Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2023 NCAA DIII Championship Tournament

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

  • My understanding is he argued goalie interference, which if that is the case was a huge hail mary
    Last edited by Scott_TG; 03-20-2023, 12:50 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Scott_TG View Post
      My understanding is he argued goalie interference, which if that is the case was huge hail mary
      I figured that's what he was asking for. Yeah, a massive Hail Mary. I think that was the quickest review I've ever seen... :-)
      Russell Jaslow
      [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
      U.S. College Hockey Online

      Comment


      • If interested, below is the link to a pretty interesting interview from the winning players from GAC. I think "the west" was said, or referenced by them possibly 6-7 times in the short post-game interview. There is a burning desire within that league and that program in particular to show out and acknowledge the regional disparity. On the broadcast I saw a massive "East Coast Bias" sign the Gustie fans brought with. The powers out west seem to be fed up. That looked to be the case at least. Cranston from River Falls mentioned it multiple times as well in his pregame and postgame interviews in the quarterfinal, which I also believe are up on YouTube.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0OrCzv__Mo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 4and20 View Post

          Anyone know or heard what Coach Matthews was asking for in the review immediately after the game? The officials didn't seem to take much time in looking at the replay video. The only thing I can think of is he was questioning if the puck had come out of the zone and was not called offside before the goal. From the angle of the camera it did not look offside to me but I could understand from the Amherst bench it may have appeared close. Not trying to start anything here just curious what he wanted reviewed.
          Didn't come up in either press conference.

          Comment


          • I watched it and it sounds like Gustavus is using the "west vs east" as part of their larger "us vs them" narrative every sports team uses to unify themselves against an other they have to prove wrong. Every team does it even if it sounds absurd. In the height of the 4 straight titles for my alma mater one of the captains dropped a "no one thought we could" type line in an interview or conference and I had to laugh.

            The Gustie player talking about showing the west deserves to be there every year, I don't know anyone from the East who thinks the top West schools don't belong. There were a lot of predictions for Amherst yesterday but I chalk that up to the Mammoths not having given up a goal all playoffs and being on home ice than people thinking GAC had no shot because they are in the west region.

            I was directly across the rink from the East Coast Bias sign yesterday. I don't get it. If there was a bias against the west region St. Thomas would have been passed over as host in 2019 since it was at Adrian in 2017. St. Thomas got what was due to them and even before that the 2019 bracket was set to guarantee at least two western semifinalists (they ended up with 3).

            If its about 4 NESCAC teams being in, that's a function of math since they are using PWR. If they were to eliminate the PWR based system and use the old way we'd actually see real human bias come into play selecting the field.

            What's the happy medium? Funding inter-region play from somewhere? Adjusting PWR somehow? Putting a cap on at-large bids per conference?

            I would like to see something constructive where the western schools, if they feel as aggrieved as it is suggested, make specific complaints/requests so action can be taken instead of their being bad feelings about it.

            The reason each bracket often gets whittled down to only one team from the opposite region of the 1 seed is driven by the travel/budget constraints imposed by the NCAA forcing matchups to be within those limits. The eastern schools are not the enemy here

            Comment


            • Originally posted by VTpucksouteast View Post
              The parking was a complete liability. They have maybe 30 parking spots at the rink and half are coned off. Locker rooms were brutally small and dated. No seating/angles to watch the game were horrible. Sad that both fan bases had people quite literally cramping for space with having to turn their shoulders to fit more people in. Not to mention people having to stand on the ends of which were tight. Watching on TV would have been a much better experience I was told, but the camera quality was pretty shoddy. Orr does not have the athletic training materials/equipment/space either for the players. Girls were waiting so long for training. I agree with the above post, the people working were great and did their absolute best. Just not enough resources for them.
              I went to Amherst. Orr Rink will be 70 years-old next year. Cinderblock interior, basic wood bleachers running parallel to the side boards (making it easy to discretely drop your empty beer cans), i.e. your generic post-war, no-frills rink that you might find in any number of local communities at the time just trying to get steady ice. It's also disconnected from the main athletic facilities and I am not sure it was originally designed to accommodate 4 locker rooms in use at the same time (Amherst didn't admit women until the mid-70s and didn't have women's hockey until the mid-90s), so not hard to see why space for ankle taping and pre=game treatment were at a premium. Believe it or not, Orr used to be worse, but I'm not surprised that it receives unfavorable reviews. Wouldn't be my first choice rink for much other than having home ice.

