RPI Women's Hockey

[Ralph Baer]

Does anyone know why Julie Vallerelli played both games over the weekend?

[Ralph Baer]

Having read in the thread http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=45930 a lot of evidence that RPI is not legible for the D-III championship this season, I wonder if anyone has any details. If true, then RPI was clearly not expecting this because they would have scheduled at least as many D-I opponents as last year and not loaded the back end of this year's schedule with D-III powers. That only made sense if RPI wanted a last shot at the D-III tourney and championship.

From long following the men's hockey program, I know that RPI is unlikely to release information to the public when anything isn't in concrete, so I suspect that RPI is appealing the decison, whatever it was based on. (One exception, much appreciated by me and others, was the early release of this year's men's schedule last summer before it was finalized.)

Anyways, does anyone know anything that hasn't been posted on the other thread?

[RPIHFH]

Having read in the thread http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=45930 a lot of evidence that RPI is not legible for the D-III championship this season, I wonder if anyone has any details. If true, then RPI was clearly not expecting this because they would have scheduled at least as many D-I opponents as last year and not loaded the back end of this year's schedule with D-III powers. That only made sense if RPI wanted a last shot at the D-III tourney and championship.


Not sure if this is true or not but I noticed that we seemed to have fallen out of the USCHO women's rankings. We did not even get any recieving votes, when last week were ranked #9 with about 30 votes. Also I checked the Pairwise rankings for D-III women and we are not on threre either. Anyone know anything about this?

[Ralph Baer]

Not sure if this is true or not but I noticed that we seemed to have fallen out of the USCHO women's rankings. We did not even get any recieving votes, when last week were ranked #9 with about 30 votes. Also I checked the Pairwise rankings for D-III women and we are not on threre either. Anyone know anything about this? That's one of the things mentioned in the thread which I linked to. Considering that RPI won both games last weekend, admittedly not against a powerful opponent, they shouldn't have just dropped off the edge of the map. It all sounds suspcious.

I have never heard that a team was disqualified from a D-III tourney just because it announced its intentions of moving up but unless they have done something else wrong (like already giving scholarships), I don't know what the problem could be.

[hab]

The rule makes no sense but this is the NCAA. RPI is disqualified because they have announced the intention to go D1 even though they have no scholarship players on the team and are still D3 this year. Apparently most coaches have been aware of this since the start of the season which probably explains why they have been 8-9 in the polls instead of 5-6. Now it is general knowledge and they get 0 votes. Big disappointment for the seniors on this team who have worked hard to take this team to the nationals.

[Cards4life]

The rule makes no sense but this is the NCAA. RPI is disqualified because they have announced the intention to go D1 even though they have no scholarship players on the team and are still D3 this year. Apparently most coaches have been aware of this since the start of the season which probably explains why they have been 8-9 in the polls instead of 5-6. Now it is general knowledge and they get 0 votes. Big disappointment for the seniors on this team who have worked hard to take this team to the nationals.

I wouldnt say its a disappointment, they knew before the season that this was the case. It is the transition period for moving up to D1, RIT will be doing it in mens hockey starting next year and completing it in 2007 I believe. The players have the opportunity to transfer schools if they want to win a National Championship so badly. It's just one of those thing, if you want a program to make the step up to D1 you have to sacrifice a couple years without the possibility of winning a Championship to do so. Without those transition years teams would fall flat on their face right away.

[USCHO GM]

RPI has been ineligible throughout the entire season for the NCAA Championship. RPI is eligible for the ECAC East Tournament though. That was decided by the ECAC, and they made the decision. If RPI wins the tournament, then the team that RPI beats gets the automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament.

The NCAA put out the handbook this week and as a result, the coaches decided not to vote for RPI since they were ineligible. Of course these rankings don't mean anything, but when the NCAA regional rankings come out, RPI will not be included.

This is a transition year for RPI from D3 to D1, therefore they are considered a D1 team playing a D3 schedule, the same as Holy Cross.

[Ralph Baer]

Thanks for the explanations. It still seems a bit strange. RPI then must have found out about this after their schedule was put together but before the season started. Otherwise, why would they have fewer D-I opponents on their schedule than in the past? If one digs back in this thread, the general thought was that RPI scheduled schools like Elmira this season instead of Clarkson in order to increase the chance of getting an at-large bid to the D-III toruney. Of course, Clarkson might not have wanted to schedule RPI as they too were improving their schedule.

Oh, well. As hab implied, it's the NCAA, and we shouldn't try to think too much about logic. I'll just assume that McCardell was behind this decision. :D

[Ralph Baer]

Jayson, one more question. Why is RIT still receiving votes in the D-III men's poll? Is there a difference between the two situations that I don't know about.

(Of course, I am assuming some logic again. A big mistake. :D )

[USCHO GM]

Jayson, one more question. Why is RIT still receiving votes in the D-III men's poll? Is there a difference between the two situations that I don't know about.

(Of course, I am assuming some logic again. A big mistake. :D )

It's all about the timing. RPI announced, so the following year was the transition year. That year is this year. RIT just announced so the following year is their transition year, which is 05-06.

RPI's schedule was pretty much done when the announcement came in January of last year, so it was done. That's why the games are the games that they are.

