Denver Vs Maine for NC

[The Sicatoka]

I'm going to float this concept here first:

- One weekend for conferences to settle the autobid. Do it how you may.

- Four weeks of "best 2 of 3" NCAA series with the higher seed getting home ice except for the neutral site finals series location being predetermined.

Imagine this year:

The three West Regional games drew 5128, 5352, and 6047.

- Miami of Ohio at DU would have drawn as well as the West Regional

- Holy Cross at UND, two games, would have outdrawn the three game West Regional.

My proposed schedule:

- What is the WCHA first round now becomes the autobid deciding weekend.

- The four weekends of NCAA play would be the weekend of the Final Five, the NCAA Regionals weekend, the "off" weekend, and the weekend of the Frozen Four.

I'm surprised the NCAA hasn't done it. That would guarantee no less than 30 total games. Yes, there'd be some small rinks (= small gates) in there but I wonder if they wouldn't be money ahead in the long run.

[WPoS]

It also drives home the point about how it's great to win the NCAA's (obviously the ultimate prize) but if you can win the league, the league playoff AND the NCAA's you've done something even more special.

well, I'd take some exception to that claim, while yes, it is sweet to win all three, IMO it is harder to win two NCAA titles in a row, three even harder if not almost impossible in today's level of play, since the single game elimination format does not favor such an occurrence at all. Winning the regular season title is prolly the easiest of the three to get (especially in certain leagues) and the league playoff title gets a little harder ONCE you get to the final round, but basically playing best 2 outa 3 the better team SHOULD win.

All that said, UND having done it while tying someone for the regular season title and the Gophs having not done that, I, of course, will look thru my maroon and gold glasses and say the back-2-back is harder. Those who look thru green glasses will differ.

WPoS

[dagies]

well, I'd take some exception to that claim, while yes, it is sweet to win all three, IMO it is harder to win two NCAA titles in a row, three even harder if not almost impossible in today's level of play, since the single game elimination format does not favor such an occurrence at all. Winning the regular season title is prolly the easiest of the three to get (especially in certain leagues) and the league playoff title gets a little harder ONCE you get to the final round, but basically playing best 2 outa 3 the better team SHOULD win.

All that said, UND having done it while tying someone for the regular season title and the Gophs having not done that, I, of course, will look thru my maroon and gold glasses and say the back-2-back is harder. Those who look thru green glasses will differ.

WPoS

I did not mean to imply that a season trifecta was better than a back-to-back national championship. My point was that you really have to do well consistently in that one season in order to win all three "titles" whereas you don't have to be as consistent to win any one of the 3.

[WPoS]

dags:

in that case I agree w/ ya!

WPoS

[The Sicatoka]

Let me put the devil's advocate argument out there. I'll assume said "hypothetical" team finished in the top half of the toughest "hypothetical" conference in the country.

To win a conference tournament championship:

- win a weekend against a lesser team 2 of 3 at home

- win 2 (maybe 3) games in a weekend against teams as good or better than you at a neutral site

To win a National Championship:

- win four games over two weekends against teams as good or better than you at a neutral site

To win a conference regular season championship:

- win all road games against lesser teams (assume four weekends)

- win all home games against lesser team (assume three weekends)

- win half of home games against as good or better than you (assume four weekends)

- win half of road games against as good or better than you (assume three weekends)

That works out to being 0.750 which will normally win a "hypothetical" conference.

A "bad bounce" can change any single weekend. There's a little of what Gino Gasparini used to call "puck luck" involved in one-and-done play.

Being good for 14 "hypothetical" weekends is tough. The "puck luck" evens out. You have to be better than the rest.

Then again, proper respect is due to those being there for the "puck luck" to arrive in a given one-and-done weekend.

[streakygopher]

The NCAA tournament is by its very design a tournament with many faults. Don't know, but I'm guessing the best team in the country wins maybe 25% of the time. This year, that team was likely North Dakota...and they were done in by hot goaltending. Denver really surprised everyone since they really didn't surge until the last possible moment...heck, they even won without Dora in the line up.

