale changes after all. I think I can sum up my feelings in two thoughts: 1) No more St. Louis for the regionals, and 2) do a better job of making regionals more attractive (lower ticket prices, better promotion).I agree with you.

But I think there's a legitimate discussion about how important "atmosphere" is and how much making the regionals attractive could accomplish. IMO, you could promote them better and let in everyone for free, and you'd still have an attendance problem, unless there's a local team involved. The NCAA hockey generally is a niche sport, so it's questionable how much effect promotion would have locally. For fans of the teams, for many the cost of the ticket is much less of a concern than the cost of travel and accomodations. Travel to conference tournaments and the FF can be planned in advance. Travel to regionals, in the current setup, can't.

nudgy_olsen
04-12-2011, 04:32 PM
so you're saying that when the big ten conf starts, 12 of the 16 slots are going to be auto-locked up. and the 2nd place team in a conference could potentially not get an invite because we want to make sure its fair for RIT to get in? You know that team that won the national championship this year? They were 4th in their conference, despite having a .700 win record, and as few losses as UND.

So assuming BTC exists this year, DU, UNH, UMD, Notre Dame, or Miami would have had to stay home completely with their >.650 overall win %, in order to make it fair for RIT or whatever AHA or ECAC team happens to make it to the top so that they can get in? Get real.

They already had this before, it was called the CC exemption (they won the WCHA conf title, and didn't get an NCAA inv), and then they removed it because it was a terrible idea. But to try and re-implement it, not for the sake of CC's situation, but under a different disguise for the "fairness" that AHA's luckbox of the year gets in is not only completely unfair to the 2nd place finisher of a high SOS, but redundant all together.

Priceless
04-12-2011, 04:49 PM
The "CC Rule" was removed because the NCAA frowns upon giving 2 autobids to a conference in any sport. It won't be coming back anytime soon. If the BTHC is exempted and given an autobid from the beginning and the other 5 conferences remain, there will be 6 autobids and 10 at-large berths as there have been for most of the 16-team tournament history.

CLS
04-12-2011, 04:56 PM
so you're saying that when the big ten conf starts, 12 of the 16 slots are going to be auto-locked up. and the 2nd place team in a conference could potentially not get an invite because we want to make sure its fair for RIT to get in? You know that team that won the national championship this year? They were 4th in their conference, despite having a .700 win record, and as few losses as UND.

So assuming BTC exists this year, DU, UNH, UMD, Notre Dame, or Miami would have had to stay home completely with their >.650 overall win %, in order to make it fair for RIT or whatever AHA or ECAC team happens to make it to the top so that they can get in? Get real.

They already had this before, it was called the CC exemption (they won the WCHA conf title, and didn't get an NCAA inv), and then they removed it because it was a terrible idea. But to try and re-implement it, not for the sake of CC's situation, but under a different disguise for the "fairness" that AHA's luckbox of the year gets in is not only completely unfair to the 2nd place finisher of a high SOS, but redundant all together.Priceless isnít suggesting anything of the sort. He was responding to your statement:

justifying an autobid for a conference champ is redundant, as they are most likely going to be an at-large candidate anyway.
Thatís not true for AHA, and for the CHA when it existed. In most years the regular season champion is not an at-large candidate.

nudgy_olsen
04-12-2011, 05:35 PM
That’s not true for AHA, and for the CHA when it existed. In most years the regular season champion is not an at-large candidate.

and that's fine, it doesn't mean theres a flaw in the system. AHA teams have barely made a dent in the NCAAs in the chances they've been given. To think sticking another one in there for the sake of fairness is going to help out is silly. like i said, the team that won the national title this year, finished 4th in their conference, and lost the first game of their conference tournament. were they deserving of a bid? absolutely. great 6-0 non-conf rec, and had just as few losses as North Dakota. replacing them with the team that won the AHA is not only situationally unfair, but also unequal in terms of team potential.

CLS
04-12-2011, 06:51 PM
and that's fine, it doesn't mean theres a flaw in the system. AHA teams have barely made a dent in the NCAAs in the chances they've been given. To think sticking another one in there for the sake of fairness is going to help out is silly. like i said, the team that won the national title this year, finished 4th in their conference, and lost the first game of their conference tournament. were they deserving of a bid? absolutely. great 6-0 non-conf rec, and had just as few losses as North Dakota. replacing them with the team that won the AHA is not only situationally unfair, but also unequal in terms of team potential.

I violently agree. Exactly one poster (not Priceless) suggested adding an autobid for regular season champions and he got almost no support. You're preaching to the choir.

Patman
04-12-2011, 07:34 PM
I violently agree. Exactly one poster (not Priceless) suggested adding an autobid for regular season champions and he got almost no support. You're preaching to the choir.

Let's remember... the autobid is at the discretion of the league... they are the ones that decide it to give it to the post-season tournament champions. They are under no obligation to do so.

FreshFish
04-12-2011, 08:05 PM
Let's remember... the autobid is at the discretion of the league... they are the ones that decide it to give it to the post-season tournament champions. They are under no obligation to do so.

In Division I basketball, in both the men's and women's tournament, the regular-season Ivy League champion gets the league's auto bid; they do not hold a post-season tournament. Until only several years ago, the Big Ten also sent their regular season champion, their league tournament is a relatively recent innovation for them.

While it is not feasible, I'd much prefer that all the league tournaments be replaced collectively by a broader field...you'd play the same games in the same weekends, except for expanded overall stakes.... on the one hand, you have to funnel teams into the tournament only through autobid or at-large. That imperative intersects with the randomness that occurs whenever league tournaments produce different results than league seasons. The result sometimes seems like a bit of a traffic jam.

Theoretically, if you replace every one of the league tournaments with a broader national field at the end of everyone's regular season instead, it sounds like you could get just about everything everyone is asking for (the only problem being you'd be taking away something that few want to give up....)

The top eight teams nationally get first round bye (1st place in x leagues, plus best y of z 2nd place teams), then take the next best 16, for an overall tournament field of 24. For some leagues, top three teams are in; for other leagues, top two teams are in, for another league, maybe only top team gets in...and you also have three or four wildcards beyond that as well, to spice it up (and round up to 24).

Most of the rest of the hosting timelines and decisions and ancillary details follow in a more reliable and predictable way as well, or at least I would hope....

Naturally the post-season tournaments won't be replaced with an expanded national field because the money flows (and power fiefdoms!) are different.....still, I think this kind of format would be a lot more exciting than what we have now....regular season becomes magnified, AND the playoffs become more electric as well....