NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding

[pgb-ohio]

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?

It should. Thanks for giving voice to a frustration that many of us feel -- in a thoughtful and respectful way.

In the absence of any official explanation, here's my attempt to decode what happened.

Let's start with robertearle's predicted bracket:

1) Wisconsin
8) Robert Morris

5) Minnesota
4) Colgate

3) Ohio State
6) BC

7) Penn State
2) Northeastern

IMHO, robertearle got the 8 teams right. Many posts, across multiple threads, seem to share this viewpoint. Note that you've got inter-conference match-ups in all 4 quarterfinals. What's not to like? Musing Out Loud:


1. Eastern Conferences vs. Western Conferences
Breaking down the teams in the Official Bracket:
Hockey East + ECAC = 4 Teams
WCHA + CHA = 4 Teams
My guess is that this was pretty important to the Committee.

Now, how do the conferences stack up if we use the "preferred" robertearle teams?
Hockey East + ECAC = 3 Teams
WCHA + CHA = 5 Teams
So would this line-up of teams be Anti-Eastern? Given that both RMU & PSU are from Pennsylvania, such a claim seems ludicrous. OK, RMU is guilty of the horrific crime of being located West of the Allegheny Tunnel. (Insert Rolleyes Here) But if you focus strictly on conference affiliation rather than longitude, maybe you believe the "East" isn't getting its fair share in the robertearle line-up.


2. The Big Ten Factor
Notice something else about robertearle's bracket. It includes 4 members of the Big Ten Conference. Further, all 4 Quarterfinal Match-ups are Big Ten vs. Everybody Else! Even though there's no such thing as Big Ten Women's Hockey -- and probably won't be for a long time -- that's kind of juicy. But I wonder if the Committee decided that such a thing wasn't fun at all, and was going to do whatever it took avoid it. Limiting the number of Big Ten teams in the Official Field got rid of this problem pretty efficiently.


3. Your 2021 WCHA/Greater Minnesota Champions: The UMD Bulldogs
Admittedly this year's WCHA took the concept of an unbalanced schedule to a whole new level. It was almost as if there were two separate conferences under the league umbrella. Call them the WCHA/Greater Minnesota & the WCHA/Big Ten. Most of us on the board have been focusing on the fact that, despite winning the Greater Minnesota Conference, UMD had a weak strength of schedule. But perhaps in the Committee's eyes, members of the Greater Minnesota were victimized; denied their opportunity to play a strong schedule. Viewed through that filter, UMD did everything it could against its Greater Minnesota opponents, thus earning the Greater Minnesota Autobid. As I type this, I'm feeling a little ridiculous. But by what other theory do the Bulldogs leapfrog the Gophers?


4. East vs. West In The Championship Game
It's long been my conviction that, other things being equal, the Committee prefers an East vs. West Title Game. Conversely, getting the "best" two teams to the last game isn't a priority. A detailed discussion of my belief is a subject for another day. But for the sake of this conversation, assume I'm right. Now, which of the two competing brackets is best suited to yield that East/West Final? I think the answer is the Official Bracket.

 

[Timothy A]

I sure hope all the players are in lock down until they get on the bus or plane for Erie. No one wants to see any team get C19'ed out.

 

[Lindsay]

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.

Yes! I get it. It’s a labor of love and a side gig for the writers. And people wear many hats, friend, fan, writer which can complicate things. And I know it’s on Grant’s list, and that’s even not something he needs to do. I’ve assumed you are Arlan, but I may be wrong. The contribution of you all and I’m glad you mentioned Gabriella, is immeasurable. Personally, I don’t have the words to express my gratitude, not just for the media folks but for people that share info on this board. I remember playing in the early aughts and this board and the USCHO coverage told the story of women’s hockey, when no one else did, and frankly did it better even when others did because the folks here have the passion. I’m a curious person by nature, I find this stuff fascinating and I’m just wanting the story. As there is a great push to advance the legitimacy of women’s sports it would have made sense for the committee to maybe share a bit more of the story. Thank you for being so patient with my hang ups, lol. I know others are more shrug and move on types.

 

[Lindsay]

It should. Thanks for giving voice to a frustration that many of us feel -- in a thoughtful and respectful way.

In the absence of any official explanation, here's my attempt to decode what happened.

