What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2024 Bracketology - The Road to Connecticut

Lord_Zubin said:
2 biggest schools remaining in that area would be St John Fisher and University of Rochester with plenty of money at their disposals. Considering Fisher and Naz are right next to each other wouldn't be shocking if they shared the same rink. U of R also has a rink thats 4 min walk from campus or they can play in an AHL rink thats a 5 minute drive away and potentially absolutely demolish d3 hockey attendance.
Click to expand...

Like I said above, I don't see Naz and SJF sharing that rink. There isn't any room to lay out another set of dedicated locker rooms, offices, and meeting rooms. And just because the schools are near each other, doesn't mean the rink is, and it isn't. The Fairport rink, which now houses a Junior team, is closer.

That rink near U of R used to belong to them and used to be open air. They then paid to enclose it and donated it to the city, along with the outdoor pool. In exchange, the school gets certain use of the facility, including for their club team. (It has nice ice; I skate there often.) From everything I've heard, U of R has no plans whatsoever to field a varsity team(s).
 
VTpucksouteast said:
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/champs/Dec2023D3CC_Report.pdf

Not sure if this is final or not, but it looks like the NCAA may be expanding the bracket to 13 teams this year. Here's the quote from the document.

"The Championships Committee reviewed and supported the request from the NCAA Division III Men’s Ice Hockey Committee to expand the Division III Men’s Ice Hockey Championship bracket from 12 to 13 teams, effective with the 2024 championship."

This looks pretty official and is a nice step forward for D3 hockey.
Click to expand...

As exciting as 13 teams will be, the notes on a new selection criteria and accompanying software are the far more intriguing parts of the meeting notes imo. Thank you for posting

Q: What is the selection criteria database?

A: The selection criteria database is a system that houses the division’s statistical data and objectively applies the selection criteria to the data based on the weights established by the sport committee.

Q: Why update the current championship selection process? A: The Championships Committee researched the PairWise metric – currently used in men’s and women’s ice hockey – to ensure consistency in how selection criteria is applied across team sports in response to membership feedback. The change from the current championships selection process to the selection criteria database will take the data analysis from a subjective application, varying by sport committee, to an objective computer data analysis based on the weights established by each sport committee.

Q: Does this mean our current selection criteria goes away?

A: Yes, most of the current selection criteria will no longer be used: head-to-head competition; results versus common Division III opponents; results versus ranked Division III teams; and secondary criteria. Winning percentage and strength of schedule will remain.

Q: Will any new selection criteria be adopted?

A: The selection criteria database will continue to use winning percentage and strength of schedule along with a home/away multiplier, quality win bonus (QWB) and overtime results (in applicable sports). The home/away multiplier can be used to increase the weight of away wins and home losses while decreasing the weight of home wins and away losses. The QWB provides a bonus for wins against top-level teams, the degree of which is determined by the sport committee. Overtime win/loss weights may be applicable in some sports to reflect results that are less than full wins/losses. For example, in ice hockey a win that comes in 3-on-3 overtime is treated as two-thirds of a win and one-third of a loss, with the opponent receiving one-third of a win and two-thirds of a loss.
Click to expand...
 
Scott_TG said:
As exciting as 13 teams will be, the notes on a new selection criteria and accompanying software are the far more intriguing parts of the meeting notes imo. Thank you for posting
Click to expand...

So it sounds like we’re back to something similar to the smoke-filled room to decide NCAA at-large bids unless this database is made public? Even if it objectively ranks teams, if it’s not publicly viewable it’s wait and see when the selection show comes out. That is, if I’m understanding this correctly. The “determined by committee” wording makes me wonder. We don’t know exactly how everything will be weighted.
Or, is this still the PairWise just with different criteria?
 
Last edited:
It's not PWR, according to the notes the benefit of the system under consideration is that they can use other criteria, and each sport can customize the weighting to their committee's desire.

With the NCAA launching that stats site around the time CHS folded, there's no reason it has to be hidden. They can publish it right there....
 
Whatever happens I hope they decrease the weight of winning percentage and increase the weight of SOS because clearly rn in the pair wise winning% is far too valuable and incentives teams to have cupcake schedules. There's no way any reasonable person would think Cortland and Bethel are considered better than Adrian Utica and platty yet according to pair wise Cortland and Bethel are #6 and #7 in the country and the other 3 are 10-12. The qwb and ot weights are definitely needed and a nice addition
 
Lord_Zubin said:
Whatever happens I hope they decrease the weight of winning percentage and increase the weight of SOS because clearly rn in the pair wise winning% is far too valuable and incentives teams to have cupcake schedules. There's no way any reasonable person would think Cortland and Bethel are considered better than Adrian Utica and platty yet according to pair wise Cortland and Bethel are #6 and #7 in the country and the other 3 are 10-12. The qwb and ot weights are definitely needed and a nice addition
Click to expand...

