Women's NCAA Tourney Expansion

[Timothy A]

This thread has completely lost the plot. It's no longer about gender equity and championship access - it's about blowing everything up and starting over, which is NOT what any of the coaches have asked for in their social media campaign.

Auto qualifying needs to stay. The under-rated conferences still need the David shot at Goliath. Going 12 teams does and going with the round robin makes it better than the men's tourney. Naturally the ncaa should spend equitable money on both.

 

[Offsides Guy]

People think expanding to 12 teams and REMOVING THE AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS will "broaden the motivation" to make it? Are these programs already not motivated to make an EIGHT TEAM field? And, you're saying that expanding to 12 teams will net these mid-tier teams additional recruits?.

Correct. The WCHA is the prime example. Teams that typically have no chance of winning the conference now could stand a real chance of making the tournament. Lately it seems the NCAA won’t take four teams from the WCHA. Expand to 12, and you might even see 5 WCHA teams get in. This would definitely help with recruiting.

regarding the thread going on a tangent, that happens all the time and it’s part of what keeps things interesting. I’ve even seen conversation go from women’s hockey to classic cars!

 

[Cpl37]

Disagree with the premise. Examples.

Clarkson not in this group of 3, now they are.

BC did it five or six years ago re: “program-lifting, top-tier recruit”. They had two of them, in fact. On the same damn line with years to play together. Adding to the 4 girls they sent to Team USA they could have done it (but.. .. well Watts if's).

Northeastern did it last year. Frankel damn near won it. Watt could have been.

There are a lot of things that drive recruit decisions. It is not all that simple.


Originally posted by HawksHockey View Post
Only three out of the 40-plus National Collegiate programs have won a National Championship in the last 10 years. Only four programs have ever won a National Championship in women’s ice hockey at the Division I level.

Unless you are one of those four programs, you are likely never locking down a “program-lifting, top-tier recruit” as you’ve described.

So what should these other 35 programs do? What do they sell these young women? The experience of simply making the First Round is life-changing and it’s what every team plays for - a shot.

I will say it again - the teams will not get any better and women's ice hockey programs will continue to be slashed if there aren’t avenues for postseason play. Even if it is for the smallest chance at a National Championship.

 

[Timothy A]

Correct. The WCHA is the prime example. Teams that typically have no chance of winning the conference now could stand a real chance of making the tournament. Lately it seems the NCAA won’t take four teams from the WCHA. Expand to 12, and you might even see 5 WCHA teams get in. This would definitely help with recruiting.

regarding the thread going on a tangent, that happens all the time and it’s part of what keeps things interesting. I’ve even seen conversation go from women’s hockey to classic cars!

Almost nothing sweeter than a 55 T-Bird, just the 65 Mustang fastback.

Great point on the field of 12 getting more wcha teams in. I don't know how the computer calcs things, but does a loss to WI help you more than a loss vs to St. Thomas? Or is a loss a loss?

 

[Watson Rink]

Several posters have emphasized that the most important thing to strive for in structuring the NCAA women's hockey tournament should be the experience of the players themselves.
You may be interested in the very different national championship experience of women in another collegiate niche sport, squash, although that experience is not translatable to hockey because of the vastly different geographical profiles of the two sports.
Collegiate squash is not dissimilar to Division I hockey in size. There are 42 women's squash teams altogether, with 15 or so players per team.
Crucially, all teams except Stanford and Berkeley are located in the Northeast, within a bus ride of several good tournament sites which rotate year by year.
Therefore, all 42 teams participate in the national championship each year.
There are five flights of eight teams, top flight (#1 through #8) to bottom flight (#33 through #42), seeded on the basis of a coaches' poll from #1 to #42. Division I and Division III schools compete together, and one or two Division III schools (notably Trinity) make the top flight each year, on merit, not on the basis of autobids. Conversely, such Division I and IA schools as UNC and Georgetown find themselves in the bottom flights.
Each flight of eight teams starts with one round of elimination matches, based entirely on bracket integrity, followed by two more rounds of elimination and/or consolation matches, resulting in a final #1 through #8 ranking which may or may not resemble the original #1 through #8 seeding. All teams are guaranteed three matches.
There are no gate revenues, because admission is free, and no television revenues. The tournament is sponsored by something called the Collegiate Squash Association, whose financing is shrouded in mystery (there may be an endowment), not by the NCAA.
At the end of the tournament all 42 teams gather for a banquet with parents and siblings. High school teammates reconnect.
So the geographic proximity of the participating schools allows for an experience that is both highly competitive and yet completely inclusive and great fun...despite the apparent lack of revenue.
It's a shame that the NCAA won't currently allow women's hockey some of these aspects that actually could translate to hockey's different situation, such as strict bracket integrity and having the participating teams gathered in a single location.

