Eric Hoffman wrote:
 
>Sorry to prolong this seeding discussion even further.....but I thought
>it might be interesting to seed and bracket based solely on the PWR.
>
>OK, set up the brackets like the B-ball tournament such that #1 has the
>"easiest" draw to the finals (assuming no upsets!).
>
>             1. Michigan                        2. Clarkson
>8. Cornell      ________                           ________     7. Boston U.
>9. Miami                                                        10. Denver
>
>5. New Hampshire                                                6. Vermont
>12. Mich. St.  __________                          ________     11. CC
>             4. Minnesota                       3.  N. Dakota
>
 
Your length post was very interesting and well written, with some good
arguments.   However, if the NC$$ had arranged the bracket as they
would/did with basketball, the brackets would show up differently.
 
According to most of the PWR ratings for basketball, Utah was ranked 3rd in
the country, yet they were seeded behind Kentucky in the west. Why? Because
of another example of why we spell it NC$$: Salt Lake City had, before the
tournament seedings, been chosen as a site for first/second round games,
and assigned to be the site where the #1 West seed would be playing.
Because the NC$$  doesn't want a "home court" advantage in the tournament,
Utah got shipped to Tucson as a #2 West seed. Sure, the NC$$ could have
given Utah a #1 seed, but it would have meant playing in North Carolina,
which the NC$$ wanted even less -- they want the teams playing in their
region, just not down the street.
 
With only 12 teams, that same logic cannot be applied. With a field of only
12 teams and only *2* sites for regionals, it's doubtful there will ever be
a tournament where everybody's satisfied -- especially since Byes are
awarded. With basketball however, the Utah fans are somewhat irked by not
receiving a #1 seed, but readily accept the fact that a #1 seed would have
meant being shipped far from their home state.
 
If seedings were picked as they are for basketball, with the "easiest route
for the #1 seed" to the final four and keeping regions in mind, the seeding
would have gone:
 
(note: because of the first-round byes, seeding has been adjusted to give
the top seeds the "easiest possible" matchips in the regional finals. Also,
seeds are listed for each conference, just as they are for basketball --
IE, a western team will receive an "east" seed, rather than being
considered a "west" seed sent to the east)
 
         WEST                                    EAST
 
                1W. Michigan                  1E. Clarkson
4W. Cornell      __________                    __________   4E. BU
6W. MSU                                                     6E. CC
 
5W. Denver                                                  5E. Miami
3W. Vermont      __________                    __________   3E. UNH
                2W. N Dakoka                  2E. Minnesota
 
 
I'm sure many of you can already see all the problems with this bracket --
which just goes to show that you can't use the basketball tournament system.
 
The main reason for the snag here is due to the first-round byes.
Basketball makes the top seeds in each region play the lowest team first.
In my bracket above, the top seeds will end up playing the "easier" team --
for example, in the West, Michigan plays the winner of a 4 vs 6 -- a
mathematical "average" if you would of 5. North Dakota plays the winner of
a 5 vs 3 -- an "average" of 4. This gives Michigan an (numerically) easier
shot. Additionally, MSU, the bottom seed in the whole tournament, ends up
playing the top seed should they make it through; sorta like the first
round of basketball.
 
Also keep in mind however, that the "top seeds" in basketball aren't
assured of the easiest way through to the Final Four. Minnesota
(basketball), ranked second, gets dropped in the Midwest, which most
critics and fans agree is the hardest region to win.
 
I've read what people think about automatic byes, but what do you think
about the minimum number of East teams? If the ratings supported it, would
people be in favor of a tournament filled with 10 CCHA & WCHA teams, and
only 1 team from each HEA and ECAC (as automatic bids for winning
conference tourney should never go away)? After all, that's how basketball
does things -- and teams *still* get left out in the cold.
 
 
 
Remember -- I'm not saying that this is the best way to do the tournament
-- far from it. Personally, I think the NC$$ did a good, fair job this year.
 
Then again, I'm a BU fan. :-)
 
 
 
greenie
 
S P O O N ! !
 
GO BU!    (hockey)
GO BU!    (basketball)
GO 'BOWS! (20-6 and no tourney bid? Bull!)
GO BU!    (did I mention hockey?)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.