              That said, I am guessing that the NCAA might be willing live with these issues as a trade-off to have a rink at full capacity at the highest seed. I say this because the situation at Orr is well-known to the NCAA. Some regional rounds have been held there over the years and Amherst hosted the NESCACs on the same weekend on both the men's and women's sides this year. Maybe it would have been better to see if the Mullins Center was available down the street, but the packed atmosphere at Orr looked and sounded great on the video feed (The feed itself was largely fine and the commentators were good, but there was an auto-focus issue with the main camera that caused momentary blurring as the puck entered the left-side offensive zone later in the game).

              Amherst has been updating its athletic facilities in recent years, but the single-sport facilities, which Orr essentially is, really need to be almost totally driven by a targeted alumni gift.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Scott_TG View Post
                I watched it and it sounds like Gustavus is using the "west vs east" as part of their larger "us vs them" narrative every sports team uses to unify themselves against an other they have to prove wrong. Every team does it even if it sounds absurd. In the height of the 4 straight titles for my alma mater one of the captains dropped a "no one thought we could" type line in an interview or conference and I had to laugh.

                The Gustie player talking about showing the west deserves to be there every year, I don't know anyone from the East who thinks the top West schools don't belong. There were a lot of predictions for Amherst yesterday but I chalk that up to the Mammoths not having given up a goal all playoffs and being on home ice than people thinking GAC had no shot because they are in the west region.

                I was directly across the rink from the East Coast Bias sign yesterday. I don't get it. If there was a bias against the west region St. Thomas would have been passed over as host in 2019 since it was at Adrian in 2017. St. Thomas got what was due to them and even before that the 2019 bracket was set to guarantee at least two western semifinalists (they ended up with 3).

                If its about 4 NESCAC teams being in, that's a function of math since they are using PWR. If they were to eliminate the PWR based system and use the old way we'd actually see real human bias come into play selecting the field.

                What's the happy medium? Funding inter-region play from somewhere? Adjusting PWR somehow? Putting a cap on at-large bids per conference?

                I would like to see something constructive where the western schools, if they feel as aggrieved as it is suggested, make specific complaints/requests so action can be taken instead of their being bad feelings about it.

                The reason each bracket often gets whittled down to only one team from the opposite region of the 1 seed is driven by the travel/budget constraints imposed by the NCAA forcing matchups to be within those limits. The eastern schools are not the enemy here
                All good points here. Maybe the PWR formula can be tweaked to reward out of region play as an incentive to create home-and-homes in alternating years, or a holiday tournament where schools might split the costs. Or the NCAA can allow for 2 more games over the max if they are an out of region opponent (kind of like how Alaska is handled in Men's D-I). I think the challenge for many East Coast schools is that there are not many free dates in the schedule without sacrificing some good traditional out-of-conference opponents.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Scott_TG View Post
                  I watched it and it sounds like Gustavus is using the "west vs east" as part of their larger "us vs them" narrative every sports team uses to unify themselves against an other they have to prove wrong. Every team does it even if it sounds absurd. In the height of the 4 straight titles for my alma mater one of the captains dropped a "no one thought we could" type line in an interview or conference and I had to laugh.

                  The Gustie player talking about showing the west deserves to be there every year, I don't know anyone from the East who thinks the top West schools don't belong. There were a lot of predictions for Amherst yesterday but I chalk that up to the Mammoths not having given up a goal all playoffs and being on home ice than people thinking GAC had no shot because they are in the west region.

                  I was directly across the rink from the East Coast Bias sign yesterday. I don't get it. If there was a bias against the west region St. Thomas would have been passed over as host in 2019 since it was at Adrian in 2017. St. Thomas got what was due to them and even before that the 2019 bracket was set to guarantee at least two western semifinalists (they ended up with 3).

                  If its about 4 NESCAC teams being in, that's a function of math since they are using PWR. If they were to eliminate the PWR based system and use the old way we'd actually see real human bias come into play selecting the field.

                  What's the happy medium? Funding inter-region play from somewhere? Adjusting PWR somehow? Putting a cap on at-large bids per conference?

                  I would like to see something constructive where the western schools, if they feel as aggrieved as it is suggested, make specific complaints/requests so action can be taken instead of their being bad feelings about it.

