watchmaker49 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 It is a known fact that I have never liked Hakstol as a person or a coach. With that said I see no reason in the world to fire him. With the discussion above about the playoff format that makes me wonder if Hakstol has been more a victim of a bad playoff format than anything? Two years ago he got outcoached against Michigan in one game. Now if it had been a 2/3 who here thinks that Hakstol and Co. would not have created a new game plan and won the next 2 games? Some people I think just expect way too much.
UNDBIZ Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 It is a known fact that I have never liked Hakstol as a person or a coach. With that said I see no reason in the world to fire him. With the discussion above about the playoff format that makes me wonder if Hakstol has been more a victim of a bad playoff format than anything? Two years ago he got outcoached against Michigan in one game. Now if it had been a 2/3 who here thinks that Hakstol and Co. would not have created a new game plan and won the next 2 games? Some people I think just expect way too much. Would Hakstol have created a new game plan?? Absolutely not. Would we have won the next 2 games?? Absolutely.
jodcon Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Setting up the regions long in advance has done nothing to alleviate attendance issues. If only 1900 fans make the trip to Grand Rapids, how much worse would attendance have been had Boston College replaced North Dakota or Quinnipiac replaced Minnesota? It would have made minimal diffference. I simply don't believe it's good practice to have a small school (let's say Lake Superior State) have a good year and be a #1 seed only to wind up at a regional 1000 miles away from home in front of a good crowd of UNH fans. 1998 is a PERFECT example of what shouldn't happen...but it KEEPS happening. And the constant juggling to help out 'attendance' is getting old. Bold stuck on today, or are you posting mad?
sagard Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Only a Sith deals in absolutes. True what you say though, the tournament has become somewhat of a joke. The regions should be set up long in advance as far as #1-4 seeds, and the teams should be placed as such from 1-16 based on the final PWR rankings...NO EXCEPTIONS. If BC is ranked to play in Denver than that's where they go, not shuffle everything to get them in Hartford, same with Minnesota or anybody else. If you have the first round a best-of-three at the higher seeds home, would you make the finals an 8-team, 3 day tournament? I wouldn't mind that, the attendance numbers would be much higher for both the first round games and the Frozen 4 and 4 More or whatever. I disagree with some of this. PWR is not accurate enough to warrant strict adherence. Use strict PWR to define the 16 teams that make the tourney. Then use it again to define the top eight seeds. The priority should be to not play anyone from your conference until the Frozen Four. Upsets happen and if a #1 and #3 or #2 and #4 seed end up playing each other in a regional final and they are from the same conference, I can live with that. I'd love to see the first two rounds at the higher seeds rink. Then do the Frozen Four.
siouxu31 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Bold stuck on today, or are you posting mad? He is subtly telling Dden1 to stop posting in that tiny a$$ font.
jodcon Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 He is subtly telling Dden1 to stop posting in that tiny a$$ font. OK I figured there was something I was missing.
Oxbow6 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Bold stuck on today, or are you posting mad? Was thinking the same thing...that or he is in a pitch black room typing with night vision goggles on?
jodcon Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I disagree with some of this. PWR is not accurate enough to warrant strict adherence. Use strict PWR to define the 16 teams that make the tourney. Then use it again to define the top eight seeds. The priority should be to not play anyone from your conference until the Frozen Four. Upsets happen and if a #1 and #3 or #2 and #4 seed end up playing each other in a regional final and they are from the same conference, I can live with that. I'd love to see the first two rounds at the higher seeds rink. Then do the Frozen Four. That I would agree with, adjusting the 9-16 to avoid conference first-round matchups makes sense...moving the top 8 seeds to kiss certain teams butts does not. And the first two rounds at home would not be a bad thing, would push the FF back about a week...no big deal.
MafiaMan Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Bold stuck on today, or are you posting mad? Not posting mad at all...I'm noticing lots of font changes though!
zonadub Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 with the format you are proposing, the playoffs could go something like: best 2 of 3 in the first weekend best 2 of 3 the second weekend (currently the off weekend for pituitary freak bouncyball), both at the home of the higher seed and the Frozen Four at the predetermined FF site.
