NCAA Hockey Tournament Why Does it have to be 1 game?

Submitted by WingsNWolverines on

I personally feel the NCAA wants to get this tournament done and over with every year. It's obvious to them the NCAA Basketball tourney is the most important but why does it have to be 1 game elimination? Seriously! The CCHA playoffs are a best out of 3 game series and it works out perfectly! Why can't the NCAA make the same format for college hockey? It would actually most likely bring in more money during the tournament. I'm sick of this "one and done" crap with hockey. I wish like hell they would make it like a World Cup format.

AmaizeingBlue

March 24th, 2012 at 1:09 AM ^

You can completely dominate a hockey game and not win.  Your shots seem to never be able to find the net, while the other team gets a lucky goal because the puck bounced off of a stick, a skate, and then found the net.  In basketball and football if you dominate a game, you will win that game 10 times out of 10.  You can't say the same about hockey.  I just think there is a considerable amount of luck involved in hockey, which makes a single game elimination tournament questionable.

snarling wolverine

March 24th, 2012 at 1:19 AM ^

In basketball and football if you dominate a game, you will win that game 10 times out of 10.

In basketball, perhaps, but in football it's possible to lose a game you've dominated. Turnovers, special teams, onside kicks, etc can change a game. Think of the 1988 ND game. We scored the game's only two offensive TDs, but lost 19-17. ND kicked four FGs and returned a punt for a TD, while we missed a FG on the game's final play.

AmaizeingBlue

March 24th, 2012 at 1:24 AM ^

Turnovers and special teams are part of the game.  Don't turn the ball over and have good special teams, there's no variables in that, your team can directly control what happens in those categories.  I'll give you onside kicks, but usually if onside kicks are a factor it's a one possession game, which is by no means "dominating".

snarling wolverine

March 24th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^

Don't turn the ball over and have good special teams, there's no variables in that, your team can directly control what happens in those categories.

No variables at all? Have you played a football game in the rain or snow? That can affect the turnover tally. And sometimes your kicker just happens to have a bad day, or the officials miss a block in the back on a punt return...

M-Wolverine

March 24th, 2012 at 3:45 PM ^

"Your shots seem to never be able to find the net, while the other team gets a lucky goal because the puck bounced off of a stick, a skate, and then found the net."

So find the net by taking and making better shots, control the puck, watch your feet, and protect the net. The team can "directly control what happens" in any sport.

justingoblue

March 24th, 2012 at 9:55 AM ^

Two shots is a bit of an exaggeration when looking for something comperable, but phrasing it like "two wide open threes from your best shooter" is spot on. In basketball, those couple seconds don't usually affect the outcome of a game, or at least not nearly to the degree that they do in hockey.

jmblue

March 24th, 2012 at 2:45 PM ^

In the Sugar Bowl, our first TD was basically a prayer thrown into double-coverage, on a 3rd and 17.  A VT corner was in position to intercept it but happened to mistime his jump.  

Our subsequent FG that quarter was set up by a one-in-a-million play in which our kicker heaved up a pass to no one that was tipped by a VT player and caught by our long snapper.  

In the third quarter, we scored a TD following an unbelievable interception by a freshman DE (Frank Clark) who had hardly played all season - a play he probably wouldn't make nine times out of 10.

In OT, VT had a TD overturned on a bang-bang play that could have gone either way.

VT absolutely outplayed us.  It ultimately doesn't matter - we won - but this is a pretty clear bit of evidence against your "10 times out of 10" claim.

 

justingoblue

March 24th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

obviously isn't correct, but your comment here illustrates just how unlikely those events were, much less strung together in the course of one game. If I wrote out a description of why M lost to BGSU a month ago, none of the events would be considered as unlikely as the Sugar Bowl scores were, yet BGSU beat a vastly superior Michigan team.

There's a reason the best college football teams routinely go 12/13/14-0, while that's considered a pretty remarkable streak in other sports.

jmblue

March 24th, 2012 at 3:04 PM ^

I agree that weird, random outcomes happen more often in hockey than other sports (which is one reason that I can't get into the sport), but the notion that they never happen in other sports is silly - and to claim that we "created" all those breaks in the Sugar Bowl is being a massive homer.  And it was hardly the only fluky victory we've had; the ND game took quite a bit of good fortune, too.  Remember Rees flat-out dropping the ball when ND had a first-and-goal in the 4th quarter?

