A 16 Team NCAA Tournament, Yes or No?

[TitleIXHockey]

The case I make personally is outside whether 16 teams "deserve" to get in or whether 16 of 42 teams (+ St. Thomas next year) is too many.

1. It solves the problem of automatic bids being half the field and / or the last place team in a conference winning an autobid knocking out a more deserving school
2. It makes it more palatable to give NEWHA an autobid
3. It's more hockey and therefore more fun
4. It potentially spreads out recruiting as more schools can now dangle an NCAA bid as an enticement

Using last season's PWR as a metric the matchups would have been (not going to reconfigure these for travel):
1. Cornell
16. Long Island U

Assuming NEWHA awards their autobid to the tournament champ. Definitely a blowout, but that's a 1 v 16 game.

8. BU
9. Minnesota-Duluth

BU played alright against Northeastern but was swept by Maine in the first round of the WHEA tournament. UMD had probably a better season than this one against Wis, OSU, Min.

4. Minnesota
13. Robert Morris

RMU - Lost the conference title game in OT, pretty much a coin flip whether it'd be them or Mercyhurst going anyway.

5. Princeton
12. Mercyhurst

See above

3. Northeastern
14. Colgate

Not a great year for Colgate but they actually tied Northeastern in the Battle at the Burgh tournament, then lost the shootout.

6. Ohio State
11. Harvard

Just an ok season for Harvard, lost in the ECAC SF against regular season Champ Cornell.

7. Clarkson
10. Quinnipiac

Another good game coming from an expanded field. QU were 1-0-1 against Clarkson. Good D means they play in a lot of close games.

2. Wisconsin
15. Providence (LOL)

Kind of funny. Providence beat NU twice. They probably play a similar game as they did this year against Wisconsin, though they still had Maureen Murphy then.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

I'd also add that I'd like to see both regular season and tournament champions get auto-bids with NEWHA retaining just 1 to assign as they see fit until the conference is more established. If the same team wins both another at-large bid opens up.

 

[D2D]

Going forward, and assuming schedules that will pit teams from one conference vs. another, I say leave it the way it has been. This COVID year was an anomaly, and should not be used to set a precedent going forward, at least until there are a half dozen or more teams joining the ranks of D1 Women's hockey.

 

[Rightnut]

No. I say 10 with 7-10 having a play in.

 

[vicb]

I'd also add that I'd like to see both regular season and tournament champions get auto-bids with NEWHA retaining just 1 to assign as they see fit until the conference is more established. If the same team wins both another at-large bid opens up.

I have been saying this for the last 20 years for both the men's and women's tourneys. If you are good enough to win the regular season title, you should be in the dance. I like the idea of a 10 team tourney with a 7-10 playin.

 

[ARM]

Providence beat NU twice. They probably play a similar game as they did this year against Wisconsin, though they still had Maureen Murphy then.

I don't remember if Murphy was still on the roster, but she only played 11 games and quit playing back in November.

 

[Xcfire]

men division 1 has 16 teams out of 60 that comes to 27% so in the era of equality that number would be
10 that’s currently 27% of the women’s division 1 teams I believe their is 36 D1 1 teams

 

[TitleIXHockey]

men division 1 has 16 teams out of 60 that comes to 27% so in the era of equality that number would be
10 that’s currently 27% of the women’s division 1 teams I believe their is 36 D1 1 teams

I believe NEWHA is considered full D1 now so that would be 42 next year with St. Thomas joining the WCHA.

CHA (6)
ECAC (12)
WHEA (10)
WCHA (8)
NEWHA (6)
TOTAL (42)

 

[Xcfire]

I believe NEWHA is considered full D1 now so that would be 42 next year with St. Thomas joining the WCHA.

CHA (6)
ECAC (12)
WHEA (10)
WCHA (8)
NEWHA (6)
TOTAL (42)

So 27% would be 11.34 round it up to 12
12 team bracket would be perfect

 

[Steamboat]

So 27% would be 11.34 round it up to 12
12 team bracket would be perfect

Hear! Hear! This is the analysis we need to get out to the powers that be. There is absolutely no reason why the women teams should be as neglected as they are. None! These young ladies work as hard as any male player, and deserve respect and our full support.

 

[Timothy A]

No. In any given year the 7 and 8 seeds have clearly demonstrated they have no chance to win. This year BC and Providence showed that 11 and 12 seeds have no chance to win. Until the seeds 7 and lower demonstrate they can win so, why expand the field?

 

[Terry Switzer]

Womens hockey needs about 8 more teams in order to get 16 teams in the dance. IMHO

 

[Offsides Guy]

No. In any given year the 7 and 8 seeds have clearly demonstrated they have no chance to win. This year BC and Providence showed that 11 and 12 seeds have no chance to win. Until the seeds 7 and lower demonstrate they can win so, why expand the field?

This is a very good point. From an equity standpoint should there be more teams in the women’s tournament? Yes. But would doing so benefit the sport right now? No. Adding four teams who very likely get blown out in the first round doesn’t make for good hockey and doesn’t help raise the sport’s credibility.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

ixnay on the 16 or 12.

If you are going to compare the men's side with the women's side and use the percentage that comes from the men's side then you should have a similar level of parity that exists in men's college hockey. That level of parity isn't there yet in women's college hockey.

 

[Cornholio]

Expanding the field could help bring more balance and parity to the women's game. Talent will more likely spread out if there is a belief that there is more than only a dozen or so credible programs who can make the tournament.

 

[Xcfire]

This is a very good point. From an equity standpoint should there be more teams in the women’s tournament? Yes. But would doing so benefit the sport right now? No. Adding four teams who very likely get blown out in the first round doesn’t make for good hockey and doesn’t help raise the sport’s credibility.

