Dave writes:
>> Wisconsin (6W) is the first sixth seed ever to make the FFour.  MSU (5W) is
>> the first fifth seed.
>
>I am proud and happy for the Badgers, and it certainly was an odd
>quarterfinals all around, but I think this says more about the in-acuracy
>of the seeds than a great underdog effort by Wisconsin.
 
There's an extremely important issue here that no one has picked up on yet,
but Dave is pretty close.  The alteration of the bracket so as to allow the
top 4 teams from each region to remain in their own region, has resulted in
an extreme unfairness between the 3-4 and 5-6 seeds in a region.  And I think
this was one of the concerns raised here back a year ago when we learned of
the new format.
 
Previously, a 5-6 seed had to beat the 3-4 seed from the other region, then
beat the 1-2 seed from its own region.  Now a 5-6 has to beat the 3-4 from
the other region and then ALSO the 1-2 from the other region.
 
But since the teams must be seeded in their own region, if one region is
much stronger top to bottom than another, the teams that cross over from the
strong region have a much better chance of making the FFour than the teams
that do not - they have to fight it out amongst themselves.
 
For example, Wisconsin beat UNH, then had to beat SLU.  If this were last
year, Wisconsin would have had to beat Minnesota instead of SLU.  Q-final
matchups all-around would have been:
 
6W Wis-2W Minn
5W MSU-1W Mich
4W NMU-1E Maine
3W LSSU-2E SLU
 
So what I am suggesting is that a lower seed in the West had an easier time
of it than it would have had in last year's format or if it were seeded
higher so as to not crossover.  This is what will happen if one region has
one strong team and the others don't match up to their corresponding seeds
across the country.  For example, the 6W seed has an easier time than 4W
because 6W has to beat 3E and 2E while 4W has to beat 5E and 1W, and this
year, 1W Mich was rated much higher than 2E SLU.
 
The problem is that the format could encourage teams to lose games to get
easier games early on in the tourney.  I'm not suggesting Wisconsin
*intentionally* lost to NMU in the WCHA semis, but looking back, it was
definitely to their advantage, especially if the Badgers had taken a long,
hard look at the East and determined that it was indeed Maine and everybody
else.  By that time (WCHA semi), Maine was assured the top seed in the
East, and in one of my posts, I noted (correctly, as it turned out - I only
say this to show that it IS possible to predict these things) that the loser
of Wis-NMU would be seeded 6W.  And 6W, the lowest seed in the region (other
than 7W UAA which was shifted to 6E), ended up having the easiest route
through the early part of the tourney of any of the teams!
 
I seriously think something needs to be done about this.  Eliminating the
crossover in the quarterfinal, IMO, makes it necessary to get rid of the
brackets and go to re-seeding for the quarterfinal.  I don't think that
forcing the lower teams to travel negates this advantage that they receive;
after all, it is still far for NMU to go to Detroit.
 
Last year, it was suggested that the 3-4 seeds would travel and the 5-6 seeds
would stay in their regions to preserve the old brackets.  And I said that
this wasn't fair, it would make the higher seeded teams travel while the
lower seeded teams stayed closer to home.  Well, I am starting to think that
maybe this is how it should be done after all if the concept of brackets is
to be maintained.  That, or start placing teams in regionals regardless of
actual location like hoop does (sort of).
 
Looking forward to thoughts on this subject.
 
 
- mike