Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

[Bender14]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Back in 1994 Colorado College rose from last place the the previous season to win the WCHA regular season, but after being upset in the WCHA quarterfinals 2 games to 1, they were not selected for the NCAA tournament. There was much complaining about how autobids were awarded and how the regular season champion deserved an autobid. Supposedly the committee then added a "CC Rule" that the RS champion of each league would always be selected until the NCAA learned of the rule and let it be known that each league was to get only one autobid, determined by each league. I have no idea if such a rule was ever invoked, but no regular season champion missed the tournament until the formation of the MAAC in 1998-99, when no MAAC team made the NCAA tournament. The following season the CHA was formed and Niagara won the regular season and tournament titles and made the NCAA field as an at-large team. Then in 2001 Clarkson won the ECAC regular season, was upset in the quarterfinals 2 games to 1 and missed the NCAA tournament.

As for byes, the NCAA tournament had them from 1988 through 2002. In 1988 no teams won both league titles, in 1989 only one did, in 1990 all four did and in 1991 three teams did. Of the 8 teams only one, Clarkson in 1991, failed to get a bye. Again there was much complaining about how a regular season and tournament champion deserved a bye, with many calling for a "Clarkson Rule" to insure that would happen. To my knowledge no such rule was ever invoked by the committee, but no other double champion from Hockey East, ECAC, CCHA or WCHA missed the bye until Michigan in 2002. Niagara (CHA, 2000) and Mercyhurst (MAAC, 2001) also won both leagues titles, but did not receive byes.

Actually you have it backwards, since the automatic qualifiers in the basketball tournament are not the ones bringing in the money, it is the at-large teams from the power conferences that bring in the money. In fact, with 32 automatic qualifiers in the men's basketball tournament they could eliminate 36 teams from the tournament, but again, there would go the money.

This is currently happening in men's DI lacrosse. Just eight years ago there were only six conferences with autobids (the ACC was to small) and 60 teams. This year there are ten conferences (including the ACC) with autobids and 71 teams, with 2 more programs starting up next year.

It is much closer to 1 in 5 in men's basketball (68 out of 351, or 19.37%), so that would be back to 12 teams for hockey. However, the NCAA uses different numbers for different sports, so that is not a fixed ratio. For example, in men's lacrosse the NCAA had a 16 team tournament for 60 teams in 2010, slightly more than 1 out of 4 teams. With expansion to 71 teams they originally added 2 teams to go to 18, but dropped one and now have 17 teams, slightly less than 1 out of 4. In field hockey it is an 18 team field for 78 teams overall, just over 23%, or slightly less than 1 out of 4 teams and women's ice hockey has 8 out of 36 teams, 22%. So well men's hockey has one of the highest ratios, if not the highest, it is not as far out of wack as you make it seem.

But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

Sean

That's good stuff

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

Sean

Actually, the NCAA grants auto-bids to the conferences. The individual conferences themselves determine how they are awarded. They all choose to give them to their post-season tournament champions. I remember not so long ago (relatively speaking) when many conferences, most notably the PAC-10 and Big-10, did not have post-season basketball tournaments. They chose to award their auto-bids to the regular season champs.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Actually, the NCAA grants auto-bids to the conferences. The individual conferences themselves determine how they are awarded. They all choose to give them to their post-season tournament champions. I remember not so long ago (relatively speaking) when many conferences, most notably the PAC-10 and Big-10, did not have post-season basketball tournaments. They chose to award their auto-bids to the regular season champs.

Thanks, but I already knew that. What I was trying to state (not very well, apparently) was that the NCAA has clearly set out rules for granting an automatic bid to a conference and once initially eligible a conference will continue to get an autobid as long as they continue to met those rules.

I hope that is clearer.

Sean

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

If your conference regular season champ doesn't earn an at-large bid, then your conference sucks (and yes, this could often apply to the ECAC). The only ways that happens are 1) the RS champ loses a ton of OOC games to screw their own record, 2) the other teams in the conference lost so many OOC games that your RS champ's gaudy record against them doesn't mean diddly, or 3) a combination of the two.

Keep math simple - get your PWR up, win your tourney, or go home.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

If your conference regular season champ doesn't earn an at-large bid, then your conference sucks (and yes, this could often apply to the ECAC). The only ways that happens are 1) the RS champ loses a ton of OOC games to screw their own record, 2) the other teams in the conference lost so many OOC games that your RS champ's gaudy record against them doesn't mean diddly, or 3) a combination of the two.

Keep math simple - get your PWR up, win your tourney, or go home.

Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 8 teams 34 regular season champions have not made the tournament. Three in the 8 team field, 2 coming from the ECAC as it split into three division each with its own regular season champion, eight in the 12 team field, and twenty-three in the 16 team field.
Eight Teams
1981 – ECAC East – Boston College
1983 – CCHA – Bowling Green
1984 – ECAC Ivy – Harvard
Twelve Teams
1992 – ECAC – Harvard
1994 – WCHA – Colorado College
1999 – MAAC – Quinnipiac
2000 – MAAC – Quinnipiac
2001 – ECAC – Clarkson
2001 – CHA – Alabama Huntsville
2002 – MAAC – Mercyhurst
2002 – CHA – Wayne State*
Sixteen Teams
2003 – CHA – Alabama Huntsville
2004 – ECAC – Colgate
2004 – CHA – Bemidji State
2005 – AH – Quinnipiac
2006 – ECAC – Dartmouth (tie)
2006 – ECAC – Colgate (tie)
2006 – CHA – Niagara
2007 – AH – RIT
2007 – CHA – Niagara
2008 – AH – Army
2008 – CHA – Bemidji State
2009 – AH – RIT (tie)
2011 – AH – RIT
2014 – AH – Mercyhurst
2015 – AH – Robert Morris
2016 – B1G – Minnesota
2016 – WCHA – Michigan Tech
2016 – AH – Robert Morris
2017 – HEA – Boston College (tie)
2017 – WCHA – Bemidji State
2017 – AH – Canisius
2018 – HEA – Boston College
2018 – AH - Mercyhurst

* also won league tournament, but league had no autobid

By conference the MAAC/Atlantic Hockey has 13; the CHA had 7; the ECAC has 7; the WCHA has 3; Hockey East has 2; the B1G has 1; and the CCHA had 1.

Sean

 

[gfmorris]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

As a follow-up to Sean's excellent research, it's important to note that the CHA didn't have an AQ until 2003-04.

GFM

 

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 8 teams 34 regular season champions have not made the tournament. Three in the 8 team field, 2 coming from the ECAC as it split into three division each with its own regular season champion, eight in the 12 team field, and twenty-three in the 16 team field.
Eight Teams
1981 – ECAC East – Boston College
1983 – CCHA – Bowling Green
1984 – ECAC East – Boston College (tie)
...

By conference the MAAC/Atlantic Hockey has 13; the CHA had 7; the ECAC has 7; the WCHA has 3; Hockey East has 2; the B1G has 1; and the CCHA had zero.

Sean

In '83 BG should have been invited over Duluth but this was back in the day when there was little in the way of objective measurement and the coach of a team in consideration (who was also on the selection committee) could politic his way in.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

As a follow-up to Sean's excellent research, it's important to note that the CHA didn't have an AQ until 2003-04.

GFM

The CHA RS champion Niagara in 2000 also won the league tournament and made the NCAAs as an at-large. The only other RS champion to win the league tournament before 2004 was Wayne State in 2002, This brings up the question of how many RS champions also won their league tournament titles, but that will have to wait for another day.

Sean

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

In '83 BG should have been invited over Duluth but this was back in the day when there was little in the way of objective measurement and the coach of a team in consideration (who was also on the selection committee) could politic his way in.

Since there was no objective measurement your statement is just an opinion and I'm only dealing with historical facts. If someone runs the numbers for the the 1982-83 season that would give an objective measurement to determine if your opinion is true that would be great, but even then there likely would be debate. I looked at Bowling Green's schedule and results for that season and the first thing I noticed was the insular scheduling of the CCHA, with 32 of 36 games being league contests. Of the four non-conference games Bowling Green played they lost and tied Wisconsin at home, and lost to DII Lowell and defeated Brown at the RPI Invitational.

Sean

 

[gfmorris]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

The CHA RS champion Niagara in 2000 also won the league tournament and made the NCAAs as an at-large. The only other RS champion to win the league tournament before 2004 was Wayne State in 2002, This brings up the question of how many RS champions also won their league tournament titles, but that will have to wait for another day.

That's an exercise for the interested student!

GFM

 

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Since there was no objective measurement your statement is just an opinion and I'm only dealing with historical facts. If someone runs the numbers for the the 1982-83 season that would give an objective measurement to determine if your opinion is true that would be great, but even then there likely would be debate. I looked at Bowling Green's schedule and results for that season and the first thing I noticed was the insular scheduling of the CCHA, with 32 of 36 games being league contests. Of the four non-conference games Bowling Green played they lost and tied Wisconsin at home, and lost to DII Lowell and defeated Brown at the RPI Invitational.

Sean

Here are some other facts you overlooked. On selection Sunday that year BG was the #2 ranked team in the nation and Duluth was not ahead of us. We’d been #1 earlier in the year. We ended the year 28-8-4 and had the leading scorer in the nation. All this while Duluth was 2 games above .500 in oWCHA league play and didn’t win their conference tourney either.

Agree that it's my opinion we got jobbed that year because there was no objective measure in place at that time. Had there been, your table would look different. Good news is that we paid everyone back for the snub the following year.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

By conference the MAAC/Atlantic Hockey has 13; the CHA had 7; the ECAC has 7; the WCHA has 3; Hockey East has 2; the B1G has 1; and the CCHA had 1.

Sean

You could put an asterisk next to RIT in 2007. They were not eligible for the NCAA post-season. That was their first year in Atlantic Hockey and the second year transitioning from D-III.