2023 NCAA DIII Championship Tournament

[DavidNardolillo]

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.

 

[Mind the Gap]

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.

 

[spwood]

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.

 

[bodyup88]

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.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

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.

 

[bodyup88]

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.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

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.

 

[bodyup88]

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

 

[Russell Jaslow]

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.

 

[ARM]

Picking fields by subjective "experts" invites the possibility of favoritism; "You pick my team this year, and I'll pick yours next year when you won't be on the committee."

For an example without going too deep into the past, the PairWise wasn't used by D-I for its shortened Covid 2021 season. Instead, the selection committee had a more subjective way of figuring out who to include/exclude. It was always going to be difficult, because there was almost no competition between leagues, but a committee that had a high Hockey East representation selected 3 HEA teams into a field of 8, when it had only one representative for the 2020 tourney that wasn't. They opted to include two mediocre HEA teams that were one and done, passing over a Penn State team that had a dominant regular season. In hindsight, HEA has only had one representative in the first two years of 11-team fields.

 

[spwood]

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.

I'll second this wholeheartedly. There's a reason we collectively called the selection committee the "smoke-filled room"... We never knew where the smoke was coming from and we never knew what was going to emerge from it. We also had an annual thread that was called "My team got screwed"... it became tongue-in-cheek more recently, but in "the day", we had some heated discussions with legitimate gripes.

And I'm going to speak against bodyup88's suggestion #3. As I've mentioned before, some schools just aren't given the budget to make cross country trips for the weekend. Plattsburgh is more than willing to play whomever comes east (not just to Plattsburgh, but wherever within travel constraints they come). Penalizing teams restricted by their university systems against travel isn't an answer either.

 

[bodyup88]

And I'm going to speak against bodyup88's suggestion #3. As I've mentioned before, some schools just aren't given the budget to make cross country trips for the weekend. Plattsburgh is more than willing to play whomever comes east (not just to Plattsburgh, but wherever within travel constraints they come). Penalizing teams restricted by their university systems against travel isn't an answer either.[/QUOTE]

Not quite sure where the word Penalizing came from in #3. Reward was used in the original post. At this point I certainly don't see any incentive for anyone to do any inter-region competition. It didn't seem to help River Falls this season.

Well, I've been enlightened by everyone. The system is great as it currently stands. Nothing to see here.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Not quite sure where the word Penalizing came from in #3. Reward was used in the original post. At this point I certainly don't see any incentive for anyone to do any inter-region competition. It didn't seem to help River Falls this season.

You're penalizing those teams which can't afford it.

Well, I've been enlightened by everyone. The system is great as it currently stands. Nothing to see here.

Oh come on. Stop. I specifically said a) I like the idea of finding a better mathematical system and b) I appreciated your ideas, because there is always some which can be picked up on and moved forward.

If you want to sulk in the corner, go right ahead.

 

[SHockey98]

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 agree with the fact that the eastern schools aren’t the enemy. However, they are reaping the benefits currently and aren’t too keen towards wanting changes. I do think the west should travel east BUT vice versa. Pairwise isn’t as complicated as people make it out to be. But there needs to be more inter-conference play between all. Again, there’s no easy answer. But if all east schools wanted some change like almost all west schools do, change would happen. However, as people who follow the NCAA know, change takes a long time. It sucks there’s no unified push to make adjustments right now. Maybe if the west continues to break through, THEN we’ll get change. Probably would have came this upcoming season had the refs not jobbed GAC out of back-to-back at Kenyon.

 

[WCHornet]

I agree with the fact that the eastern schools aren’t the enemy. However, they are reaping the benefits currently and aren’t too keen towards wanting changes. I do think the west should travel east BUT vice versa. Pairwise isn’t as complicated as people make it out to be. But there needs to be more inter-conference play between all. Again, there’s no easy answer. But if all east schools wanted some change like almost all west schools do, change would happen. However, as people who follow the NCAA know, change takes a long time. It sucks there’s no unified push to make adjustments right now. Maybe if the west continues to break through, THEN we’ll get change. Probably would have came this upcoming season had the refs not jobbed GAC out of back-to-back at Kenyon.

One thing to look at, of the previous 11 final 4 sites,4 were in the west. Eastern teams won all 4 of them.

 

[bodyup88]

There have been been 20 NCAA D3 final fours. 16 of those 20 have been held in the east. Again, the west accounts for 1/3 of all D3 teams

 

[WCHornet]

There have been been 20 NCAA D3 final fours. 16 of those 20 have been held in the east. Again, the west accounts for 1/3 of all D3 teams

And from the beginning it was to always be at the arena of the top remaining seed. They tweaked it in later years so one at least one out of 4 years would be west.

 

[4and20]

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).

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

Here is a real or perceived example of something that western fans might have bad feelings about. And not to take anything away from Emily McNamara but of the 23 Coach of the year award winners 12 have been coaches of the winning school along with 5 more having been coaches of the runner up schools. Only 2 award winners have been from West schools and 1 of those was a runner up school. Now I don't know who selects(votes) for the AHCA Coach of the year award (is the committee evenly split between East and West?) but I find it very disappointing that Mike Carroll has not received this award ever much less either of the last two seasons. What else does the guy need to do?

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Here is a real or perceived example of something that western fans might have bad feelings about. And not to take anything away from Emily McNamara but of the 23 Coach of the year award winners 12 have been coaches of the winning school along with 5 more having been coaches of the runner up schools. Only 2 award winners have been from West schools and 1 of those was a runner up school. Now I don't know who selects(votes) for the AHCA Coach of the year award (is the committee evenly split between East and West?) but I find it very disappointing that Mike Carroll has not received this award ever much less either of the last two seasons. What else does the guy need to do?

I have come to the conclusion that the coach of the year award across all of college hockey encompasses the laziest voting. For the reason you state. It's just another award for a championship instead of some actual thought into who did the best coaching job.