Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new WCHA is dead pt2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The new WCHA is dead pt2

    Carry on

    The moratorium was put in place in 2007 (in the immediate aftermath of the CHA & MAAC having several schools elevate & subsequently drop hockey) , then the NCAA put in a permanent ruling prohibiting multi divisional schools (and grandfathering existing ones). Hence why I would be in favor of the "National Collegiate Championship" model of women's hockey. Look how much that has exploded.

    For reference: https://www.uscho.com/2012/03/20/rit...to-division-i/
    Last edited by moose97; 02-21-2020, 11:15 AM.
    Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

    AHA:
    B1G: UMinn, UWisc
    ECAC:
    HEA: UMass, Notre Dame
    NCHC: UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
    WCHA: UAH, BSU, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU

    Inactive: BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

  • #2
    Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

    Can someone show me evidence of a rule change that DII schools cannot play up in DI hockey specifically? This is news to me if they can't because NCAA doesn't sponsor a DII championship. In other sports, I believe it, you can't just choose to play up, but hockey is an exception because there is no DII championship.

    "Some schools, however, have opted to compete in a sport at a higher level and are allowed to do so by the NCAA under certain circumstances. First, schools in Divisions II and III are allowed to classify one men's sport and one women's sport as Division I (except for football and basketball), provided that they were sponsoring said sports at Division I level prior to 2011. In addition to this, a lower-division school may compete as a Division I member in a given sport if the NCAA does not sponsor a championship in that sport for the school's own division. Division II schools may award scholarships and operate under Division I rules in their Division I sports. Division III schools cannot award scholarships in their Division I sports (except as noted below), but can operate under most Division I rules in those sports."
    Last edited by Shirtless Guy; 02-21-2020, 11:25 AM.
    Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

    Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

      Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
      Can someone show me evidence of a rule change that DII schools cannot play up in DI hockey specifically? This is news to me if they can't because NCAA doesn't sponsor a DII championship. In other sports, I believe it, you can't just choose to play up, but hockey is an exception because there is no DII championship.

      "Some schools, however, have opted to compete in a sport at a higher level and are allowed to do so by the NCAA under certain circumstances. First, schools in Divisions II and III are allowed to classify one men's sport and one women's sport as Division I (except for football and basketball), provided that they were sponsoring said sports at Division I level prior to 2011. In addition to this, a lower-division school may compete as a Division I member in a given sport if the NCAA does not sponsor a championship in that sport for the school's own division. Division II schools may award scholarships and operate under Division I rules in their Division I sports. Division III schools cannot award scholarships in their Division I sports (except as noted below), but can operate under most Division I rules in those sports."
      I don't currently have access to the rule change, but remember it occurring.

      "However, when the moratorium was lifted, in August 2011, also gone was the opportunity for schools to “play up,” that is, to be multidivisional."
      Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

      AHA:
      B1G: UMinn, UWisc
      ECAC:
      HEA: UMass, Notre Dame
      NCHC: UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
      WCHA: UAH, BSU, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU

      Inactive: BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

        Weighing in on scheduling, and its effect on RPI....
        Disregarding your own QWB......
        This is quick math, used as examples.....
        If your conference has a .400 win% OCC, that means that your conference opponents on average will have, at the end of the year, a win% of about .475. That counts for about 3/4 * 21% of your RPI.
        In the same way, that's going to be about 3/4 * 3/4 * 54% of your opponent's opponent's Win%. So, combined, the part of your schedule over which you have no control, contributes about .475 * (16% + 32%) of your RPI. Let's call that 1/2.
        So, you start with 50% of your RPI being .475.
        Where does the other 50% come from? Well, first there is your own OOC schedule. Who you played against. Since your conference went .400, everyone else is about .600 in OOC play, which translates to about .525 for a full year. That pulls your RPI up to the range of.... about .490 or so.
        Now, the only thing left is your own results.
        3/4 of your RPI is about .490. You need to get that up to about .5400 to have a shot at an At Large bid, so you need a win% yourself of about .6900. Add a couple of quality wins, and that decreases.

        That's the math. Excluding the QWB, the result of ONE GAME affects, in the end, your RPI by about .008. Every result all year long is the same. Lose to Anchorage? Beat Mankato. It levels out. If you are a tourney quality team, you should have a good record against that competition.


        For NCHC teams, the calculation is, of course, opposite, and the result is that the needed record is somewhere nearer to .580 or so....But the real advantage of the NCHC teams is the QWB.