I tend to disagree there is always strong competition within the wcha gophers would be able to compete as a 10th seed Duluth is always competitive. the ecac 12 teams there is always 3 teams that can compete penn state I don’t think would of got blown out.
we just never get the opportunity to prove your theory

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

ixnay on the 16 or 12.

If you are going to compare the men's side with the women's side and use the percentage that comes from the men's side then you should have a similar level of parity that exists in men's college hockey. That level of parity isn't there yet in women's college hockey.

They are NOT using "the percentage that comes from the men's side" they are getting that percentage from THE NCAA rules. NCAA tournaments are required to give approximately 25% of the field a chance to compete for the NCAA title in a post season tourney, as far as I've heard. I thought that was pretty common knowledge? So if the size of the women's field is growing by several programs, the tourney field should expand to represent this or it would be a violation of Title IX.

If people are worried about watering down the field too quickly, the field could be expanded to 10 teams for a few years until at least 3-4 more teams enter into Women's Div 1 hockey. Like the men's side of the game, realistically the best thing for women's college hockey, as a whole, might be the addition of a couple B1G schools, and hence the creation of a 6th conference, forcing the best WCHA teams to spread out into at least 2 difference conferences, helping to spread out the talent, and opening up more opportunities for schools who otherwise struggled to compete for recruits against the top WCHA teams, and also which would create another reason for the need for a larger tourney field.

 

[ARM]

My higher priority would be to fund the current quarterfinals to eliminate the "reduce flights" requirement. Until we get rid of that, an expanded tournament is more likely to just pit conference foes against each other in play-in games that don't accomplish much beyond the league tourneys.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

My higher priority would be to fund the current quarterfinals to eliminate the "reduce flights" requirement. Until we get rid of that, an expanded tournament is more likely to just pit conference foes against each other in play-in games that don't accomplish much beyond the league tourneys.

Another positive that would come from the creation of a B1G conf. The NCAA could keep 1st round games more local, if need be, while still being able to pit teams from different conferences against each other. First couple of years UW/UMn & OSU and possibly PSU would beat up on whoever the 2 new teams are, but these 2 new programs should be from schools with lots of resources as every B1G university has large Athletic budgets, which would help women's hockey as a whole, and also the big 3 wouldn't have to contend with UMD until the tournament unless they scheduled them in the non-conf portion of their season, which I am sure they would, but more than likely not more than one or maybe two series', and depending on where UMD ended up after the B1G started up, there might not be a guarantee UMD would make the tourney, but as a long time well established program, I am sure they would do pretty well? The WCHA, even with losing 3 teams would most likely remain intact by bringing in at least one more team, and my #1 choice to fill the first opening would be UND. Title IX requirements may come into play influencing their starting their women's program up again and not having to contend with UW/UMn/OSU going forward might make it seem like a more worthwhile endeavor?

HE and the ECAC are big enough conferences they can play conference heavy schedules and the cream will rise to the top for the most part and then they can be paired against each other's teams come tourney time, at least in the 1st round games, and then the 2nd round matchups would depend on who won, so it would be just as likely that the 2nd round matchups would be teams from different conferences as the chance they'd be from the same conf. Not a perfect system, but then the Frozen Four games being all in one location, the Semi's at least could be mixed up to minimize teams from the same conf going against each other more often than not. The CHA and NEWHA are both smaller conferences and would need to play more non-conf games, same with the WCHA as it presently exists, and especially if it shrunk a little in response to the B1G starting up. So you'd have 3-4 smaller conferences that would all need to play each other in non-conf games more than ECAC & HE teams, which would help in figuring out just who the best teams were, and how those conferences stack up against each other. HE and ECAC will hopefully still play enough ooc games that comparisons will be able to be made throughout the entirety of the Div 1 field. Again, not a perfect system, but if the big 3 of UW/UMn/OSU are not in the WCHA anymore, teams like Mankato, SCSU and Bemidji St will be able to improve their recruiting if they make the effort, with a better shot of getting an auto-bid into the tourney. Might not make things better for CHA teams, but NEWHA teams now getting an auto-bid helps them. Increased # of auto-bids will help lesser teams, but without expansion of the size of the tourney field, it could also hurt a few programs. So the size of the field needs to expand if they are going to increase the # of auto-bids, which is something they should and need to do. IMHO.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

No. In any given year the 7 and 8 seeds have clearly demonstrated they have no chance to win. This year BC and Providence showed that 11 and 12 seeds have no chance to win. Until the seeds 7 and lower demonstrate they can win so, why expand the field?

8 seeds are 1-15
7 seeds are 4-12

And some of that is the 8 seed really being closer to the 15th best team in the country thanks to the CHA's autobid.

Last time an 8 seed lost by a goal: 2018 (Mercyhurst vs. Clarkson)
Last time an 8 seed won: 2007 (UMD over #2 Mercyhurst) (I think I determined the bottom seeds by record)
Last time a 7 seed lost by a goal: 2018 (Northeastern vs. Colgate sans ENG)
Last time a 7 seed won: 2014 (Mercyhurst over Cornell) (bottom seeds determined by PWR)

For reference in NCAA men's basketball
1 seeds are 139-1 vs 16 seeds
69-17 vs 8 seeds
72-8 vs 9 seeds

2 seeds are
132-8 vs 15 seeds
68-29 vs 7 seeds
38-22 vs 10 seeds

Those worse seeds aren't supposed to win or have much of a chance, that's why they're playing a team 10+ spots above them.