                  The reason each bracket often gets whittled down to only one team from the opposite region of the 1 seed is driven by the travel/budget constraints imposed by the NCAA forcing matchups to be within those limits. The eastern schools are not the enemy here
                  I think part of the issue is that the West perceives several factors combine to artificially limit the number of qualified teams that should be considered part of "the top West schools." We would love to see additional funding for inter-region play, but I'm under the impression that funding isn't the only issue -- willingness to add West teams to the schedule is (anecdotally) rare. I'm not an expert in PWR but if the formula can be reviewed to assess whether it has an embedded bias for the East, it should be. Perhaps the PWR data could be the primary factor in determining the playoff field augmented by the judgment of those who actually had reliable insight into the strength of the teams from both regions after having watched them play.

                  Comment


                  • I would say that "eastern bias" is a bit of a broad brush this year. It seems it would be closer to accurate to talk about the NESCAC bias in the Pairwise formulas. Part the argument about east/west "bias" has to begin with the number of teams each region has. I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but I don't think that ratio is getting closer to 50/50.

                    For those of us that have been following this sport for a long-time, we used to talk about the "smoke-filled rooms" were NCAA fields were selected. Even when those people on the committee weren't allowed to advocate for their own team, a place on the committee did seem to be an advantage to selection come March. I, for one, would not advocate going back to those days.
                    Steve
                    Penn State Class of '95
                    Plattsburgh State Class of '99

                    If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, then what is baby oil made from?

                    Comment


                    • I would agree with spwood that it appears to be a NESCAC bias rather than an eastern bias, at least this year. I think the rub for many people is the question of having 4 teams from the same league in an 11 team bracket. To reiterate, there were more teams from the NESCAC (4) in the tourney than there were total teams from the west (3). With 8 total Division III conferences, the other 7 conferences each received 1 bid each. That's 36% of the field from one conference while the other 7 conferences each contribute 9%. To put things in perspective, if the same percent of teams came from one conference in either Division I basketball tournament, the number would be an absurd 24, unattainable even in the new world of super conferences.

                      Here's a quick update on numbers: there are 72 total NCAA Division III women's hockey programs. Of those, 24 teams (or 33%) are from the west and the balance, 48 (or 67%) are from the east. The three western conferences are the MIAC (10 teams) NCHA (9 teams) and WIAC (5 teams). Interestingly, Finlandia from the NCHA is closing its doors this spring but Milwaukee School of Engineering is adding a team in 2023 and is likely to join the NCHA.

                      One suggestion is to expand the field. Division I women have 11 entrants from 42 schools (26%) while D I men have 16 from 60 schools (27%). D3 women only have 15% of schools in the tourney. Can we at least get to 12 teams? Maybe 14.

                      Suggestion 2: Modify the Pairwise formula. Most of us understand how it works but question its validity in a 22 to 25 game schedule with extremely limited inter-direction play. Many also have a hard time comprehending how an opponents' opponent record carries equal weight to one's own won-loss record. There's a reason the Division I basketball committee went away from it a few years ago.

                      Blind Quiz: Team A vs. Team B. Similar records 24-3 (one team also has a tie). Team A's record vs. top teams: 1-0 (road) vs PWR #2, 2-1 vs #3, 1-0 vs #7, 2-1-1 vs #9.
                      Team B's record vs. top teams: 1-2 vs #6, 3-1 vs #13, 2-0 vs #25, 2-0 vs #27. Teams played three games head-to-head with Team A winning two. Which team has the higher ranking?

                      Suggestion #3: Reward teams who take on the expense and effort to travel inter-directionally. Wins in such instances might be rewarded with additional PW points.

                      Suggestion #4: Let competent professionals make professional judgments. If one uses Pairwise as a - but not the only - determinant, it appears the final spot came down to a competition between Colby (17-7), Middlebury (16-7-3) and UW-Eau Claire (22-4-2). Amherst and Hamilton from the NESCAC should definitely be in. Both Middlebury and Colby went 1-4 vs Amherst and Hamilton. Both teams lost in the semi finals of their conference tourney. Middlebury went 2-0 head-to-head vs Colby. Middlebury also played tougher out of conference opponents in Plattsburgh, River Falls and Elmira. Middlebury appears to have an edge over Colby. Seems to come down to Colby vs. UW-Eau Claire. UW-EC has a 7-4 win and a tie vs. UW-River Falls and went 1-2-1 vs them with 3 of the 4 being road games. UW-EC is hurt because the of the lack of strength of many of its opponents. So, in Pairwise, they fell one spot behind Colby, whose 17 wins were considered superior to UW-EC's 22 wins.

                      With the benefit of hindsight, it certainly looks like the west deserved more than 3 teams this year. River Falls beats Plattsburgh and Middlebury in November. Gustavus beats Plattsburgh and then Amherst on their home ice. By the way, that blind quiz above? Team A was River Falls and Team B was Gustavus. River Falls ended up ranked 6th and GAC 3rd, prompting the Falcons' road game in St. Peter.







