Eeyore <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Mike Machnik wrote:
>
>>Re-seeding the East, Denver hops up to third ahead of Clarkson because of
>>overall ranking:
>>
>> west east
>>1 CC (2) BU (1)
>>2 minnesota (3) vermont (9)
>>3 western mich (4) denver (10)
>>4 michigan (5) clarkson (11)
>>5 msu (6) lowell (12)
>>6 lssu (8) bowling green (13)
>
>If this is the way the seedings end up, and these are in fact the final PWR
>numbers (unlikely though it is to remain unchanged) I'd be somewhat
>perturbed. (Make that steamed.) I'm not that worried about the bye, since
>I think it's of somewhat dubious advantage. This seeding, though,
>guarantees that one of the Final Four entrants will have finished with a
>ranking no better than 9th, a lower ranking than any of the teams in the
>West Regional.
Right, I noticed that too. Note that I did say that the big question
was how to determine the crossovers. Here's another thing I could see
happening: take two crossovers from each region and send them to the
other regional. This has happened in the past, including the last two
years. In a 6-6 split, this would mean that two East teams would go
West and two West teams would go East. But in the 8-4 split here, it
would mean that two teams from the East would go West, and four from
the West would go East. Result is 4 West, 2 East in each region.
BU, Vermont, Clarkson, and Lowell were the four East teams here. So
Clarkson and Lowell would go West.
In the West, normally the bottom four teams - MSU, LSSU, Denver, BG -
would go East. But MSU must stay home because they host. So instead,
Michigan goes East. New regionals after re-seeding:
(since #7 Maine is not included, I decided to bump up the ranking of
the teams ranked 8-13 to account for this and make it less confusing.)
west east
1 CC (2) BU (1)
2 minnesota (3) michigan (5)
3 western mich (4) lssu (7)
4 msu (6) vermont (8)
5 clarkson (10) denver (9)
6 lowell (11) bowling green (12)
This still means that Michigan, ranked lower than WMU, would get a bye
and, supposedly, have an easier road to the Final Four (LSSU/Vermont,
as opposed to Lowell and then Minnesota for WMU). Brackets are
(6v3)v2 and (5v4)v1.
What throws a wrench into all of this is that the East has only one
team ranked in the top 8, with Maine not participating. This type of
situation has not happened before. It could be enough to cause the
committee to decide to award the second seed in the East to the third
highest West team, if that team is not MSU.
Suppose the seeding approximated that of basketball. Then we'd take
the top 12 teams and send the first to one regional, the 2nd and 3rd
to the second regional, the 4th and 5th to the first regional, and so
on. Here's what we'd get:
west east
1 CC (2) BU (1)
2 minnesota (3) western mich (4)
3 msu (6) michigan (5)
4 lssu (7) vermont (8)
5 clarkson (10) denver (9)
6 lowell (11) bowling green (12)
It would be a precedent, but it could very well happen. These seeds
seem to make some sense, too. Although, Clarkson and Lowell people
would be upset at being seeded higher than BG but being forced to
cross over.
Would attendance be a factor? Perhaps...it could be why the committee
would choose to keep all four East teams in the East. This is another
thing to watch for. I don't think it is as much of a factor in the
West, however.
It is tough to call. This is such an unusual year that I can think of
several things that could happen this time that have not happened
before, as I have shown above. You can make a case for any of them.
>What a fine reward to Michigan for being near the top of
>the CCHA; they would have to beat MSU and CC to advance to Cincinatti
>(against what is likely to be a hostile crowd, no less) while Bowling
>Green, the fifth place team in the conference (and eight rankings lower),
>faces Denver and Vermont. Which sounds like the easier road to you?
I think you raise a good point about a lower seeded team having an
easier road, but as I always do around this time of year, I'll caution
people against thinking that a higher conference finish entitles a
team to a seeding that is higher or easier than that of a lower ranked
team in another conference or even their own conference. Even teams
that win their conference regular season or tournament can be seeded
lower than teams from their conference that did not.
The NCAA tournament selection is based on the entire season long
performance of the teams. That means nonconference games as well as
conference games. It is not unusual for teams ranked lower in the
conference to come out higher in the NCAA's ranking when *all* games
are factored in, including postseason.
So what is key here is not that Michigan was near the top of the CCHA,
but that Michigan was ranked higher in the NCAA's ranking of the 12
seeds.
On a related subject, I say this every year, but I just *know* that
when the seeds are announced, someone is going to complain about a
team winning their conference regular season or tournament but being
seeded lower than another team that did not. Mark my words, it
happens every year.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: *****
***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html *****
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
