Dear fellow hockey-l'ers,
I want to make some constructive comments on the seeding issue.
First: To the comment "The seedings don't matter because the best team will
always win the tourney" -- Come on guys, if that were true, no one
would care. Ask any of the fans (or coach for that matter) of
UNH/VT/CC/Denver/Cornell if they would gladly change their seed with
the Gophers. But even more to the point: Seeds DO matter!
Let me show this with a simple example.
Suppose we have four teams (A,B,C,D) whose ratings are 2, 1.5, 1.0 and
.5 respectively. The ratings can be interpreted (as in KRACH) as meaning
that the odds of A beating B are 2 to 1.5 etc. Now seed these teams A/D
winner to play the C/D winner (this is the normal thing to do). We have
the following probabilities of winning 2 games:
A: 48.76%
B: 29.57%
C: 16.00%
D: 5.67%
Now, seed them A/B winner vs. C/D winner. We would have:
A: 40.63%
B: 27.86%
C: 24.13%
D: 7.38%
A good deal for C and D don't you think?
Oh yeah, we also want THE BEST FOUR TEAMS IN THE COUNTRY to be in
Milawaukee. Have we forgotten about that?
Second: It should be possible to discuss this matter without resorting
to Rush Limbaugh style personal attacks - "Gopher fans are whiners" etc.
I think that clearly the circumstances *suggest* that the Gophers got a
lousy seed. Minnesota fans HAVE EVERY RIGHT to point out their
displeasure and to question the process and the reasoning behind it. That's
exactly what I am going to do next.
Third: The real issue here is not whether the committee followed the
"rules" as they saw them. The issue here is why are the rules what they
are? and what are the priorities? I will break these down as I see it,
anyone is welcome to discuss and criticize my view. I do not welcome
personal attacks.
Priority one: Give the teams that have earned byes their byes and seed
them in their own region. Since this causes little controversy, I will
assume it.
Priority two: seed teams according to region.
Priority three: avoid intra-conference match-ups.
Priority four: seed teams according to their strengths.
Priorities two and three are in conflict since each bracket has 3 teams
but there are only 2 conferences in each region. So we have the
tradition of moving the bottom two seed from each conference across.
Apparently, it is believed that teams always would prefer to stay in
their region, so the teams that have earned a higher rating deserve to
stay "home" (this is why the "MSU as sixth seed in the east gets moved
west" is a strange argument; but we know why MSU is in the West, don't
we?). The problem with this notion is that if you are a WCHA school and
the regional is in Michigan, it's not going to matter one
lick whether you are seeded east or west; it's a plane trip either way.
The same could be said for CCHA schools if the tournament were in
Minnesota. Joe Marsh says that that no consideration was given to
moving Minnesota out East. The reason appears to be that since
Minnesota was rated higher than CC or Denver, they *earned* the right to
stay in the West.
Well, we could go round and around who should or shouldn't change regions; but
let's approach this from the perspective of priories 1 and 4 first. Then
adjust the picture according to priories 2 and 3. I think the real
problem will become evident.
1st glance (this is the correct way to seed 12 ranked teams):
East: #2Clarkson vs. #7VT/#10Denver,
#4BU vs. #5MN/#12MSU
West: #1MI vs #8Cornell/#9Miami
#3UND\ vs. #6NH/#11CC
The problems here with respect to Priorities 2 and 3 are: 3 west teams
are out east and 2 east teams are out west AND there are 3 possible
intra-conference match-ups in the second round. Now before we tinker, we
have to decide one thing: will we allow 3 west teams in the east or
not?
Let's say that the answer is yes. Then switch VT for NH, and Miami and CC.
Now
(Version 2) East: #2Clarkson vs. #6NH/#10Denver,
#4BU vs. #5MN/#12MSU
West: #1MI vs #8Cornell/#11CC
#3UND\ vs. #7VT/#9Miami
Is this fair? The *worst* case is NH, whose seed has effectively
changed from 6 to 7. Clarkson and Denver also play tougher teams - but
the change is minor. CC's first round draw is now easier (8 vs. 6), but
their potential 2nd round draw is worse (1 vs. 3). I'll call this a
wash. Miami's first round opponent went from 8 to 7, but their potential
2nd round went from 1 to 3. I'll call this a wash as well. UND now plays
the 7/9 winner instead of the 6/11 winner - another wash. Every one else's
seed has either improved or changed for the better. Notice by the way
that NO INTRA-CONFERENCE MATCHUPS ARE POSSIBLE! Of course,
this would never happen since there are three west teams in the east.
So let's put first emphasis on priority 2. Go back to first glance. We
need to move an east team back east in exchange for a west team. To cause
the least problems seeding wise, we should exchange two closely seeded
teams. In this case, that's #5 MN for #6NH, but this creates an all WCHA
bracket and a BU/NH conflict. Tinker more (now disregarding priority 4)
and you probably get something close what the seeding really are (Except
that you need to contrive it so that MSU ends up in the west).
Let's try to tinker with the 2nd version (and actually pay attention
to priority 4). We can either switch #5 MN for #7 VT or #10 Denver
for #8 Cornell. Either way, we end up with intra-conference match ups
unless we disregard priority 4.
Do you see what's going on here? If we demand that no more than two
teams from the west go east, we are forcing 5 of the 6 teams in the west
to be western teams. We can't avoid intra-conference match-ups if we
try. All that can be done is to attempt to minimize the possibility. We
know how the committee dealt with it: they threw out priority 4.
Now, if you criticize, you're supposed to offer your own solution.
You've already seen it. But for those that insist that you can't have
three west teams in the east, here is another proposal:
#1 MI vs. #10 Denver/#12 MSU
#3 UND vs. #7VT/#9Miami
#2 Clarkson vs. #6NH/#9CC
#4 BU vs. #5MN/#8 Cornell.
Notice that we still have the potential MSU/MI match up, but the overall
inequity is pretty minimal. I will elaborate team by team.
Michigan: deserved to play #8/#9 winner - gets #10/#12 (better)
Clarkson: deserved to play #7/#10 winner - gets #6/#11 (wash)
UND: deserved to play #6/#11 winner - gets #7/#9 winner (wash)
BU: deserved to play #5/#12 winner - gets #5/#8 winner (slightly worse)
MN: deserved to play #12 to play #4 - gets to play #8 to play #4 (worse -
but better than what they got)
NH: deserved to play #11 to play #3 - gets to play #11 to play #2
(slightly worse)
VT: deserved to play #10 to play #2 - gets to play #9 to play #3 (wash)
Cornell: deserved to play #9 to play #1 - gets to play #5 to play #4 (wash)
Miami: deserved to play #8 to play #1 - gets to play #7 to play #3 (wash)
Denver: deserved to #7 to play #2 - gets to play #9 to play #1 (wash)
CC: deserved to play # 6 to play #3 - gets to play #7 to play #2 (wash)
MSU: deserved to play #5 to play #1 - gets to play #10 to play #1 (better)
Of course, you can switch VT and Cornell if you wish without changing
much. It all depends on whether Cornell would rather be home with a
tougher seed or go west with an easier one.
In the end, I still think that Priorities 2 and 3 basically contradict
each other and are the cause of the problem.
Sincerely,
Gary Hatfield
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