                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bodyup88 View Post
                        One suggestion is to expand the field. Division I women have 11 entrants from 42 schools (26%) while D I men have 16 from 60 schools (27%). D3 women only have 15% of schools in the tourney. Can we at least get to 12 teams? Maybe 14.
                        D1 and D3 work on different formulas. So, you can't use this comparison.

                        D3 rules, across all sports (though football is limited to 32 teams when they should have 36, and I believe the maximum is limited to 64 no matter what) works on the formula of 1 team for every 6.5 teams. This is a very strict formula. It's never going to change unless the entire D3 votes on a change. I would like to see the hockey (men and women) expanded a bit, but don't see that happening any time soon

                        No disrespect, but your suggestion #4 is a horrible suggestion. Been there, done that. Never want to return to those times. I believe PWR or whatever they use moving forward, does need to be modified (your head to head is a perfect example). Some very smart mathematicians need to be brought into this. When I see how the playoff results unfolded across the board, PWR in many cases proved to be a poor indicator of results.

                        Also, just because the top 2 Western teams did so well, that does not equate to there being depth in the west. I'm not saying there isn't. Very well could be. But corollary 1 does not necessarily point to corollary 2.

                        In any case, don't get the wrong idea, I appreciate your post. The more ideas thrown out there, the better chance some good ones can be implemented.

                        Russell Jaslow
                        [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
                        U.S. College Hockey Online

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post

                          D1 and D3 work on different formulas. So, you can't use this comparison.

                          D3 rules, across all sports (though football is limited to 32 teams when they should have 36, and I believe the maximum is limited to 64 no matter what) works on the formula of 1 team for every 6.5 teams. This is a very strict formula. It's never going to change unless the entire D3 votes on a change. I would like to see the hockey (men and women) expanded a bit, but don't see that happening any time soon

                          No disrespect, but your suggestion #4 is a horrible suggestion. Been there, done that. Never want to return to those times. I believe PWR or whatever they use moving forward, does need to be modified (your head to head is a perfect example). Some very smart mathematicians need to be brought into this. When I see how the playoff results unfolded across the board, PWR in many cases proved to be a poor indicator of results.

                          Also, just because the top 2 Western teams did so well, that does not equate to there being depth in the west. I'm not saying there isn't. Very well could be. But corollary 1 does not necessarily point to corollary 2.

                          In any case, don't get the wrong idea, I appreciate your post. The more ideas thrown out there, the better chance some good ones can be implemented.
                          Sounds like your solution is to use "very smart mathematicians" to solve this issue. Maybe we can also use some professional athletic administrators to teach differential equations and quantum physics at our universities then. It sounds to me like you're giving these committee members no credit whatsoever to make sound judgments. Because something didn't work to your satisfaction in the past doesn't mean it can't work in the future. Why don't you enlighten the group about the past indiscretions in the "smoke filled rooms" so we all know what you're describing?

                          If there was a set of criteria to follow, I think people can, perhaps, come up with reasonable results. For example, I'm not generally big on arbitrary caps, but maybe in this scenario they look at no more than 33% of the field from one conference. That would currently cap it at a max of three. It feels to me that there is a better way to go than the current system, a system where a one goal loss in the second week of the season causes players to feel despondent because they know how the current formula works. Meanwhile, another team can lose 5 out of 6 after the calendar turns and they're fine.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bodyup88 View Post
                            Sounds like your solution is to use "very smart mathematicians" to solve this issue. Maybe we can also use some professional athletic administrators to teach differential equations and quantum physics at our universities then. It sounds to me like you're giving these committee members no credit whatsoever to make sound judgments. Because something didn't work to your satisfaction in the past doesn't mean it can't work in the future. Why don't you enlighten the group about the past indiscretions in the "smoke filled rooms" so we all know what you're describing?
                            With all due respect, no.

                            I do not have the time to write a 10,000+ word essay with a billion examples. It was a horror show. I don't want to relive it. And quite frankly, nor does anyone else. It was not just me who was unsatisfied.
                            Russell Jaslow
                            [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
                            U.S. College Hockey Online

                            Comment


                            • That doesn't help any of us who don't know what you're talking about.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bodyup88 View Post
                                That doesn't help any of us who don't know what you're talking about.
                                Well, we're all going to have to live with that. :-)
                                Russell Jaslow
                                [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
                                U.S. College Hockey Online

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X