You like that "Blonde" thing eh?
>
> From: "Wayne T. Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2003/03/04 Tue AM 11:49:20 EST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bracket Discussion
>
> >Check out this article on USCHO:
> >http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/03/03_006320.php
> ...
> >What do you guys think?
>
> I'm a bit at odds with Mr. Moy's reasoning, but we're so far out now
> that this is really just practice.  Besides, he knows what he's writing
> about and I'm just spouting off.  ;-)
>
> Here are my (perhaps "blonde") remarks ...
>
> * Why does Moy emphasize "Top 14" when describing the conference
> tournament winners and not Top-16?
>
> * (To answer a ME-Hockey poster) Winning your conference tournament gets
>   you selected for the tournament, it does nothing for your placement in
>   the brackets.  The NCAA uses the term "seeded" in a very strange way
>   that I don't completely understand.  The NCAA seeds only the top 4
>   teams.  That is, they get special treatment in their placement in the
>   regionals, and are placed so that if they all win their regional, 1-4
>   and 2-3 will play in the Frozen Four.
>
> * Mr Moy uses PWR to order the selected 16 teams, but I think this may
>   be incorrect.  I expect the NCAA to use a similar ranking, as they
>   have in the past, that includes comparisons just between the selected
>   teams.  Then again, I may be dreaming.  :-) Also, it's not clear if
>   the seeded teams (top 4) will be those from the top 4 PWR (as
>   calculated by NCAA), or those from the reordered list.
>
> * I agree with Mr. Moy's Steps 2 and 3.
>
> * In Step 4, Mr. Moy speaks of avoiding intraconference matchups, but
>   this will be done only for the opening game of the regionals.
>
> * The NCAA has NOT suggested it will place bands 2-4 teams by the same
>   highest-rank/closest-to-home method, yet Mr. Moy's selection uses that
>   method.  I think the NCAA's method will be similar, but will set to
>   maximize regional attendance according to past experience.
>
> * I see no NCAA reason for Mr Moy's Step 5. I think they would leave
>   Mercyhurst and Alabama-Huntsville alone, given the situation actually
>   existed.  Likewise, I don't see the NCAA using Mr. Moy's reasoning in
>   the St.Cloud/N.Dakota placements.
>
> * Finally, I agree (wow) with Mr. Moy that, given the top 4 seeds the
>   Frozen Four semis would be east-east and west-west, as the top 4 seeds
>   are 1-West, 2-East, 3-East and 4-West.  Thus it worked out that the 2
>   eastern regional winners will play in the Frozen Four, though this
>   will not necessarily the case, come selection time.
>
> But it's way too early for any of this to be useful, except in gaining
> understanding of the process.
>
> My take on the process: the new rules will emphasize the banding.
> Banding is absolute (will not be overridden by other "rules").  The NCAA
> may need to adjust within bands in order to keep the strengths of each
> regional approximately the same.  One way to do this would be to seed
> bands #3 & #4 in the opposite order from #1 & #2.
>
> There apparently will be some potential for strangeness in the rules
> this year.  For example, let's say team X might be ranked 8th or 9th.
> Being ranked 8th should be better because it would mean the first game
> would be played as the home team (#2 in regional vs #3).  However, if
> Mr. Moy's apparent reasoning is used, the #8 ranked team is placed in
> whatever regional is left over (after placing #5, 6 & 7).  Drop down to
> #9 and team X gets first (in band) pick at a regional close to home and
> road jerseys.
>
> Arguments, coherent or otherwise, are hereby solicited!
>
> cheers, wayne (ready to shuffle off to Buffalo)
>

______________________________________
"It isn't how far you go in life...It's who you walk with."