GFG Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 with the format you are proposing, the playoffs could go something like: best 2 of 3 in the first weekend best 2 of 3 the second weekend (currently the off weekend for pituitary freak bouncyball), both at the home of the higher seed and the Frozen Four at the predetermined FF site. I'd be in favor of that.
MafiaMan Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 with the format you are proposing, the playoffs could go something like: best 2 of 3 in the first weekend best 2 of 3 the second weekend (currently the off weekend for pituitary freak bouncyball), both at the home of the higher seed and the Frozen Four at the predetermined FF site. Hark! The herald angel sings...a logical solution. Now don't let the NCAA see this!
siouxweet Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I can see them doing a best two of three in the first round, but not in the second round.
Sioux-cia Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 with the format you are proposing, the playoffs could go something like: best 2 of 3 in the first weekend best 2 of 3 the second weekend (currently the off weekend for pituitary freak bouncyball), both at the home of the higher seed and the Frozen Four at the predetermined FF site. Won't work. Makes to much sense and we all know how much sense the NC$$ has(not). 1
krustyklown Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Total attendance in Grand Rapids for both games ~1900? Total attendance on UND live chat for same games ~5500 Fix the 'Regionals' attendance/poor student-athlete experience issue by dropping them altogether, instead select... >sixteen teams via PWR: maintain bracket integrity (#1 vs #16, etc, except if intra-conference) >best-of-three: top eight seeds playing vs. bottom eight seeds in top seeds' barn >maintain two week break to accomodate the round ball tournament >@predetermined sites (pre-bidded): call it the 'Iced Eight' or 'Elite Eight' starting Tuesday (two games) & Wednesday(two games) >winners meet in 'Frozen Four' round on Thursday or Friday, championship on Saturday ...alternatively for Elite Eight games, one could schedule games on Tuesday @noon, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm, then have the two Frozen Four games on Thursday, championship on Saturday Why does NCAA hockey have to emulate NCAA basketball?
watchmaker49 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Total attendance in Grand Rapids for both games ~1900? Total attendance on UND live chat for same games ~5500 Fix the 'Regionals' attendance/poor student-athlete experience issue by dropping them altogether, instead select... >sixteen teams via PWR: maintain bracket integrity (#1 vs #16, etc, except if intra-conference) >best-of-three: top eight seeds playing vs. bottom eight seeds in top seeds' barn >maintain two week break to accomodate the round ball tournament >@predetermined sites (pre-bidded): call it the 'Iced Eight' or 'Elite Eight' starting Tuesday (two games) & Wednesday(two games) >winners meet in 'Frozen Four' round on Thursday or Friday, championship on Saturday ...alternatively for Elite Eight games, one could schedule games on Tuesday @noon, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm, then have the two Frozen Four games on Thursday, championship on Saturday Why does NCAA hockey have to emulate NCAA basketball? Or 2 games Tuesday (1 and 2 seeds) 2 games Wednesday (3 and 4 seeds) semi-finals Thursday with championship Saturday. Anything over the way it is done now. The teams are getting jerked as are the fans.
watchmaker49 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Siouxkid12 posted this on the Grand Rapids thread and I thought it fit well in here. "I didn't know where to write this and it might have been covered before elsewhere but here it goes. I was watching a recap of the Gophers women's hockey team on FSN last night and how they had a great season. My questions is, why the NCAA allows woman's hockey to play the Frozen Four at a teams home arena and they wont allow regionals for the men to be played on campus sites? Like I said, this could have been covered elsewhere but I never saw it."
