Dance Ticket

[IUP24]

And if it doesn't fall out that way they would leave a 5, 6, or 7 in their home region? It depends on which teams make the playoffs.

[IUPBand8588]

It may not be fair for a 2 seed potentially playing higher seeds that expected, but this is D2 and budgets are tight so I am for the limited travel where possible. It wasn't that long ago that only 8 teams then 16 qualified and there was extensive travel. Still hard to believe that IUP traveled to Central Florida for a 1st round game in the 80s. I like the expanded playoff format even if it means playing a higher seed than expected.

[iupgroundhog]

It may not be fair for a 2 seed potentially playing higher seeds that expected, but this is D2 and budgets are tight so I am for the limited travel where possible. It wasn't that long ago that only 8 teams then 16 qualified and there was extensive travel. Still hard to believe that IUP traveled to Central Florida for a 1st round game in the 80s. I like the expanded playoff format even if it means playing a higher seed than expected.

No, this is the NCAA which has revenues over $1 billion (see link). And, they are willing to change to a nonsensical format with "potential cost savings ranging from $198,000 to $594,000." Even if it were true it's not worth it. The idea requires closer scrutiny ( I guess we'll see how it plays out in practice) but I really think it's all based on a flawed analysis.

The idea of forcing teams with the lowest travel costs to play each other not only disrupts the competitive structure of the playoffs I also question whether the savings of those forced games (teams that are geographically close) gets offset by reducing flights for the geographically far away teams. Really, it seems completely bogus to me.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...017/402486002/

[IUP24]

No, this is the NCAA which has revenues over $1 billion (see link). And, they are willing to change to a nonsensical format with "potential cost savings ranging from $198,000 to $594,000." Even if it were true it's not worth it. The idea requires closer scrutiny ( I guess we'll see how it plays out in practice) but I really think it's all based on a flawed analysis.

The idea of forcing teams with the lowest travel costs to play each other not only disrupts the competitive structure of the playoffs I also question whether the savings of those forced games (teams that are geographically close) gets offset by reducing flights for the geographically far away teams. Really, it seems completely bogus to me.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...017/402486002/

I've also read many articles that suggest that this is to increase attendance at playoff games. That simply won't happen. The people who go will go. The people who won't go won't. That simple. These games are played in cold climates and poor conditions during the holiday season and mostly while students are on breaks.

[iupgroundhog]

I've also read many articles that suggest that this is to increase attendance at playoff games. That simply won't happen. The people who go will go. The people who won't go won't. That simple. These games are played in cold climates and poor conditions during the holiday season and mostly while students are on breaks.

So, if this week's RR were the final rankings IUP would be playing WV State in a first round PO game. Am I correct to assume given this new rule that IUP could potentially draw any team ranked from 5th to 7th from any region? This new rule is effective this year, isn't it?

[Inkblot]

So, if this week's RR were the final rankings IUP would be playing WV State in a first round PO game. Am I correct to assume given this new rule that IUP could potentially draw any team ranked from 5th to 7th from any region? This new rule is effective this year, isn't it?

Yes it is. If the season ended this week, I don't think the new rules would affect SR1 at all, but that can easily change week to week. (In the Bracketology Thread under General Discussion, I posted how I think the bracket would look with this week's rankings.)

[IUPbigINDIANS]

So, if this week's RR were the final rankings IUP would be playing WV State in a first round PO game. Am I correct to assume given this new rule that IUP could potentially draw any team ranked from 5th to 7th from any region? This new rule is effective this year, isn't it?

In theory but in your example the distance for WV State to come up to Indiana is only about 4.5 hours.

p.s. I'd take that Round 1 pairing all day long.

[iupgroundhog]

Yes it is. If the season ended this week, I don't think the new rules would affect SR1 at all, but that can easily change week to week. (In the Bracketology Thread under General Discussion, I posted how I think the bracket would look with this week's rankings.)

I'll take a look at your post sometime today. You and others have studied this more than I have but based on what I've seen so far I would think it has the potential to disrupt all regional pairings.

[iupgroundhog]

In theory but in your example the distatnce for WV State to come up to Indiana is only about 4.5 hours.

p.s. I'd take that Round 1 pairing all day long.

It doesn't matter. If they stick to the proposal you could have some teams actually travelling further than they normally would because they are going to look at the entire 28 team bracket and optimize $$ based on the whole. At least that's the way it's written.

[Inkblot]

I'll take a look at your post sometime today. You and others have studied this more than I have but based on what I've seen so far I would think it has the potential to disrupt all regional pairings.

[EastStroud13]

Tin foil hat time, what if the rankings are being pre-adjusted so that the "traditional" matchups also make sense under the new rules, so there's less perceived disruption. Fans would be none the wiser, and there'd be less complaints about "well, this team was ranked 5th, we shouldn't have had to play them in the first round". Of course, we've only had one week of rankings, so next week could be way out of whack and this is all moot.

