March 22, 2008
NCAA Tournament Bracket ABCs: Final Analysis
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor
ALBANY, N.Y. — So here we are. We've spent a long weekend together, figuring out our future, and now we need to decide which bracket to marry. It's like hockey's version of Rock of Love.
Funny, but a team that didn't even play this weekend messed everything up.
(To wade past the witty commentary and get to the bracket prediction, see below.)
Wisconsin sat home after getting swept by St. Cloud State, with its record under .500, didn't do a gosh darned thing, and — whammo — it is in the tournament.
There are going to be two sets of enraged people, both Minnesota State fans. There will be a) the ones who have no clue about the Pairwise and go the conspiracy theory route, figuring the committee took Wisconsin because the Badgers are hosting and it would boost attendance; and b) the people who know how the system works, and would like to tell the committee where it can shove its system.
Consider that Minnesota State finished better in the WCHA than Wisconsin, won the head-to-head matchup, and had a better overall record. But the Mavericks will sit home while the Badgers go. Why?
Two reasons. First of all, Wisconsin finished with one more Pairwise Comparison Win than Minnesota State. (By the way, again, you can gloss over this and go below — or, to read up on what all this Pairwise jargon is all about, see CHN's Pairwise Primer.) Wisconsin did this, even though MSU wins the head-to-head comparison with Wisconsin. The reason is because of Minnesota State's two losses to Nebraska-Omaha earlier this season. That causes them to lose comparisons to Princeton and Northern Michigan that Wisconsin otherwise wins; Princeton and NMU were a combined 3-0 against UNO this year.
The other way Minnesota State could've improved itself was n the RPI. With a .0027 better RPI, it would've passed Notre Dame and won the tie at the No. 13 overall spot. And in the head-to-head comparison with Notre Dame, again, Record vs. Common Opponents comes into play, because Notre Dame was 2-0 against UNO also.
So, Minnesota State will be sitting home, as unfortunate as that might be.
Now, let's get back to the 16 teams at hand. Wisconsin creates a mess because you have six WCHA teams in the tournament, and two are immobile — Wisconsin and CC, because they are hosts. So the committee's typical pattern of placing teams in 1-6, 2-15, 3-14, 4-13, etc... serpentine order is really blown out of the water this year.
So, to work this out, we have to be methodical about it, and try to think like the committee will think. Take its rules, one by one, and go in order. The big rules to remember are: 1) host teams must be in the host region; 2) No. 1 seeds are placed closest to home as possible; 3) avoid first-round intra-conference games if you can; and 4) Teams cannot be moved out of their "band" ... i.e. a No. 3 seed that is No. 12 overall, can be moved into the No. 9 slot — but it cannot be moved into the No. 13 slot, because No. 13 is part of the 4-seed band.
With the dutiful help of colleague Mike Machnik, this is what we come up with:
Northeast Regional — Worcester, Mass.
4. New Hampshire vs. 13. Notre Dame
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
East Regional — Albany, N.Y.
2. Miami vs. 15. Niagara
7. Boston College vs. 11. Minnesota
Midwest Regional — Madison, Wis.
1. Michigan vs. 16. Air Force
8. St. Cloud State vs. 12. Wisconsin
West Regional — Colorado Springs, Colo.
3. North Dakota vs. 14. Princeton
5. Colorado College vs. 9. Michigan State
The idea is to try to get 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 together - and then let the others fall into place. But that quickly becomes impossible here.
Now, the committee could put North Dakota in Worcester for a 3-6 pairing with Denver, and UNH in the West for a 4-5 pairing with CC. But that would blow the idea of putting a team "closest to home." North Dakota is a higher seed than UNH so have first "choice" so to speak. On the other hand, the committee has shown time and again that it considers "a flight is a flight," so who cares if North Dakota goes to the West or Northeast. Well, except, on the other hand, that pulls UNH really far out of an area that it will draw a lot of people to. Now, UNH isn't locked into Worcester, but common sense may dictate it is there.
As you can see, we need an awful lot of "other hands" already just to keep up.
But, we're going with UNH as the No. 4 in Worcester, and North Dakota in Colorado Springs. We'll keep the No. 2 seeds where they are "supposed to be," however.
