The Great Eight

[ARM]

Assuming that the NCAA tournament does expand to eight teams by next spring, who do you expect to receive invitations? My picks:

Brown – slow starts have hurt this team in recent years. They return most of their offense, so if Germain’s replacement gives them decent goaltending, I like their chances for an NCAA spot.

Dartmouth – though they lose some contributors (Clark, Pietrangelo, Wheatley, Reiart), they figure to improve next season. In addition to injuries, I think the cloud of no Piper/Apps for the FF hung over this team all season. I think they have a very good chance to win it all in 2005.

Harvard – they lose a great player in Ruggiero and a steady one in McAuliffe, but I see this team improving next year. Players like Botterill and Ruggiero bailed them out so many times that the tendency is for other people to rely on the stars too much in tight games. Look for them to display balanced scoring throughout their lineup; plus, they still have a 1-2 in Corriero-Chu that few teams can match.

Mercyhurst – playing in a weak league won’t hurt them nearly as much with an eight-team field as it did when only four qualified.

Minnesota – only UMD has demonstrated that they can perform with the burden that being national champs brings, but a larger field increases the margin for error. Not sure exactly what their roster will look like, but it figures to have more talent than the one that wrapped up 2004.

UMD – I hope everyone enjoyed the ‘Dog-less NCAA tourney, because we won’t see another one for a while. They lose a franchise player in Potter, a couple of role players in Kiipeli and Guest, but should have a strong recruiting class led by Rundqvist and Drazen. If their goaltending improves at all, they will finish in the top 8.

UNH – look like a safe bet to crack the NCAAs, but they will have to find some more scoring punch if they are going to threaten the elite teams. Providence could throw a wrench into the mix, because I don’t know if two HE teams will make the field.

Wisconsin – the Badgers are going to be very good for a long, long time. They lose players in Hunter and Rickard who have done a lot for their team, but Johnson will just plug in others who may fit his system even better. All they lack is one or two top goalscorers, and they will be a legit title contender.

Who are the best teams from each league to NOT make the field? HE: Providence, although teams like Maine and UConn don’t have far to go if they decide they want to be a player. ECAC: St. Lawrence, if they can survive life after Barrie. CHA: not a lot of depth here; Niagara by default. WCHA: UND will probably take a few lumps this year, but look for them to make the NCAA field before Ohio St. does.

[gano]

I think MSU will be a dark horse who will surprise a few people and have a good chance to make it.

They lose an awesome goalie, but I believe I read in an earlier post they have a good prospect coming in next year. If she pans out, I'll pick MSU to be in the top 8.

[PrincetonFan]

Let me be true to my alias and suggest that you not totally forget Princeton. We lost a few key seniors, but have had two great recruiting classes in a row, and beat Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, Providence and Mercyhurst last season.

[ARM]

I admit that Princeton got shortchanged because I've never seen them play. Still, I think they and Brown were very close, and I think Brown may have lost less. Feel free to put together your own list, because there is room for only so many teams with 8 bids.

gano, I don't see MSU making a big push this year. I think that the bottom of the league will be improved, and it will be hard for a team that doesn't score much to get the W every week. I think St. Cloud in particular might surprise a few people.

[dave1381]

There are any number of teams that have potential to be in the top 10 next year... but I'd expect to see the exact same 10 teams in the preseason poll next October that were in the final poll this March. Princeton, given that they finished just outside the top 10 already and graduated their leader scorer and top goaltender, I don't see getting a lot of votes. Same thing for St. Lawrence, except they were a frozen four team, and already exceeded expectations this past season.

For fun, take a look at the preseason/first week/postseason polls this year, to see how well early expectations matched with what happened. St. Lawrence and Brown, though exceeded expectations this year, I feel a lot of that thought not all was due to falling short of expectations in 02-03.

