March 24, 2008
Out of the Box, Part II: Another Look at NCAA Selections
Protecting Miami and Michigan Was Perfectly OK
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor
Now that we've thrown some mild (friendly) criticism at the committee with our Wisconsin-Minnesota State analysis, let's throw some steadfast support at the committee.
Colleague Mike Machnik wrote a blog post where he took the committee to task for inconsistency in its procedures. He said that, by "protecting" the top two overall seeds in the tournament — Miami and Michigan — from having to play at regions where teams are hosting, that it was breaking precedent.
I disagree. And to the extent that the committee was breaking precedent — which is debateable — I support the decision anyway.
First thing you need to ask is, who is getting harmed by the way it was done? New Hampshire? OK, sure, New Hampshire may have wanted to play closer to home to have its fans there. And certainly the fans who wanted to go would have preferred that.
But really, as the No. 4 overall seed, UNH is "supposed to" play Colorado College, the No. 5 overall seed. And as the lower No. 1 seed, it only makes sense that UNH should be the one that has to go to Colorado College.
I've had this argument for years, that protecting the top seeds was more important than keeping the No. 1 seeds "closest to home." It's been argued that the concept of staying "closest to home" is what's written down in the committee manual, while the "protection" concept is not. But so what? Time and time again, the committee has shown that it would try to protect the top seeds, even if it meant not putting that seed in its precise bracket that's closest to home.
This is merely an extension of this. The committee has extended this courtesy to the No. 2 overall seed, Miami. And, in so doing, it has created the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 matchups it likes anyway.
This is not inconsistent at all.
Mike — and others elsewhere (in particular with the first example) — pointed out four examples of this alleged inconsistency. I'll take them one by one:
2002: No. 1 seed Denver is placed in Ann Arbor with Michigan.
Three points ...
1. This was before the tournament went to 16 teams. Things are completely different now. It was a lot harder to "protect" teams then, and the committee was dealing with a completely different set of procedures.
2. Denver was not the No. 1 overall seed. It was No. 2. New Hampshire, in the East, was No. 1 overall. What were you supposed to do back then with only two regions?
3. Biggest of all ... the committee was REQUIRED not to move teams out of region because of something called "regionalization" that was imposed for one year after 9/11. Read all about it here.
2003: No. 1 seed Colorado College was sent to Ann Arbor
Again, as the first year of the new format, things were still unclear. And the committee itself was still sorting out how it would handle these scenarios. This was when the committee went to this strict 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, etc... ordering of things, where possible. CC was actually the No. 2 overall seed, and Michigan was No. 7. So things fell into natural order here.
2004: No. 1 seed Boston College was in Manchester
There are numerous things wrong with this example.
1. Again, BC was a No. 2 overall seed, and thus not as important to protect as the No. 1 overall.
2. Again, "bracket integrity" was maintained here.
3. New Hampshire was not the No. 2 seed in the region, but the No. 3 seed. So it, theoretically, would've lost in the first round. This is why I thought the committee wouldn't choose to protect Michigan when we did our bracket prediction Saturday night. With Wisconsin a 3 seed, we figured the committee wouldn't bother protecting Michigan, since, theoretically, it wouldn't play Wisconsin in the second round. But after it chose to do so, I supported the decision.
4. New Hampshire was not playing at its home arena, like in the other examples, but rather on an NHL sheet that is unlike its home Olympic-sized facility.
2006: No. 1 seed Minnesota went to Grand Forks
Again, Minnesota was the No. 2 overall seed, not No. 1. And, again, keeping Minnesota there actually preserved a 2-7 second-round matchup with North Dakota (which never materialized because Minnesota lost to Holy Cross in the first round).
Further, there was a lot of talk leading up to that selection of protecting Minnesota should it finish as the No. 1 overall seed. Wisconsin was No. 2 leading into the final weekend, but had a Regional in its backyard — Green Bay. The feeling was the committee would, in fact, move Minnesota out of Grand Forks were it the No. 1 overall seed. But Wisconsin jumped over Minnesota leading up to selection day, so the issue became moot.