National titles are not the true measure of a program's success. That would be like concluding Phil Mickelson is a marginal golfer because he only has one major. The only true test of program success in the league is W-L records. Success against individual teams is a simple measurement of head-to-head W-L. The NCAA title is nice, but most admit it requires a lot of luck to get it...even if you are the best team in the field.

Though fair, I doubt the NCAA will go to a multi-game format. I don't think there's enough national interest to expand the tournament.

[MafiaMan]

With all due respect to the larger programs, I think the "regionals" have taken something away from the regular season record. For example, a small school like UMD, UND, or Denver can win the WCHA regular season, then have to play the tournament in either Milwaukee or St Paul in front of large hostile crowds. What was the reward for the Sioux winning the MacNaughton Cup? A WCHA title game in front of 16,500 Gopher fans. It's no different in the CCHA...Northern Michigan, Nebraska-Omaha, Miami (Ohio) all get to play at Joe Louis Arena in front of huge pro-Michigan and pro-Michigan State crowds. Before you start screaming bloody murder at me, let me say that I'm 100% OK with the conference tournaments being played at these venues. BUT...

...let's then base the post-season on overall standings. I'll use as an example of two years ago, the 2002 Denver Pioneers, who won the WCHA regular season title and then won the Broadmoor Trophy in St Paul by defeating the Gophers, again, in front of 16,000-17,000 pro-Minnesota fans. Their reward? A death-sentence regional game in Ann Arbor against Michigan. Nice.

Now, how about we go back to the home ice advantage format. Denver in 2002 deserved it on the basis of their performance in the conference regular season and playoffs. Let them host their first round NCAA opponent in their home rink. What difference does it make if Holy Cross flies to Minneapolis for a regional or to Denver for a one-game playoff?

Make the regular season meaningful again! I'm not being anti-Gopher here, but it's absurd that the #5 team in the conference regular season was allowed to be a #1 seed for an NCAA tournament. By that same theory, the top four teams in the ACC should have all been #1's for the basketball tournament. It's ridiculous and puts all the weight on the shoulders of a computer ranking. Imagine this year if Colorado College would have made the tournament. They'd have had a home rink to play their regional games based on what? A near .500 record? Surely, you jest. I don't think there was anything wrong with the way the system used to be with the exception of the silly two-games total goals rule.

Anyone concur?

[streakygopher]

...let's then base the post-season on overall standings. I'll use as an example of two years ago, the 2002 Denver Pioneers, who won the WCHA regular season title and then won the Broadmoor Trophy in St Paul by defeating the Gophers, again, in front of 16,000-17,000 pro-Minnesota fans. Their reward? A death-sentence regional game in Ann Arbor against Michigan. Nice.

Make the regular season meaningful again! I'm not being anti-Gopher here, but it's absurd that the #5 team in the conference regular season was allowed to be a #1 seed for an NCAA tournament. By that same theory, the top four teams in the ACC should have all been #1's for the basketball tournament. It's ridiculous and puts all the weight on the shoulders of a computer ranking. Imagine this year if Colorado College would have made the tournament. They'd have had a home rink to play their regional games based on what? A near .500 record? Surely, you jest. I don't think there was anything wrong with the way the system used to be with the exception of the silly two-games total goals rule.

Anyone concur?

Most coaches agree the system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. A near .500 record in the WCHA this year meant you were a pretty good team--see DENVER. The Gophers earned their #1 seed based on the criteria of the system. They got good marks for their strength of schedule and non-conference play. They also won the WCHA final five tournament, and got hot (and healthy) at the end of the season. Most of us agree that the non-conference games are a lot of fun, and they do offer teams, coaches, and fans the chance to see how they match up against other non-conference foes. The point is that match ups between Minn and Mich or UND and BC ought to count for something when post season seeds are determined.

Personally, I like the system the way it is. Curiously, nearly every year since it was put into effect, the teams who make it to the Frozen Four match up pretty well with the computer rankings, notable exceptions notwithstanding. Denver winning it all this year is a little surprising, but then again they were very competitive in the toughest conference in the nation.