NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding

[ARM]

That poor hopeful team was Clarkson.

My condolences, and thanks for the info. Was I remembering wrong, or was it Dartmouth?

 

[Xcfire]

I think there should be a push for at least 10 team bracket or 12 as more and more institutions adding D1 women’s hockey.
Men’s have 16 team bracket with 60 programs and women’s is up since und dropped there’s from 35 to 41 so 26% of the men’s teams make the tournament and only 19% of the women’s make the tournament

 

[vicb]

My condolences, and thanks for the info. Was I remembering wrong, or was it Dartmouth?

It was Dartmouth.

 

[ARM]

It was Dartmouth.

So it would have been 2008? And thus, a spot versus Harvard, not Wisconsin. The years where Dartmouth was a first-round sacrificial lamb start to blur together. I guess the selection slight got partially lost in my memory amidst the surprise of it being the first year where the committee placed "reducing flights" over all other bracket considerations.

 

[D2D]

Moving into the present, to the upcoming national championship, I was just thinking that it sure would be fun to have one of those "pick the winner" polls in a separate thread. You know, the kind where you can see who everyone else voted for and when the champion is crowned how smart (or dumb!) you were in comparison. But I guess that's no longer possible with the new software?

 

[Lindsay]

Moving into the present, to the upcoming national championship, I was just thinking that it sure would be fun to have one of those "pick the winner" polls in a separate thread. You know, the kind where you can see who everyone else voted for and when the champion is crowned how smart (or dumb!) you were in comparison. But I guess that's no longer possible with the new software?

I was thinking the same. I printed off my bracket and filled it out based on who I want to win each game. Now I have to do another for what I actually think will transpire.

 

[Lindsay]

https://www.uscho.com/2021/03/11/wed...t-predictions/

Fantastic read, with some lol’s too.

There are going to be some great storylines in the next two weeks. Most boring thing that could happen is Wisconsin winning a national championship. But, if Wisc wins it all that definitely adds drama and pressure to the question of whether Watts will be on Hockey Canada for World Championships. I recall Davidson said a few years ago that Watts was still in the picture. Would be history making for Johnson too (I think).

edit: I think she should be on team Canada regardless but there seems to be a higher bar for her.

I think if Wisconsin doesn’t win it all we most likely have a first time NCAA Champion which is amazing.

If UMD wins it all, well that would be quite something too. Return of a faded champion, surely would had some heat to WCHA rivalries. Some drama too.

I don’t want to wish away the weekend but I can’t wait for Monday.

 

[Timothy A]

All the historical talk that people think history should steer decisions made this year is useless; thinking of T3's article in particular. The last 5 years should have no bearing on what should have happened this year.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

1. Northeastern
8. Robert Morris

5. BC
4. Colgate

3. Ohio State
6. Penn State

7. St. Lawrence
2. Wisconsin

IN
SLU, Penn State

OUT
Minnesota
UMD

 

[ARM]

1. Northeastern
8. Robert Morris

5. BC
4. Colgate

3. Ohio State
6. Penn State

7. St. Lawrence
2. Wisconsin

IN
SLU, Penn State

OUT
Minnesota
UMD

That's harsh; the poor Goph's get dumped from a field that they weren't even in.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

I'm too lazy to quote at the moment, but a couple of general comments on Grant's story (always a good read) and the resulting discussion.

I remember a season where I think it was Dartmouth was the last at-large team into the field, even though the PairWise had indicated it would be another ECAC team. That team had minute edges in categories like COP and TUC (which was still a thing then), while the team that was chosen, who I'll continue to call Dartmouth for lack of any other name, had a much wider lead in RPI. The committee had enough flexibility to say RPI trumps some other wins in the third or fourth digit beyond the decimal point, and "Dartmouth" advanced and the other poor hopefuls went home early. I think that the argument was for the right to go to Madison to get killed by Wisconsin, so there wasn't a ton of outrage -- maybe the first-team-out had previously been to Madison and was fine not returning. Anyway, I do remember that precedent and will search for it at some point, but it goes to Grant's point that committee oddities have never changed the teams selected.

