NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding

[Offsides Guy]

First line is a headache for opponents highlighted by Gabbie Hughes and Anna Klein. Some pretty nice depth at forward. Not the kind of depth that Wisconsin or OSU have.

Good skating defense highlighting by Liz Norton and Ashton Bell, and their goalie can be lights out...Just wasn't in the opening game of the WCHA tournament.

My observation is they give up a lot of shots for a team with some high level defensemen.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Do I assume correctly that because the committee is so small the coaches with a horse in the race don't recuse themselves from the discussions/debates about their teams like the FBS committee members do?

Negative -- they do need to recuse themselves and can't be part of any discussion involving their own team.

The implicit assumption being that the NEWHA will be the lowest, at least for a while, and by then they'll come up with "something else", I guess.

The funny part about this is that there's a decent chance the top NEWHA team would be ranked above the top CHA team just because of how stratified the NEWHA is. A conference with one really great team will naturally have a higher RPI, even if the conference as a whole might not be a good. Hell, St. Anselm was #1 or #2 in the Pairwise for a while a couple years ago. They won't be in the future, because the NEWHA teams are all scheduling real non-conference games going forward, but it's totally feasible that a NEWHA that has one great team will end up in the top 10-15.

So if the last place wwcha wins the wwcha tourney, they may get bumped then.

Absolutely possible.

Crowley has the nerve to vote her team in.

I feel like ire being specifically pointed at Kinger like this is a little nuts, since before all this went down like 80% of us were pretty on board with BC being one of the teams that would get in once there weren't any surprises other than Penn State. No, not 100% of us, but BC was very clearly looking to be on the right side of the bubble to a strong majority of people both on this board and elsewhere. Also, like I already said, Kinger was not involved with the decision to put BC in.

I get the frustration with UMD being above Minnesota, but Kinger is not the whole committee, and lest we forget, there's been plenty of grousing coming from out west (and even some coming from the Twin Cities in particular) about how the Gophers didn't deserve to be in the field.

To me, all of this boils down to two things: (1) UMD being in over Minnesota is surprising, and that (2) Providence being in over Penn State, not Minnesota, was likely the decision being made in the room. It seems obvious to me that the committee was not comfortable making half the tournament be from one conference, and it also seems obvious to me that the committee was not convinced that the CHA, which has never been even close to strong enough to warrant two teams into the field, was somehow magically better this one year when they didn't have to play any other conferences (except Syracuse, who lost both games).

Taking issue with either of those points is totally fine and absolutely part of a good-faith debate over the process, but pointing your frustration at any one committee member in particular is not justified and unnecessarily personal. It's also pretty crass and offensive to suggest that these members didn't take their jobs seriously. Let's not act like these same things (a perceived "disrespect" of the WCHA and CHA, in their own ways) is something unique to this season's selection show. It's always been the case even in normal seasons that the committee will not go out of its way to treat the CHA as an equal or to treat the WCHA like an exceptional conference. Don't make your frustrations over these facts remaining unchanged this year turn into a personal attack on the men and women tasked with making these difficult decisions, especially in a year without a Pairwise to guide them.

 

[Offsides Guy]

Negative -- they do need to recuse themselves and can't be part of any discussion involving their own team.



The funny part about this is that there's a decent chance the top NEWHA team would be ranked above the top CHA team just because of how stratified the NEWHA is. A conference with one really great team will naturally have a higher RPI, even if the conference as a whole might not be a good. Hell, St. Anselm was #1 or #2 in the Pairwise for a while a couple years ago. They won't be in the future, because the NEWHA teams are all scheduling real non-conference games going forward, but it's totally feasible that a NEWHA that has one great team will end up in the top 10-15.


Absolutely possible.


I feel like ire being specifically pointed at Kinger like this is a little nuts, since before all this went down like 80% of us were pretty on board with BC being one of the teams that would get in once there weren't any surprises other than Penn State. No, not 100% of us, but BC was very clearly looking to be on the right side of the bubble to a strong majority of people both on this board and elsewhere. Also, like I already said, Kinger was not involved with the decision to put BC in.

I get the frustration with UMD being above Minnesota, but Kinger is not the whole committee, and lest we forget, there's been plenty of grousing coming from out west (and even some coming from the Twin Cities in particular) about how the Gophers didn't deserve to be in the field.

