- Member for
- 8 years 38 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|27 min 51 sec ago||Yes.||
Brian likes the "Initial Counters" scholarship model for football, but it would be even better for basketball.
Simple rule: a team has 4 "new" scholarships a year. That's it. If a player had a scholarship last year, they are eligible for a scholarship this year. But only 4 players who didn't have scholarships last year are eligible for one this year. (Make an exception for walkons earning scholarships--if somebody has walked on for 2 years, they can get a scholarship after that if somebody leaves early).
Get a bunch of 4-year players and use redshirts? If nobody transfers out, your team could have 20 scholarship players. Get a bunch of 1-and-dones or abuse your players so they transfer? You might have to have a walkon in your starting lineup.
All of the incentives flip. Instead of coaches trying to force players out, they will be trying to get them to stay.
|1 hour 53 min ago||Several comments.||
Things here I agree with: Home sites for first and second rounds.
Things here I disagree with: Just about everything else.
Keep the single elimination. Best-of-three is nice, but the NCAA won't pay for that and ESPN won't show it. Television doesn't want to show hockey; there is no way they would show 16-24 games in a weekend, when they get better ratings with women's basketball regionals. Keep the bracket--no re-seeding. Every college team sport has a bracket. Make sure teams from the same conference don't meet in the first round, because that's an NCAA rule. Regionalize the first round a little bit; maybe even the second round. The frozen four round robin is a terrible idea for so many reasons. (Although you should go to Saturday semifinals-Monday final, like basketball, instead of Thursday-Saturday). Hockey is already the longest season of any NCAA sport; they aren't extending it by 2 weeks. Also, no need to "rotate" the frozen four; just keep the current bid system in place. There is absolutely no reason that any city or region should claim a right to host just because it's "their turn."
Instead of inventing these things that have no chance of being adopted, why not go to a format that the NCAA already uses--the lacrosse format? First round at home sites, quarterfinal doubleheaders in 2 different places, and a Saturday-Monday final the third week of the tournament? There is no argument the NCAA can make against it, because they already use that exact format in another sport.
Second best: the field hockey format. 4 regionals hosted by #1, #2, #3 and #4. Four teams advance to the finals. Simple, and again there is no argument the NCAA could make against it.
|15 hours 18 min ago||I go to the Frozen Four every year.||
I have gone every year for almost 2 decades now. There have been few venues that have done as well at hosting as Tampa, both times. I would have no problem at all if they had a once-every-five-years frozen four there. Let's just say that if you are going to put it in a city without a college hockey team within 50 miles, better Tampa than Philadelphia or Washington.
Venues I have enjoyed the most: Tampa, St Paul, Denver. Venues I have enjoyed the least: Albany, Philadelphia, Detroit (because Ford Field was awful). I would say that I don't want any venue hosting more than once every 5 years, and I am willing to try just about anywhere in the US with a NHL rink. But not Philadelphia ever again...at least until they get a new rink.
Also, let me say that I would have less than zero interest in attending a round-robin frozen four. That's just a terrible, terrible idea.
|1 day 23 hours ago||Wow.||
This goes in the "first comment hall of fame."
EDIT: Great minds...
|1 day 23 hours ago||An anecdote.||
I was flying to MSP (the Minneapolis-St Paul airport) a few months ago. Guy in row behind me was college-aged and wearing a Minnesota (Gophers) hat. Old guy is seated next to him, asks if he's a student at Minnesota. Yes, he is. Old guy then asks kid where he went to high school. The kid's answer to the question then inspired a (literally) 50-minute discussion of high school hockey, with equal enthusiasm from both people.
Think about that for a while. If a Michigan hat or sweatshirt inspired an extended discussion of sports, what are the odds that the sport would be high school hockey? Or hockey at any level?
No, Minnesota is different. Very different.
|1 day 23 hours ago||Minnesota||
When you say "The USA hockey program [chose] to move to Michigan, not Minnesota," you are implying something that isn't really true--that they chose Michigan for talent reasons.
The USA hockey development program had several requirements: (1) good, fairly large school district, (2) nearby hub airport, (3) plenty of ice sheets, and (4) couldn't be in Minnesota or Massachusetts for political reasons.
They put it in Michigan because Massachusetts would have found it completely unacceptable for it to be in Minnesota, and vice versa.
|2 days 13 hours ago||Whoa...||
Penn State's pitchers had to throw a total of 170 pitches just to get through 4 innings? That's just ridiculous...42.5 pitches per inning.