If anybody is familiar with another niche sport, intercollegiate rowing, it would be interesting for us to find out how the Intercollegiate Rowing Association structures the national championship regatta. Rowing is like hockey geographically inasmuch as universities such as Washington and Wisconsin have been among the top powerhouse crews over the decades. I'm under the impression that they gather in the same place and adhere to bracket integrity.

 

[Lindsay]

I think Championship auto Bids incentivize schools to add hockey, and make it more interesting, and they are what make it a NATIONAL championship. Interesting reading on another thread that Union and RIT can’t hand out scholarships. Need that fixed for sure. Also the issue imo isn’t necessarily that the last teams into the tourney are terrible, the issue is that 1 and sometimes 2 to a lesser extent are usually just on a whole other level than every one else.

Last normal FF was in Hamden Connecticut, and they sold out the rink as far as I can tell. 3241 for each of the semis, plus 3400 ish for the final. So those 300 Eastern fans must have gone and brought some friends too. But I am willing to entertain the idea of a single FF site, year after year if a city can make it an event and deliver a huge crowd. Can anywhere do that? I have to say it would be pretty fun/enticing to go watch a game with 10000 other people.

Every now and again I chat women’s hockey with non followers of the sport for a sanity check. I explained the seeding issue / minimizing flights of the championship and they could not believe that’s how the women’s ice hockey championship is decided. Definitely not normal. And it greatly impacts student experience.

Watson, enjoyed your comments on the squash scene. I recently read a book about Ginny Gilder and rowing at Yale. It was mind blowing to me that prior to 1969 women couldn’t even go to Yale as undergraduates, let alone row there collegiately. Mind blowing! We’ve come a long way and hopefully when the committee meets tomorrow, opportunities can expand once again.

 

[ARM]

You will never get rid of conference autobids.

And I don't think that we should be trying to do so. For some players, their dream is to win an NCAA Championship. For other players, their dream is to play in an NCAA Tournament. I think that's a valid dream. I'm less concerned with trying to figure out how to get the fourth-best team from a league into the tourney. The solution for them is to surpass one of the three teams that finished above them. They can solve that problem on the ice, and if they can't, then their league is already well-represented in the national event.

I realize that this isn't the most "fair" approach, but sport doesn't guarantee universal fairness. In the Minnesota Girls High School Hockey Tournament, it has happened quite often that the state's two top-ranked teams are in the same section, so only one of them is going to advance to the state tournament. Sure, you'd like to have that game played on a bigger stage, but if girls in high school face such challenges, then college-age players should be able to cope with them as well.

 

[EMPTYNETTER]

If we're all honest, the parity in Women's D1 hockey is such that many teams (way more than 8), perhaps outside of #1/#2 can beat any other team on any given night. Such can be seen by looking through the scores this year. Heck, even #1 tied a team that wouldn't be in consideration. Love the notion of 3 game series similar to the PWHL, but that would not be feasible. I'd love to see an impartial committee selecting the 12 teams, as we all know the bias that exists with the current selection process.

 

[HockeyGuy362]

If we're all honest, the parity in Women's D1 hockey is such that many teams (way more than 8), perhaps outside of #1/#2 can beat any other team on any given night. Such can be seen by looking through the scores this year. Heck, even #1 tied a team that wouldn't be in consideration. Love the notion of 3 game series similar to the PWHL, but that would not be feasible. I'd love to see an impartial committee selecting the 12 teams, as we all know the bias that exists with the current selection process.

Sounds like they approve an 11 team tourney, not sure how that is going to work.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

NCAA approves expansion to 11 teams. Will likely apply to this current season. That was the fastest response I've ever seen I think lol

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Sounds like they approve an 11 team tourney, not sure how that is going to work.

Should be:
1 v 8/9
2 v 7/10
3 v 6/11
4 v 5

Top 5 get first round byes.

 

[joecct]

I think Championship auto Bids incentivize schools to add hockey, and make it more interesting, and they are what make it a NATIONAL championship. Interesting reading on another thread that Union and RIT can’t hand out scholarships. Need that fixed for sure. Also the issue imo isn’t necessarily that the last teams into the tourney are terrible, the issue is that 1 and sometimes 2 to a lesser extent are usually just on a whole other level than every one else.

RIT jumped up to D1 after the prohibition on D3 playups offering scholarships passed but before the ban on all playups happened.

Union could have added scholarships as they were a playup before the scholarship ban passed, but declined.

Unless there's a change in legislation, they're stuck.

 

[Lindsay]

Should be:
1 v 8/9
2 v 7/10
3 v 6/11
4 v 5

Top 5 get first round byes.

Assuming they are keeping the auto bids? Feels like progress. I’m under no illusion this is perfection but this seems like a positive. Now to see whether they add in 2022 or 2023, whether they can get seeding fixed, and the details . I assume 2022 given the hashtag.