September 29, 2003
Team (First Place) Record Pts Last Year
1 Minnesota-Duluth ( 8) 31-3-2 138 1
2 Dartmouth ( 2) 27-8-0 129 4
3 Minnesota ( 4) 27-8-1 119 3
4 Harvard ( 1) 30-3-1 108 2
5 Providence 24-6-6 88 6
6 Wisconsin 22-8-5 71 5
7 St. Lawrence 22-9-4 59 8
8 New Hampshire 27-7-2 57 7
9 Princeton 20-9-2 20 9
10 Mercyhurst 25-8-1 16 10

October 13, 2003
Team (First Place) Record Pts Last Week
1 Minnesota (9) 0-0-0 143 3
2 Dartmouth (5) 0-0-0 136 2
3 Harvard (1) 0-0-0 111 4
4 Providence 0-0-0 104 5
5 Minnesota-Duluth 0-2-0 86 1
6 Wisconsin 2-0-0 75 6
7 St. Lawrence 0-0-0 62 7
8 New Hampshire 0-0-0 53 8
9 Mercyhurst 0-0-0 25 10
10 Minnesota State 2-0-0 19 NR

Final USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
March 22, 2004
Team (First Place) Record Pts Last Week
1 Minnesota (13) 28-4-2 148 1
2 Harvard (2) 29-3-1 137 2
3 St. Lawrence 27-9-1 115 4
4 Dartmouth 24-6-2 109 3
5 Wisconsin 25-6-3 84 5
6 Minnesota-Duluth 20-12-2 79 6
7 Mercyhurst 26-6-4 51 7
8 New Hampshire 23-9-4 37 8
9 Brown 18-11-2 32 9
10 Providence 21-13-2 25 NR

[Collegehockeynut]

Originally posted by ARM
[ WCHA: UND will probably take a few lumps this year, but look for them to make the NCAA field before Ohio St. does. [/B]

Actually, I think OSU might be a dark horse for next year. They peak-a-booed in and out of the top 10 about four times over the course of the season. The big loss this year is Laaksonen so the challenge for OSU is for one of the incoming D to be able to step in. But the returning core looks good. Freshman Bonhomme improved every week and I think showed she will become a great player on D. Their goaltending is solid with Glaser and Van DerVeer returning. Harrigan has proven to be one of the top forwards in the WCHA and provides scoring but is also good in her own end. I don't think she gets the recognition she deserves. Mulvaney gives speed and grit. I also think she does not get the recognition she deserves. Creary had an off year but has proven she is a constant threat and also one of the top forwards in the WCHA. We know she is a good player.

I really think the key to OSU is twofold. One, if Desson returns next year from injury. She has played with Creary for the previous two years. Creary has lit up the scoreboard for two years but as soon as Desson got hurt Creary’s production faltered. If Desson is back so is Creary. Secondly, OSU lost two great leaders, O’Grady and Farrell. Someone(s) need to pick this slack up.

OSU has probably 7 players that any WCHA team would take in an instant. I think this makes them a threat for a “Great Eight” selection next year.

ARM mentioned on the “Grinders” thread that OSU has not had a heart and soul player since Rosen. If someone could step into this role…..who knows??? OSU is a good team…they just need to believe they are a good team!

[ARM]

I agree with your assessment of OSU's players. Bonhomme looks like the real deal. The problem has been that when you add them all up, the whole has been less than the sum of the parts.

For the Buck's to make the NCAAs, either four teams from the WCHA have to qualify or Ohio St. has to move up in the league's pecking order. For the first time, they did take points from all of the league's top three. However, they lost the season series handily to each as well. Lately, the Buckeyes have been closer to the fifth place team than the third. I don't think four WCHA teams can squeeze into the top eight spots in the PWR, especially if there are autobids in each conference.

I still think UND has some advantages on the hockey side that Ohio St. can't match (facilities and hockey tradition). That's why I look for them to move to the upper division of the WCHA in seasons to come.

[chiefsfan]

Originally posted by Collegehockeynut
Harrigan has proven to be one of the top forwards in the WCHA and provides scoring but is also good in her own end. I don't think she gets the recognition she deserves.