When you say that even some Minnesota fans are saying that they shouldn't be in the field, understand where that is coming from. Minnesota fans say that because we understood that the Gophers weren't good enough to win the tournament. Had they gotten in as No. 5 and avoided UW and OSU for as long as possible, that would have helped. Not because Colgate and Northeastern aren't good enough to thump UM, and they may have done just that, but the Badgers and Buckeyes have tried and proven methods for whooping on the Gophs. Colgate isn't afraid of Minnesota, but it isn't an ideal first-round matchup to draw a team who is in the tournament every year, only now they enter as an underdog. Northeastern is tougher yet, but Minnesota would definitely have been the best team the Huskies would have seen in 2021, and while that might be true as well for UM playing NU, I don't think it would be by as wide a margin.

Once you've been spoiled by winning the tournament multiple times, just going to it for the sake of going isn't the same. Are Clarkson fans heartbroken at missing out? My guess is that even though their season ended abruptly -- and perhaps unfairly -- they knew that their team wasn't winning the tournament without some unprecedented improvement. If you suddenly can't beat an SLU team with a losing record to save your season, there will be higher mountains to climb in the tourney. Like the Golden Knights, the Gophers had reason to hope when the season started. By the end, the dreams remained, but the more realistic thoughts had faded away.

This is a bunch of bullsh1t. Minnesota sports fans are notorious for being negative nancies, so some of them making retarded statements about the Gopher's not deserving to be in the tourney are meaningless. And whoever it was who remarked this is the first season the Gophers won't win 20 games is again a meaningless stat when the Gophers only played 20 games, and UMD, who DID get in over the Gophers, only played 17 games. And all this mumbo jumbo about the Badgers and Buckeyes having tried and proven methods for whooping on the Gophs and how that means this year would have been one about just getting into the tourney not winning it, and fans "knew that their team wasn't winning the tourney", etc. is the talk of LOSERS. I remember a UMD men's squad who only got into the 16 team men's field by a small fraction of a percentage point but then went on to win the whole tournament. One of my least favorite memories as a Gopher fan was when the Gophers were a #1 seed and got upset by a lowly #4 seed who went on to win the Natl Title. So going into an 8 team tourney assuming your team will lose is beyond pathetic. Let's look at the evidence, shall we? Seems in their last game vs the Badgers, the Gophers were able to escape losing. Had that game been in the tourney, the Gophers would have had a chance to win. The game before they also took the almighty all-powerful unbeatable Badgers into OT. In the first of THREE, yeah, count them, THREE series' vs OSU, the Gopher's got splits, so not sure how that points to their being unable to defeat the Buckeyes. This evidence alone basically proves the Gophers belonged in the field.

If we compare UMn to UMD heads up, UMn can only be seen in a favorable light, unless you are a lazy and/or uninformed and/or biased person. UMn played TWICE AS MANY games vs tourney teams than UMD did, and got 4 wins and a tie against them compared to UMD's only garnering a mere 2 wins against the tourney field. UMn scored FOUR TIMES as many goals vs OSU than UMD scored, in fact, UMn outscored OSU over their 6 games. I won't even bother to mention that UMn swept the Bulldogs, outscoring them by a comfortable 6 to 3 margin, but I might mention that while UMn pummeled Bemidji St by a combined score of 15 goals to 2 in 2 games, UMD could only muster a single goal vs BSU in 2 games. UMn scored 33 goals vs the tourney field, while UMD only scored 14.

I mean, UMn played significantly more games vs The Top 3 teams in the country, 11, than all but UW and OSU played against the Top 10. Colgate didn't play a single game vs The Top Ten, BC only played 5 games totally vs the Top Ten.

Since when does Strength of Schedule not matter???

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

The first season in program history where we didn't make it to 20 wins. Northeastern did, but they will be the only team who does, no matter what happens in the tourney. The team can be mad, but they should ask themselves why they wound up on a level where they are being compared to UMD instead of UW and OSU.

You realize they only played 20 games, right? And that ELEVEN, OVER HALF of those games were vs teams ranked in the Top 3? The Gophers did not lose to a single opponent ranked outside the Top 3.

You proclaim how Northeastern won 20 games, but while the Gophers played 13 games vs Top 6 ranked teams, getting 4 wins and a tie vs the best teams in the country, Northeastern's toughest games were 2 games vs #7 ranked BC that they got a split with and a handful of games vs #9 Providence. Oh, and their tie was vs an unranked team. Hardly comparable schedules.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

All the historical talk that people think history should steer decisions made this year is useless; thinking of T3's article in particular. The last 5 years should have no bearing on what should have happened this year.