[hab]

Does anyone know why Julie Vallerelli played both games over the weekend?
Julie is really playing the role of #2 netminder for the Engineers. She has played some solid hockey for the team over the years, and I think that Coach Burke will try to give her some significant playing time in this, her senior year. In the remainder of the schedule I would expect to see Schiff start against Elmira, Utica and Plattsburgh, and Julie will start in one or both of the St. Michael's games.

[Ralph Baer]

It's all about the timing. RPI announced, so the following year was the transition year. That year is this year. RIT just announced so the following year is their transition year, which is 05-06.

RPI's schedule was pretty much done when the announcement came in January of last year, so it was done. That's why the games are the games that they are.
Thanks. So, RPI is guilty of poor timing. Not a first. ;)

[Ralph Baer]

Julie is really playing the role of #2 netminder for the Engineers. She has played some solid hockey for the team over the years, and I think that Coach Burke will try to give her some significant playing time in this, her senior year. In the remainder of the schedule I would expect to see Schiff start against Elmira, Utica and Plattsburgh, and Julie will start in one or both of the St. Michael's games.
I agree, but since Schiff is the #1 goalie, I am a bit surprised that she would sit out the entire weekend.

[rpi_fan03]

This is from speaking to Ken Ralph (the AD) at the beginning of the year....
The school did not realize that this season would be their "transition" season when the announcement was made because the acceptance process for the school was pretty much complete at that point and no more applications for the coming year were being processed...So there were no new girls coming into the school and thus to the team than those who were recruited for D3. So the administration thought that would be enough to prove that they were not recruiting players for Division 1 to play a year of Division 3 (which is the main reason for the NCAA rule...they don't want "stacked" teams) and thus make the team eligible for this year and then next year would be the transition year. However, the NCAA said that because the SEASON had not ended, they fell under the rule for recruiting D1 players. Which was unfortunate because their schedule for this year was set already and they probably would have liked to have their "transition year" schedule include more D1 teams.
The last I talked to Ralph, they were appealing to the NCAA and the ECAC. Obviously if they are officially eligible for the ECAC then that process has been complete...and I guess if the NCAA handbook is out without RPI being eligible then the process there must be complete as well.
This is really a shame for the seniors if the NCAA has made its ruling to officially exclude the team for this year...but then again, it is the NCAA.

[Ralph Baer]

RPI_fan03,
This doesn't mean that the team will be a fullfledged member of the ECAC D-I league in 2005-6, does it? That is, do they still intend to spend a year as a D-I Independent?

[Ralph Baer]

Article in the Poly which is essentially the same as what RPI_fan03 posted: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=3683&part=1. The artcile does mention that if RPI wins the ECAC-East tourney that the league will forfeit its automatic bid. In the likely scenario that if RPI wins, Manhattanville finishes second, I suspect that it won't have any effect, but if someone else finishes second, it could.

[uvmcats]

Again I will ask, what is the motivation for the ECAC to have RPI eligible for the ECAC East championship if it risks losing the autobid? I would assume M-ville would be selected if they finished second (I'll actually have to study Pool this and that now). However, if they finish the season on a down note ie loss to RIT and possibly a couple of losses to Plattsburgh wouldn't they be in jeopardy?

[hab]

[QUOTE=necdad]Again I will ask, what is the motivation for the ECAC to have RPI eligible for the ECAC East championship if it risks losing the autobid? QUOTE]
It might be a bit too much to expect, but maybe the ECAC is more concerned with the just application of rules, rather than their strict enforcement regardless of circumstance???? I can understand how this rule might have first come into play: the logic being that once a team announces its plan to go D1 it might immediately begin to offer scholarships or otherwise change their recruiting practices in a way that gives the school an unfair advantage over other D3 schools. In the case of RPI this clearly hasn't happened: no current player is receiving an athletic scholarship and none have been promised one, and this year's freshman class is quite typical for the team. In fact, if you look at the academic achievment of the RPI women's team you can't help but conclude that this is an organization that has been much truer to the principles of D3 athletics than probably most of the top D3 schools that they compete against. I am sure that RPI's appeal has outlined all of these facts, but I am equally confident that facts will have little impact on the self-important politicians who run the NCAA.

[USCHO GM]

Again I will ask, what is the motivation for the ECAC to have RPI eligible for the ECAC East championship if it risks losing the autobid? I would assume M-ville would be selected if they finished second (I'll actually have to study Pool this and that now). However, if they finish the season on a down note ie loss to RIT and possibly a couple of losses to Plattsburgh wouldn't they be in jeopardy?

The ECAC had no choice. When Union was in the last season playing in the ECAC East, they were also a transition Division I team. They were eligible for the tournament and the title in turn, but not eligible for the Division III title. The ECAC could not rule RPI out based on that precedent. Not that Manhattanville didn't try.

[uvmcats]

Thanks for the info. I agree that RPI didn't load up for what they hoped would be its final shot at d3. I have enjoyed the games NEC and RPI have played over the past three years. I am glad there may be an opportunity to play RPI again.

It just seems with everything else, once a school makes a decision that puts it outside the bounds, the administrators are quick to sever all ties. In men's basketball, leagues hold the automatic qualifier sacred so if schools move to another conference there is an immmediate solicitation of other schools to bring the original conference back into compliance with the auto qualifier. That is why I am amazed the ECAC honored the conference affiliation.