This means, a 2-7 pairing with Miami and Boston College in Albany. And a 1-8 pairing with Michigan and St. Cloud State in Madison.
Now what? Now the No. 4 seeds are pretty easy. Wisconsin being a No. 3 seed is actually the lesser of two evils. If the Badgers were a No. 4 seed, it would really have thrown things into chaos. That's because Michigan's natural location — Madison — would have meant playing the Badgers in the first round ... not exactly fair to do to the No. 1 overall seed.
But, with Wisconsin a 3 seed, Michigan can maintain its "natural" game against the No. 16 overall seed, which is Air Force.
It's possible Air Force could be kept home in Colorado Springs like last year when it was kept in Denver, despite it not being a natural spot. But this is much different. It would be too big a switch this year. Last year it was a simple 15-16 switch. This would be more drastic, allowing No. 3 overall North Dakota to get the No. 16 seed, and have Michigan play No. 15 and Miami No. 14. Too much moving for that.
Unless ... what if the committee puts Michigan in Colorado Springs, and North Dakota in Madison? Then Michigan and Air Force could play in Colorado Springs. Oh lord, let's not even think about that mess.
So, getting back ... we'll have a 2-15 matchup with Miami-Niagara, a 3-14 with North Dakota-Princeton, and a 4-13 with New Hampshire-Notre Dame.
Hey, that looked smooth.
Not so fast.
As Al Michaels said in 1980 after Mike Eruzione's goal ... "Now we've got bedlam."
It would be "natural" for the No. 9 overall, Michigan State, to be against St. Cloud State in Madison. But the Badgers have to be there. So that creates an 8-12 matchup that not only messes with the so-called "bracket integrity," but violates a sacrosanct policy of avoiding first-round matchups against teams in their own conference. Thing is, that's going to happen somewhere, no matter what. There are three WCHA teams that are No. 2 seeds. Only Boston College is not.
Could Boston College go to Madison and play the Badgers as a 7-12 matchup? It's possible. But then you still have a problem. You would have St. Cloud State in Albany playing Minnesota. OK, then you could put Clarkson back there. But then you'd have Denver vs. Minnesota in the Northeast.
So you have to do it one way or another. At least this way, St. Cloud State stays in the 8-1 blocking with Michigan.
Credit to Mike Machnik, again, for pointing out the logic there. (I only credit him so that I can blame him if the committee goes another direction.)
So now what do you do with the natural No. 9, Michigan State? Send them to the West to face No. 5 Colorado College. Now you have the 6-11 pairing of Denver-Minnesota, and the 7-10 pairing of Boston College-Clarkson. Flip Clarkson and Minnesota to avoid the Denver-Minnesota matchup, and there you go.
But it's possible the committee could say that the best 3 seed (Michigan State) should not have to play the best 2 seed (CC), especially on CC's home ice. So what if Michigan State goes to Worcester and faces Denver instead, a 6-9 matchup — and Clarkson goes to play in a 5-10 pairing? That's slightly more fair, you could say, but is it worth an extra switch? We'll see.
So much fun.
And, as we say each year, once this is figured out, it's time to just enjoy the games.
The consolation games need to go, or play to a winner. It removes the issue (CC wins the comparison with UND with a tie as well).
Mar 22 2008, 1:05 pm by Tiger fan, Denver (yes, Denver)
If UNH falls to #4 overall and BC gets sent to Albany or further west, they have to keep UNH in Worcester. Otherwise, there would be serious attendance issues in Worcester.
Mar 22 2008, 2:58 pm by LH, Medford, MA
I tend to agree that there is no way one of BC or UNH will not be in Worcester. Let's say that did happen. Remember this is the first year Holy Cross is hosting, with the city of Worcester having barred BU from hosting there anymore. Now suppose the regional gets handed four teams that won't draw very well. What are the chances HC/Worcester would bid again? Virtually nil IMO. I believe we'd see some flipping of seeds within the bands, even the top band, to avoid this scenario from taking place.
