Birdwatcher
Registered User
Re: Regional Rankings
**The individual conference may do such if it is their preference !
**The individual conference may do such if it is their preference !
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.
Regional Rankings
- Thread starter NEHockey92
- Start date
Re: Regional Rankings
Pool B is intended to give the teams that don't have an AQ the same opportunity as teams with a qualifying Conference. The number of Pool B bids is determined by using the same ratio as there are Pool A bids to schools. Total the number of Schools in Qualifying Conferences divide by the the number of Pool A bids. That number is called the access ratio, and that ratio determines the number of Pool B schools it takes for a pool B slot. Right now there are 65 teams in 7 Pool A conferences. That means the access ratio is 65:7 = 9.28:1. There is one Pool B slot available for every 9.28 MIAC, UCHC, and Independent teams. Since there. are 9 + 5 + 2 = 16 such teams, there is one Pool B slot (The NCAA usually truncates rather than rounds for these calculations , as 16/9.28 = 1.72.
When the UCHC gets its Pool A status, the access ratio will be 74:8 = 9.25, and since there will only be 7 Pool B schools, the Pool B bid will go away.
Pool B is intended to give the teams that don't have an AQ the same opportunity as teams with a qualifying Conference. The number of Pool B bids is determined by using the same ratio as there are Pool A bids to schools. Total the number of Schools in Qualifying Conferences divide by the the number of Pool A bids. That number is called the access ratio, and that ratio determines the number of Pool B schools it takes for a pool B slot. Right now there are 65 teams in 7 Pool A conferences. That means the access ratio is 65:7 = 9.28:1. There is one Pool B slot available for every 9.28 MIAC, UCHC, and Independent teams. Since there. are 9 + 5 + 2 = 16 such teams, there is one Pool B slot (The NCAA usually truncates rather than rounds for these calculations , as 16/9.28 = 1.72.
When the UCHC gets its Pool A status, the access ratio will be 74:8 = 9.25, and since there will only be 7 Pool B schools, the Pool B bid will go away.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Regional Rankings
Rings a bell, thanks.
I'm guessing that the upcoming elimination of Pool B will have close to zero effect on the field's selection, since, in a typical year, the Pool B selection would seem very likely to garner a Pool C, regardless.
(I do like the fact that Pool B's elimination kinda streamlines the process.)
Rings a bell, thanks.
I'm guessing that the upcoming elimination of Pool B will have close to zero effect on the field's selection, since, in a typical year, the Pool B selection would seem very likely to garner a Pool C, regardless.
(I do like the fact that Pool B's elimination kinda streamlines the process.)
Last edited:
GB Puck Fan
It's A Great Day For Hockey
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Regional Rankings
If there was no Pool B this year, Point would easily get in via Pool C anyway, IMO... I don't think Pool B will be missed in any meaningful way going forward.
If there was no Pool B this year, Point would easily get in via Pool C anyway, IMO... I don't think Pool B will be missed in any meaningful way going forward.
Re: Regional Rankings
WIAC has 5 teams, the post UCHC pool B eligible teams are the 5 WIAC teams and 2 independents. They fall automatically into Pool C
WIAC has 5 teams, the post UCHC pool B eligible teams are the 5 WIAC teams and 2 independents. They fall automatically into Pool C
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Regional Rankings
Pretty sure that's what I said...Point would get a Pool C in any case, this year.
Pretty sure that's what I said...Point would get a Pool C in any case, this year.
Re: Regional Rankings
(for once) not disagreeing with you, but clarifying for the person who posted "wiac?"
(for once) not disagreeing with you, but clarifying for the person who posted "wiac?"
GB Puck Fan
It's A Great Day For Hockey
Re: Regional Rankings
my point was in the post was reference to the MIAC, UCHC and independent teams competing for Pool B.
IIRC, MIAC has an AQ. And perhaps that was supposed to be a WIAC reference
my point was in the post was reference to the MIAC, UCHC and independent teams competing for Pool B.
IIRC, MIAC has an AQ. And perhaps that was supposed to be a WIAC reference
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Regional Rankings
Imagine every single team, irrespective of any conference affiliation, competing via a statistically-valid continuum... Is that really completely impossible? (Of course it isn't! This cluster-fu3k D-3 chooses to embrace is of its own making.)
And, the field wouldn't be much different in that Utopian scenario than it would be anyway, via the current process... But, no team would feel "screwed", because the metics would be transparent and defensible. (And, in most years, most every conference would get a representative in, just the same.)
So, why not?
