Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

2 points for a win, 1 point for an OT loss or a tie, simple straight forward.

NO.

Loser points are for losers. I HATE the NHL system.

If you are going to award teams making it to OT or the shootout, then give an outright winner 3 points, an OT/SO winner 2 points, an OT/SO loser 1 point, and an outright loser zero points.

That is what I call straightforward.

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

NO.

Loser points are for losers. I HATE the NHL system.

If you are going to award teams making it to OT or the shootout, then give an outright winner 3 points, an OT/SO winner 2 points, an OT/SO loser 1 point, and an outright loser zero points.

That is what I call straightforward.

What you suggest is what the UCHC is doing. If it’s so straightforward, why isn’t USCHO displaying the standings correctly?

[sacole13]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

NO.

Loser points are for losers. I HATE the NHL system.

If you are going to award teams making it to OT or the shootout, then give an outright winner 3 points, an OT/SO winner 2 points, an OT/SO loser 1 point, and an outright loser zero points.

That is what I call straightforward.

I agree with the 3-2-1 system but no one else wants it.

[UCBadger]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

What you suggest is what the UCHC is doing. If it’s so straightforward, why isn’t USCHO displaying the standings correctly?

The USCHO does do this for the Big 10 standings (and perhaps others)..........Another example of the USCHO not caring about DIII?

[Fishman'81]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

What you suggest is what the UCHC is doing. If it’s so straightforward, why isn’t USCHO displaying the standings correctly?

Yup. And some people on here don't grasp that fact.

[Steve Day]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

This is all a MUTE Point as the AQ will go to the Tourney Winner and there is too much time wasted talking about this in BRAKETOLGY

[Russell Jaslow]

What you suggest is what the UCHC is doing. If it’s so straightforward, why isn’t USCHO displaying the standings correctly?

That has nothing to do with me argument. :-)

[Russell Jaslow]

This is all a MUTE Point as the AQ will go to the Tourney Winner and there is too much time wasted talking about this in BRAKETOLGY

Yeah, it’s not like an Internet thread ever got way off track... LOL

[NUProf]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

This is all a MUTE Point as the AQ will go to the Tourney Winner and there is too much time wasted talking about this in BRAKETOLGY

MOOT, MOOT, not mute

[OZFEST]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

MOOT, MOOT, not mute

This last exhausting discussion should be muted....

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

Updated Bracketology as of Sunday, Feb. 10

CCC - Salve Regina (17)
MASCAC - Plymouth State (31)
MIAC - Augsburg (11)
NCHA - St. Norbert (6)
NEHC - UMass Boston (5)
NESCAC - Wesleyan (10)
SUNYAC - Geneseo (2)
UCHC - Utica (15)

Pool C - Stevens Point (1)
Pool C - Oswego (3)
Pool C - Norwich (4)
Pool C - Adrian (7)

I see two options for bracketing to avoid flights before the semifinals.

1st option (All 8 eastern teams in play-ins)

Plymouth at Geneseo
Wesleyan at UMass Boston
Utica at Norwich
Salve Regina at Oswego

Quarterfinals -

Salve/Oswego vs. Utica/Norwich
UMass Boston/Wesleyan vs. Geneseo/Plymouth
Adrian at St. Norbert
Augsburg at Point

This option is tough because you have the No. 2, 3, 4 seeds all playing in play-in games when it's avoidable to have the No. 2 and 4 teams to get byes in a different scenario. Plus you set up quarterfinal matchups between potentially the No. 2 and No. 5 team and No. 3 and No. 4 team.

2nd option ("Adrian triad")

Play-in round

Augsburg at St. Norbert
Plymouth at Wesleyan
Salve at Utica
Adrian at Oswego

Quarterfinals
SNC/Augsburg at Stevens Point
Wesleyan/Plymouth at UMass Boston
Utica/Salve at Norwich
Oswego/Adrian at Geneseo

Obviously the glaring one here is putting Oswego/Adrian in a play-in game. But Oswego plays in a play-in game in either scenario so that's less of a blow. They get a tougher play-in opponent and Adrian plays in the play-in game, which they don't in the other. What I like most about this scenario is that 4 of the top 5 seeds all get the byes they earned and you can do it within the travel requirements. However, it also leaves us with the No. 4 and No. 5 seeds having "easier" paths to the final four as they get potentially the No. 10 and No. 15 teams for a shot to the final four, while the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds have to play the No. 6 and No. 3 seeds.

I think you can mark arguments both ways...but probably option 1 is slightly better at this point. However, lots of hockey left to change things. One of St. Norbert/Adrian, Geneseo/Oswego, UMass Boston/Norwich each have at least one more loss coming in the conference playoffs, and that's assuming one of them wins each playoff, which is far from a guarantee.

Still so much hockey left to be played, but I'll firmly put Stevens Point and Geneseo in as locks right now. Outside of that, anything can still happen....

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

Again, with lots of hockey left, do you think the NCHA really gets two bids? That's a change from recent weeks...

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

Again, with lots of hockey left, do you think the NCHA really gets two bids? That's a change from recent weeks...

If the season ended today, yes. All that matters is the pairwise and the pairwise says yes if you take all the current conference leaders.

3 weeks of hockey certainly can drastically change things and I'm sure it will fluctuate plenty even by next week. Things are very tight between 3 and 18 and every result will likely jostle those up a bit.

[802Hockey]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

I certainly hope it gets mixed up a bit this year. I get it with the traveling restrictions but getting tired of seeing the majority of eastern teams have play-ins while the West has similar matchups year to year for a one game shot to the frozen four.

We will see how the next weeks shape out but if they stay similar I hope for Prez’s second proposed possibility.

I do see where each has downsides though. Wish travel was more doable. Would absolutely love to see more East/West matchups.

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: Bracketology 1.0 D3 style

I find interesting that you have Adrian as the #4, and SNC as the #6 - yet SNC hosting in the first senario. As of now, SNC is the conference 'winner' - and may leap Adrian in the rankings with another win the NCHA title game - but is there a reason you have the lower seed hosting?