The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

As much as we don't like the math behind RPI and PWR, where the system really broke down is where the committee was forced to ignore the math and prioritize travel. Is it possible to replace the "flawed" math by a better system and see improvement in the bracket if a financial override is still present?

I agreed with you when I started this thread, but after further analysis, I believe that preventing four flights in most circumstances will not lead to a flawed bracket.

If we used KRACH instead of RPI, the top 3 WCHA top teams would be hosting, and we wouldn't have to worry about them being paired with each other.

The committee could then have chosen one of the two brackets for three flights

(7) North Dakota @ (1) Wisconsin
(5) Mercyhurst @ (4) UMD

(8) BC @ (2) Cornell
(6) BU @ (3) Minnesota

OR

(8) BC @ (1) Wisconsin
(5) Mercyhurst @ (4) UMD

(6) BU @ (2) Cornell
(7) North Dakota @ (3) Minnesota

I believe the latter bracket would be fairer to protect the top seed.

 

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

So to summarize my position:

I believe the funding for women's hockey to seed all 8 teams is simply politically infeasible. From the NCAA's perspective, women's hockey is already getting special treatment by having 50% of its bracket seeded while most non-revenue sports have only 25% of their bracket seeded.

In term of politically feasible reforms, I believe no time is better than now to try to petition the committee to replace the RPI with a better system like KRACH or Rutter, and I believe this addresses most of the problems with we all had with the committee this year.

The present committee makeup is uniquely favorable towards adopting this reform. WCHA representatives make up half the committee and clearly most benefit from the reform, and undoubtedly they are furious about the outcome this year. Hockey East is unusually unrepresented in the committee and at the moment has the most to lose from the reform.

The NCAA's institutional support for the RPI is vast, but I don't believe it's unsurmountable. I think this convincing case we need to make is that women's hockey is unique relative to men's hockey and other NCAA sports in terms of the dominance of one conference in NCAA play and the lack of nonconference games played between this conference and the other top two leagues. This makes the problems in the RPI more problematic than in any other sport. The women's hockey committee should be taking the institutional lead in pursuing a more sophisticated method.

 

[ARM]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

The committee could then have chosen one of the two brackets for three flights

... OR

(8) BC @ (1) Wisconsin
(5) Mercyhurst @ (4) UMD

(6) BU @ (2) Cornell
(7) North Dakota @ (3) Minnesota

I believe the latter bracket would be fairer to protect the top seed.

I agree that this would be the better bracket for the case in question, especially because UND is most likely always going to be a bus trip to Minnesota anyway.

Maybe part of the reason that the NCAA doesn't like something like KRACH is there isn't as much wiggle room. If the computer numbers say 1 thru 4 should be hosting, then it isn't as easy to slide teams around and avoid a perfect storm as far as maximum travel cost. If the computer has a top 4 of Mercyhurst and 3 WCHA teams, those airline miles are going to add up.

 

[ARM]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

In term of politically feasible reforms, I believe no time is better than now to try to petition the committee to replace the RPI with a better system like KRACH or Rutter, and I believe this addresses most of the problems with we all had with the committee this year.

I see. Your solution, while it may still be vulnerable to travel constraints causing shuffling at the bottom, at least prevents the problem of the #1 seed getting stuck with the 4th-best team, disguised by the PWR as the 7th-best team. Do we have archives of the KRACH rankings for past years? It may be useful to look at how KRACH would have ranked the fields and what bracketing/travel problems would have resulted in those cases.

 

[scrambledlegs]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

From the NCAA's perspective, women's hockey is already getting special treatment by having 50% of its bracket seeded while most non-revenue sports have only 25% of their bracket seeded.

Dave, can you explain this comment? What is good about getting 50% seeded? My brain power is on 0.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

women's hockey is not a revenue-generating sport. baseball is. end of story. Committee will not pay for 4 flights.

In the big financial picture of the NCAA, flying 2 teams or 4 teams equals .001% of the total operating costs of the NCAA organization. Surely the integrity of the tournament is worth that.

 

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

In the big financial picture of the NCAA, flying 2 teams or 4 teams equals .001% of the total operating costs of the NCAA organization. Surely the integrity of the tournament is worth that.

You're missing the bigger picture. If a sport like women's hockey gets 100% of its bracket seeded, other non-revenue sports will cry out, "why are we only getting 25% of our bracket seeded while women's hockey gets 100%?" So the cost-benefit analysis isn't so simple.

 

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

Dave, can you explain this comment? What is good about getting 50% seeded? My brain power is on 0.

Most non-revenue sports have 25% of the bracket seeded. This means that the bracket only guarantees the top 2 teams do not play each other.

If women's hockey actually only had 25% of its bracket seeded, and the NCAA truly paired everyone by geography, you could get a scenario where the 2 seed plays the 3 seed. In fact we were all very fearful of this in 2005 when the WCHA had the top 3 teams in the polls.

