D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

[Russell Jaslow]

I have an idea:

Cancel the D-III tournament. Start a D-II tournament. D-III teams are allowed to play *UP*, right?

Back to the Future. LOL

This is the way it used to be. A lot of the top D3 hockey conferences (like the ECAC East and ECAC West, which was where all the top eastern schools played in) played up for the D2 championship, even though there was a D3. Then, the NCAA made everyone play in the division your school is classified.

That is why RIT won a D2 national championship in 1983 and then two years later won the D3 national championship, even though nothing changed with the conferences and scheduling.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

In order to be considered for the National Collegiate Championship, you need to play 20 games against eligible teams.

I understand to be eligible you need to play 20 games, but shouldn't the Pairwise take into consideration the fact they only played 20 games vs teams under consideration?

 

[Call It]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

If Holy Cross goes 0-8 vs. the WHEA teams (which they will) they won't be in the discussion anyway.

You are saying is it's 100% guarantee? I think Vegas has it WHEA 60% of winning all 9 games. HC will compete with the bottom

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

I understand to be eligible you need to play 20 games, but shouldn't the Pairwise take into consideration the fact they only played 20 games vs teams under consideration?

What it "should" do is up for debate lol... but there's no TUC criteria anymore. Even if there was, and even if they lost the TUC point to everyone else, there would be no Head To Head or Common Opponents between the alliance teams and everyone else, which means the comparison would once again revert to whoever is higher in RPI, which is the tiebreaker.

You are saying is it's 100% guarantee? I think Vegas has it WHEA 60% of winning all 9 games. HC will compete with the bottom

I mean, I won't be putting money on anything, but I would think Maine and Merrimack would be decently favored over Holy Cross. Maine and Mack are both solidly better than Brown, and look at these box scores:

http://www.uscho.com/box/womens-hockey/2016/10/21/sacred-heart-vs-brown/
http://www.uscho.com/box/womens-hockey/2016/10/22/sacred-heart-vs-brown/

Sacred Heart isn't Holy Cross but looking at the shot totals in their two games against each other, they're in the same stratosphere.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

It doesn't introduce common opponents for the scheduling alliance teams -- if Holy Cross plays Merrimack, St. A's won't have Merrimack as a common opponent with Holy Cross.

Yes, it does introduce common opponents, though the effect will depend upon which teams Holy Cross plays. The question isn't whether it introduces common opponents between St. Anselm and Holy Cross; it's whether Holy Cross becomes a common opponent between St. Anselm and other teams that are trying to get into the tournament. Now, if none of the WHEA teams that Holy Cross plays are themselves teams under consideration, it won't matter, because St. Anselm won't get graded on comparisons with them. Any team that is under consideration, though, will win a common opponents criterion against St. Anselm if they are perfect against Holy Cross and St. Anselm isn't.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

I understand to be eligible you need to play 20 games, but shouldn't the Pairwise take into consideration the fact they only played 20 games vs teams under consideration?

RPI and PWR wouldn't take this into consideration at all. The only element in the calculation that uses the aggregate number of games is head-to-head record. The others are just per game rates.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Now, if none of the WHEA teams that Holy Cross plays are themselves teams under consideration, it won't matter, because St. Anselm won't get graded on comparisons with them. Any team that is under consideration, though, will win a common opponents criterion against St. Anselm if they are perfect against Holy Cross and St. Anselm isn't.

TUC is no longer in the criteria (UPDATE: but looking back at this I think you just mean "eligible for selection" so nevermind ignore that lol)

But, also, the entire argument doesn't matter because even if St. A's loses the common opponent criteria to every other team in the country, they can't lose any of those comparisons unless they have a lower RPI. CoOpp will only flip a comparison if the two teams being compared have a Head To Head matchup.

I.e. Assume:
(a) St. A's has a higher RPI than BC
(b) Holy Cross loses to BC, but beats St. A's.
(c) BC does not play St. A's

The St. A's vs. BC comparison would go:

RPI: St. A's
H2H: Nobody
CoOpp: BC

St. A's wins the comparison as RPI is the tiebreaker.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Taking a deep dive here... boy, St. A's is really good compared to the rest of these teams. They are 13-2-2 including their D-III games and have outshot their opponent in every game this season. They're 5-0-0 against the alliance teams. Their only two losses were to Amherst, who they outshot 16-1 in the first period before losing a close game, and to #3 Norwich (!!), who, incredibly, they also outshot.