I don't think it's too far off. Also, it really isn't worth paying attention to the pairwise until the end of January when there is more data and a lot more non-conference games played.

Let's see where things stand at the end of January before we write off the current formula that has done a terrific job the last couple of seasons getting us the right field and ranking them appropriately.
 
I dont believe the field has been right at all these fast few years. Part of it is the pairwise but the other part of it is the fact that 70% of tournament teams are auto bids and some of them dont deserve it. Most ncaa tournamnets generally have 40-50% of their field be autobids. The MASCAC hasnt won a tournament game in over a decade they definitely dont deserve an autobid. We make fun of the UCHC for how bad of a conference they are they have 1 tournament win since their formation do they deserve an autobid? Heck even conferences such as the MIAC havent been too hot in the tournament over the past decade. The MAC and LEC coming to town is only gonna make this situation muuuuch worse. The fact that the tournament has still been good the past few years shows how desperately we need a 16 team tournament. Also whoever thought it was a good idea to give a conference with 6 teams an auto should be removed from their position because look at the situation we have now.
 
Lord_Zubin said:
I dont believe the field has been right at all these fast few years. Part of it is the pairwise but the other part of it is the fact that 70% of tournament teams are auto bids and some of them dont deserve it. Most ncaa tournamnets generally have 40-50% of their field be autobids. The MASCAC hasnt won a tournament game in over a decade they definitely dont deserve an autobid. We make fun of the UCHC for how bad of a conference they are they have 1 tournament win since their formation do they deserve an autobid? Heck even conferences such as the MIAC havent been too hot in the tournament over the past decade. The MAC and LEC coming to town is only gonna make this situation muuuuch worse. The fact that the tournament has still been good the past few years shows how desperately we need a 16 team tournament. Also whoever thought it was a good idea to give a conference with 6 teams an auto should be removed from their position because look at the situation we have now.
Click to expand...

You’ve got a lot to learn about how D3 tournaments work.
 
PrezdeJohnson09 said:
You’ve got a lot to learn about how D3 tournaments work.
Click to expand...

I do know how they work. I watched all us idiots bicker about this tournament all year last year it works very poorly and that's a problem. The d3 football bracket is arguably the worst of them all 32 team field 28 auto bids lord help those poor kids
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the NCAA has a provision for if they have more auto-bid leagues than slots for the tournament. With all these leagues starting up and the 2-year grace period for leagues falling under the minimum.....
 
Lord_Zubin said:
I do know how they work. I watched all us idiots bicker about this tournament all year last year it works very poorly and that's a problem. The d3 football bracket is arguably the worst of them all 32 team field 28 auto bids lord help those poor kids
Click to expand...

No one forces anyone to play NCAA. Everyone knows the deal when they sponsor a D3 sport and what they need to do to have access into the NCAA Tournament.

The NCAA access ratio (whether you like it or not) is an important piece to the NCAA structure, especially at the D3 level. You would never have as many schools sponsoring varsity teams in certain sports as you do if you arbitrarily start taking away automatic qualifier bids from conferences that meet the minimums.

You also have budgetary confinements that limit the size of the fields. That will likely never change, especially with the mess that is happening at the D1 level with football driving the ship for nearly all decisions it seems like for anyone that has $$ invested in college athletics.
 
Lord_Zubin said:
I do know how they work. I watched all us idiots bicker about this tournament all year last year it works very poorly and that's a problem. The d3 football bracket is arguably the worst of them all 32 team field 28 auto bids lord help those poor kids
Click to expand...

And as I said many times, the D3 members VOTED for this system (AQs and the six-team conference minimum). No matter how much we may hate it, it's the members who ultimately have the right to decide how they want the tournament. Not us.
 
spwood said:
I wonder if the NCAA has a provision for if they have more auto-bid leagues than slots for the tournament. With all these leagues starting up and the 2-year grace period for leagues falling under the minimum.....
Click to expand...

This is a question I am already popping popcorn for when it has to be answered.

CHAOS!
 
Russell Jaslow said:
This is a question I am already popping popcorn for when it has to be answered.

CHAOS!
Click to expand...

Are we in that boat yet?

13th team approved. Here are the leagues already established or will have an autobid soon unless I'm missing something.

1. UCHC
2. NEHC
3. MAC
4. NESCAC
5. SUNYAC
6. WIAC
7. MIAC
8. NCHA
9. MASCAC
10. CCC
11. Little East

That still leaves 2 at-large bids...
 
Russell Jaslow said:
And as I said many times, the D3 members VOTED for this system (AQs and the six-team conference minimum). No matter how much we may hate it, it's the members who ultimately have the right to decide how they want the tournament. Not us.
Click to expand...

When did they have that vote if you don't mind me asking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top