The NCAA officially got 50% of the bracket seeded a year or two later and this guaranteed that the top 4 couldn't play each other.

Now in practice the NCAA has done something better than seed the top 4 teams. If you go strictly by the handbook, the NCAA should be pairing every WCHA team in 5-8 with every WCHA team 1-4 every year. That's not what's happening. Look at 2009, when UMD was allowed to play at UNH rather than Minnesota. So they are maintaining some tradeoffs between flights and bracket integrity, but they won't go as far as flying four teams which would be a de facto seeding 100% of the bracket. They are de facto seeding something between 50 and 100% of the bracket by allowing for three flights in some years.

 

[ARM]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

The NCAA officially got 50% of the bracket seeded a year or two later and this guaranteed that the top 4 couldn't play each other.

Which goes to your point regarding KRACH -- if you ensure that the top 4 don't open against each other, it is important to get the top 4 right.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

So to summarize my position:

In term of politically feasible reforms, I believe no time is better than now to try to petition the committee to replace the RPI with a better system like KRACH or Rutter, and I believe this addresses most of the problems with we all had with the committee this year.

The present committee makeup is uniquely favorable towards adopting this reform. WCHA representatives make up half the committee and clearly most benefit from the reform, and undoubtedly they are furious about the outcome this year. Hockey East is unusually unrepresented in the committee and at the moment has the most to lose from the reform.

The NCAA's institutional support for the RPI is vast, but I don't believe it's unsurmountable. I think this convincing case we need to make is that women's hockey is unique relative to men's hockey and other NCAA sports in terms of the dominance of one conference in NCAA play and the lack of nonconference games played between this conference and the other top two leagues. This makes the problems in the RPI more problematic than in any other sport. The women's hockey committee should be taking the institutional lead in pursuing a more sophisticated method.

So why are KRACH or Rutter better than RPI given that they will have the same issues with lack of nonconference games played between the WCHA and ECAC or Hockey East?

Instead of trying to fix the lack of games between conferences through different computer rankings maybe the WCHA teams should schedule more ECAC or Hockey East teams. This season WCHA teams played only 6 games vs the ECAC and 8 vs Hockey East, just 14 out of a total of 48 nc games available to WCHA teams. Another 25 were scheduled against CHA teams and 9 nc games were left unfilled (4 by Minnesota-Duluth).

As for KRACH or Rutter replacing RPI, has anyone actually run the Pairwise rankings with those components in place of RPI? Otherwise comparing KRACH and Rutter to the Pairwise in apples to oranges. Or are you suggesting that the Pairwise be completely replaced?

Finally, I hope that any changes that are made are done so with due deliberation, the input of all the DI coaches and with their strong overall support.

Sean

 

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

So why are KRACH or Rutter better than RPI given that they will have the same issues with lack of nonconference games played between the WCHA and ECAC or Hockey East?

Read everything I've written in this thread about the bias towards parity. KRACH and Rutter will at least rank teams better given the small sample of nonconference games.

As for KRACH or Rutter replacing RPI, has anyone actually run the Pairwise rankings with those components in place of RPI? Otherwise comparing KRACH and Rutter to the Pairwise in apples to oranges.

Yes and no. Since KRACH and Rutter are better than RPI, they tend to coincide more with the other PairWise criteria.

Or are you suggesting that the Pairwise be completely replaced?

No.

Finally, I hope that any changes that are made are done so with due deliberation

agreed

the input of all the DI coaches and with their strong overall support.

I don't necessarily agree if some coaches take a self-interested position against a fair reform and we're stuck with the status quo

 

[ARM]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

Instead of trying to fix the lack of games between conferences through different computer rankings maybe the WCHA teams should schedule more ECAC or Hockey East teams. This season WCHA teams played only 6 games vs the ECAC and 8 vs Hockey East, just 14 out of a total of 48 nc games available to WCHA teams. Another 25 were scheduled against CHA teams and 9 nc games were left unfilled (4 by Minnesota-Duluth).

Two of the 9 were caused when Maine canceled a scheduled trip to St. Cloud and Minneapolis.

 

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

Two of the 9 were caused when Maine canceled a scheduled trip to St. Cloud and Minneapolis.

And given that BC and BU both split with Maine, that took away an opportunity for Minnesota.

 

[hockeyfan111]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

A long shot for a Constructive idea to improve this situation would be to address the expense associated with Women's Hockey games. Why not go back to 1 referee and 2 linesmen for all regular and post season games; take the savings associated with the second referee and pool it. use the pool money to eliminate the restriction of travel associated with the top 8 teams that are part of the tournament. i've never seen anyone on this board indicate that the second referee brings any added value to the games; in fact most indicate the second referee causes more problems. so it would be a win-win-win situation. improve the regular season games, free up needed funds and allow the proper teams to play one another in the NCAA tournament.

