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.

D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

shelfit said:
If they don't create a conference they don't get an AQ. I don't see any of these teams getting an at large bid either. I hope nobody loses any sleep over this. Lol.
Click to expand...
The way RPI works, one of them can absolutely can get an at-large bid. If one team is solidly better than the other teams (which is absolutely possible if not probable), then they will absolutely be in the at-large conversation. Since they would only be playing each other, RPI won't be able to determine how good that group of teams are relative to the rest of the teams (not that it does a good job of that anyway, but I digress).

For example, I just plugged into my calculator having Holy Cross go 4-1 in its first round-robin against the rest of these teams, with the other teams having 3-2 or 2-3 records, give or take, and Holy Cross made the tournament. Not only that, but St. Anselm was knocking on the door as well. The others were scattered throughout the field.

1 Wisconsin 0.6679
2 St. Lawrence 0.6314
3 Minnesota-Duluth 0.6119
4 Clarkson 0.6106
5 Minnesota 0.6041
6 Holy Cross 0.5938
7 Boston College 0.5910
8 Robert Morris 0.5879
9 St. Anselm 0.5704
10 Quinnipiac 0.5561
11 Cornell 0.5541
12 North Dakota 0.5459
13 Princeton 0.5428
14 Vermont 0.5368
15 Colgate 0.5359

(Note that other team's RPI's don't match what the rest of the teams have right now because I swapped out Merrimack for Post since they aren't yet built into my calculator and deleted Merrimack's games against everyone else.)

So, expand that out to a full season with Holy Cross going 16-4, and that should be plenty good enough to make it into the tournament. Ditto to anyone else.

One of thes teams making the tournament next year is not only a possibility, but it's a realistic one.
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

TonyTheTiger20 said:
The way RPI works, one of them can absolutely can get an at-large bid. If one team is solidly better than the other teams (which is absolutely possible if not probable), then they will absolutely be in the at-large conversation. Since they would only be playing each other, RPI won't be able to determine how good that group of teams are relative to the rest of the teams (not that it does a good job of that anyway, but I digress).

For example, I just plugged into my calculator having Holy Cross go 4-1 in its first round-robin against the rest of these teams, with the other teams having 3-2 or 2-3 records, give or take, and Holy Cross made the tournament. Not only that, but St. Anselm was knocking on the door as well. The others were scattered throughout the field.

1 Wisconsin 0.6679
2 St. Lawrence 0.6314
3 Minnesota-Duluth 0.6119
4 Clarkson 0.6106
5 Minnesota 0.6041
6 Holy Cross 0.5938
7 Boston College 0.5910
8 Robert Morris 0.5879
9 St. Anselm 0.5704
10 Quinnipiac 0.5561
11 Cornell 0.5541
12 North Dakota 0.5459
13 Princeton 0.5428
14 Vermont 0.5368
15 Colgate 0.5359

(Note that other team's RPI's don't match what the rest of the teams have right now because I swapped out Merrimack for Post since they aren't yet built into my calculator and deleted Merrimack's games against everyone else.)

So, expand that out to a full season with Holy Cross going 16-4, and that should be plenty good enough to make it into the tournament. Ditto to anyone else.

One of thes teams making the tournament next year is not only a possibility, but it's a realistic one.
Click to expand...

I don't think the selection committee has to automatically choose teams based on PairWise, so I don't see this happening. Even if it could, it shouldn't.
 
Arafel said:
I don't think the selection committee has to automatically choose teams based on PairWise, so I don't see this happening. Even if it could, it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Strength Of Schedule in this case should read Weakness Of Schedule. It's not going to happen. Guaranteed.
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

On the men's side, back in the early days of Atlantic Hockey, I'm pretty sure the NCAA explicitly said that they reserved the right not to award them an at large bid until they played enough games against the rest of the D1 conferences to make a comparison meaningful.
 