I agree with you; it's always a little surprising if you create some models and simulate run-scoring: constructing a batting order matters much less than you would think, once you take care of the obvious stuff like having speedsters with high OBP's in the first couple of spots, power hitters with high SLG's in the next few spots, and your worst hitters at the bottom, in descending order of OPS. Once you do that, you can probably only squeeze another run every 10 games or so by finding a "perfect" lineup compared to a "pretty good" lineup.
|2 days 14 hours ago||Next up: Penn State.||
Good win. Winning 1 of 3 is a little disappointing, but a lot better than getting swept. It's nice to have a #3 pitcher the quality of Michael Hendrickson. The bullpen combo of Tommy Henry (1.08 ERA in 17 innings, 1 win & 1 save) and Jackson Lamb (0.00 ERA in 11 innings, 2 wins & 6 saves) continues to impress as well. We saw again today that if Michigan has a lead through 6 innings, they will want Henry to pitch the 7th & 8th and Lamb the 9th.
Midweek games against CMU (9-13) and Toledo (5-17) are on tap for Tuesday & Wednesday. Neither of those two are very intimidating on paper, but midweek baseball can be a tricky thing.
|3 days 18 hours ago||2-1 Michigan, middle of the 2nd.||
Michigan scores on a single by Johnny Slater (almost getting erased after a baserunning error), a hit batter, a sacrifice bunt and a sacrifice fly. 2-1 Michigan.
I feel there is an important issue that we aren't discussing here: Maryland has starting pitchers named "Taylor Bloom" and "Tyler Blohm", and they are both from Severna Park, Maryland.
|4 days 4 hours ago||Speaking of bad teams...||
Indiana swept Rutgers yesterday, 9-2 and 23-2.
I don't think there were really any unexpected results yesterday--Minnesota is the class of the conference, Wisconsin & Michigan are next and the 3rd tier are Ohio State & Illinois. All five of them won their openers.
Minnesota at Illinois next weekend will be the first matchup between any top teams in conference.
|6 days 17 hours ago||Looking forward to the Big Ten season.||
M Softball is #16? It's infuriating and hard to watch. M Baseball is #16? It's awesome. It just goes to show you how much "expectations" matter.
Michigan has a true #1 pitcher, Oliver Jaskie, who can beat any team in the nation. They have a shutdown closer in Jackson Lamb who has proven he can preserve any 8-inning lead Michigan hands him. They have 2 power hitters in Harrison Wenson and Drew Lugbauer. Despite only hitting .268 as a team, they have a very good .379 OBP and are 43 of 50 in stolen base attempts. Plus, they have only committed 13 errors in 19 games.
Michigan's weaknesses moving forward will be (1) a lack of a #2 pitcher--Ryan Nutof has struggled in recent starts--and (2) a lack of hitting for average. I think that if an opposing pitcher is throwing strikes, Michigan might struggle. So far Michigan has really taken advantage of walks and hit batters, and they have lacked clutch hitting in their losses, especially the 1-0 UCLA loss.
Looking ahead, if Michigan ends up with 44 wins or so after the conference tournament, look for them to host a regional. I figure that they need to go 6-1 against the MAC, 16-8 in the Big Ten, 3-2 in their major non-conference games (Oklahoma x 3, Notre Dame, MSU), and make the Big Ten tournament final.
|6 days 17 hours ago||series at Maryland is huge.||
Friday: 6:30 p.m.
Saturday: 7:00 p.m. (BTN)
Sunday: 1:00 p.m. (BTN plus)
The forecast suggests showers are a possibility in College Park on Sunday, so there is a possibility that they play a doubleheader on Saturday instead, when it will be 75 degrees. Maryland has a pair of pitchers with ERAs under 2.00, so Jaskie will likely have to pitch another gem on Friday. Whomever wins this series will absolutely be in the driver's seat.
|6 days 18 hours ago||Mod Intervention Needed||
The "Blashill" thread has devolved into things like "shut the fuck up" directed at another commenter. It really needs to be cleaned up--it's not a good look.
|1 week 2 hours ago||Massey ratings think Wisconsin is legit.||
Massey has Minnesota #6, Wisconsin #18 and Michigan #19. Wisconsin hasn't beaten anybody, but Michigan hasn't really beaten anybody either.