To me, all of this boils down to two things: (1) UMD being in over Minnesota is surprising, and that (2) Providence being in over Penn State, not Minnesota, was likely the decision being made in the room. It seems obvious to me that the committee was not comfortable making half the tournament be from one conference, and it also seems obvious to me that the committee was not convinced that the CHA, which has never been even close to strong enough to warrant two teams into the field, was somehow magically better this one year when they didn't have to play any other conferences (except Syracuse, who lost both games).

Taking issue with either of those points is totally fine and absolutely part of a good-faith debate over the process, but pointing your frustration at any one committee member in particular is not justified and unnecessarily personal. It's also pretty crass and offensive to suggest that these members didn't take their jobs seriously. Let's not act like these same things (a perceived "disrespect" of the WCHA and CHA, in their own ways) is something unique to this season's selection show. It's always been the case even in normal seasons that the committee will not go out of its way to treat the CHA as an equal or to treat the WCHA like an exceptional conference. Don't make your frustrations over these facts remaining unchanged this year turn into a personal attack on the men and women tasked with making these difficult decisions, especially in a year without a Pairwise to guide them.

I beg to differ; the coaches on the committee do not get a pass. UMD’s getting in over Minnesota is something the coaches should have not let happen. Even Crowell should have had more self-respect than to have let that happen. I don’t know that Minnesota deserved to get in but there is no way by anyone’s calculation that UMD should’ve leapfrogged them.

CORRECTION: I forgot it was UMD’s AD on the committee rather than their coach. I might give him a pass out of sheer ignorance but the rest of the coaches knew better.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

I beg to differ; the coaches on the committee do not get a pass. UMD’s getting in over Minnesota is something the coaches should have not let happen. Even Crowell should have had more self-respect than to have let that happen. I don’t know that Minnesota deserved to get in but there is no way by anyone’s calculation that UMD should’ve leapfrogged them.

CORRECTION: I forgot it was UMD’s AD on the committee rather than their coach. I might give him a pass out of sheer ignorance but the rest of the coaches knew better.

I'm not saying you have to give the committee "a pass" for setting the field the way you/most people wouldn't have set it. I *am* saying let's not throw individual members under the bus (especially when for all we know Kinger or whoever else could have been a member arguing against) and act like it was any one member's decision to do X, Y, or Z. Obviously the committee, as a group, or at least a majority, felt this was the right call.

I've been on record all over the internet the last 3 days saying Minnesota should have been in, and in particular in over Duluth. But I'm not gonna pretend I know who supported the decision and who didn't.

 

[D2D]

But I'm not gonna pretend I know who supported the decision and who didn't.

So apparently other than those "in the room" - who have remained silent ever since their vote - we will never know what 'illogic' was used to arrive at their questionable decisions.

 

[EMPTYNETTER]

Negative -- they do need to recuse themselves and can't be part of any discussion involving their own team.



So you apparently seem to know a lot about the selection process. Can you provide proof by means of a policy that states the BC coach and UMD AD had to recuse themselves?
I'm not buying it, and in a 5 person committee it's too obvious what actually happened here to exclude two higher ranked teams in every possible metric.
And you can't fall back on the historical context of "nobody will give the CHA two spots" given their lack of out of conference play. PSU beat Providence 4-2 last season, and tied them 2-2 in OT.
It was a sham...period.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

So apparently other than those "in the room" - who have remained silent ever since their vote - we will never know what 'illogic' was used to arrive at their questionable decisions.

I mean, yeah, but this is true every year. Getting information out of the committee on their reasons for doing certain things is like trying to get insight into a Papal Conclave, although I was able to get some info in 2016 as to why they swapped where Northeastern and Princeton were gonna go. I'll probably reach out to the committee chair at some point and see if she'll tell me anything once all this calms down.

So you apparently seem to know a lot about the selection process. Can you provide proof by means of a policy that states the BC coach and UMD AD had to recuse themselves?
I'm not buying it,

I mean, that's fine, you don't have to. I don't have like a signed statement from the committee chair or a printed list of committee bylaws or anything, but I know it to be true that members representing programs under consideration do not factor into the discussion for their own teams.