[iupgroundhog]

Yes it is. If the season ended this week, I don't think the new rules would affect SR1 at all, but that can easily change week to week. (In the Bracketology Thread under General Discussion, I posted how I think the bracket would look with this week's rankings.)

I looked at it. Great job, BTW!

I would be interested in a brief description of your methodology for doing this, if you're willing to provide it. Nothing lengthy.

It's pretty complicated. I think the NCAA is also computing this including Round 2 implications and I'm sure they have a quantitative model in place where they just put in the teams and the bracket spits out.

[Inkblot]

I looked at it. Great job, BTW!

I would be interested in a brief description of your methodology for doing this, if you're willing to provide it. Nothing lengthy.

It's pretty complicated. I think the NCAA is also computing this including Round 2 implications and I'm sure they have a quantitative model in place where they just put in the teams and the bracket spits out.

A few months ago, I took the time to create a full chart of who's within 600 miles of each other. That's been a tremendous help in doing this.

The first thing I do is copy the chart and trim it to the relevant rows and columns: 5-7 from each region in rows and 1-4 in columns (ordered 1, 4, 2, 3). The 1 columns are only necessary because of second-round flights. I use color-coding to mark the 1 columns as less important and also to denote matchups that occur in the regular season. I also alter the row for Earned Access teams to reflect the rule that they must play #2 seeds.

Once I've done that, I'm basically solving a logic puzzle. The first thing I do is calculate how many first-round flights are necessary; this week it's two, since neither Colorado team has any potential opponents within 600 miles. After that I calculate how many second-round potential flights are necessary without increasing the number of first-round flights. This is probably the most difficult part to figure out; this week I thought it was 4, but I stumbled onto a solution with only 3. It's difficult to account for the possibility of the #2 and #3 seeds both losing in the first round; I generally just look over the bracket after I'm finished to make sure that's not a big issue.

Accounting for flights and rematches, some of the matchups fall into place easily. Since NWMSU was the only potential opponent for Minnesota State within 600 miles that wouldn't be a rematch, that matchup was the first one I put in place. It worked out to put both teams with first-round flights into a position without second-round flights: Augustana to Colorado Mines (likely second-round opponent Minnesota State) and Angelo State to CSU Pueblo (second-round opponent Tarleton State). Harding ended up within 600 miles of their first-round opponent and likely second-round opponent; Texas A&M Commerce ended up with the only remaining potential opponent within 600 miles.

At this point I was left with all of the SR1 and SR2 teams, plus Indianapolis as a host and Grand Valley State as a visitor. Since all of the seed-based matchups in SR1 and SR2 could be retained without any issues, I opted to do that per Priority #4 and to send GVSU to UIndy.

[SRU 88]

A few months ago, I took the time to create a full chart of who's within 600 miles of each other. That's been a tremendous help in doing this.

The first thing I do is copy the chart and trim it to the relevant rows and columns: 5-7 from each region in rows and 1-4 in columns (ordered 1, 4, 2, 3). The 1 columns are only necessary because of second-round flights. I use color-coding to mark the 1 columns as less important and also to denote matchups that occur in the regular season. I also alter the row for Earned Access teams to reflect the rule that they must play #2 seeds.

Once I've done that, I'm basically solving a logic puzzle. The first thing I do is calculate how many first-round flights are necessary; this week it's two, since neither Colorado team has any potential opponents within 600 miles. After that I calculate how many second-round potential flights are necessary without increasing the number of first-round flights. This is probably the most difficult part to figure out; this week I thought it was 4, but I stumbled onto a solution with only 3. It's difficult to account for the possibility of the #2 and #3 seeds both losing in the first round; I generally just look over the bracket after I'm finished to make sure that's not a big issue.

Accounting for flights and rematches, some of the matchups fall into place easily. Since NWMSU was the only potential opponent for Minnesota State within 600 miles that wouldn't be a rematch, that matchup was the first one I put in place. It worked out to put both teams with first-round flights into a position without second-round flights: Augustana to Colorado Mines (likely second-round opponent Minnesota State) and Angelo State to CSU Pueblo (second-round opponent Tarleton State). Harding ended up within 600 miles of their first-round opponent and likely second-round opponent; Texas A&M Commerce ended up with the only remaining potential opponent within 600 miles.

At this point I was left with all of the SR1 and SR2 teams, plus Indianapolis as a host and Grand Valley State as a visitor. Since all of the seed-based matchups in SR1 and SR2 could be retained without any issues, I opted to do that per Priority #4 and to send GVSU to UIndy.

Great job. attention to detail, well thought out and very reasonable analysis. Maybe the committee will hire you to help them; wait I'm sorry you would be the anomaly in the room.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Charleston beat the crap out of WV State.


49-24

Final