Re: MASCAC Season 1 - Pool B or not to Pool B, we'll C.
Oh and Josh - is there any other Josh worthy of consideration??
I sure as hell hope so. It's a pretty common name...
Well at least it will be fun watching this play out, until all the supposed contenders lose their 1st game and knock themselves outta consideration. Might as well add Plymouth State to this group. Such pressure for the players & coaches involved, makes every game count, great for the fans. One caveat - MASCAC has been an ongoing full sports conf with lots of heritage/legacy. Does it have some old IOU chip in its closet that it can pull out and use come voting time with the NCAA muckity mucks?
Sort of, yes, the MASCAC does have such an I-O-U chip it can pull out due to its legacy.
Currently there is a limitation on single-sport conferences applying for automatic bids in Division-III Tournaments in any sport. This is a much bigger issue in basketball or football where there are hundreds of teams and **** near as many conferences. So the NCAA has, at least temporarily, put a stop to giving single sport conferences automatic bids to stop new conferences from popping up.
There are two ways to get around this. 1) is to get a waiver from the NCAA, 2) is to be an established multisport conference that adds a new sport.
1) Is the process the MCHA used*. They said to the NCAA, essentially "Hey losers, we've been around for a decade, clearly this isn't some fast one we're trying to pull on you. We're an established league that just for our seventh team, please let us in." The NCAA saw reason and let them in (This was only the first of two waivers the MCHA needed**).
2) Because of their multisport legitimacy, the MASCAC gets to use this option. Play two years with the same seven teams, and in year 3 they get the AQ. This would NOT be an option if the same seven teams banded together and formed the "Mass. Hockey Conference (MHC)" now because the waiver the MCHA received would immediately get denied.
So in that way, the MASCAC is receiving a credit for its legacy by being allowed an opportunity to get an AQ relatively painlessly, But your question referred to more would that come into play when the committee meets to determine the NCAA field this season.
No. Not even a little. While nobody on the outside has been able to accurately determine how the committee looks at the numbers it looks at, we do know exactly what numbers they do look at. Somebody saying "this team deserves to be in the tournament, screw the numbers" does not happen.
That being said, there has been one recent oddity in 2007, when UMD (of course) leaped from #4 to #1 in the eastern rankings in a week there was no compelling reason for them to. It was widely speculated at the time that the move was designed to protect UMD (which would earn a Pool A bid into the tournament) and give the eastern region a better chance of lining up Pool C candidates. This of course was never proven and is what led to the UMD hosting fiasco that likely contributed to the Corsairs losing to Middlebury. In the two years sense, there has been no noticeable outliers like this, however, and a solid winning percentage supported by a strong opponent's winning percentage*** seems to be the way to get an at-large bid to the tournament. Which is why MASCAC teams are in trouble this year.
* Don't say the NCAA never does the right thing for the MCHA.
** The second was a waiver of the two-year waiting period, sort of. Essentially the MCHA didn't put in the paperwork to apply for an AQ until last year. With the two years with current membership requirement, that means the second year would technically be this upcoming season, even though the seven teams have been together for two years already. The MCHA once again said "Could you please respect the intention of the rule and gives us an AQ this year, rather than follow the letter of the rule?" The NCAA agreed. Don't say the NCAA never does the right thing for the MCHA.
*** The use of the NCAA's criteria "opponent's winning percentage" is very deliberate here, rather than calling it "strength of schedule." If you gave me two teams, both 16-10 and .500 in their league and told me that one played in the NCHA and faced mostly MIAC teams in nonconference games and the other was in the MIAC and faced mostly MCHA teams in nonconference games, I am going to be much more impressed with the first team. But if a third team had played each of those teams, their records would be equally weighted in opponent's winning percentage. Yes, their opponent's opponent's winning percentage should reflect the change, but this is one of my major concerns with the NCAA process.
This post largely made possible by reporting done by Matthew Webb.