 

lhglrkwg

March 24th, 2012 at 12:58 AM ^

but I'm sure lots of people will throw out the same reasons why we can't do a football playoff. Too much time away from school for the players, etc. We'd win a lot more tourney games in a best of 3+ series

Blue since 82

March 24th, 2012 at 12:58 AM ^

 I love watching hockey as much as the next guy, but I have always liked the one and done tourneys.  I would not complain about one and done had Michigan won.  Had Michigan lost 2 of 3 I would be just as pissed.  Like said above, the only cure is to just win!

I am more concerned about any early jumpers to the NHL...

Bando Calrissian

March 24th, 2012 at 1:23 AM ^

The NCAA hockey tournament is actually one of the least random playoffs out there.  There's a mathematical formula and well-publicized list of criteria by which the field is seeded each and every year, to the extent that anyone who has been following these things closely can plug it in and accurately predict who will end up where before the committee even unveils the bracket.

And if you have a problem with the"randomness" of hockey's gameplay, well, it seems to me you probably just don't like hockey all that much in the first place.  Bounces happen, upsets happen, letdowns happen.  In October, December, and March.  That's hockey, and that's sports.  Tournaments always have consequences, both when you win and when you lose.  In a 16-team tournament, there's going to be 15 disappointed teams.  Every time.

M-Dog

March 24th, 2012 at 3:03 AM ^

It cuts both ways.  We were the best team in 1997, but did not win the National Championship.  But in 1998, we won the National Championship with a team that was nowhere near the best.

Last year it stung badly to lose the NC game in overtime.  We were reminded of that every commercial break tonight.  But we forget how lucky we were to even be there.  We beat North Dakota the way Cornell beat us.  

How come this post was not created right after that game?

 

Bando Calrissian

March 24th, 2012 at 1:01 AM ^

This is a really easy post to make mere minutes after another one-and-done flameout.  And while the old super-regional system was fun, at the end of the day, this system isn't inherently bad.  And it's not really the problem with the NCAA tournament.

The problem is the NCAA's dogged devotion to off-campus sites that benefit no one, fans and athletes alike.  Putting this tournament in a vacuum, with no fans and lesser-conference officials who are clearly out of their element, is why NCAA one-and-done hockey is "weighted plinko," as Brian likes to say.  But that's the way it is.  You're not going to see a return to the tournaments of old.  The NCAA is too invested in this flawed format.

trueblueintexas

March 24th, 2012 at 1:11 AM ^

I don't see why this system is flawed. In college basketball and hockey, the goal is not to make sure the best team during the regular season is crowned champions by the tournament. The goal is to use the regular season to position yourself as best as possible and then see who wins the tournament. If it were a matter of making sure the best teams have the best chance to win why play the tournament? It's what makes these two tournaments so great.
If I was going to propose a change (and I don't) I would propose the double elimination format college baseball and softball use.

South Bend Wolverine

March 24th, 2012 at 1:28 AM ^

3 game series at home sites for the higher seeds.  This solves the attendance problem and the randomness problem and adds huge levels of awesomeness (if you don't believe in the awesomeness of a playoff home game, remember the Molly Game).  It's really the obvious solution, which is (of course) why the NCAA refuses to take it.

Bando Calrissian

March 24th, 2012 at 1:43 AM ^

And if we're talking fair, let's talk about how things were done in the 80s.  8-team tournament.  First round was a two-game, -total goal- series.  I mean, just look at one of these brackets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_NCAA_Division_I_Men%27s_Ice_Hockey_To…

It's lunacy to think this determined a national championship.  I'll take one-and-done any day over a total-goal weekend.  Win 7-1 on night one, lose 6-1 night two, you still win the series.

chitownblue2

March 24th, 2012 at 1:34 AM ^

I don't understand. If your complaint is that "single elimination hockey is random", that seems more an indictment of the sport (being better has nothing to do with winning) than the playoff format.