Imagine every single team, irrespective of any conference affiliation, competing via a statistically-valid continuum... Is that really completely impossible? (Of course it isn't! This cluster-fu3k D-3 chooses to embrace is of its own making.)
And, the field wouldn't be much different in that Utopian scenario than it would be anyway, via the current process... But, no team would feel "screwed", because the metics would be transparent and defensible. (And, in most years, most every conference would get a representative in, just the same.)
So, why not?
Last edited:
GB Puck Fan
It's A Great Day For Hockey
Re: Regional Rankings
OK, once again - this IS NOT a D3 hockey thing. (Unless I am missing your point somewhere.) All NCAA team sports but D1 football do this... Your (uphill) battle may be bigger than you think.
OK, once again - this IS NOT a D3 hockey thing. (Unless I am missing your point somewhere.) All NCAA team sports but D1 football do this... Your (uphill) battle may be bigger than you think.
Last edited:
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Regional Rankings
D-1 hockey employs an objective measure to fill-out most of its field, for example, and even big-money D-1 hoops publicly cites the RPI when selecting AL's -of which there are many- and FCS football's process isn't anywhere as near as murky as D-3's hockey is... It's really doesn't amount to rocket-science, to make things more objective across the board in all college sports.
To argue against that progress smacks of some version of the old-boy-network/sports-gerrymandering mindset. Why anyone would resist the prospect of a more level playing-field is truly beyond me.
The better teams will still get in, FCS, not to worry, but no truly deserving team will be left-out for some mysterious "reason"
D-1 hockey employs an objective measure to fill-out most of its field, for example, and even big-money D-1 hoops publicly cites the RPI when selecting AL's -of which there are many- and FCS football's process isn't anywhere as near as murky as D-3's hockey is... It's really doesn't amount to rocket-science, to make things more objective across the board in all college sports.
To argue against that progress smacks of some version of the old-boy-network/sports-gerrymandering mindset. Why anyone would resist the prospect of a more level playing-field is truly beyond me.
The better teams will still get in, FCS, not to worry, but no truly deserving team will be left-out for some mysterious "reason"
Last edited:
GB Puck Fan
It's A Great Day For Hockey
Re: Regional Rankings
What is not obective (or objective enough) about these:
Win-lost percentage against Division III opponents (WIN)
Division III head-to-head results (H2H)
Results versus common Division III opponents (COP)
Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included (RNK)
Division III strength of schedule (SOS)*
What is not obective (or objective enough) about these:
Win-lost percentage against Division III opponents (WIN)
Division III head-to-head results (H2H)
Results versus common Division III opponents (COP)
Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference postseason contests are included (RNK)
Division III strength of schedule (SOS)*
GB Puck Fan
It's A Great Day For Hockey
Looking at this criteria for NCAA selection Salve and UNE have to be a lock no matter what happens next weekend in the CCC finals. Their numbers are just too good. If Salve or UNE are matched up against either Trinity or Geneseo for a pool C salve/UNE get in. Neither Trinity or Geneseo have beaten anyone this year. Look at their schedules.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Regional Rankings
There's a couple of things...
1. "RNK" has an arbitrary "cliff" involved, and no such cliff makes any statistical sense. For example, say SNC was 23-1 this year, but was 0-1 via "RNK"... It would lose a lot -or perhaps all- of the "RNK" comparisons, even with a stellar SOS. Dumb. Every comparison needs to be made along a continuum that includes every single team and every single game. Otherwise, the process smacks of cherry-picking.
2. And,as far as I know, there's still a set of fungible "secondary criteria", which the committee can employ with impunity, thus rendering the entire primary criteria moot... That begs the question: Why even bother with the smoke-screen in the first place?
There's a couple of things...
1. "RNK" has an arbitrary "cliff" involved, and no such cliff makes any statistical sense. For example, say SNC was 23-1 this year, but was 0-1 via "RNK"... It would lose a lot -or perhaps all- of the "RNK" comparisons, even with a stellar SOS. Dumb. Every comparison needs to be made along a continuum that includes every single team and every single game. Otherwise, the process smacks of cherry-picking.
2. And,as far as I know, there's still a set of fungible "secondary criteria", which the committee can employ with impunity, thus rendering the entire primary criteria moot... That begs the question: Why even bother with the smoke-screen in the first place?
Last edited:
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
Wrong.. keep trying
GB Puck Fan
It's A Great Day For Hockey
Re: Regional Rankings
How would you have 23 wins and a "stellar" SOS and only play one ranked opponent?
How would you have 23 wins and a "stellar" SOS and only play one ranked opponent?