Tim Brule <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Mike Machnik wrote:
>> Q1: Why was Lowell sent West over Clarkson?
>>
>> Rick Comley said that one of Clarkson, Lowell, or Cornell should go West
>> (along with PC). He said that it was decided to keep Cornell East because
>> of their fan base. So the decision came down to Lowell or Clarkson. Rick
>> said that fan base was determined to be even. To make the decision, Rick
>> said that they went to the criteria, and that Clarkson edged Lowell on
>> criteria, and thus Clarkson goes to Albany and Lowell goes to East Lansing.
>
>I think that Comley was including the criteria that they wanted to
>minimize possible second round matchups in conference. Clearley this
>means Mass Lowell goes west and thus Clarkson stays west.
Well, I have never heard the term "criteria" used before to refer to
anything other than the actual statistics that represent a team's
performance. It may be that Rick did mean that Clarkson edged Lowell
solely on the basis of avoiding a Lowell-BU matchup. But it sounded
very much like he was talking about the things like the pairwise
comparison, with RPI, Last20, etc. And as I said, Rick's explanation,
paraphrased, was, "We went to the criteria, and Clarkson edged Lowell
on the criteria." It seemed pretty clear to me that he meant the
numbers.
>> MSU STAYING WEST
>> I found it interesting that Rick said on tv that MSU stayed West because of
>> the desire to encourage teams to bid for regionals. He said that not
>> enough teams were making bids and that they wanted to encourage this,
>> presumably by guaranteeing that they would stay home. But then why did he
>> say last Monday on the conference call that MSU could be sent East? Are
>> the host teams guaranteed to always stay home or not?
>
>Not always. In 1992, MSU hosted the Western regional at Joe Louis Arena, but
>they were sent to play in the eastern regional in Providence. Granted
>this was not at Munn. I think the committee will bend over backwards to
>keep a host team home. This should give incentive to host regionals, but
>as the 1992 example shows you may have to do it on campus.
IMO, it is wrong to bring 1992 into this. It was the first year
of the regionals and hopes were high that the format would draw well.
There was no reason to think it wouldn't. Thus, there was no reason
to keep MSU home. Surely Michigan, Minnesota, LSSU, and Northern
Michigan would still draw a big crowd.
Two years later, after two straight disappointing turnouts at the Joe,
the decision was made to go to a campus site in the West - and, that
year, the host teams were kept home to boost attendance. In my mind,
1994 is really where this began.
Rick's comments last night seem to go further than suggesting that the
committee will simply bend over backwards to ensure that the host team
plays at home. He pretty much flat out said that they *will* keep the
host teams home to encourage more bids to host the regional. And this
is different from what he apparently said a week ago. There seems to
be a contradiction there.
>> And after what has happened in 1994 and 1996, what are the chances that
>> Lowell will bid for the East once their new rink opens? It may be their
>> only chance, short of earning a top two East seed, to ever play near their
>> home fans.
>
>I disagree with you on this point. The sample set is too small. IMHO The
>problem this year is that the west was so strong in the computer
>rankings. After sending the two lowest western seeds east Lowell
>ranked 5th. If instead they ranked 3rd or 6th they would have stayed east
>(ie they would not have to play BU in the second game).
Things have changed drastically with this year. It used to be that if
you were top four in your region, you absolutely would stay home. Then
with 1994, it was possible to be 4th in your region and still get sent
away, if the host team was lower than you. Now you can even be 3rd in
your region and be sent away if attendance and matchups favor teams
ranked lower than you are.
On the basis of the statistical criteria, Lowell ranked third in the
East out of the six teams chosen. (assuming that PWR is correct,
which I believe it is.) But being a #3E seed (before crossovers)
still was not enough to keep them East. That's why I say that the
only way you can now be guaranteed of playing in your region, if you
don't host, is if you finish in the top two.
On the Western strength hurting Lowell this year (because the West
crossovers took the 3E and 4E slots after re-seeding)...this was a
part of it, but look what happened with LSSU. LSSU would have been
3rd in the West even after crossovers. But then they could have met
Michigan in the second round. So they went East. Next year it could
be the East that is top-heavy, with, say, Maine ranked 2nd in the
region and BU 3rd...and BU getting sent West to prevent an all-HE
matchup in the second round. I doubt BU followers would appreciate
that, especially if the difference between #2 and #3 was as small as
the difference between 2W Michigan and LSSU, and 2E Vermont and Lowell
(one comparison won in each case - 16-15 Michigan, 11-10 Vermont).
Isn't it amazing that LSSU and Lowell were *this* close to landing
byes in their regions, yet when they barely lost out on the bye, they
wound up getting shipped out of the region entirely? I think that is
astounding.
>IMHO the committee did a great job. If they would have done things as
>in the past, they would be sending LSSU at Michigan and Mass Lowell at BU.
>Recall most of the examples that people talk about for the great games do
>not involve teams from the same conference. This years brackets are full
>matchups of this variety. Besides we just saw conference playoffs.
>
>IMHO preventing Conference matchups before the Final Four, when possible,
>is a great idea. Also bending over backwards to keep host teams home is
>great. I also agree with the committee on keeping eastern byes eastern
>and western byes west is good.
This will be a subjective matter and everyone will have his/her own
opinion. My opinion is based on my belief that the seedings should
approximate the ranking of the teams as closely as possible. (so, I
would have given LSSU a bye in the East, for example.) I do admit and
am well aware that the NCAA tournament actually isn't meant to involve
the 12 best teams in the country, nor is it meant to involve whatever
teams *are* chosen in the order in which they rank. Revenue and other
factors are more important in this regard. I am under no illusions.
But it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I also question why it is so important to prevent regional matchups
between teams from the same conference. It is better, IMO, to let the
teams fall where they may and if they meet in the regionals, so be it;
that's the way they wound up after the season. It doesn't matter that
the teams may have just met in the conference playoffs. Some great
NCAA games in history have also involved teams from the same
conference. Will PC and Maine fans ever forget their incredible 1989
series that wound up with Maine winning Game 3 in double overtime?
There was also PC and BC's triple overtime affair in the 1985
semifinals, and LSSU's ot win over Michigan in 1994. And there are
usually undercurrents running through such matchups of familiar teams
that cannot be matched in inter-conference meetings: last year's
BU-Maine final and the regional game between Minnesota and CC.
The attempt to prevent matchups between conference teams simply cannot
be based on the quality of the matchup or the hype surrounding the
game. So, why *should* we prevent those matchups?
>Although I did not expect these seedings, I have no complaints. I think
>the committee deserves credit for having the guts to send LSSU east and
>Lowell West. Is there any precendent being set here, we will have to wait
>until next year. For now lets play hockey!
I am not inclined to think it was a case of the committee having guts,
rather, I suspect that as I said in another message, there were
instructions that they were given by the NCAA and they simply followed
those instructions. Unless we hear otherwise, I believe that any
criticism should be leveled at the NCAA itself and not the committee
members.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: *****
***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html *****
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