 

[Lurky McLurkface]

For no particular reason, I find it mildly amusing to see Josh Berlo suddenly become a fan of UMD women's hockey.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

Is the committee always so small (and of course recusals make it smaller still)? Two or three times the number would reduce potential outrage and suspicions of bias or illogic in any year, especially if a majority represented teams on the far side of the bubble. Larger discussions might also allow the eye test to weigh in more when the quantifiables are warring. My two cents.

 

[Timothy A]

It seems obvious to me that the committee was not comfortable making half the tournament be from one conference.

It's not about how many teams get in from any one conference, it is totally 100% about getting the best 8 teams into the tourney. End of story.

 

[Lindsay]

pointing your frustration at any one committee member in particular is not justified and unnecessarily personal. It's also pretty crass and offensive to suggest that these members didn't take their jobs seriously..

If my comments came across like a personal attack on King or Flanagan, I apologize. Not my intention. Was not trying to suggest she did something wrong, but rather comment on the optics of the situation, say how Iview it. I maintain the optics are bad, doesn’t mean something bad occurred but it would make a lot of sense for the committee to share information about the process. There’s really no reason for the secrecy. You shared that they have to recuse themselves from discussions about their teams, but what about when they vote, can they vote for themselves? A reasonable question. Even the fact no info has really been released... what does that mean? Does it mean no one asked the chairwoman for details on the process, or that she was asked and wouldn’t share info? This is just silly and if anything is a disservice to the folks on the committee because people are
left to guess at what the process is. I’ll repeat what I said previously: media should ask the committee for some explanations.

 

[zambonidriver]

If my comments came across like a personal attack on King or Flanagan, I apologize. Not my intention. Was not trying to suggest she did something wrong, but rather comment on the optics of the situation, say how Iview it. I maintain the optics are bad, doesn’t mean something bad occurred but it would make a lot of sense for the committee to share information about the process. There’s really no reason for the secrecy. You shared that they have to recuse themselves from discussions about their teams, but what about when they vote, can they vote for themselves? A reasonable question. Even the fact no info has really been released... what does that mean? Does it mean no one asked the chairwoman for details on the process, or that she was asked and wouldn’t share info? This is just silly and if anything is a disservice to the folks on the committee because people are
left to guess at what the process is. I’ll repeat what I said previously: media should ask the committee for some explanations.

I talked to Flanagan at the CHA tournament after they upset Penn State. He is a man with a lot of integrity. He was going to argue for Penn State but he also said that it was a packed jury against the CHA. The CHA has a bad reputation whether it is deserved or not. That probably comes from the leadership at the CHA office. He was pretty blunt that within the committee it takes some time to be considered at large worthy and that basically it takes two years of excellence to prove to the powers that be that you have a legit program. Human nature I guess. Do I think Providence, BC , Duluth belong in no. I also don't think there should be an ECAC team in because in reality they really didn't have a conference. My opinion.
What would have been nice is especially this year. You play in for those final spots. BC VS Penn State. Providence VS Duluth, Minn VS Syracuse. I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Offsides Guy]

I talked to Flanagan at the CHA tournament after they upset Penn State. He is a man with a lot of integrity. He was going to argue for Penn State but he also said that it was a packed jury against the CHA. The CHA has a bad reputation whether it is deserved or not. That probably comes from the leadership at the CHA office. He was pretty blunt that within the committee it takes some time to be considered at large worthy and that basically it takes two years of excellence to prove to the powers that be that you have a legit program. Human nature I guess. Do I think Providence, BC , Duluth belong in no. I also don't think there should be an ECAC team in because in reality they really didn't have a conference. My opinion.
What would have been nice is especially this year. You play in for those final spots. BC VS Penn State. Providence VS Duluth, Minn VS Syracuse. I guess it doesn't matter.

If what you say is true then the entire tournament is a joke. Selections should have nothing to do with anything except the current season! By Flanagan‘s logic a team that comes out of nowhere and puts together a phenomenal year doesn’t get to go to the tournament because of their program’s or conference’s past performance. Honestly, his comments are so disappointing on so many levels.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

If what you say is true then the entire tournament is a joke. Selections should have nothing to do with anything except the current season! By Flanagan‘s logic a team that comes out of nowhere and puts together a phenomenal year doesn’t get to go to the tournament because of their program’s or conference’s past performance. Honestly, his comments are so disappointing on so many levels.