Wisconsin is 1-1 against the top 40 (W over #38 FIU, L to #10 JMU). Michigan is 2-5-1 against the top 40 (both wins over #21 ASU). It's hard to say that Michigan's record is that much better than Wisconsin's. Also, Wisconsin is 19-1 against teams outside the top 40, Michigan is 16-2.
Ohio State & Illinois seem to be the "third tier" of the Big 10, after Minnesota and then U-M & U-W.
|1 week 2 hours ago||This place is awesome.||
I love the fact that some lurker created an account today just to drop this fact on us. +1.
|1 week 3 hours ago||Denver to KC?||
After spending 11 hours making that drive from Colorado to Kansas City, staring at his hotel room walls is going to seem exciting and enjoyable.
|1 week 21 hours ago||Host||
Does all of the organizational stuff that has to take place. They supply the stats crew, the timer & the other off-court officials, plus they ensure that every team has the stuff they need in the locker room, on the benches, during practice sessions, etc. Their SID takes care of the media needs. And so on.
In exchange, the "host" school gets a small cut of the revenues. I think they do it mostly so one institution can be held responsible if things go wrong. ("There wasn't enough room on press row; we will withhold the host's cut of the revenues").
|1 week 1 day ago||Theory checks out.||
Satellite launches before 1950: 0.
Satellite launches after 1950: 7500+
Obviously gravity significantly decreased somewhere around that time.
|1 week 1 day ago||Good question. (Long answer--sorry)||
I keep going back to the lacrosse example. Not necessarily because I think it is perfect, but because I think that since the NCAA already uses that format in one sport, they would be more willing to use the exact same format in another sport.
In lacrosse, for whatever reason, they seed the tournament without any flipping at all among the top 8. So if Cornell is #1 and Denver is #8, then Cornell and Denver meet in the quarterfinals (if they both win). So no flipping there, and more teams end up travelling for the quartrerfinals than would need to if they could flip the #5 to #8 seeds for regionalization. I don't have a strong preference either way. I do acknowledge that the QF matchups this year wouldn't lend themselves to strong regional interest--they would all be inter-regional matchups.
I much prefer brackets to re-seeding. Brackets seem more fair to me. That way, if a team is under-seeded and upsets the #2 team in the nation in the first round, they don't get "rewarded" with a game against the #1 team in the second round.
As far as I can tell, there are 3 NCAA D-I sports with 16 teams, and they all seed differently:
* Men's hockey--4 bands of 4 teams each (1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9 to 12, 13 to 16). Teams can flip around in their own band but can't be moved out of their band. Four regionals at pre-determined sites.
* Men's lacrosse--top 8 teams seeded 1 to 8, other 8 teams unseeded. Unseeded teams can end up anywhere (based on travel considerations) but top 8 locked into their bracket spot. Eight first round games at the top 8, 4 quarterfinals at 2 pre-determined sites. (Lacrosse is technically an 18-team tournament, but I think we can ignore the 2 play-in games).
* Field hockey--top 4 teams seeded 1 to 4, other 12 teams unseeded. Unseeded teams can end up anywhere (based on travel considerations) but top 4 locked into their bracket spot. Four regionals hosted by the 4 seeds.
All 3 sports have a ban on first-round matchups between 2 teams in the same conference, but no restriction at all on intraconference matchups after the first round.
Of those three, I think the lacrosse format would work best for hockey. Hockey already has a 3-weekend tournament, they just have a bye in the middle weekend. The lacrosse format would both reduce expenses and increase revenue for the NCAA (whether they go to best-of-3 or keep it single elimination), and would increase TV viewership by having the games played in front of large, enthusiastic crowds--one of the biggest factors in TV viewership is that people won't watch sporting events played in empty arenas/stadiums.
|1 week 1 day ago||What lacrosse does||
Hockey and basketball are unique in NCAA men's sports in that the tournament is seeded from top to bottom. There is absolutely no reason that hockey needs to be seeded from 1 to 16, especially if they adopt this format.