Let's start with robertearle's predicted bracket:

1) Wisconsin
8) Robert Morris

5) Minnesota
4) Colgate

3) Ohio State
6) BC

7) Penn State
2) Northeastern

IMHO, robertearle got the 8 teams right. Many posts, across multiple threads, seem to share this viewpoint. Note that you've got inter-conference match-ups in all 4 quarterfinals. What's not to like? Musing Out Loud:


1. Eastern Conferences vs. Western Conferences
Breaking down the teams in the Official Bracket:
Hockey East + ECAC = 4 Teams
WCHA + CHA = 4 Teams
My guess is that this was pretty important to the Committee.

Now, how do the conferences stack up if we use the "preferred" robertearle teams?
Hockey East + ECAC = 3 Teams
WCHA + CHA = 5 Teams
So would this line-up of teams be Anti-Eastern? Given that both RMU & PSU are from Pennsylvania, such a claim seems ludicrous. OK, RMU is guilty of the horrific crime of being located West of the Allegheny Tunnel. (Insert Rolleyes Here) But if you focus strictly on conference affiliation rather than longitude, maybe you believe the "East" isn't getting its fair share in the robertearle line-up.


2. The Big Ten Factor
Notice something else about robertearle's bracket. It includes 4 members of the Big Ten Conference. Further, all 4 Quarterfinal Match-ups are Big Ten vs. Everybody Else! Even though there's no such thing as Big Ten Women's Hockey -- and probably won't be for a long time -- that's kind of juicy. But I wonder if the Committee decided that such a thing wasn't fun at all, and was going to do whatever it took avoid it. Limiting the number of Big Ten teams in the Official Field got rid of this problem pretty efficiently.


3. Your 2021 WCHA/Greater Minnesota Champions: The UMD Bulldogs
Admittedly this year's WCHA took the concept of an unbalanced schedule to a whole new level. It was almost as if there were two separate conferences under the league umbrella. Call them the WCHA/Greater Minnesota & the WCHA/Big Ten. Most of us on the board have been focusing on the fact that, despite winning the Greater Minnesota Conference, UMD had a weak strength of schedule. But perhaps in the Committee's eyes, members of the Greater Minnesota were victimized; denied their opportunity to play a strong schedule. Viewed through that filter, UMD did everything it could against its Greater Minnesota opponents, thus earning the Greater Minnesota Autobid. As I type this, I'm feeling a little ridiculous. But by what other theory do the Bulldogs leapfrog the Gophers?


4. East vs. West In The Championship Game
It's long been my conviction that, other things being equal, the Committee prefers an East vs. West Title Game. Conversely, getting the "best" two teams to the last game isn't a priority. A detailed discussion of my belief is a subject for another day. But for the sake of this conversation, assume I'm right. Now, which of the two competing brackets is best suited to yield that East/West Final? I think the answer is the Official Bracket.

Great stuff as always PGB! It’s funny because I never think of the CHA as being in the west or the east. We are in the middle. (Smiley face)

 

[robertearle]

Admittedly this year's WCHA took the concept of an unbalanced schedule to a whole new level. It was almost as if there were two separate conferences under the league umbrella. Call them the WCHA/Greater Minnesota & the WCHA/Big Ten.

That isn't 'by accident'.

Before they started, there was a good bit of discussion about the Big Ten's COVID protocols, which had longer quarantine and "inactivity' periods that the NCAA in general. And the Big Ten was mostly not letting schools compete against schools with "weaker" protocols. So the idea was before Christmas, the "Big Ten" teams would play one another while the non-B1G teams played, with Duluth being the 'swing' team between the two groups (because somehow Duluth had satisfied Barry Alvarez or whoever they were meeting the B1G standards?). I guess the idea was by after Christmas, they would have worked out some agreement or arrangement for "cross-group" play. When Ohio State and then Wisconsin had their COVID breakouts, that idea kind of broke down. But that was the idea.

"Notice something else about robertearle's bracket. It includes 4 members of the Big Ten Conference. Further, all 4 Quarterfinal Match-ups are Big Ten vs. Everybody Else!"

That wasn't completely by accident, either.

 

[Offsides Guy]

Duluth being the 'swing' team between the two groups (because somehow Duluth had satisfied Barry Alvarez or whoever they were meeting the B1G standards?).

