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

Had NoDak swept Vermont, they probably would have gotten in - I will let somebody else crunch the math there.

Yes. First, the common opponents criterion would've been a draw. Second, going from a tie to a win against any opponent in the RPI for a team with 36 games boosts your RPI by .0040 roughly, and that would have been enough to put North Dakota over Dartmouth.

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.

I also believe that up until Dartmouth beat Cornell, there was some room to consider North Dakota's results vs. the RPI top 12 as being superior, since maybe up until then North Dakota had clearly beaten the stronger opponents. But once Dartmouth had that win, Dartmouth had a win over the No. 2 team, UND was 0-5 against the No. 1 team and its best win was over the No. 5 team (though I believe Minnesota is more like No. 3), so the case for North Dakota over Dartmouth based on this criterion became much less persuasive.

 

[IceIsNice]

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

(though I believe Minnesota is more like No. 3)

OMG, it just doesn't stop! You're a road team, deal with it!

 

[brookyone]

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

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.

I have a couple suggestions when it comes to which particular WCHA officials we could focus our money savings effort on.

 

[dave1381]

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

OMG, it just doesn't stop! You're a road team, deal with it!

I was just being clear I was providing the NCAA's ranking for Minnesota, the only what that matters for evaluating North Dakota's value in beating them, and not either my own or the human polls' or the sophisticated statistical methods'. That's all. I was trying to pre-emptively avoid a reply whining that Minnesota should've been No. 3. Instead I guess I became that whiner myself.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

I also believe that up until Dartmouth beat Cornell, there was some room to consider North Dakota's results vs. the RPI top 12 as being superior, since maybe up until then North Dakota had clearly beaten the stronger opponents. But once Dartmouth had that win, Dartmouth had a win over the No. 2 team, UND was 0-5 against the No. 1 team and its best win was over the No. 5 team (though I believe Minnesota is more like No. 3), so the case for North Dakota over Dartmouth based on this criterion became much less persuasive.

North Dakota won a game against #3 seeded Boston University. I know you consider Hockey East teams inferior to WCHA teams, but the pairwise and NCAA selection committee, with 2 WCHA representatives, both disagree with you.

That said, the WCHA teams need to play more games against Hockey East and the ECAC. You yourself state "as the number of conference games gets larger, the nonconference game becomes insignificant" and yet the WCHA with 28 conference games is the league that plays the most. Hockey East plays 21, the ECAC plays 22 and the CHA plays just 16. So as far as I can see it is the WCHA that is causing the problem with too few non-conference games.

This year the WCHA went 5-2-1 head-to-head vs Hockey East with 5 games at WCHA rinks (3-2 WCHA), 1 neutral (1-0 WCHA) and 2 at Hockey East rinks (1-0-1 WCHA). Because this sample is so small I looked at how each league did vs the CHA as the WCHA played 25 games and Hockey East played 21 games against it. When you compare how each league did it is almost a dead draw, with Hockey East being slightly better going 12-7-2 (0.619) and the WCHA going 14-9-2 (0.600). These results would indicate that if the WCHA and Hockey East played more games we might see Hockey East teams doing quite well vs the WCHA teams. Until that time we only have the various computer rankings that all weigh the same results differently.

Sean

 

[brookyone]

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

That said, the WCHA teams need to play more games against Hockey East and the ECAC. You yourself state "as the number of conference games gets larger, the nonconference game becomes insignificant" and yet the WCHA with 28 conference games is the league that plays the most. Hockey East plays 21, the ECAC plays 22 and the CHA plays just 16. So as far as I can see it is the WCHA that is causing the problem with too few non-conference games.

I honestly believe that in each NCAA tournament to date, the end result and eventual National Champion would not have been altered or different regardless of selection criteria, a tweak thereof here or there, or an out and out departure from criteria as written for the purpose of selections, so I truly don't believe it is, or has been a problem for the WCHA.

I don't feel UND got hosed. They'd probably be as competitive as a couple teams in the field...at least, just the same.

I'd like to see more NC games for WCHA teams, but the in conference competition week in, week out seems to have served them well ultimately.

 

[dave1381]

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

Thanks for your thoughtful response Sean.

North Dakota won a game against #3 seeded Boston University. I know you consider Hockey East teams inferior to WCHA teams, but the pairwise and NCAA selection committee, with 2 WCHA representatives, both disagree with you.

I honestly forgot about the split with BU. Sorry.

I don't think it changes my overall point though that Dartmouth's win over Cornell made it harder for the committee to take North Dakota based on their "results against the RPI 12."