Mar 22 2008, 3:12 pm by Mike Machnik, CHN
Maybe ... but just so everyone remembers ... and I've written this extensively ... the committee has paid very little attention to attendance issues since going to a 16-team field. It has only done so when it truly made no difference in the other factors either way. .... There is some, perhaps, attendance considerations in placing the top seeds - but it's more a distance thing than an attendance thing - maybe that's the same thing .... But after that, they just line up the other teams. They don't pay attention to attendance for seeds 5-16 whatsoever (well, OK, last year, Air Force stayed in Denver - that's been it)
Mar 22 2008, 3:26 pm by CHN Editor
Did anyone see the attendance for the CCHA WOW!!! Empty no following! I think NMU had more fans than UM. So if Wis. doesnt make it another empty house there.
Mar 22 2008, 6:53 pm by Lake,ND
My money says they go with the natural seedings except a Minnesota - Wisconsin switch to satisfy the host school requirement. Go Gophs!
Mar 23 2008, 12:28 am by Blake, KC, KS
Are you kidding Me?? Why should Saint Cloud State be forced to play Wisconsin on their home ice in the first round of the NCAA Tourneyment? Isn't it bad enough that Minnesota State Mankato got hosed by the incompetent pairwise system. No team with a sub-500 record should even be eligible for the NCAA Tourneyment. If the selection committe has any integrity left they will move the Huskies to a different regional where they will not be forced to play a conference rival in the first round.
Mar 23 2008, 1:04 am by Disgruntled Huskey Fan, Elk River
Disgruntled -- there are six WCHA teams in the tournament, including three of the four No. 2 seeds and two of the four No. 3 seeds. That means, it's impossible to avoid a WCHA matchup in the first round.
Mar 23 2008, 1:20 am by Mike Machnik, CHN
If St Cloud has a higher seed and has to play Wisconsin on their home ice it would be extremely unfair. I don't care that it is a WCHA matchup but to have to play Wisconsin at home is ridiculous!! I'll be pissed.
Mar 23 2008, 2:00 am by Chad, Phoenix but SCSU fan
Chad -- understood completely. It has been done before however, and someone has to play at Wisconsin. And one way to look at it is, SCSU gets the lowest ranked No. 3 seed, theoretically the "easier" opponent. Albeit on their home ice, I know...
Mar 23 2008, 2:21 am by Mike Machnik, CHN
St. Cloud getting Wisconsin in the 1st round will actually be their best chance to FINALLY win an NCAA game. Clarkson, Minnesota, or Michigan State would all probably clean their clocks. They have a chance in that bracket to at least be two and done instead of the usual one and done.
Mar 23 2008, 3:47 am by Donald, Anchorage
I am still stunned that Wisconsin was invited to play. A sub-500 team should not be in the tourney. Then, given home ice advantage on top of that! Hopefully it is "1 and yer done" with the Badgers. GO HUSKIES! KILL THE BADGER!
Mar 23 2008, 5:19 am by jbuss seattle
I'm not a Kato fan and yet belong to the second category of displeased fans that Adam points out. Despite the fact that it's undeserved in the first place, having WI come in "late" and getting home ice advantage seems not very sportsmanlike to me. Honestly, something about it seems terribly wrong. But given the "luck" the Huskies had this season, I have no doubts it will so happen that they have to play the Badgers at the Kohl. If, after this season, Motzko is not on high blood pressure medication, then I don't know...
Mar 23 2008, 10:05 am by Pete, Minn.
Go Sioux
Mar 23 2008, 7:21 pm by hockey fan nd
One question I have is why does the NCAA allow the host schools for two of its regionals to be from the same conference. They could avoid one of the issues of not being able to move one of them by making sure that 4 different conferences host the regionals.
Mar 24 2008, 8:40 am by Jim, Orono ME
idk i didnt read it
Mar 24 2008, 3:23 pm by ryan,somerset
If humans picked the teams instead of Pairwise, I would have to believe Mankato gets in over Wisconsin. I still have a hard time buying North Dakota as a number one seed when they finished second in the conference and third in the conference tournament, but that's why they play the games I guess.
Mar 24 2008, 5:13 pm by Ryan, Shakopee
Ole ole ole ole Go SIOUX!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 25 2008, 1:29 am by Lake,ND
Ryan -- shakopee, you have a hard time seeing North Dakota as a #1 seed? Check out the final national standinds and the strength of schedule! The Sioux played the toughest schedule of anyone, bar none!
Mar 29 2008, 4:28 am by Dan -- Doran, MN.
Comment on this Article