        I actually think the QWB is a BAD idea in the RPI. I like the home/away adjustments. But the QWB effectively counts some wins twice.
        I also don't think that throwing away the games in which wins lower your RPI makes sense either.
        Both of those factors make it easier for the big schools to pad their RPI.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

          Originally posted by Numbers View Post
          Weighing in on scheduling, and its effect on RPI....
          Disregarding your own QWB......
          This is quick math, used as examples.....
          If your conference has a .400 win% OCC, that means that your conference opponents on average will have, at the end of the year, a win% of about .475. That counts for about 3/4 * 21% of your RPI.
          In the same way, that's going to be about 3/4 * 3/4 * 54% of your opponent's opponent's Win%. So, combined, the part of your schedule over which you have no control, contributes about .475 * (16% + 32%) of your RPI. Let's call that 1/2.
          So, you start with 50% of your RPI being .475.
          Where does the other 50% come from? Well, first there is your own OOC schedule. Who you played against. Since your conference went .400, everyone else is about .600 in OOC play, which translates to about .525 for a full year. That pulls your RPI up to the range of.... about .490 or so.
          Now, the only thing left is your own results.
          3/4 of your RPI is about .490. You need to get that up to about .5400 to have a shot at an At Large bid, so you need a win% yourself of about .6900. Add a couple of quality wins, and that decreases.

          That's the math. Excluding the QWB, the result of ONE GAME affects, in the end, your RPI by about .008. Every result all year long is the same. Lose to Anchorage? Beat Mankato. It levels out. If you are a tourney quality team, you should have a good record against that competition.


          For NCHC teams, the calculation is, of course, opposite, and the result is that the needed record is somewhere nearer to .580 or so....But the real advantage of the NCHC teams is the QWB.

          I actually think the QWB is a BAD idea in the RPI. I like the home/away adjustments. But the QWB effectively counts some wins twice.
          I also don't think that throwing away the games in which wins lower your RPI makes sense either.
          Both of those factors make it easier for the big schools to pad their RPI.
          WCHA was 23-41-8 in NC this season...
          The 7 leaving schools were 21-26-7 in NC. Thats a huge difference from a PWR perspective.
          Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

          Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

            Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
            WCHA was 23-41-8 in NC this season...
            The 7 leaving schools were 21-26-7 in NC. Thats a huge difference from a PWR perspective.
            It's .375 vs .45 or so. That's the difference of about .038 in the final RPI for a school playing in a conference with them vs without them.

            That schools own win % adjusts up or down about .008 with the results of their games. If you played the 3 missing schools a total of 10 games, and went 7-2-1 or so against them, your own RPI comes out about a wash.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

              Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
              WCHA was 23-41-8 in NC this season...
              The 7 leaving schools were 21-26-7 in NC. Thats a huge difference from a PWR perspective.
              And, mind you, those 3 teams were obviously 2-15-1 against their OOC competition. An average team would go 8-1-1 against them in 10 games. It comes out even.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                And, mind you, those 3 teams were obviously 2-15-1 against their OOC competition. An average team would go 8-1-1 against them in 10 games. It comes out even.
                It comes out even = them being in or our of conference has no impact?
                Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                  Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                  It comes out even = them being in or our of conference has no impact?
                  Do the math....if MTU can play those 3 teams at the same win% that their OOC opponents played them, their presence on your schedule has no impact on your RPI (or minimal - obviously, the math is complicated and you have to make a few assumptions).

                  However, and this is the part that I mentioned above.....their presence on your schedule give you fewer opportunities to get a QWB. The Quality Wins Bonus is really a bad thing in the computation of RPI. It's the equivalent of crediting someone twice for the same win, and skews toward schools with lots of high ranked teams on their schedules.

                  Question: Have the 3 schools in question gone 2-15-1 every year?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                    Do the math....if MTU can play those 3 teams at the same win% that their OOC opponents played them, their presence on your schedule has no impact on your RPI (or minimal - obviously, the math is complicated and you have to make a few assumptions).

                    However, and this is the part that I mentioned above.....their presence on your schedule give you fewer opportunities to get a QWB. The Quality Wins Bonus is really a bad thing in the computation of RPI. It's the equivalent of crediting someone twice for the same win, and skews toward schools with lots of high ranked teams on their schedules.

                    Question: Have the 3 schools in question gone 2-15-1 every year?
                    Opp-Opp W% is the biggest component of RPI and having having an average of 3 bottom 10 RPI teams is a big hit on that. What am I missing? if you have 3 teams that consistently do bad in out of conference. Alaska (52.5), UAA (57), and UAH (55.25) as a group, they have finished 48th or lower in all but 1 of their combined 15 seasons. Year 1 of the new format was an exception. FSU isn't far behind them behing in the 49 or worse the last 3 seasons. All of this is ignoring 2019-20 because its not over year, but UAH and UAA aren't helping themselves this year either. We did an analysis when the THG predictor was working last year and if you just completely removed those 3 teams from the schedule and didn't replace them, WCHA schools moved up quite a bit...
                    Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                    Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                      Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                      Do the math....if MTU can play those 3 teams at the same win% that their OOC opponents played them, their presence on your schedule has no impact on your RPI (or minimal - obviously, the math is complicated and you have to make a few assumptions).