This Year
So, really, the committee was not inconsistent with past practices at all. Yes, it "protected" a No. 2 seed this time, in Miami, but only because doing so also created the "pure" 4-5 matchup of New Hampshire and Colorado College. Lots of different factors are weighed, and you can't look at something in vacuum and say the committee was inconsistent. The committee was very consistent in its preservation of "bracket integrity," which has become a high priority. That's been very consistent.
And the bottom line is, no team was unfairly hurt by this. I'd be the first to be screaming if there was an inequity, but there wasn't.
Finally, Mike and others have suggested putting this process in writing. I am against that. While I think the committee should have a transparent process, and it's good to have procedures to follow, I don't want the committee locking itself into boxes. I've written extensively in the past about the committee needing to give itself the wiggle room to make common sense choices in seeding, and it's bad enough that the Pairwise list is so strictly adhered to already when you are dealing with such imprecise numbers.
But, again, it's better than most alternatives.
Frist off Miami being a second over all seed is a joke since they have played 2 teams from the top ten. One of those teams Michigan never lost a game to Miami. So when Miami is bounced from the tourney again in the second round we will see how over rated Miami is...
Mar 24 2008, 10:49 pm by Melvin, GF, ND
I'll just reiterate my key points, as the blog can be read for more details. My issue was not with the protection of the top seed, it was with the protection of the top *two* seeds, as opposed to 2003, 2004 and 2006, where -- under the current 16 team format -- the committee had options to protect the second-ranked team overall and chose not to do so. I believe that established a clear precedent that this committee has now gone against. In addition, in 2004, BC was the second seed overall and Michigan the eighth -- not the seventh. In 2003, CC was second and Ferris State seventh, but #6 Maine was placed in CC's regional in Ann Arbor instead. So bracket integrity wasn't preserved in those cases. Of course, there were other issues such as avoiding first round intraconference matchups, but the point remains that you can't hold up bracket integrity as the explanation for not protecting the #2 seed in recent years when we didn't even end up with it.
Mar 24 2008, 11:45 pm by Mike Machnik, CHN
Once again, you can't just brush off "other factors" in those past years. There are mitigating circumstances each time. .... So what that this year they extended it to the no. 2 seed. It hurt NO ONE else. Those other years, it might have required more hoops to go through. That's it. It's disingenuous to say that past years are inconsistent with this year just because this year wasn't exactly, word-for-word, the same as past years. Different years, different circumstance -- not inconsistency.
Mar 25 2008, 1:03 am by CHN Editor
I have three issue with protecting the top two seeds: 1) the protection against unlikely games in the 2nd round. I can see the CC issue as it is a "likely" 2nd round match-up but a sub .500 Wisco team that just snuck in, 2) it is different and did we just handcuff ourselves further, which I think is likely, 3) if it is that much of an issue why do we let the regionals be hosted on campus sites find away to get them pushed off campus. The other issue I have is with the new PWR setup the committee strickly following it. Are we all that comfortable with the system, I know I am not, and I think the committees of the past in the 12 team field did a better job of using the same numbers to figure out bubbles, reseed once the tournament was selected and swaping interconference match-ups. Today swaping 9 and 12 is ok but 12 and 13 isn't that continues to be a head scratcher. I guess this all ties back to point 2.
Mar 25 2008, 12:18 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Joe, I largely agree with you. We aren't saying much that is different.
Mar 25 2008, 12:23 pm by CHN Editor
Adam and Mike I appreciate the open thought full debate.
Mar 25 2008, 12:25 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Joe -- the problem in the West is that there aren't enough schools willing to host at a neutral location. If the bids the NCAA receives are all for on-campus venues, there's no choice, they have to award the regionals to schools to host on campus.