I disagree, history is always relevant. It should only be a factor though, and probably not a big one, as things always change, players graduate, new recruits come into programs, players get injured, etc., but what does NOT change from one year to the next, is massive changes in overall talent levels. That takes time and it takes outside forces that bring about such changes, such as the introduction of a new TV contract that gives recruits a reason to want to go to one school over another, new coaches can have the same effect, etc. But some things simply NEVER change. Look at the Top 10 of the Men's rankings this year, ALL the old favorites are there, BU and BC, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin & North Dakota and a few other schools from the top state destination of college hockey recruits, Minnesota. UMD's been on the rise for awhile now, as evidenced by their multiple Natl titles, and SCSU has also been on the rise, including the Gophers snagging their former coach.

Now having blue blood status should NEVER be a determinative factor in judging a team's quality/resume, look at men's cbb this year, both Kentucky and Duke are going to miss the tourney this year. But no one is asking anyone to judge any team's solely by their history. People are being asked to judge teams according to a current season's accomplishments. Now one single team could have a significant drop or rise in talent from the previous season, but for an entire conference to have this occur is almost absolutely impossible. NEVER will a conf like the CHA magically transform into a formidable conf while in the very same season seeing the best conference historically, the WCHA, have a significant drop in talent. It just isn't realistic, this is just something that doesn't happen in college sports, EVER.


Who did Penn St beat and who did they lose to? Same question can be asked of UMD & Providence.

Compare this to Minnesota. Minnesota did not lose to a single team ranked outside of the Top 3 in the nation. And against the rest of the nation, including UMD, UMn went 9-0 and outscored those 4 opponents 38-9. Keeping UMn out of the tourney in 2021 was possibly the biggest dumbest snub in all of college women's hockey history?

 

[CROSS BAR]

I disagree, history is always relevant. It should only be a factor though, and probably not a big one, as things always change, players graduate, new recruits come into programs, players get injured, etc., but what does NOT change from one year to the next, is massive changes in overall talent levels. That takes time and it takes outside forces that bring about such changes, such as the introduction of a new TV contract that gives recruits a reason to want to go to one school over another, new coaches can have the same effect, etc. But some things simply NEVER change. Look at the Top 10 of the Men's rankings this year, ALL the old favorites are there, BU and BC, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin & North Dakota and a few other schools from the top state destination of college hockey recruits, Minnesota. UMD's been on the rise for awhile now, as evidenced by their multiple Natl titles, and SCSU has also been on the rise, including the Gophers snagging their former coach.

Now having blue blood status should NEVER be a determinative factor in judging a team's quality/resume, look at men's cbb this year, both Kentucky and Duke are going to miss the tourney this year. But no one is asking anyone to judge any team's solely by their history. People are being asked to judge teams according to a current season's accomplishments. Now one single team could have a significant drop or rise in talent from the previous season, but for an entire conference to have this occur is almost absolutely impossible. NEVER will a conf like the CHA magically transform into a formidable conf while in the very same season seeing the best conference historically, the WCHA, have a significant drop in talent. It just isn't realistic, this is just something that doesn't happen in college sports, EVER.


Who did Penn St beat and who did they lose to? Same question can be asked of UMD & Providence.

Compare this to Minnesota. Minnesota did not lose to a single team ranked outside of the Top 3 in the nation. And against the rest of the nation, including UMD, UMn went 9-0 and outscored those 4 opponents 38-9. Keeping UMn out of the tourney in 2021 was possibly the biggest dumbest snub in all of college women's hockey history?

Whew, hopefully you feel better now. That was a lot of "Poor Us" and "Who are They" to absorb! A least you held true to the reputation of being "Negative Nancies"!

 

[ARM]

This is a bunch of bullsh1t.

Very possible, but it's what I believe. UM may have deserved to get into the tournament, but this season, they didn't indicate to me that they were on the brink of winning it. You may be right, but we'll never know.

You realize they only played 20 games, right?

I do. They'd have needed to come into the WCHA tourney with 15 wins in order to have a chance to win 20, so possible, but definitely not easy. I understand that there is a difference between a normal 34-game schedule and the one that they played. Think of this as a bit of trivia: Northeastern was the only team this season to win 20 games. That's a fact. We don't need to read anything more into it than that.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

That's harsh; the poor Goph's get dumped from a field that they weren't even in.

At least they acknowledged UMN...Poor Providence isn't even acknowledged. Maybe a cancel culture thing?

