What's new
By:
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.

Selection Show

Re: Selection Show

It has been mentioned before in this forum that the NCAA is not bound by Title IX.

I think it is a low moral standard for the NCAA to not work hard for the non revenue sports. Just because they don't spend as much money and resources as they do for basketball and football is not an excuse to do a bad job for other sports. They are not meeting a minimum ethical obligation if they don't have someone in their organization who cares about each sport in each gender and do a quality job that meets a reasonable standard.
 
Re: Selection Show

TonyTheTiger20 said:
Holy hell, Wednesday women is a must-read this week:

http://www.uscho.com/2016/03/09/wednesday-women-puzzling-pairings/

That is some scathing stuff right there
Click to expand...

I enjoyed it, most of all the part about trying to market the quarterfinals.

The line about Sarah smoking something was a bit over the line though... that's plausibly inappropriate for this board let alone the column.

Really, it's the tired intraconference matchups that is the No. 1 problem with this tournament by far. Details about how the selection criteria are applied are far less interesting.

Again, the year we cared the least about bracket integrity was 2007, and all we got were the best quarterfinals ever.
 
Re: Selection Show

KTDC said:
It has been mentioned before in this forum that the NCAA is not bound by Title IX.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that's a technicality. The member institutions are and get benefits from the NCAA.

But it's PR that matters a lot more for the NCAA in promoting women's championships than the law anyway.

As I post annually, the NCAA has a uniform rule about travel and profitable championships, and the only D-I sport where the men's championship is profitable and women's is not is D-I hockey. (though technically women's is a National Collegiate championship, but whatever). Probably the biggest obstacle to getting more funding is threat other sports will use it to demand more travel funds too, but the unique position of women's D-I hockey relative to men's is a good rationale for it even within the existing NCAA bureaucracy and mission and constraints.
 
Re: Selection Show

dave1381 said:
The line about Sarah smoking something was a bit over the line though....
Click to expand...

I think she would have been better off going with Midol. seriously, this entire thread and her rant is making a mountain out of a molehill.
the column was entertaining though
best read here since that guy got snockered and posted about goalies a few weeks back
 
Re: Selection Show

somebody please explain how a team that doesn't have any wins over a top ten team, didn't win their conference, and couldn't even make it to their conference tournament final even belong in the tournament.
 
Re: Selection Show

pokechecker said:
somebody please explain how a team that doesn't have any wins over a top ten team, didn't win their conference, and couldn't even make it to their conference tournament final even belong in the tournament.
Click to expand...

I can't. Plus, they are matched up with a team that has beat them 4 times in a row this season. If NE wins and BC goes home this weekend, it will be bizarro world.
 
Re: Selection Show

clarksoncluck said:
I guess it was a bit of a rant. Butttttttt, every year the girls it the road every 2nd weekish and it may even be on a Wed for a Friday game, miss classes and have to set up alternative solutions to deadlines or classes missed. Some of the girls participate with national teams and miss even more. A friend of mine had a daughter play with one of the Ivy's and was concerned over the amount of time she missed. Over the course of 4 years he believed that she had missed the equivalent of close to a semester. If she had been been with a national program that would have escalated her time away. What really is the purpose of attending any of these schools. He was paying the whole shot for the Ivy school (63 K USD/year).

As the columnists wrote today, hockey is low on the NCAA's radar. If you play in the CWHL you get zip! If you play in the NWHL you get on average 15 K.

Hardly enough to call a wise career decision moving forward.

A different friend (who does have a son playing in the Shell) mentioned to me once that there are 40 paying leagues in the world for guys.

What is the most important focus for these young women? Hockey? It is a means to an ends (career) not an ends (hockey). Sad reality but true.

Sorry for ranting before and maybe still, but these girls (players) can't bank on the the boys with money to take care of them after their NCAA careers are over.

It's just over.
Click to expand...
These are important issues. Though I don't agree with your views 100%, you have many good thoughts. But do they connect with the issue at hand?