Goon Posted April 5, 2013 Author Posted April 5, 2013 Total attendance in Grand Rapids for both games ~1900? Total attendance on UND live chat for same games ~5500 Fix the 'Regionals' attendance/poor student-athlete experience issue by dropping them altogether, instead select... >sixteen teams via PWR: maintain bracket integrity (#1 vs #16, etc, except if intra-conference) >best-of-three: top eight seeds playing vs. bottom eight seeds in top seeds' barn >maintain two week break to accomodate the round ball tournament >@predetermined sites (pre-bidded): call it the 'Iced Eight' or 'Elite Eight' starting Tuesday (two games) & Wednesday(two games) >winners meet in 'Frozen Four' round on Thursday or Friday, championship on Saturday ...alternatively for Elite Eight games, one could schedule games on Tuesday @noon, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm, then have the two Frozen Four games on Thursday, championship on Saturday Why does NCAA hockey have to emulate NCAA basketball? The Eastern Schools have a lot of power in the NCAA tourney.
siouxweet Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Siouxkid12 posted this on the Grand Rapids thread and I thought it fit well in here. "I didn't know where to write this and it might have been covered before elsewhere but here it goes. I was watching a recap of the Gophers women's hockey team on FSN last night and how they had a great season. My questions is, why the NCAA allows woman's hockey to play the Frozen Four at a teams home arena and they wont allow regionals for the men to be played on campus sites? Like I said, this could have been covered elsewhere but I never saw it." if you played a womens hockey regional or frozen four at a neutral site the attendence would be beyond horrific, which is what it is now.
nodakvindy Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 I think the only changes that need to be made are moving the regionals the home of the top four seeds and then dispersing teams to minimize conference matchups as much as possible. I would have seeded this years tourney as follows. You would have had great attendance at all sites and the matchups are pretty close to perfect PWR bracketing. At Quinnipiac 1 Quinnipiac 4 Canisius 2 North Dakota 3 Niagara At Minnesota 1 Minnesota 4 Yale 2 New Hampshire 3 Denver At Mass-Lowell 1 Mass-Lowell 4 Wisconsin 2 Miami 3 Union At Notre Dame 1 Notre Dame 4 St. Cloud 2 Boston College 3 Minnesota State Mankato
Wilbur Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 I think one trump card the NC$$ has is the availability of facilities if they were to award top seeds regionals. I'll use this example. Ohio State lights the Big Ten on fire next year, and gets to host a regional. Well....guess that regional isn't going to be in Columbus because the hockey lovers that they are in Columbus booked away their facility. Are you really going to play that regional in the practice rink? Hell, I had a great time watching Holy Cross (or Sacred Heart if you ask my dad) beat Minnesota. But had Minnesota won that game, and played UND at the Ralph it wouldn't have been fair to them, the #1 seed. (See UND-Mich 1998, MafiaMan invokes camera man incident). Obviously the answer isn't hosting a regional in St. Louis (See BC-Michigan-CC-UNO). I'm not sure what the answer is......
LeftyZL Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 I think one trump card the NC$$ has is the availability of facilities if they were to award top seeds regionals. I'll use this example. Ohio State lights the Big Ten on fire next year, and gets to host a regional. Well....guess that regional isn't going to be in Columbus because the hockey lovers that they are in Columbus booked away their facility. Are you really going to play that regional in the practice rink? Hell, I had a great time watching Holy Cross (or Sacred Heart if you ask my dad) beat Minnesota. But had Minnesota won that game, and played UND at the Ralph it wouldn't have been fair to them, the #1 seed. (See UND-Mich 1998, MafiaMan invokes camera man incident). Obviously the answer isn't hosting a regional in St. Louis (See BC-Michigan-CC-UNO). I'm not sure what the answer is...... The only answer I know is that I won't miss a Hoggsbreath event. I am starting to understand these punch lines at MafiaMan and others. I blame him for us not repeating in 1998. 2 minutes for taunting ESPN! 2
MafiaMan Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 The only answer I know is that I won't miss a Hoggsbreath event. I am starting to understand these punch lines at MafiaMan and others. I blame him for us not repeating in 1998. 2 minutes for taunting ESPN! Once upon a time, I had a video clip of the incident...
scpa0305 Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 The thread has gone way off topic....Hak ain't going anyware for a long time. 1
MafiaMan Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 The thread has gone way off topic....Hak ain't going anyware for a long time. I started a new one...which probably should have been done a while ago regarding tournament change...
Recommended Posts