 

[D2D]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

A long shot for a Constructive idea to improve this situation would be to address the expense associated with Women's Hockey games. Why not go back to 1 referee and 2 linesmen for all regular and post season games; take the savings associated with the second referee and pool it. use the pool money to eliminate the restriction of travel associated with the top 8 teams that are part of the tournament. i've never seen anyone on this board indicate that the second referee brings any added value to the games; in fact most indicate the second referee causes more problems. so it would be a win-win-win situation. improve the regular season games, free up needed funds and allow the proper teams to play one another in the NCAA tournament.

Just doing some very quick and rough math, using $100 (?) per game for the second ref that would be eliminated (and considering all D1 games played over the course of a season) it would appear that the savings would be more than enough to cover two extra flights for the quarterfinals. Especially true when you consider that in many years you would only have to save enough to fund one extra flight.

Great suggestion, but it probably makes way too much sense for the NCAA to ever adopt it.

 

[Hux]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

A long shot for a Constructive idea to improve this situation would be to address the expense associated with Women's Hockey games. Why not go back to 1 referee and 2 linesmen for all regular and post season games; take the savings associated with the second referee and pool it. use the pool money to eliminate the restriction of travel associated with the top 8 teams that are part of the tournament. i've never seen anyone on this board indicate that the second referee brings any added value to the games; in fact most indicate the second referee causes more problems. so it would be a win-win-win situation. improve the regular season games, free up needed funds and allow the proper teams to play one another in the NCAA tournament.

Not to mention it would be the GREEN thing to do, taking another car off the road. (Hmmmm, I wonder if travel expenses are included in the cost of a ref doing a game? I know quite a few of the refs are from the Boston area, so a trip to Dartmouth, Vermont, Maine, RPI, Quinny and Yale etc can rack up the miles)

However, it is the leagues that hire the refs. I doubt the leagues would want to blow any savings on helping the NCAA pay for travel costs.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

You're missing the bigger picture. If a sport like women's hockey gets 100% of its bracket seeded, other non-revenue sports will cry out, "why are we only getting 25% of our bracket seeded while women's hockey gets 100%?" So the cost-benefit analysis isn't so simple.

Every non revenue tourney should be 100% seeded. How much would that cost the ncaa? They can afford it.

 

[Skate79]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

A long shot for a Constructive idea to improve this situation would be to address the expense associated with Women's Hockey games. Why not go back to 1 referee and 2 linesmen for all regular and post season games; take the savings associated with the second referee and pool it. use the pool money to eliminate the restriction of travel associated with the top 8 teams that are part of the tournament. i've never seen anyone on this board indicate that the second referee brings any added value to the games; in fact most indicate the second referee causes more problems. so it would be a win-win-win situation. improve the regular season games, free up needed funds and allow the proper teams to play one another in the NCAA tournament.

I like the idea. But isn't the problem centered squarely at the feet of the different rating metrics? What is the value of Pairwise or KRACH or RPI if that isn't the prevailing measuring stick for seeding? I'm not sure eliminating a ref just to add money to the kitty effectively addresses these ongoing concerns. How can you tell a school like North Dakota that they don't qualify yet Dartmouth is in even though they didn't win their conference tournament, finished third in their conference and had wins against Providence, Vermont and Connecticut outside their conference (hardly world beaters). Okay, they beat Cornell but one win against a Top 8 team gets you a #7 seed?? Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[dave1381]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

My understanding is that the flight budgeting were talking about isn't one part of the "NCAA women's hockey budget" but rather one part of the "NCAA championships budget." So we can't just figure out some way to save money in women's hockey and then allocate that to the women's hockey championship. As for whether NCAA could afford to fully seed every one of its brackets... I have no idea what the budget impact would be for that, but it's probably not the first priority.

Really, three flights have served this tournament pretty well most years. The only time where I might feel 4 would be good would be a year in which 4 WCHA teams make the tourney, which has never happened, and I wouldn't have had a problem with a 3 seed Minnesota drawing a 7 seed North Dakota this season. (I do think I'd like to see some priority against conference tournament retreads)

So while I'd certainly love to have 4 flights, if I had to pick one change to the system, that wouldn't be it.

Sending the No 7 seed instead No 8 to the No 1 team is only really a disaster if the No 7 team really should have been No 4 or 5, as was the case this season.

 

[whoop87]

Re: The Thread for Constructive Ideas for Improving the NCAA D-I Selection Process

I agree that NoDak played a tougher schedule and was surprised that Darty got the nod over them for the 8th spot. But as David DeRemer pointed out in the last item in his blog, Darty had the edge in RPI and the same win percentage vs. teams in the RPI top 12. Had NoDak swept Vermont, they probably would have gotten in - I will let somebody else crunch the math there. Darty finished 1 point behind 2nd place Harvard in the ECAC standings but had a superior overall record when compared to the Crimson. As for records against the Top 8 (not a criteria used for selection mind you) Harvard was 2-8, Quinnipiac 1-4-1, Dartmouth 1-3, and North Dakota 6-9. If Top 8 record was a criteria then NoDak would be in - no argument there.