I'm telling y'all, this is absolutely going to happen.* I can't wait hahaha

EDIT: They outshot their opponents 35-16 and 61-21 (!!!!!!!!) in their two ties as well.

**EDIT 2: "This" being "one of these teams will have a high enough RPI to make things interesting." Breathe.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

RPI and PWR wouldn't take this into consideration at all. The only element in the calculation that uses the aggregate number of games is head-to-head record. The others are just per game rates.

To me that makes little sense. Playing 30 games vs D1 teams vs 20 somehow would have to be taken into account.

 

[Arafel]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

I can't believe this nonsensical thread is now at four pages because Grant won't let it go. I guarantee you that if this was the situation this year, as posted on TTT's article, and Sacred Heart and HC were 2 and 4, and would bump out Clarkson and Cornell, the committee would take Clarkson and Cornell. Why would they spend the money to have visiting teams come in and beat SC and HC 10-0? How does that grow the game?

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

I can't believe this nonsensical thread is now at four pages because Grant won't let it go.

<3<3<3

I guarantee you that if this was the situation this year, as posted on TTT's article, and Sacred Heart and HC were 2 and 4, and would bump out Clarkson and Cornell, the committee would take Clarkson and Cornell. Why would they spend the money to have visiting teams come in and beat SC and HC 10-0? How does that grow the game?

Am I wrong that under the current setup, the criteria says they would be in the tournament? Yes or no?

I'm not saying they won't change the criteria to prevent this from happening (because I absolutely agree, anyone else would throttle them), or that they wouldn't ignore these teams (I said as such in the article), but I find it interesting, as I imagine the rest of everyone here does, because there's clear contradiction between the letter and the spirit of the rule given this scheduling alliance news that came out.

Now, you can for some reason make it personal and act like it's a "nonsensical topic that Grant won't let go," but this wouldn't be the first time that I would be on top of something before the website you write for was.

 

[joecct]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Joe is laughing along with Grant.

The women's meetings at Naples are going to be VERY interesting.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

TUC is no longer in the criteria (UPDATE: but looking back at this I think you just mean "eligible for selection" so nevermind ignore that lol)

But, also, the entire argument doesn't matter because even if St. A's loses the common opponent criteria to every other team in the country, they can't lose any of those comparisons unless they have a lower RPI. CoOpp will only flip a comparison if the two teams being compared have a Head To Head matchup.

You're leaving out a piece that the NCAA has said over and over again: they reserve the right to weight any one criterion more heavily than any other if they think that the margin in that criterion is substantially greater than the margin in the other(s). The record against common opponents most definitely can count for more than RPI. The NCAA has even refused to clarify just what it considers to be a significant difference between the criteria. They already have an out if they don't want to let these teams into the tournament with an at large bid if Holy Cross is a common opponent with other teams in the mix.

Arafel is right. You're fanatically holding on to position by ignoring the NCAA's past history and every caveat to the situation. You keep insisting that things have only one possible interpretation when they manifestly don't. You've gone off the deep end on this one.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

I'm not saying they won't change the criteria to prevent this from happening . . .

Actually, you have. You keep arguing with people who have said that it isn't clear that the NCAA would let these teams into the tournament as an at large team, no matter what their PWR ranking is. If your position had been what you are now claiming it is, the argument would never have happened.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

You keep insisting that things have only one possible interpretation when they manifestly don't.

I've said this entire time that they would either change the criteria, ignore the teams entirely, or let them into the tournament. That's three (3) interpretations.

You're right about the NCAA weighting different criteria however they want, of course, but if St. A's doesn't lose to HC, then we're right back to where we started with RPI being the only comparison criteria.

The NCAA has made a habit of doing whatever they want in the past. I know this. You know this. You know that I know this. But I find it interesting. Other people find the topic interesting. You're free to not find it interesting, I don't care, but since when are we calling out people for what they're interested in?