On Adam's followup, I'll just say we will have to agree to disagree. :)
Mar 25 2008, 12:26 pm by Mike Machnik, CHN
I have a hard time believing the NCAAs are going to make as much money this year. Somebody put a reasonable estimate that UNH not in Worcester is probably going to cost 200K+ in ticket sales, and now 11 teams are flying and with fuel being so high that wont help. Personally I think they should find away to do super regionals each with 8 teams - more like the 12 team field, it would help crowds, atmosphere and maybe getting off campus out west. 3 days two games a day and I could see more great game live. Selfish really.
Mar 25 2008, 12:34 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Mike, I think you and I are more on the same page than Adam and I. Personally I believe he is just point out that we (he and I) aren't saying much different because he knows he is wrong and wants to look like he is more in line with those of us that are right...
Mar 25 2008, 12:58 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Joe .. you got me man ... I know I'm wrong, so I'm just sucking up :) Yeah, that's it :)
Mar 25 2008, 1:03 pm by CHN Editor
Happy you and Mike have senses of humor. It makes life much better when honest debate can occur and that means people can't get all emotional.
Mar 25 2008, 1:18 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
Miami played Michigan 3 times this year.
(4-2 Loss, 5-5 Tie, 2-1 Loss) I watched all those games. They were two evenly matched teams. Michigan didn't blow Miami off the Ice. Also, during those games "no blood" was drawn. Miami has come a long way in the past decade and each year they build on the year before.
However, if you feel North Dakota has been underrated this season, then they should have no problem taking down their competition, no matter the seeding.
Mar 25 2008, 2:34 pm by M. Taylor, Oxford, Ohio
Hmmm, did M. Taylor watch the Miami v. Mich games in Oxford through one of those shattered panes of glass? I don't think we saw the same games! Thank Goodness the Zamboni doors were bolted on the 4-2 night -- the game wasn't even that close. BTW, did anyone suggest North Dakota was underrated? I think Melvin only said Miami was overrated -- a fair contention. North Dakota is as likely to be at the Pop Can as anyone in the Midwest Regional (even more likely than the 'protected' M's out east, I think).
Mar 25 2008, 9:58 pm by Sioux_Me, Grand Forks
I guess I can buy an argument for protecting a top seed from a likely 2nd-round match-up with a #2-seed playing in its home rink. I don't think I can buy protecting a top seed from a less likely second round match-up with the lowest #3 seed. Does your #1 overall really need to be "protected" from your #12 overall? (In this case a team that barely made the tourney?)
Turning it around, following through on this logic is saying "Host a regional and we'll be sure not to put either of the top two overall seeds in your bracket" thus increasing the home-ice advantage to regional hosts.
Mar 26 2008, 11:22 pm by Pam, Germantown, MD
Pam, that is a very interesting extension of the logic the committee followed. Seems like not only did Michigan and Miami get a reward. CC and Wisco (Wisco in particular) got a double reward. This time it works out for bracket integrity but what about next time.
Mar 27 2008, 12:23 pm by Joe, Deerfield NH
I have to confess that I don't understand the "protection" issue at all. First, as has been shown in recent years, playing the autobid from one of the non-"big 4" conferences is not a gimme. Second, aren't all of the seeds deserving of "protection?" In other words, doesn't the #7 seed deserve to play the #10 seed, as opposed to say the #8 or 9 seed, just as much as #1 deserves to play #16 or #2 deserves #15? It seems to me the issue of matchups, and the "home ice" issue are separate, and need to be resolved separately. The 16 teams should be paired up exactly as the numbers dictate. If the issue of hosting creates problems with this, then they need to look at finding 4 neutral locations where the regionals can be held.
Mar 27 2008, 5:07 pm by SJHovey
Well, SJHovey, that is exactly what they're doing. But,like you said, the hosting is in the way. 5 "should" play 12 - but they're each hosts, and they have to be in 2 separate regions - so there had to be some shuffling, so there was. Minimally. Otherwise, it lines up. There are some other considerations too, and all are weighed. Every year is different. I agree with the committee using some common sense to weigh a variety of factors. You start trying to create hard and fast rules for everything, and you get stuck with worse situations.
Mar 27 2008, 5:48 pm by CHN Editor