  • If the question is whether a player should compete at the D-1 or D-3 level, sure: Take all of the above into account.
  • If the question is whether a young woman -- admitted to an elite school, paying her own way -- should participate in intercollegiate sports at all, again: Take all of the above into account. Intramurals and/or Physical Education courses may well be a better fit than D-1 athletics in that case.
  • But if we're looking at the narrower question of playoff format, I still say there's little to no relevance. It now has zero relevance to PuckRush's proposal, given the amendment. PuckRush's latest would cut games, not add.

That said, let me join you on your tangent for a moment. Most extracurricular activities are unlikely to lead directly to high paying jobs after college. This concern certainly isn't limited to sports. Extracurriculars do, however, create real networking opportunities. They also add significantly to a student's quality of life. Both of those things are difficult to quantify, but ought to be in the mix when deciding whether or not to participate.

At an even more basic level: If you need to see a direct link between every time expenditure during the college years and future career prospects, quite a few academic pursuits must also be eliminated from consideration.
 
Last edited:
Re: Selection Show

pgb-ohio said:
These are important issues. Though I don't agree with your views 100%, you have many good thoughts. But do they connect with the issue at hand?

  • If the question is whether a player should compete at the D-1 or D-3 level, sure: Take all of the above into account.
  • If the question is whether a young woman -- admitted to an elite school, paying her own way -- should participate in intercollegiate sports at all, again: Take all of the above into account. Intramurals and/or Physical Education courses may well be a better fit than D-1 athletics in that case.
  • But if we're looking at the narrower question of playoff format, I still say there's little to no relevance. It now has zero relevance to PuckRush's proposal, given the amendment. PuckRush's latest would cut games, not add.

That said, let me join you on your tangent for a moment. Most extracurricular activities are unlikely to lead directly to high paying jobs after college. This concern certainly isn't limited to sports. Extracurriculars do, however, create real networking opportunities. They also add significantly to a student's quality of life. Both of those things are difficult to quantify, but ought to be in the mix when deciding whether or not to participate.

At an even more basic level: If you need to see a direct link between every time expenditure during the college years and future career prospects, quite a few academic pursuits must also be eliminated from consideration.
Click to expand...

I am officially a fan of pgb-ohio. One note: I know of employers who love to hire college athletes. Many of the skills (not the actual sport skill) they acquire participating in college sports are useful and transferable to the workplace. Examples: Time management, dedication, teamwork, etc.
 
Re: Selection Show

Blackbeard said:
After all, didn't she say that she was extremely pleased with the resulting matchups this year?
Click to expand...
I know she was interviewed on the selection show after the bracket came out but I was too busy frantically fixing my bracket announcement article to notice what she said lol
 
Re: Selection Show

TonyTheTiger20 said:
I know she was interviewed on the selection show after the bracket came out but I was too busy frantically fixing my bracket announcement article to notice what she said lol
Click to expand...

So there is no confusion, that is exactly what she said.

Maybe someone should ask her exactly what it was about the resulting matchups that caused her to be extremely pleased.
 
Re: Selection Show

you people crack me up

you spent all year complaining how wrong RPI is
then the NC$$ agrees and seemingly changes the formula, and now you are pizzed they didn't follow RPI
 
Re: Selection Show

Okay, we have heard all the opinions, grips, complaints, etc. Part of it is the screwed up selection process the NCAA uses, and all the rating schemes, PariWise, RPI, Krach, SOS, etc. No matter which of these schemes the NCAA uses not everybody will be happy so they probably aren’t going to change much. Part of it the East/West issue. The conferences probably aren’t going to change either, as Brian Idalski suggested the East has 3 votes to the West’s 1.

So putting all the current complaints and biases aside lets look at a rather radical approach.

There are 4 conferences, call them A, B, C and D. Each conference selects it’s number 1 and number 2 teams. They can do this selection any way the conference chooses, a tournament, season won/lost record, conference record, coaches pole, lottery, whatever. The teams are designated A1, A2, B1, B2, etc. Home ice goes to the #1s in the quarter finals. Semi-finals and final played at a designated site.