 

[Lindsay]

I cannot believe there still isn’t a statement from the committee or any sign of media asking the committee for an explanation. Why are we being so deferent to the committee? Don’t get it. Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt after all that was said and argued, but I am just struggling. The lack of transparency feels like a disservice to women’s hockey. The optics don’t look good and shouldn’t that bother the committee?

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

This is a bunch of bullsh1t. Minnesota sports fans are notorious for being negative nancies, so some of them making ******** statements about the Gopher's not deserving to be in the tourney are meaningless. And whoever it was who remarked this is the first season the Gophers won't win 20 games is again a meaningless stat when the Gophers only played 20 games, and UMD, who DID get in over the Gophers, only played 17 games. And all this mumbo jumbo about the Badgers and Buckeyes having tried and proven methods for whooping on the Gophs and how that means this year would have been one about just getting into the tourney not winning it, and fans "knew that their team wasn't winning the tourney", etc. is the talk of LOSERS. I remember a UMD men's squad who only got into the 16 team men's field by a small fraction of a percentage point but then went on to win the whole tournament. One of my least favorite memories as a Gopher fan was when the Gophers were a #1 seed and got upset by a lowly #4 seed who went on to win the Natl Title. So going into an 8 team tourney assuming your team will lose is beyond pathetic. Let's look at the evidence, shall we? Seems in their last game vs the Badgers, the Gophers were able to escape losing. Had that game been in the tourney, the Gophers would have had a chance to win. The game before they also took the almighty all-powerful unbeatable Badgers into OT. In the first of THREE, yeah, count them, THREE series' vs OSU, the Gopher's got splits, so not sure how that points to their being unable to defeat the Buckeyes. This evidence alone basically proves the Gophers belonged in the field.

If we compare UMn to UMD heads up, UMn can only be seen in a favorable light, unless you are a lazy and/or uninformed and/or biased person. UMn played TWICE AS MANY games vs tourney teams than UMD did, and got 4 wins and a tie against them compared to UMD's only garnering a mere 2 wins against the tourney field. UMn scored FOUR TIMES as many goals vs OSU than UMD scored, in fact, UMn outscored OSU over their 6 games. I won't even bother to mention that UMn swept the Bulldogs, outscoring them by a comfortable 6 to 3 margin, but I might mention that while UMn pummeled Bemidji St by a combined score of 15 goals to 2 in 2 games, UMD could only muster a single goal vs BSU in 2 games. UMn scored 33 goals vs the tourney field, while UMD only scored 14.

I mean, UMn played significantly more games vs The Top 3 teams in the country, 11, than all but UW and OSU played against the Top 10. Colgate didn't play a single game vs The Top Ten, BC only played 5 games totally vs the Top Ten.

Since when does Strength of Schedule not matter???

You seem pretty agitated for a dead guy...shouldn't you be resting in peace?

 

[Timothy A]

I disagree, history is always relevant.

Keeping UMn out of the tourney in 2021 was possibly the biggest dumbest snub in all of college women's hockey history?

You have to judge on this year alone. That's why they play the games. The UW men's team has sucked the last 5 years until this year. Does that mean the previous last sucky 5 years should count against them to some degree in the seeding?

I agree that 2021 was possibly the biggest dumbest snub in all of college women's hockey history, but my point of reference is about 8 years for women's hockey.

 

[ARM]

I cannot believe there still isn’t a statement from the committee or any sign of media asking the committee for an explanation. Why are we being so deferent to the committee? Don’t get it.

For NCAA women's hockey, "media" isn't an expansive group. Writing about the sport on a national level we have Grant, Nicole, Gabriella Fundaro -- if she's still covering women's hockey, and if you go to a Frozen Four, you'll see a couple more people that you recognize. Student news organizations will assign someone to cover the team for a season or two. In a market like Minneapolis, the local papers do a bit of coverage, particularly around tournament time, but not all season long. Somebody like Betsy Helfand might do a few extra stories because she covered the team when she was a student, but her primary focus is the Twins, I believe. Most of the reporters aren't going out of their way to write women's hockey stories. If they do something on the Gophers not being included in the field, they quote Frost and call it good.

You can Google to see if someone has a story out there with committee comments, but few people cover the sport as well as Grant and Nicole. Try the student papers for Penn State or Minnesota, but often, the tournament kind of runs into Spring Break and university coverage drops off.