You are absolutely right. I can not believe she has never been invited to a Team Canada U-22 camp.

[Dr. Phil]

The problem with Ohio State is that they play in the WCHA. That means they have to play Wisconsin, Minnesota, and UMD 4 times each and probably another 1 or 2 games in the playoffs. I'm not saying they aren't a good team, I just don't think they are at the level of the top three. They are probably closer to UMD next year than Wisconsin or Minnesota.

If they played in the CHA, or Hockey East, I think they would be in much better position....not that I want to bring up that whole issue again.

I think the most interesting thing to watch next year if they go to 8 teams will be how they seed the top 8 teams. Regionals? East/West? Etc...

It will be very interesting to follow the games in February and March because there will be a lot more competition around each league. There will probably be 5-10 teams who have a legit chance of making the 8 team field, and therefore there will be much more to play for "down the stretch".

[LakersFan]

I was poking around the NCAA website during lunch, trying to guess what the eight team format might be. Here are my findings:

1. I tossed out all Division II and III tournament structures. They are almost always regional. Even Div II Men's Lacrosse, which takes four teams, takes two (out of 19) from the northeast and two (out of 10) from the southwest. Erie, PA is considered the southwest, which makes sense for the NCAA.

2. Among the team sports, no D-I tournament is eight teams. There are 16 in women's field hockey and lacrosse and men's lacrosse. They play the round one and two games at the home of the higher seed. Lacrosse is pretty much in the northeast, and so travel is not a problem. Field hockey is broken down by regions, however, with autobids.

From DI Championship Handbook for Field Hockey.

In those DI team championships that do not generate revenue, pairings shall be based primarliy on the teams' geographical proximity to one another, regardless of their region, in order to avoid air travel. ( misc. stuff) Teams from the same conference will be seperated during first-round play.

3. Three DI sports other then women's hockey are using four team tournamentys: men's volleyball, and men's and women's water polo. It should be noted that all three are run very different from our Frozen Four. For each tournament, there are three very geographical leagues, and the winner of each league gets an autobid. A fourth at-large team is selected to round out the field.

Since women's hockey doesn't follow this format, can we really guess what they are going to do with eight?

4. DI women's college hockey has two regions, and they can be found on page 32 of the championship handbook. According the the map, Mercyhurst, Niagara, and Quinnipiac are in the east while Wayne State is in the west. Everyone else is where you think they should be. I only bring this up because I've seen the CHA refered to as a western conference. By the way, this handbook is an interesting read, espically if you want to know how much internet broadcast rights are ($75) or how it is determined who controls the strobe lights used to take pictures during games (don't ask).

My best educated guess. Eight teams with three autobids (WCHA, HE, and ECAC). First round games will be at the home of the higher seed. No conference opponents in the first round. This is the field hockey model. I am sure they will make an effort to prevent air travel, but two east teams will have to fly out west (unless OSU is a top four seed).

I know this is just speculation, but with it being the off-season, what else is there to do? I guess I could be devising complicated rating schemes. Oh wait, I'm doing that too.

[dave1381]

To clarify, if there are no intraconference games in the first round, it means you'll have to fly as many teams as make the tournament from the WCHA, since no one's within driving distance of the WCHA (unless, OSU).

Here's how I look at it - NCAA tournaments typically have to juggle the following three often conflicting priorities.
1) Avoiding intraconference matchups in the first round
2) Preserve the natural order of the seeding
3) Minimize travel costs.

For most revenue-producing sports, the priorities are 1,2,3. For non-revenue producing sports like soccer, it's 1,3,2.

The vibe I get from the NCAA is that for w. hockey if it expands 8, 2 and only 2 is going to matter. It's unique in its growth stage right now.