I would agree with Offsides Guy, why would a team or conference's previous seasons have anything to do with a current season's accomplishment? By that logic no one would be allowed in without at least 2 years in a row solid performance. If it's true, certain people need smacked in the back of the head for bringing such flawed logic to the table as part of the consideration!

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Here is my full take on what went down, my suit of armor is in place awaiting your torches and pitchforks:

https://www.bcinterruption.com/bosto...-womens-hockey

 

[Rightnut]

Here is my full take on what went down, my **** of armor is in place awaiting your torches and pitchforks:

https://www.bcinterruption.com/bost...n-four-boston-college-bc-eagles-womens-hockey

Well written. Seems like as good an explanation as any. I said early on that the CHA would not get 2 teams if PSU lost. It would improve CHA's "reputation" if RMU can hang tight with Northeastern. UMD over Minn is the shocker.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Here is my full take on what went down, my **** of armor is in place awaiting your torches and pitchforks:

https://www.bcinterruption.com/bost...n-four-boston-college-bc-eagles-womens-hockey

Oh my...I guess I should be honored that you quoted me in your article. But I had to go back and correct a couple of mistakes. LOL

I think you are right about the committee's thinking on the WCHA getting 4 teams in. And I haven't changed how I feel that Minnesota should not being in the tournament. The comparison to UMD isn't good but that would have easily been solved by leaving UMD out as well and picking Penn State over them. I think there would be less issues with the selections that were made for the tournament if that had happened.

 

[Lindsay]

Here is my full take on what went down, my **** of armor is in place awaiting your torches and pitchforks:

https://www.bcinterruption.com/bost...n-four-boston-college-bc-eagles-womens-hockey

I am literally asking this as hockey fan. It’s not an attack. Like you, I’m a passionate hockey fan.

What is the voting process? I understand Berlo and Crowley had to recuse themselves at times.

In normal years does the committee have control over who gets in or are they just setting matchups based on pairwise and minimizing flights?

This conversation reminds me of commentary on HHOF selections. A couple years back Eric Duhatschek wrote a fascinating article, pulling back the curtain on how the committee works, and what the process is. He did it without revealing the super secret stuff. It would be really cool if we could get the same setup on an article for NCAA women’s hockey selection this year, because this year feels very unique.

My own assessment on what the committee did is this: they decided they couldn’t fairly rank teams and didn’t want to punish UMD for playing fewer games, so they decided to just make sure top 3 by reg season rankings of WCHA and Hockey East got in plus 1 each from ECAC and CHA. At a high level they created a fun tournament with some newish returning teams and east west matchups. At a detail level there’s understandable grievances.

I don’t like the bracket but at least now I have a sense of what I think they did. You have your own take and that’s fine. Also of note, I think this year in general life created a lot of confusion and uncertainty in a lot of organizations. A consistent among organizations was to talk about communication and transparency being needed more than usual. The NCAA selection process is no different. More transparency this year would really be great. I don’t think it’s to late to provide that.

 

[Offsides Guy]

I’ll repeat what I said previously: media should ask the committee for some explanations.

100% agree and I’ll add that would be best for women’s sports overall. We all want women sports to be treated and supported at the same level of men’s sports and that must include the media challenging decisions that are made in women sports. Anything less is going soft on women’s sports and actually maintains the current divide.

I was especially disappointed that no one in the media challenged or investigated why the WCHA only invited four teams to the tournament this year. I even saw part of an interview with the commissioner between periods of one of the games and, to my knowledge, the reporter never asked her about why only four teams this year. To me this was a major story and everyone just let it slide which is too bad. I’m not saying anything nefarious went on but it’s certainly warranted media attention. Especially given that the men’s side of the WCHA had a full tournament.

 

[zambonidriver]

Great points, I have been saying all along Penn State had it's destiny in it's own hands and did not take care of business. Maybe it is time to dissolve the CHA and begin lobbying for a conference with Penn State, OSU, Uof M, Wisc, Northeastern, and Duluth,
Rit goes to the ECAC, Syracuse, RMU, Mercyhurst to the hockey east and Lindenwood to the WCHA. Just Saying......