That said, the WCHA teams need to play more games against Hockey East and the ECAC. You yourself state "as the number of conference games gets larger, the nonconference game becomes insignificant" and yet the WCHA with 28 conference games is the league that plays the most. Hockey East plays 21, the ECAC plays 22 and the CHA plays just 16. So as far as I can see it is the WCHA that is causing the problem with too few non-conference games.

I am advocating for a better ranking, not one that happens to favor the WCHA. The difference between the better ranking and the one in use happens to be a larger problem for the WCHA because the league plays so few nonconference games.

And of course the WCHA plays more conference games -- it's far away from all the other leagues. (except maybe OSU)

This year the WCHA went 5-2-1 head-to-head vs Hockey East with 5 games at WCHA rinks (3-2 WCHA), 1 neutral (1-0 WCHA) and 2 at Hockey East rinks (1-0-1 WCHA). Because this sample is so small I looked at how each league did vs the CHA as the WCHA played 25 games and Hockey East played 21 games against it. When you compare how each league did it is almost a dead draw, with Hockey East being slightly better going 12-7-2 (0.619) and the WCHA going 14-9-2 (0.600).

All the info you seek is here (thought the pcts. seem to be calculated wrong)
http://www.uscho.com/stats/interconference/division-i-women/2010-2011/

These results would indicate that if the WCHA and Hockey East played more games we might see Hockey East teams doing quite well vs the WCHA teams.

And you know what? The KRACH rankings indicate Hockey East would do well too. The KRACH vs. RPI are pretty close, but they suggest teams 2-6 are all slightly underrated by the RPI, but it's enough to make a huge difference in the selection/pairing process.

Here are the KRACH rankings of WCHA&HEA
Wisconsin
Minnesota
UMD
BU
UND, BC
Providence, Bemidji
Northeastern, OSU
UNH
UConn, Maine
Vermont
Minnesota State
St. Cloud State

Here are the RPI rankings of WCHA & HEA
Wisconsin
BU
Minnesota, BC
UMD
UND
Providence
Northeastern
Bemidji
UNH
OSU
UConn, Maine
Vermont
Minnesota State
St. Cloud

Until that time we only have the various computer rankings that all weigh the same results differently.

You can't possibly believe that all computer rankings are equally legitimate.

And you what? The difference between Minnesota & UMD & BU & BC isn't really that the WCHA is across the board stronger than Hockey East. It's that BU and BC lost to worse teams than Minnesota & UMD did.

But either way, I'm saying this not to advocate for the WCHA, but to advocate to improve a flawed system that hurt the WCHA this year. It could be Hockey East that suffers from the RPI in a future season.

 

[dave1381]

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

I honestly believe that in each NCAA tournament to date, the end result and eventual National Champion would not have been altered or different regardless of selection criteria, a tweak thereof here or there, or an out and out departure from criteria as written for the purpose of selections, so I truly don't believe it is, or has been a problem for the WCHA.

I would've agreed with you up until this season. There aren't a whole lot of injustices you could point to prior to the season.

But this season is different. Each of the four top WCHA teams clearly suffered.

But especially when the No. 4 or 5 team in the country has to play at the No. 1 team in the quarterfinals, and only one advances to the Frozen Four, that's particularly bad for the sport.

 

[brookyone]

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

But this season is different. Each of the four top WCHA teams clearly suffered.

But especially when the No. 4 or 5 team in the country has to play at the No. 1 team in the quarterfinals, and only one advances to the Frozen Four, that's particularly bad for the sport.

I agree with all that. I'm only saying that despite that reality, the likelihood is the best team still comes out on top. The brackets as they are, are not a positive for the sport or it's advancement...or the goal of greater respect...no argument.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

I honestly believe that in each NCAA tournament to date, the end result and eventual National Champion would not have been altered or different regardless of selection criteria, a tweak thereof here or there, or an out and out departure from criteria as written for the purpose of selections, so I truly don't believe it is, or has been a problem for the WCHA.

I don't feel UND got hosed. They'd probably be as competitive as a couple teams in the field...at least, just the same.

I'd like to see more NC games for WCHA teams, but the in conference competition week in, week out seems to have served them well ultimately.

I appreciate your views on the selection criteria, UMD's draw and the current WCHA schedule.

I agree the WCHA competition seems to serve the teams well, which is one reason I would like to see more non-conference games with Hockey East teams. On a personal level I would like to see BU schedule 2 game series against two different WCHA teams every season (home and away) or pairing with another Hockey East team for scheduling two WCHA teams. Which would be easier if the WCHA teams had more non-conference games.

Sean

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

Thanks for your thoughtful response Sean.