ZooWolverine

March 24th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^

The point is that more games makes a series less random. Since hockey is a very random sport, it's not well suited for a one-game playoff format if you really want to pick the best team (which, I think it bears repeating, cuts both ways when you're a fan of a particular team over many years, including to Michigan's benefit last year).

The playoff format criticism is based on the observation that if being better gives you a 100% chance of winning, single elimination is obviously perfect and easy, but if it only gives you a 60% chance, then there's a 40% chance of letting the 'weaker' team advance. If you play best two out of three, however, even if there's a 40% chance of the weaker team winning one particular game, there's a slightly lower chance that they'll actually win the series (roughly 35%). Best 4 out of 7 is lower still.

chitownblue2

March 24th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

He purpose of a playoff is not to crown the best team, it is to crown a champion. The Giants were not the NFLs best team. The 2006 Cardinals were not the best team in baseball (and they won several multi-game series). If you want the best team crowned, just give it to the highest RPI at the end.

If your argument is that hockey warrants a different system than literally every college sport other than baseball, which base championships on a single performance, your argument is that hockey, itself, is random. Or it's just backside-looking butthurt. Nobody bitched when we rode a low seed to the championship, finals, or frozen four in years past.

chitownblue2

March 24th, 2012 at 1:34 AM ^

I don't understand. If your complaint is that "single elimination hockey is random", that seems more an indictment of the sport (being better has nothing to do with winning) than the playoff format.

chitownblue2

March 24th, 2012 at 1:34 AM ^

I don't understand. If your complaint is that "single elimination hockey is random", that seems more an indictment of the sport (being better has nothing to do with winning) than the playoff format.

chitownblue2

March 24th, 2012 at 1:34 AM ^

I don't understand. If your complaint is that "single elimination hockey is random", that seems more an indictment of the sport (being better has nothing to do with winning) than the playoff format.

bacon1431

March 24th, 2012 at 1:48 AM ^

The fact that it is single elimination is what makes it my favorite postseason in all of sports. Ever minutes is incredibly nerve-racking. You have to play focused for 60 minutes or you could be done. It sucks when you lose to a team you should beat, but it's an awesome feeling when you win. My only complaint is that the regionals are played at passionless, fanless neutral sites. We get stuck in GB with 35 total fans while Minnesota gets to play in Minneapolis in front of a packed house. It's so obvious that things would be better on campus sites. But the NCAA is often oblivious to the obvious, or they're just stupid.

bacon1431

March 24th, 2012 at 1:48 AM ^

The fact that it is single elimination is what makes it my favorite postseason in all of sports. Ever minutes is incredibly nerve-racking. You have to play focused for 60 minutes or you could be done. It sucks when you lose to a team you should beat, but it's an awesome feeling when you win. My only complaint is that the regionals are played at passionless, fanless neutral sites. We get stuck in GB with 35 total fans while Minnesota gets to play in Minneapolis in front of a packed house. It's so obvious that things would be better on campus sites. But the NCAA is often oblivious to the obvious, or they're just stupid.

freejs

March 24th, 2012 at 2:11 AM ^

in the end, that wasn't worth a whole lot.

But the set up is what it is - it sure feels like a more consistent effort, a little more resiliency before the third period, and significantly less careless play would have made this part of the one and done less dicey.

I'm much more upset about how we played than I am about the format.

M-Dog

March 24th, 2012 at 2:52 AM ^

Because it's exciting, dramatic, and intense.

Compare the NCAA basketball tournament with the NBA playoffs for example.  I find the NBA playoffs tedious and devoid of passion.  Yes, the best team is going to win.  But I don't care about it.

Even the World Cup is one and done once you get to the final 16 teams . . . just like the NCAA Hockey tournament.   

chatster

March 24th, 2012 at 3:10 AM ^

Of course it hurts to see Michigan get bounced so quickly from the NCAA hockey and basketball tournaments this year, especially when there were higher expectations for each team. Unfortunately, the one-and-done method will generate upsets every year. Occasionally, Michigan will benefit from that format, but sometimes sh*t happens, even in those NCAA tournaments with double elimination. Just ask the players from the 2007 Michigan and Vanderbilt baseball teams about that.