3 extra games, lengthens the playoff season, more students in the tourney. Potential for upsets in the first round imo. More plot lines about staying fresh and healthy vs making it to the next round. Teams hosting an NCAA game who previously were perennially on the road in round 1 I assume. But also a tougher road to an already unlikely championship for them. More time for the main stream media to get caught up to speed and properly the hype the final. More time for the bye teams to go ice cold and lose to a team they shouldn’t. I played in a year when expansion happened.....super fun, players this should be lighting some fires of inspiration for you, assuming this goes through this year. The NEWHA did a big favor bringing up the denominator of the percentage calc. And not even taking an auto bid spot yet.

Im sure there are negatives and relevant issues unaddressed, but this is nice.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

Should be:
1 v 8/9
2 v 7/10
3 v 6/11
4 v 5

Top 5 get first round byes.

Wish list:

• No more minimizing flights. Get ready for Wisconsin getting a bye and playing the winner of Minnesota - UMD if they don't get rid of this.
• Reseed after all rounds. I don't think #3 should luck out and get #11 if they win.
• Play the frozen four at bigger arenas.
• Fix the ticket purchases so we don't have a 2018 type scenario where the someone's fans buy all the tickets then leave the arena half empty because Colgate was better.
• If you have the second frozen four game and the first one goes to OT, you get banned for life if you complain.

 

[Steamboat]

[*]If you have the second frozen four game and the first one goes to OT, you get banned for life if you complain.
[/LIST]

Absolutely agree with this. And real overtimes, 5 on 5, 20 minute periods until someone breaks through. I will never forget the North Dakota/Minnesota quarterfinals that went to 3 overtimes. That was hockey!

 

[Lindsay]

Lol titleix , I had my eye on that 11 spot. Not bad at all if they don’t re seed.

 

[robertearle]

I'm pretty agnostic on expanding the number of teams in the playoffs (and 11 is a really weird choice).

But if anybody thinks this will take care of what we saw last year with regard to Minnesota not getting in, etc., it won't. Just like there have been years when deciding who was #8 and who was #9 was difficult, there will certainly be years when deciding who's #11 and who's #12 will be just as difficult; maybe even more so. The closer you get to "the middle of the pack", the more similar the teams' "resumes" will look. For some NCAA sports and tournaments - football, basketball - creating that sort of controversy seems like the point of playoff expansion, etc.

But, yes, PLEASE get rid of travel restrictions! If the NCAA wants to make women's tournaments look more equitable to men's, is there any men's sport and tournament that has such similar restrictions?

(In women's volleyball, there is a bit of "regionalism" to the early rounds - Wisconsin's early opponents might be from Illinois or even within Wisconsin, for example - but there we're talking about maybe a #3 seed playing a #58 instead of a #62. Nothing remotely like what has been done in women's hockey.)

 

[Lindsay]

Robert Earle, I thought the math picks who gets in usually, and last years field was picked using a different extremely flawed methodology (can’t vote for your own team, even though legit TUC) since pairwise was unavailable?

So we shouldn’t see a repeat of #5 in the country not getting in, since we are back to math right?

Does NEWHA have an auto bid yet? I was thinking no, but can’t actually remember.

 

[robertearle]

Robert Earle, I thought the math picks who gets in usually, and last years field was picked using a different extremely flawed methodology (can’t vote for your own team, even though legit TUC) since pairwise was unavailable?

So we shouldn’t see a repeat of #5 in the country not getting in, since we are back to math right?

Does NEWHA have an auto bid yet? I was thinking no, but can’t actually remember.

No idea if we are "back to math" or not. No idea if they might use this 'opportunity' to switch away from "math" (or whether that might be a good thing, or not; I'm not sure "math" always gets it right) The closer you get to the "middle of the pack", the smaller the differences in the math gets.

 

[ARM]

But, yes, PLEASE get rid of travel restrictions! If the NCAA wants to make women's tournaments look more equitable to men's, is there any men's sport and tournament that has such similar restrictions?

(In women's volleyball, there is a bit of "regionalism" to the early rounds - Wisconsin's early opponents might be from Illinois or even within Wisconsin, for example - but there we're talking about maybe a #3 seed playing a #58 instead of a #62. Nothing remotely like what has been done in women's hockey.)

I'm totally on your side regarding the travel restrictions. However, I think that there are other women's sports that get the short end. Like with volleyball, it isn't the first round that's the problem with regionalism, because as you say, there isn't much difference between teams near the bottom of the field. But I do think that there are times when they stretch those subsequent pairings due to travel. With your example, a #3 seed should be looking ahead to a #30 in the second round, going strictly by the numbers. The problem comes when there isn't any team close to #30 with in range of the host site, so the committee instead fills that slot with the #20 team. That isn't fair to the teams at #3 or #20, any more than a #1 Wisconsin having to host a #5 UMD in a quarter on the ice. I think softball is the same way. I'm guessing that the other sports (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.) are in the same boat, but I don't pay any attention to them, so can't say.