Arafel said:
I don't think the selection committee has to automatically choose teams based on PairWise, so I don't see this happening. Even if it could, it shouldn't.
Click to expand...
I mean, I'm just going off their own explicitly written selection criteria. Play 20 D1/D2 games and you're eligible. Once eligible, here's how they're selected: x, y, z.

Otherwise what's the point of having a combined D1/D2 tournament if D2 teams can't be selected?

RPI is pretty explicitly written into the selection criteria.
 
Eeyore said:
On the men's side, back in the early days of Atlantic Hockey, I'm pretty sure the NCAA explicitly said that they reserved the right not to award them an at large bid until they played enough games against the rest of the D1 conferences to make a comparison meaningful.
Click to expand...
It says in the women's criteria that they must play 20 games against D1/D2 teams to be selected. That's exactly what they're doing.
 
TonyTheTiger20 said:
It says in the women's criteria that they must play 20 games against D1/D2 teams to be selected. That's exactly what they're doing.
Click to expand...

According to USCHO, the 3 criteria are
RPI
Common Opponents
Head to Head

If the NEWSA (New England Women's Scheduling Alliance) plays just those 20 games amongst themselves, CoP and H2H drop in comparison so the only criteria would be RPI.

Oh what a mess you've gotten us in, Ollie!
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

TonyTheTiger20 said:
It says in the women's criteria that they must play 20 games against D1/D2 teams to be selected. That's exactly what they're doing.
Click to expand...

That's what the men's criteria said, too, but the NCAA overrode them. I was incorrect about it being Atlantic Hockey; rather, it was the AHA's predecessor the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference that was denied at-large bids that RPI said they ought to get. In 2000, Quinnipiac finished the season with the 4th best RPI in the country, but it did not get a tournament invite. In 2001, both Quinnipiac and Mercyhurst had top 10 RPIs, but neither got in.

I suspect that the NCAA will do the same thing in this case.
 
Eeyore said:
That's what the men's criteria said, too, but the NCAA overrode them. I was incorrect about it being Atlantic Hockey; rather, it was the AHA's predecessor the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference that was denied at-large bids that RPI said they ought to get. In 2000, Quinnipiac finished the season with the 4th best RPI in the country, but it did not get a tournament invite. In 2001, both Quinnipiac and Mercyhurst had top 10 RPIs, but neither got in.

I suspect that the NCAA will do the same thing in this case.
Click to expand...

Didn't you say that there was something in the criteria saying they had the ability to do so?
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

TonyTheTiger20 said:
Didn't you say that there was something in the criteria saying they had the ability to do so?
Click to expand...

I can't find them to prove it, but I'm pretty sure there was nothing in the criteria that said they could override them. I'm not even sure why there would have to be; the NCAA is free to change the criteria any time it wants to.
 
Eeyore said:
I'm not even sure why there would have to be; the NCAA is free to change the criteria any time it wants to.
Click to expand...
Because I would think that teams would want it to be clear on exactly what they need to do in order to make the tournament.

As it stands right now, the selection criteria is very clear and very explicit and the Group Of Six would be meeting that criteria next year. Right?
 
Eeyore said:
I can't find them to prove it, but I'm pretty sure there was nothing in the criteria that said they could override them. I'm not even sure why there would have to be; the NCAA is free to change the criteria any time it wants to.
Click to expand...

I believe there was a provisio if a conference's OOC RPI (record??) was so low, the committee could disavow any knowledge of them.
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

TonyTheTiger20 said:
Because I would think that teams would want it to be clear on exactly what they need to do in order to make the tournament.

As it stands right now, the selection criteria is very clear and very explicit and the Group Of Six would be meeting that criteria next year. Right?
Click to expand...

The NCAA made the announcement that they would not be obligated to select a MAAC team for an at large bid prior to the beginning of the 1998-99 season, which was the MAAC's first year. So, all teams did know what they had to do to make the tournament. In the case of the MAAC, that included upgrading their programs in future years. The MAAC first got a team into the NCAA tournament in 2001, when Mercyhurst became the first automatic qualifier by winning the conference tournament.