Actually, you have. You keep arguing with people who have said that it isn't clear that the NCAA would let these teams into the tournament as an at large team, no matter what their PWR ranking is. If your position had been what you are now claiming it is, the argument would never have happened.

I literally asked the chair of the selection committee if they were considering changing the criteria!

Where is this all coming from? Seriously.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

I'm just gonna make my opinion on all this clear so everyone can stop taking offense for some stupid reason:

(1) To the letter of the selection criteria, one of the alliance teams could realistically be in the top 8 of the Pairwise rankings next year (they may or not be admitted into the tournament by being in the top 8 of the Pairwise, more on that later, but if one of them has 3-4 losses, they will be in the top 8 *of the Pairwise*. Formulaically speaking, not necessarily selection-ally speaking).
(2a) I think this is stupid.
(2b) Moreover, I think the Pairwise is stupid in general. And also RPI. They're 95% the same thing nowadays anyway.
(3) The selection committee will need to make the decision to either change the criteria, ignore the alliance teams (through whatever reasoning necessary, including weighing criteria in certain ways, or just straight up not including them in the PWR calculation in the first place), or allow them into the tournament. I assume these are the only options available. By all means let me know if I'm missing something here.
(4) I think the D-II teams don't belong in the D-I tournament and shouldn't be selected.
(5) I think it would be embarrassing to the sport to have a team who clearly doesn't belong get throttled in the tournament.
(6) I think there is ambiguity to the situation.
(7) I think it would be beneficial for someone on the committee to clarify where these teams stand before the season starts, so that there is not ambiguity.
(8) I think the ambiguity of it all is interesting.
(9) I think the mathematics of unconnected teams being ranked highly in the RPI is interesting.
(10) I think you guys getting all uppity about me and others (4 pages, after all!) finding this interesting pretty bizarre.

Hugs and kisses, Eeyore.

 

[joecct]

You're leaving out a piece that the NCAA has said over and over again: they reserve the right to weight any one criterion more heavily than any other if they think that the margin in that criterion is substantially greater than the margin in the other(s). The record against common opponents most definitely can count for more than RPI. The NCAA has even refused to clarify just what it considers to be a significant difference between the criteria. They already have an out if they don't want to let these teams into the tournament with an at large bid if Holy Cross is a common opponent with other teams in the mix.

Arafel is right. You're fanatically holding on to position by ignoring the NCAA's past history and every caveat to the situation. You keep insisting that things have only one possible interpretation when they manifestly don't. You've gone off the deep end on this one.

Under the current rules
NCC: All criteria are equal with RPI being the tiebreaker
D-III: The committee decides what criteria to weight more than others from year to year.

The current big girl tournament is for all D-I and D-II women's teams that meet the criteria. If somebody wants to make a legislative proposal to change the NCC to D-I only, they may.

 

[NUProf]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Under the current rules
NCC: All criteria are equal with RPI being the tiebreaker
D-III: The committee decides what criteria to weight more than others from year to year.

The current big girl tournament is for all D-I and D-II women's teams that meet the criteria. If somebody wants to make a legislative proposal to change the NCC to D-I only, they may.

However, I would assume that under the circumstances it becomes D-I only, the rule that permits DII teams to declare for the D-I championship if no D-II championship is available would still apply. The D-II teams could declare join the same conference and the same situation would apply.

 

[joecct]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

However, I would assume that under the circumstances it becomes D-I only, the rule that permits DII teams to declare for the D-I championship if no D-II championship is available would still apply. The D-II teams could declare join the same conference and the same situation would apply.

ASSumption #1 on there being a D1 only tournament
1. The D2 schools currently playing up, still play up as they are grandfathered in.
2. The NCAA creates a National Collegiate Championship for D2 and D3 schools.\

CONsequences
1. Holy Cross and Sacred Heart play for the D1 title.
2. Lindenwood is on an island with no access road.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Alright, so I have a bit of an update on this:

(1) The committee wrote itself an out into the criteria that says each team will be evaluated "based on its full body of work." That wasn't in there before, so they at least have an out.

(2) Man, that is going to cause some serious heartburn for bubble teams at tournament time, especially if St. A's is way up there like top 4 or so.

https://www.bcinterruption.com/bost...r-clarifies-d1-d2-tournament-selection-issues