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.

2025 Bracketology: The Road to TBD!

So just out of curiosity, why do you suppose they went with Oswego going west and Hamilton going east as opposed to the Bracketology-predicted Oswego at Hamilton?
 
ColdInRomney said:
So just out of curiosity, why do you suppose they went with Oswego going west and Hamilton going east as opposed to the Bracketology-predicted Oswego at Hamilton?
Click to expand...
Seedings.

Since they went with a "pure" bracket, if you list the teams out in order of the NPI numbers, Hamilton is #9 and Oswego #10.

Trine is #7, so for 10 to be at 7, makes more sense with the seedings.

Then 9 is at 8 (UNE), which also makes more sense.

11 (Stevenson) is at 6 (Geneseo).

12 (Gustavus) at 5 (SNC).

It all plays out nicely.

There are a couple of "one off" from seedings match ups, but that was to avoid flying in the first round, which I'm fine with.
 
Genny having fun in their new conference


2024-25 UCHC Men’s Championship All-Tournament Team
G - Adam Harris, Sr., SUNY Geneseo
D - Nicholas Kovacs, Fr., SUNY Geneseo
D - Brian Scoville, Gr., Utica
F - Payne Gatewood, Fr., SUNY Geneseo
F - Peter Morgan, Sr., SUNY Geneseo
F - Shane Murphy, Sr., Utica
Most Valuable Player: Filip Wiberg, So., SUNY Geneseo
 
spwood said:
Div III hockey is testing my resolve for auto-bids with this lineup. Four teams higher than #20 and #8 & #9 are left home. I'm not there yet, but I've started thinking about it (not that my opinion means anything at all of course!) Too many small conferences really waters down a 14 team tournament.
Click to expand...
That is understandable but it's a wide blanket of conferences and some of those conferences once "weak in comparison" have evolved into players on the national stage after taking lumps early on. This partly due to the persistence of compulsory ABs that allow the schools in these conferences to attract top talent and for the conferences to grow or start new quality programs within.

I cite back in the 8 team (7 conf champion AB and 1 at large) 2000 NCAAs (yup...here we go..."back in my day"). People were losing their bananas with the ECAC NE getting the auto-bid I believe for the 1st time. Its champ that year, Wentworth, was outclassed by the only at at large team that year, St Thomas, of the much stronger MIAC. Fast forward and now you have teams in the CNE (CCC) who can claim ancestral roots to the ECAC NE (and W) making respectful showings in the tourney.

Bottom line is that in order for conferences to grow, they need a shot at getting into the dance and in my 26-27 years of observation, the competitive landscape of top teams in all conferences is much more even than when they started extending the ABs to all conferences. Some are still weaker than others, yes (and that seems to ebb and flow as to which ones YoY) but that is just the way it is. If I am a program in any conference, then I am going to do what I can to build and to rise to the top of it to make the dance....and that is what over time, grows a conference and the overall quality of teams across the board.

To your point, perhaps expand the field to a truly binary 16 team field to get some of those higher ranking teams in? That introduces travel issues though and even though D3 is really good hockey now, there is little, if any, revenue generated compared to D1 to support that.

2000 NCAA Division III men's ice hockey tournament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
It isn't a perfect solution, but I'd love to see "auto" at large bids for any team that finishes in the top 10 in NPI. This would introduce variability into the field size and would possibly push the field past 16 teams (and add an extra round) in some years, which is what makes in impractical. There would still be fringe teams that have a somewhat legit complaint about not getting in, but I think top 10 + remaining conference champs would make a great bracket.
 
Tom Coughlin said:
It isn't a perfect solution, but I'd love to see "auto" at large bids for any team that finishes in the top 10 in NPI. This would introduce variability into the field size and would possibly push the field past 16 teams (and add an extra round) in some years, which is what makes in impractical. There would still be fringe teams that have a somewhat legit complaint about not getting in, but I think top 10 + remaining conference champs would make a great bracket.
Click to expand...
Where can the algorithm for computing NPI be found?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top