for putting the URL of the selection FAQ up on the list.
http://www.uscollegehockey.com/news/1998/03/19_selectionfaq.html
having seen it, i can understand why adam has been getting upset at all
the posts. maybe if the FAQ had been posted to hockey-l there would have
been fewer questions to the list. There certainly is a lot of effort in his
"article" Here are some excerpts that seem to get at
You say it's "cut and dried," but you qualify that with the term "more
or less." Why?
The term "more or less" raises red flags for many people,
giving them impression there is still subjectivity and opinion
in the process. This is not the case in selecting the field of
teams, though there is a little discretion in the process of
seeding. That's why, for the sake of clarity, you will often
see it emphatically stated that the process is 100 percent cut
and dried.
The miniscule part of the process that isn't determined by a
formula is still run by a specific set of steps. It's not a
mathematical formula, but it is a streamlined process with
virtually no opinion involved.
Thus "more or less" doesn't mean there is much opinion
involved, it just means that the process isn't 100 percent
formula. See below for details.
How is the tournament seeded?
Policy then dictates that two non-bye teams from each region
be switched to the other. The committee first attempts to take
the bottom two from each region, but if that would negatively
impact attendance in a severe way, or create intra-conference
matchups, different teams can be moved, as illustrated next.
How do they decide who gets moved?
This is where some subjectivity enters the picture, but there
is a definite set of guidelines.
In addition to a direct application of the criteria above, the
committee also considers a number of other factors in
determining seeding. First of all, a team that is hosting a
regional is guaranteed to remain in that region. Also, in
moving teams from region to region, it is preferred (but not
guaranteed) that the bottom two teams be swapped.
After that, the committee has a mandate from the member teams
to avoid first-round matchups against teams from the same
conference. This is their main consideration. It will also
avoid potential second-round matchups if possible, as long as
such manipulations don't drastically contradict the other
considerations at hand.
The attendance a team can draw to a selected regional is a
consideration, but only in overwhelming cases, which can make
for some controversy.
All of these factors are weighed to determine the best seeding
fit. For example, if moving teams would help attendance
slightly by drastically altering the regions, the committee
may not go that route. Conversely, if movement avoids a
second-round matchup, but hurts attendance too much, it won't
be done.
For instance, this year the committee didn't mind having a
possible UNH-BU second-round matchup because UNH is a good
Eastern draw, and because the two teams hadn't played in a
while.
Who decides these guidelines?
These special guidelines and procedures are determined in
advance of the season by the entire body of Division I teams.
The committee doesn't make these up on the fly or on their own.
Why is everyone so gung-ho on avoiding intra-conference matchups?
Well, this is a matter of opinion, and not everyone agrees on
the degree in which the committee should go to avoid these
matchups. But we can explain the reasoning.
Since there are just four major conferences in college hockey
and only 12 teams in the tournament, the likelihood of seeing
first-round matchups similar to regular-season or conference
tournament games is very high. The tournament should be a time
for different teams to play each other.
In the case of second-round matchups, the committee weights
advantages and drawbacks before moving teams around. For
example, if two teams did not meet in their conference
tournament, the committee may be more likely to allow a
second-round matchup of teams from the same conference. Or
perhaps the committee is concerned about attendance, a very
real issue. Or, for another example, two teams may have played
recently, but split the season series, in which case seeing
them play again might be a plus.
For instance, last year Minnesota was dropped from a three to
a four seed in the West Regional to avoid repeating their WCHA
tournament final with North Dakota. In that case, the
potential intra-conference matchup was avoided comparatively
simply, though Minnesota fans were not pleased. In a similar
situation this year, however, Ohio State was left as the four
seed in the West despite the likelihood of a second-round game
against top-seeded Michigan State, because the only other
alternative would have been to send OSU East, which would have
probably damaged attendance at both regionals as well as
violated the bottom-two-teams switching philosophy.
charlie shub University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
[log in to unmask] -or- [log in to unmask] -or- [log in to unmask]
(719) 262-3492 (fax) 262-3369 http://www.cs.uccs.edu/~cdash
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|