And thank you for your thoughtful replies Dave. I should have already gone to bed, so my comments will have to wait until tomorrow or Friday, or more likely this weekend as I have three games the next three days.

Sean

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

All the info you seek is here (thought the pcts. seem to be calculated wrong)
http://www.uscho.com/stats/interconference/division-i-women/2010-2011/
.

And the conference column headings are all offset by one column to the left. I am also sure the WCHA has 14 wins vs the CHA, but will check again.

Sean

 

[dave1381]

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

I agree with all that. I'm only saying that despite that reality, the likelihood is the best team still comes out on top. The brackets as they are, are not a positive for the sport or it's advancement...or the goal of greater respect...no argument.

Thanks.

Wisconsin has been such a solid team they're probably not hurt too much by the bracket. But they could face the #4, #3, and #2 teams in KRACH en route to the final. That's crazy.

Wisconsin has still been such a strong team they're probably not hurt too too much by the strong bracket. We can actually use KRACH to calculate championship odds to get a sense of how much the bracket hurts the WCHA teams.

The first number is the probability of winning given current bracket, second number is the bracket given the 8 teams ordered by KRACH, and the last number is the change in win probability.

Wisconsin 49.6, 57.2, -7.6
Cornell 25.2, 20.3, +4.9
Minnesota 9.6, 8.4, +1.2
Mercyhurst 5.3, 4.1, +1.2
UMD 4.0, 5.6, -1.6
BU 3.4, 2.5, +0.9
BC 2.3, 1.5, +0.8
Dartmouth 0.6, 0.4, +0.2

So as you would expect, Wisconsin and UMD's chances are both hurt by the bracket. Wisconsin chances of a title fall from 57.2% to 49.6%. Not a large number, but not insignificant either.

Cornell is the big winner, getting to avoid a WCHA team until the final and drawing Dartmouth in the first round. The bracket increases their title chances by 25%.

The probability of a non-WCHA champion rises from 28.8 to 37.8, a 30% increase.

 

[ARM]

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

Which would be easier if the WCHA teams had more non-conference games.

The problem with more non-conference games for WCHA teams is that they cost more in terms of travel for both the WCHA and the HEA team. Maybe if there was some sort of pre-season NIT where a bunch of teams could meet at one site and play a varied cross section of opponents, it would help. But we'd probably have the same problem we have with the postseason tournament, funding, or lack thereof.

 

[dave1381]

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

I agree the WCHA competition seems to serve the teams well, which is one reason I would like to see more non-conference games with Hockey East teams. On a personal level I would like to see BU schedule 2 game series against two different WCHA teams every season (home and away) or pairing with another Hockey East team for scheduling two WCHA teams. Which would be easier if the WCHA teams had more non-conference games.

I agree. I mean it would've been great if there were more such games, especially from UMD. You certainly can't blame Minnesota for dodging anyone -- they put Clarkson & Harvard on their schedule, last year's ECAC tourney teams. They just weren't as good this year.

It was great when Harvard and Brown used to schedule a UMD-Minnesota travel pairing back in the day.

 

[Skate79]

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

I agree. I mean it would've been great if there were more such games, especially from UMD. You certainly can't blame Minnesota for dodging anyone -- they put Clarkson & Harvard on their schedule, last year's ECAC tourney teams. They just weren't as good this year.

It was great when Harvard and Brown used to schedule a UMD-Minnesota travel pairing back in the day.

I have to admit that last year's Harvard-UMD series was some of the best hockey I have seen in a long time. Both teams were cranked for the series and it played out as advertised. Great fun.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Cornell as they had a pretty weak out of conference schedule save for Mercyhurst (a split). No disrespect to Robert Morris, Syracuse or Niagara but none of those schools were ranked in the Top Ten. Compare that to Harvard's schedule of two games out west against Minnesota and regular season tilts with BC and BU plus the Beanpot. They also played UNH which had a down year. In much the same way that Harvard got a high ranking in '07-08 despite playing a weak out of conference schedule, Cornell has also benefitted and drew the same opponent for this Saturday that Harvard did in '08.

I realize these schedules are made out in advance and you can't predict how a team is going to look two or three years out. Perhaps we should eliminate pre season rankings altogether and focus only on the season as it unfolds weighing the first third, second third, final third and then playoffs before determining final seedings?

 

[dave1381]

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

I have to admit that last year's Harvard-UMD series was some of the best hockey I have seen in a long time. Both teams were cranked for the series and it played out as advertised. Great fun.