I was told UMD procured their own C-19 testing machine that the women’s team (and other UMD teams I imagine) had access to. This allowed the Bulldogs to test at the level of frequency required by the Big10. I found this interesting as my recollection was UMD has been in financial trouble for years.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

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.

There is no "may" about it. You realize UMn outscored #3 ranked OSU in their 6 games, including a 4-0 pummeling and a 7-4 stomping, with 3 of their 4 losses being just 1 goal losses. And they swept #5 UMD in their 2 games. Outside of their 5 games vs #2 Wisconsin, UMn outscored the rest of their opponents 54-23. So unless the NCAA tourney is a field of just two teams, I'd say UMn proved they could compete with anyone else in the nation.

 

[pgb-ohio]

That isn't 'by accident'.

Before they started, there was a good bit of discussion about the Big Ten's COVID protocols, which had longer quarantine and "inactivity' periods that the NCAA in general. And the Big Ten was mostly not letting schools compete against schools with "weaker" protocols. So the idea was before Christmas, the "Big Ten" teams would play one another while the non-B1G teams played, with Duluth being the 'swing' team between the two groups (because somehow Duluth had satisfied Barry Alvarez or whoever they were meeting the B1G standards?). I guess the idea was by after Christmas, they would have worked out some agreement or arrangement for "cross-group" play. When Ohio State and then Wisconsin had their COVID breakouts, that idea kind of broke down. But that was the idea.

I'm familiar, and was familiar at the time.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the addition of this good summary to the conversation.

"Notice something else about robertearle's bracket. It includes 4 members of the Big Ten Conference. Further, all 4 Quarterfinal Match-ups are Big Ten vs. Everybody Else!"

That wasn't completely by accident, either.

I had assumed that it was a well designed work of genius and enjoyed it as such. Thanks for confirming! (insert Big Grin emoticon here)

 

[pgb-ohio]

Great stuff as always PGB! It’s funny because I never think of the CHA as being in the west or the east. We are in the middle. (Smiley face)

Indeed you are, especially in the world of Women's D-1. That was also the case with the original Men's CCHA, with the first 'C' standing for Central.

For a long time I also thought that first 'C' in CCM Hockey stood for Central, perhaps referring to Ontario's location between Quebec on the one hand, and the Prairie Provinces on the other. Turns out that's not the case. CCM actually stands for Canadian Cycle & Motor. They were once a major bicycle manufacturer. These days the CCM company that survived is mostly about hockey. But I digress.

My suggestion -- as I'm sure you fully understood -- was that the "True East" may not want "a team from the middle" using up one of the bids it feels entitled to.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

These days the CCM company that survived is mostly about hockey. But I digress.

To digress some more it's like the fishing company Zebco which stands for Zero Hour Bomb Company. They used to make detonators for mining explosives until an employee approached management with a fishing reel design he came up with.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

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.

Another fact, UMn played 13 games vs Top 6 ranked teams, Northeastern played ZERO. UMn went undefeated vs every team ranked outside of the Top 6, outscoring them 32 to 6.

Using a 10 pts for 1st on down to 1 pt for 10th, and using the USCHO.com Women's poll of March 8th...

Strength of Schedule vs Top 10 opponents

UMn = 103
OSU = 96
Wisc = 64
UMD = 54
Prov = 52
BC = 26
NE = 16
RM = 12
PSU = 4
Colg = 2

Strength of wins vs Top 10 opponents

Wisc = 53
OSU = 46
UMn = 26
UMD = 17
NE = 12
BC = 12
Prov = 8
PSU = 4
RM = 0
Colg = 0


Just something to think about.
But these two point rating systems are only meaningful if you trust/respect USCHO.com poll voters.

 

[Split-N]

BTW, it's NU, not NE. (NE = New England)

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

BTW, it's NU, not NE. (NE = New England)

I hear you. I had the same thing with Ohio State being called Ohio.
It's like referring to Michigan State as "Michigan".

 

[Rightnut]

Another fact, UMn played 13 games vs Top 6 ranked teams, Northeastern played ZERO. UMn went undefeated vs every team ranked outside of the Top 6, outscoring them 32 to 6.

Using a 10 pts for 1st on down to 1 pt for 10th, and using the USCHO.com Women's poll of March 8th...

