His anti BC position is wrong. And everyone seems to agree they got UMD vs. Minnesota wrong. They should have used data within a conference. The fact they didn't is why they are being slammed. This ultimately comes down to Minnesota being left out in favor of Providence. Is there anyone who agrees with that decision?
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.
NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding
- Thread starter D2D
- Start date
His anti BC position is wrong. And everyone seems to agree they got UMD vs. Minnesota wrong. They should have used data within a conference. The fact they didn't is why they are being slammed. This ultimately comes down to Minnesota being left out in favor of Providence. Is there anyone who agrees with that decision?
robertearle
Well-known member
Cut-and-paste from last night:
Originally posted by EMPTYNETTER View Post
This should help explain it....
• Josh Berlo, Minnesota Duluth athletic director
• Anita Brenner, Cornell deputy athletic director
• Katie Crowley, Boston College coach
• Paul Flanagan, Syracuse coach
• Kate McAfee, New Hampshire associate athletic director
Have you been living under a rock? You didn't know the eye test would be a factor this year? So yes, we were at the mercy of their opinions. So is the men's tournament this year. I thought everyone knew that.
You aren't very intelligent so I will go slow...I was using BC/PSU because they were close in rankings and being such it was PSU ahead of BC in every poll/rating system so how is one in and one out - I can tell you - its because one had a coach on the committee. Its easy to compare those two teams to show the conflict of interest. You can make a case about UMD/Providence/Minnesota as well. Providence doesn't belong either but nor does BC if PSU is sitting on the outside.
So they don't use any other factors to assist in the decision making? No team records, no coaches polls, no pairwise or RPI as part of the puzzle. At a bare minimum this is EXACTLY the type of year you take into all those components as part of the bigger picture. The more info the better. The committee failed and everyone knows that except you.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Lost in all the rancor and insults is the fact that this forum actually has some activity which has been mostly absent for about a year...We might push the number of posters beyond "17".
And then if somehow bc could win the national title...Whoa...That would really make some heads explode!
And then if somehow bc could win the national title...Whoa...That would really make some heads explode!
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. IMHO I have ALWAYS been a fan of a team that wins the regular season title should get into the NC$$ Tourney. And this year since there were no so few league to league matchups IMHO that should have been the number one consideration after the League Tournament results. Penn State should have gotten in with Wisc/Colgate/NE/RMU and then you could argue over OSU vs Minn vs UMD vs BC vs Providence for the 3 Spots left. I would have taken OSU/UMD/BC to fill out the field.
Actually, no, I already said the committee failed. But not because BC is in. A lot of people thought BC would be in. You just don't listen to anything people say. And even if BC was out I wouldn't care because I have no clue if they are better than PSU. I am not claiming to know that. But when people who cover the game predict BC to be in then it shouldn't be a huge surprise.
Heh, I am just here because somehow there is still someone peddling PWR when trying to compare teams from different conferences in a year with no non league games. As for BC, yes I am a BC fan. They will lose to Ohio State. But when people in the game think they will be in and they are picked...that's not some grand conspiracy. To take it further, if Hockey East only got NU in I wouldn't care. I have not broken down Penn State film to make a determination on who I think is better.
BackyardIce
Member
BC also had a losing record against Providence (losing twice with their only win coming in OT), split with BU, and got spanked in the conference Quarterfinals ... maybe not so dumb to be outranged by their inclusion. Went 11-1 (with one of those wins in OT) against UNH, UConn, Merrimack and Holy Cross. Went 3-4 against NU, BU, and Providence.
Last edited:
zambonidriver
New member
Real simple solution womens hockey is strong enough now to expand it's format to 16 like the men. Give auto bids to the conference regular season champion and the conference tournament champion . So you have 8 auto bids then you have 8 at large bids. If teams double up then the auto bids become at large bids based on winning percentage and strength of schedule. That way you have no sub 500 teams getting consideration.
The issue is these selection committees are out of touch and it should really done by a larger selection group. Give every D1 womens hockey coach a ballot which there are 36 of them, select a committee of 14 others (writers, experts, etc) and you have 50 on the committee. Send out ballots electronically and have them rank teams all 1-8 and click submit and its done. Program spits out the top 8 teams from 50 of the most qualified people to select the teams.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
For this year almost 60% of the field would be in a 16 team tournament. No way that makes sense from a competition standpoint let alone the cost factor. With full competition from all the schools in a normal year roughly 44% of the field would be in the tournament. Not good.
robertearle
Well-known member
- In a normal year there are only 41 or 42 teams playing D1 women's hockey. This year there were, I think, only 29. 16 is WAY too many.
- If you make in 16 teams, people would be arguing about #16 getting in and #17 being left out.
Not enough parity to expand it imo. Hockey as a whole needs to grow in new places, need more rinks built, need minor hockey costs kept under control, need more states to make high school girl hockey a thing. To me we need that more than we need expanded tournament, fancier college rinks, or new D1 programs.
This is an overreaction imo. What we need is the two coaches on the committee to take their job seriously. We need coaches on the committee because if it’s a bunch of administrators we could get people who don’t actually care or know about women’s hockey. I have outrage at King not because BC got in, but because it seems like the committee made sure not to fail on her team (who had a reasonable case to be there) but didn’t take due care with getting it right, or at least getting it defensible and logical with the rest. Since King’s team got in in at large no less, she of all people should have cared about making it look fair and reasonable. To have a bubble team on the outside looking in was inevitable, to have a bracket that has been described in the woho media as “lunacy”, “Minnesota getting jobbed”, “Banagrams”, “inconsistent application of chosen criteria” and more was completely avoidable.
The committee was supposed to act as stewards of the game. The coaches on the committee should be held to the highest standard. Somebody failed somewhere.
So dont fix it and allow for bias? Granted this is a weird year and pairwise usually solves this but they should have a better system setup. Will everyone be happy - never - but if you had a selection committee of 50 you reduce any bias.