The issues involved were very similar to what would happen with this new conference. Not only did the MAAC not play enough non-conference games against the other D1 leagues to be able to make meaningful comparisons, it also restricted its members to a small number of scholarships (five, I think it was). The NCAA basically said that, if they wanted to be eligible for at large bids, they had to act like D1 programs.

You may not think that it would be a good idea for the NCAA to take this approach, but the precedent they set indicates that they are very much willing to do so. This may also have something to do with why these schools are calling it a "scheduling alliance" rather than just calling themselves a conference.
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Eeyore said:
The NCAA made the announcement that they would not be obligated to select a MAAC team for an at large bid prior to the beginning of the 1998-99 season, which was the MAAC's first year. So, all teams did know what they had to do to make the tournament. In the case of the MAAC, that included upgrading their programs in future years. The MAAC first got a team into the NCAA tournament in 2001, when Mercyhurst became the first automatic qualifier by winning the conference tournament.

The issues involved were very similar to what would happen with this new conference. Not only did the MAAC not play enough non-conference games against the other D1 leagues to be able to make meaningful comparisons, it also restricted its members to a small number of scholarships (five, I think it was). The NCAA basically said that, if they wanted to be eligible for at large bids, they had to act like D1 programs.

You may not think that it would be a good idea for the NCAA to take this approach, but the precedent they set indicates that they are very much willing to do so. This may also have something to do with why these schools are calling it a "scheduling alliance" rather than just calling themselves a conference.
Click to expand...

I may be off here, but new conferences have a waiting period to be granted their autobid into the NCAA Tournament once they meet the criteria set forth in the rules, thus it was not guaranteed. I don't think it had anything to do with how "poor" the MAAC was. They had a waiting period.

If the teams being discussed come together and become a Conference, I don't think there is anything the "big dogs" can do to stop them from getting an at-large bid once the time frame allows. It could be just a DIII rule, but I have a feeling it's Division wide. They will have to get their ducks in a row and make sure they are full members yadda yadda, but if they do everything correctly the should be awarded an automatic bid.
 
Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

PSUChamps2001 said:
I may be off here, but new conferences have a waiting period to be granted their autobid into the NCAA Tournament once they meet the criteria set forth in the rules, thus it was not guaranteed. I don't think it had anything to do with how "poor" the MAAC was. They had a waiting period.

If the teams being discussed come together and become a Conference, I don't think there is anything the "big dogs" can do to stop them from getting an at-large bid once the time frame allows. It could be just a DIII rule, but I have a feeling it's Division wide. They will have to get their ducks in a row and make sure they are full members yadda yadda, but if they do everything correctly the should be awarded an automatic bid.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can get an automatic bid, as the MAAC did in its third year. That's not the same as an at large bid, and, as I said, there is precedent of the NCAA saying that teams in a new conference won't necessarily get an at large bid even if they meet the same criteria as teams in an established conference: playing at least 20 games against D1/D2 competition and having an RPI in the top (8 - automatic qualiiers outside the top 8).
 
Eeyore said:
I have no idea, but I also have no idea why it matters.
Click to expand...

Because in women's it's a combined tournament for both D1 and D2 teams. They're playing the number of qualifying games that the requirements tell them to play.

I realize we're going in circles here. I think what I'm saying is that the NCAA may or may not change the criteria next year to say that they have to play more than just themselves in order to qualify, like they did for the men, but as it stands right now they meet the very explicit criteria given.

I think the fact that it's a combined D1/D2 tournament matters. How else would D2 teams be expected to play? They're D2, they aren't going to play a D1 schedule. You know what I mean?

Put another way, to the letter of the rule the NCAA has a predicament here that they should probably resolve in writing before next season starts to prevent any ambiguity on what could happen. But, NCAA, so. Lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top