You mean Minnesota of course.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Cornell as they had a pretty weak out of conference schedule save for Mercyhurst (a split). No disrespect to Robert Morris, Syracuse or Niagara but none of those schools were ranked in the Top Ten. Compare that to Harvard's schedule of two games out west against Minnesota and regular season tilts with BC and BU plus the Beanpot.

No one's talking about Cornell because those two games against Mercyhurst were two tougher games than most teams played out of conference. Only exceptions are possibly Harvard and North Dakota. Almost everyone played a weaker nonconference schedule than Harvard's.

The other way to look at it is Cornell like Harvard is just playing the teams in its backyard. Harvard's neighbors just happen to be better now. Harvard still played the Beanpot even when all the other teams were terrible. Cornell has a big rivalry with Syracuse in lacrosse and absolutely no doubt they need to help support them. If Cornell has played Wayne State, then I'd be more puzzled.

Aside from preferring Cornell to have 1 WCHA series per year on their schedule, I really don't have any problem with it. I also don't have a problem with Cornell opening the season with a weaker CHA team like Robert Morris. Ivy teams are at a disadvantage starting later, so good for them to start that way. No reason to get slaughtered by Mercyhurst opening weekend like last year and have it cost them home ice.

Replace the Thanksgiving games vs. Niagara vs. a WCHA opponent and this is a well-chosen schedule. Of course easier said than done.

They also played UNH which had a down year. In much the same way that Harvard got a high ranking in '07-08 despite playing a weak out of conference schedule, Cornell has also benefitted and drew the same opponent for this Saturday that Harvard did in '08.

Ok, but it's also largely the strength of the conference that determines strength-of-schedule, esp. Ivy teams which play 22 of 29 games in conference. Even with it's tough nonconference schedule, Harvard was only 11th or 12th in the country in strength-of-schedule.

Perhaps we should eliminate pre season rankings altogether

why? I don't follow.

focus only on the season as it unfolds weighing the first third, second third, final third and then playoffs before determining final seedings?

There used to be a criterion called Last 16 games but it's tough to make it work, because teams are mostly playing within conference games. They dropped it for a reason. You could do some kind of strength-of-schedule Last 16 games, but I wouldn't be overly confident in results.

I think I would support a criterion that punished a team like BU that lost to a few lower tier teams down the stretch, but I think a better ranking like KRACH would punish them well enough already. It's that these games were a minor consequence to the RPI was more of a problem this year. The polls dropped BU to 5th, KRACH dropped BU to 6th, RPI kept them at 3.

 

[ARM]

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

Ok, but it's also largely the strength of the conference that determines strength-of-schedule, esp. Ivy teams which play 22 of 29 games in conference. Even with it's tough nonconference schedule, Harvard was only 11th or 12th in the country in strength-of-schedule.

Both KRACH and RPI list a Strength of Schedule rank, but I think RPI's SOS column is more indicative of the difficulty of a schedule. Why? RPI has St. Cloud State at #1 in SOS, while KRACH shows the SCSU schedule as ranking at #6. It is pretty obvious, at least to me, that SCSU played the toughest slate -- 24 games against WCHA teams not including the struggling Huskies, 2 more vs UW in the WCHA tourney, 3 vs MC, 1 vs an NU team good enough to make its conference championship game, with the WSU game being its only nonconference game against someone from the bottom half. With 6 games against #1 UW and 15 more against MC, UM, UMD, and UND, a measure that thinks some other team had it harder isn't understanding the question. BTW, RPI and KRACH have UND with the second toughest SOS, and that seems accurate to me, with BU x 2, 3 more with BSU, and an extra with UW.

For the teams in the NCAA field, here is where their RPI SOS ranks put them (Note that these rankings include teams like Holy Cross and Sacred Heart, but at least we get some relative measure):

Team (RPI SOS Rank)
Wisconsin (7)
Cornell (26)
BU (10)
BC (6)
Minnesota (3)
Mercyhurst (35)
UMD (5)
Dartmouth (21)

 

[Timothy A]

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.

This whole discussion on flights/cost is absurd. Look at the big picture. The last ncaa bb tv deal was a 6 billion 11 yr deal, meaning the ncaa was raking in $545,545,545.45 per year! That's 545 million dollars folks. Oh boohoo if 4 teams have to fly vs 2 or 3. This is just insane.

 

[David De Remer]

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

Both KRACH and RPI list a Strength of Schedule rank, but I think RPI's SOS column is more indicative of the difficulty of a schedule. Why? RPI has St. Cloud State at #1 in SOS, while KRACH shows the SCSU schedule as ranking at #6.

I agree. The KRACH SOS measure is pretty meaningless. I get how it's calculated but don't get the theory and think it's a failed marketing ploy.