Strength of Schedule vs Top 10 opponents

UMn = 103
OSU = 96
Wisc = 64
UMD = 54
Prov = 52
BC = 26
NE = 16
RM = 12
PSU = 4
Colg = 2

Strength of wins vs Top 10 opponents

Wisc = 53
OSU = 46
UMn = 26
UMD = 17
NE = 12
BC = 12
Prov = 8
PSU = 4
RM = 0
Colg = 0


Just something to think about.
But these two point rating systems are only meaningful if you trust/respect USCHO.com poll voters.

I agree MN got screwed. But they are not in the tournament. They are dead. Drop it. We don’t care.

 

[Steamboat]

I agree MN got screwed. But they are not in the tournament. They are dead. Drop it. We don’t care.

Agreed. Whats done is done. When your destiny is in your hands and you choke, don't expect to be rewarded. That may seem harsh, but good teams find a way to win.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

BTW, it's NU, not NE. (NE = New England)

Reality is that there is more than one NU in college sports.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

I agree MN got screwed. But they are not in the tournament. They are dead. Drop it. We don’t care.

"We"??? So should I assume you represent the entire human population? lmao.

So you are saying what? That no one EVER talks about anything but the present or the future when it comes to sports? Politics? Anything? Those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it. I will not drop it and could less if you care or not.

 

[Timothy A]

Agreed. Whats done is done. When your destiny is in your hands and you choke, don't expect to be rewarded. That may seem harsh, but good teams find a way to win.

Just like BC and Providence did? The point is only 4 teams get to control their own destiny. The other 4 teams get selected based on criteria that is very transparent until this year, when a very untransparent process was used that produced very questionable results.

+++++

It is a lot of fun to discuss it, so telling someone to stop posting about it is stupid. The posts are not offensive. The board hasn't had this much juice since Watts left BC. You can choose to not come in this thread or come in and just don't not comment about Fred's posts. Fred and I don't agree about one of his angles, but that is ok. I made my point and I choose not to discuss that point further.

 

[Lindsay]

Just like BC and Providence did? .

Not to mention UMD, lol. They also didn’t win to get in.

 

[FredsDeadFriend]

Agreed. Whats done is done. When your destiny is in your hands and you choke, don't expect to be rewarded. That may seem harsh, but good teams find a way to win.

UMD was rewarded. Providence was rewarded. BOTH lost in their conf tourneys. And neither did much during the regular season to prove they were good teams. Providence had 4 chances to get a win vs Northeastern and didn't come close, ALL 4 of their losses were by at least 3 goal margins. UMn on the other hand got 2 big wins vs OSU, and 3 of their 4 losses were 1 goal games, UMn even outscored OSU in their 6 games combined, and won both games vs UMD comfortably. And even their last 3 games vs their #1 rival UW were a tie, a 1 & a 2 goal loss. No blowouts.



So what you are saying is that Connecticut should NOT have been rewarded with a chance to beat Northeastern in their conf tourney in order to have a chance at getting into the NCAA tourney? I mean, they had to beat Boston College first to even get that chance, and they had lost FIVE STRAIGHT to BC so far this season. So why on earth were they allowed a 6th chance to beat BC when they had done nothing to earn that chance? Honestly, NO ONE should be allowed into the tourney as every single team has lost to someone, and you claim good teams find a way to win, so there are actually, NO GOOD teams in women's college hockey this year. In fact the only good team EVER in women's college hockey history has been the 2012-13 Gophers, eh? 2015-16 BC came close, but yeah, they got beat by who? The Gophers in the Title game. But how could that have even happened? UMn LOST to Wisconsin in the conf tourney, that means they were NOT a "good" team, and should have been left out of the tourney, right? I mean, they didn't "find a way to win", right??? Oh, that's not what you meant?

What are you meaning, then? Because according to YOUR definition, UMD is not a good team. They didn't beat OSU, the last team they played, they lost and it wasn't even close. They didn't beat Minnesota either, despite having 2 tries to do it, they lost both games. They only won 11 games all season, and only 2 of the 7 they played against Top 10 opponents. So how are they a "good" team and Minnesota isn't? And what is BC's story, they LOST their last game as well, and it wasn't even close, they lost by a 4 goal margin to lowly UConn.


So...

If BC, UMD & Providence ALL lost their last game in their conf tourney's, by a combined 13 goal margin, how is it that they are "good", but UMn's not?