                      However, and this is the part that I mentioned above.....their presence on your schedule give you fewer opportunities to get a QWB. The Quality Wins Bonus is really a bad thing in the computation of RPI. It's the equivalent of crediting someone twice for the same win, and skews toward schools with lots of high ranked teams on their schedules.

                      Question: Have the 3 schools in question gone 2-15-1 every year?
                      2018-19 1-22-1
                      2017-18 4-17-2*
                      2016-17 2-18-0

                      *UA_ and UAA played a weekend series against each other in a non-conference match-up. Those games included in the total
                      Last edited by Lost_Husky; 02-21-2020, 12:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                        Originally posted by Lost_Husky View Post
                        2018-19 1-22-1
                        2017-18 4-17-2*
                        2016-17 2-18-0

                        *UA_ and UAA played each other in a non-conference match-up. Those games included in the total
                        Oof. Also, ugh, math...
                        Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

                        AHA:
                        B1G: UMinn, UWisc
                        ECAC:
                        HEA: UMass, Notre Dame
                        NCHC: UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
                        WCHA: UAH, BSU, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU

                        Inactive: BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                          Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                          I don't currently have access to the rule change, but remember it occurring.

                          "However, when the moratorium was lifted, in August 2011, also gone was the opportunity for schools to “play up,” that is, to be multidivisional."
                          20.8.2 Division II Options When No Division II Championship is Conducted. An active member institution that holds membership in Division II is eligible to compete in the Division I championship in those sports for which no championship is conducted in Division II. The Division II institution shall declare its intention to compete by June 1. This declaration of intent shall be effective for a minimum of three years. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/92)

                          20.8.2.1 Participation in Division I Championship. To be eligible for the Division I championship in such a sport, the Division II member institution is required to meet all Division I institutional and individual eligibility requirements and may use Division I financial aid limitations in that sport as permitted under Bylaw 20.9.1.1.
                          (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/92)

                          20.8.2.2 Exception for Maximum Number of Contests or Dates of Competition. A Division II member institution that is eligible for a championship in another division because there is no championship in that sport in its membership division shall apply the maximum number of contests or dates of competition in the sport involved that applies to the division in which it declares its intention to compete.

                          I spoke to someone that confirmed these are still intact and that the only difference is that a school like St. Thomas would not be able to call themselves a DI institution if they're not full DI, but they would be allowed to participate in DI hockey and follow DI hockey rules while being DI in everything else.
                          Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                          Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                            Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                            I don't currently have access to the rule change, but remember it occurring.

                            "However, when the moratorium was lifted, in August 2011, also gone was the opportunity for schools to “play up,” that is, to be multidivisional."
                            From the 2019-2020 NCAA manual:

                            20.8.2 Division II Options When No Division II Championship Is Conducted. An active member institution that holds membership in Division II is eligible to compete in the Division I championship in those sports for which no championship is conducted in Division II. The Division II institution shall declare its intention to compete by June 1. This declaration of intent shall be effective for a minimum of three years. (Revised:
                            1/10/91 effective 9/1/92)


                            20.8.2.1 Participation in Division I Championship. To be eligible for the Division I championship in such a sport, the Division II member institution is required to meet all Division I institutional and individual
                            eligibility requirements and may use Division I financial aid limitations in that sport as permitted under Bylaw 20.9.1.1. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/92)

                            So this is still in effect for sports without a championship in Division II.
                            Michael Napier - UAH '97
                            uahhockey.com

                            UAH Chargers Hockey
                            U.S. National Club Champions - 1982, 1983, 1984
                            NCAA Division II National Champions - 1996, 1998
                            CHA Regular Season Champions - 2001, 2003
                            CHA Tournament Champions - 2007, 2010

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                              For Shirtless...

                              As I say, I'll check the math in a more formal way later.

                              There is another way, too.

                              Use the modify feature on Jim Dahl's website or the other CollegeHockey site. Just delete the games against those teams.


                              Quick work on Jim Dahl's website....I deleted 8 games from MTU's schedule. 2 against UAA, 2 against UAH and 4 against FSU. If I have it right, in those games, MTU was 6-2. This is therefore a good test of my quick math.
                              The result was that MTU rose from 30 to 28 in the PWR. From a quick look at where the #27 team is in RPI, I would say that deleting those 6 games raised MTU's RPI by about .004.

                              Going back to my original assumption....The opponents of those 3 teams were 15-2-1 against them. If you change one MTU loss to Ferris to a tie, making MTU 6-1-1 against those teams. your PWR comes out the same as if they were not on your schedule at all.
                              Last edited by Numbers; 02-21-2020, 01:18 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X