I was using the lacrosse format, where the teams ranked #1 to #8 are seeded, but the teams ranked #9 to #16 are all thrown into the same pool of unseeded teams. At that point, they seed the first round so that they generate the fewest number of flights ("flight" is NCAA-speak for "trip of 350 miles or more"--the NCAA has to pay for the plane flight at that point, rather than only paying for a chartered bus). So the lacrosse tournament gets shuffled around so that, to the extent possible, the top 8 teams host the nearest #9-#16 teams as long as they are in different conferences.
|1 week 1 day ago||Site announcements.||
There is this from the Division I Competition Oversight Committee meeting in January 2017:
Site selection update: Staff updated the committee on the selection process for the 2018-22 cycle, noting that sport committees currently are deliberating and preparing recommendations. The committee's administrative committee will review recommendations in early March. Final announcements are expected April 18, 2017.
So I think if we don't hear anything on April 18 about hockey regionals, that will be a sign. But until then, I suspect this is just the committee's new M.O.: announce 4 years worth of sites once every 4 years.
|1 week 1 day ago||2018?||
Sadly I don't see how next season is a possibility. There are several layers of NCAA bureaucracy to slog through before any proposal to change a playoff format is adopted.
The NCAA hockey committee has to recommend it, and their next meeting isn't until June or July. The Division I Oversight Committee has to approve it, and that wouldn't be until August. Then the Division I Council would have to approve, and that wouldn't happen before October, and you have already started the next season at that point.
There is no way they would change the format of the playoffs in the middle of a season, so look for 2019 at the earliest. Also, the last I have heard is that the coaches don't want the change. My reaction is that I don't care what the coaches think any more than I care what the zamboni drivers think, but unfortunately they do have a lot of political power in the sport and their determined opposition could kill the proposal.
If you ask the coaches, of course, I think they would rather play every game in an empty arena with no TV cameras.
|1 week 1 day ago||Campus sites||
The solution is pretty simple: go to the lacrosse format for the 16-team tournament: first round on home ice of the top 8 teams, quarterfinal doubleheaders at neutral sites (or at home sites--that would work too) the next weekend, then the semis & finals in the same format as today.
How the lacrosse-style tournament would work:
Air Force at #1 Denver
Only 1 team (Ohio State) would be more than 350 miles from their campus. So instead of the NCAA paying for 11 teams to fly as they do in the current format, they will only have to pay for 1 team to fly in the first round, and a maximum of 8, and probably no more than 5, in the second round.
|1 week 3 days ago||Chuck Berry's legacy||
"I imagine a college classroom in 300 years, in which a hip instructor is leading a tutorial filled with students. These students relate to rock music with no more fluency than they do the music of Mesopotamia: It’s a style they’ve learned to recognize, but just barely (and only because they’ve taken this specific class). Nobody in the room can name more than two rock songs, except the professor. He explains the sonic structure of rock, its origins, the way it served as cultural currency and how it shaped and defined three generations of a global superpower. He shows the class a photo, or perhaps a hologram, of an artist who has been intentionally selected to epitomize the entire concept. For these future students, that singular image defines what rock was.
So what’s the image?"
A very good article asserting that Chuck Berry will come to epitomize rock and roll music.
|1 week 3 days ago||Johnny B Goode tonight...||
"If you had to give rock and roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry." -- John Lennon
|1 week 5 days ago||But seriously||
Water flavored beer will be $30, and beer flavored water will be $20.
The good news is that the water flavored beer will come in a special souvenir dixie cup, so there's that.
|1 week 5 days ago||Serious answer||
That game in Dallas is not an "official NCAA event."
NCAA games (I.e., tournaments and other championship events sponsored by the NCAA) do not allow alcohol sales, with the very recent exception of the CWS and WCWS.
|1 week 6 days ago||Too much of a Michigan fan.||
Sure, I watched that game on March 26, 1997. But that Michigan hockey game on March 27, 1997, dominates my memory so much that this game is just another NHL regular season game to me.
I remember being really, really annoyed that the Ann Arbor establishment where I was planning to watch that NCAA semifinal game was showing a taped replay of the previous day's NHL game on their biggest screen, and (more understandably) the NIT final on their second biggest screen.
|1 week 6 days ago||Clock||
The Yost clock shows tenths of a second; that TV clock did not. They showed the replay (with the scoreboard clock superimposed) at Yost, and it pretty clearly was the right call, assuming the clock was properly synced with the video.
What I think happened there is that the Yost clock went from 0:01.0 to 0:00.9 when the TV clock went from :01 to :00.
|2 weeks 2 hours ago||Trust Wikipedia.||
You just trusted the wrong page on Wikipedia.