The number one teams are seeded by overall season win/lose record. Assume, for this discussion, that the team from conference A has the best win/lose record, the team from conference B has the second best win/lose record, etc. So the #1 seed goes to A1, the #2 seed goes to B1, #3 seed to C1 and #4 seed goes to D1. The A1 and D1 teams are placed in the upper bracket and B1 and C1 are placed in the lower bracket.
Next B2 and C2 are placed in the upper bracket with A1 and D1 and A2 and D2 are placed in the lower bracket. If B2 has a better won/lost record than C2, B2 will play D1 in the quarter final game, otherwise they will play A1. Use the same process for A2 and D2 in the lower bracket.

So this year the brackets would be as follows: (Assuming I did this correctly!)

Upper Bracket
Boston College (A1) vs Clarkson (C2)
Mercyhurst (D1) vs Minnesota (B2)

Lower Bracket
Wisconsin (B1) vs Syracuse (D2)
Quinnipiac (C1) vs Northeastern (A2)

Have at it!! Let the teams decide the outcome.

Benefits:
Strictly objective bracket placement. No selection committee BS.
No intra conference match ups until the final.
If two teams from the same conference end up in the final game, so be it.
NCAA wouldn’t be getting crap about the process.
Much less fan gripping.
No conference could send 3 teams to the tournament.

Negatives:
Teams could schedule weaker teams to improve there season win/lose records. Some say they already do.
More air travel.
A weaker team could get in the tournament. They already can with the auto-bid.
No conference could send 3 teams to the tournament.
Not everyone will be happy.
 
Re: Selection Show

pgb-Ohio nails the thought I had.....no matter the extra-curricular activity you enjoy during college, it's the networking that pays off.....every NHL'er that either played or was front office, their job after hockey was formulated on someone they met during their experiences with hockey....our society craves sports and athletes so when at a party for whatever and you meet someone from an endeavor that is coveted, you get excited and remember that person.....a former teammate, who played for the B's now sells pharmaceuticals.......yea he studied a lot for that career! As for athletes having the "right stuff", absolutely plus they don't smoke cigarettes as a rule and take a break every 1/2 hour....
 
Re: Selection Show

PuckRush said:
I am officially a fan of pgb-ohio. One note: I know of employers who love to hire college athletes. Many of the skills (not the actual sport skill) they acquire participating in college sports are useful and transferable to the workplace. Examples: Time management, dedication, teamwork, etc.
Click to expand...

Not to mention....have you SEEN how many of these STUDENT ATHLETES are ACADEMIC ALL-AMERICANS??? Who would not want a SMART woman with an excellent work ethic, time management skills and a sense of team????
 
Re: Selection Show

To borrow a quote from Monty Python...let's stop bickering and arguing over who plays who.....Tournaments should be a HAPPY occasion. Seriously, if WE ALL WANT women's hockey to THRIVE and the NCAA to give a ....well, to CARE - we need to make it a priority to get butts in seats! Check the statistics page on the USCHO website. Top 4 teams are all WCHA with Minnesota and Wisconsin leading the way at an average of 2000 fans per game!! Hate to say it to all you great fans in the East but - your numbers are pathetic. I know I am preaching to the choir here because everyone on this thread is a DEVOTED FAN of women's hockey. Just sayin' - we all need keep thinking about what we can do to keep the sport thriving! I was at a conference in Boston one year in February. My spouse and I decided to go to the Harvard versus Brown women's game on a Saturday night to support the teams. We had a blast - and the Harvard fans were very hospitable even though we were GWH supporters.
 
CANative said:
Seriously, if WE ALL WANT women's hockey to THRIVE and the NCAA to give a ....well, to CARE - we need to make it a priority to get butts in seats! Check the statistics page on the USCHO website. Top 4 teams are all WCHA with Minnesota and Wisconsin leading the way at an average of 2000 fans per game!! Hate to say it to all you great fans in the East but - your numbers are pathetic.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this. It's sad that RIT had the best attendance out of eastern schools last year and was third this year despite how poorly we did in the regular season. I think that could also be a factor in the BC-NE game they maybe wanted to improve attendance for that game and with both in close proximity maybe more Northeastern fans travel for this game then they would have if they were sent out to Minnesota. It just another theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top