What that means is, if say Wisconsin and UMD are going to be 4 and 5, the NCAA's not going to go the lengths of flying someone around to avoid that matchup. On the other hand, if Wisconsin's 3 and Dartmouth is 4, UMD's 5, St. Lawrence is 6 the NCAA's not going to screw Wisconsin over by pairing them with UMD to minimize travel costs (if they did that, you're guaranteed a WCHA tournament retread every year.) That's effectively what they do now already with four teams, i.e. not caring this year that Harvard-St. L was an ECAC final retread, etc.

[Chupochobra]

Just to add my 2 cents, Ohio has to fly to many of their games vs. WCHA opponents.

[LakersFan]

Dave,

The current selection criteria, from the championship handbook, says the field consists of the top seeds from the east and west and two at-large teams. Would they possibly expand this to read the two top seeds from the east, two top seeds from the west, and four at-large teams?

[dave1381]

No, I think they only did that because there was no traditional conference autobid structure in order to guarantee at least one team from each region in the tournament. With 8 teams, I would think they would grant autobids to Hockey East, WCHA, and Hockey East, and those "regional autobids" would no longer be necessary.

[Slapper]

Arm,
Just a scenario but,
What if the top 4 WCHA teams split all their games against each other, would they all get in....a la 2004 F 4 where 3 of 4 ECAC got in or would none of them get in?
I realize out of conference games are also a factor.
Your valued opinion please?

[ARM]

Slapper, I think the mathematics is against four WCHA teams getting into the NCAA field. Assuming a full round robin of four games per team, that is six losses per team during the regular season. Somebody has to lose a couple of games at the WCHA tourney, so they are up to 8. I think Wisconsin was perfect against the bottom half of the league this season, but that will be harder and harder for teams to accomplish. Most teams take a hit or two in their non-conference schedule, so the blemishes on the record mount.

It is easier for the ECAC to have a scenario where they get four teams into the field, because they play only two game sets during the regular season. Plus, the top four may suffer only a max of one loss per team in the conference tourney.

That said, I can't imagine the WCHA having less than two teams in a field of eight teams. Otherwise, the 7th best non-WCHA team would need to be better than the second best WCHA team. Oops! I guess it could happen, with autobids. But I still think the WCHA gets two into the field.

[dave1381]

It could definitely happen, if the fourth place team in the WCHA is getting head-to-head wins over the 3rd and 4th place teams from the ECAC, or doing better against teams above .500 than those teams, etc. But to make it happen, those teams would have to earn it, and it's not easy.

[Dr. Phil]

My question is simple - if they do go to 8, will teams in the WCHA try to soften their strength of schedule knowing that they can't afford any "extra" losses.

I know the whole strength of schedule issue (in particular this year relating to Wisconsin) has been debated before so I'm not trying to start up new thread, but I'm just curious if going to 8 teams changes the situation at all?

[Collegehockeynut]

You may find the bottom 5 teams, OSU, Mankato, St. Cloud, Bemidji and ND try to strengthen their non-conference games as it may take some wins against stronger eastern teams to offset some losses to the upper three teams.

However, with 8 teams now in the WCHA, 4 slots previously available for non-conference games are now gone. The ability to schedule stronger non-conference games is severely hampered.

[dave1381]

Originally posted by Dr. Phil
My question is simple - if they do go to 8, will teams in the WCHA try to soften their strength of schedule knowing that they can't afford any "extra" losses.
I would answer this with a confident no. At least they shouldn't. I can't predict whether the teams will be make optimal schedules for themselves in terms of maximizing their NCAA chances. There might be other considerations.

I think for the most part, the PWR system has done a decent, not perfect job, of correcting for SOS (using record vs. RPI > .500 as opposed to record vs. win pct. > .500 would be a huge improvement in that regard, by the way).

To get in, the WCHA teams are going to have to either to do well in their conference and win out a weak schedule, or do okay in their conference and win games against top eastern teams.

As I know I've said before, I don't think the WCHA has a leg to stand on in complaining how this selection process panned out. While I do think Wisconsin and UMD were right up there with the top Eastern teams at the end of the year, they didn't have the results throughout the season to earn it. Wisconsin played a weak nonconference schedule and didn't win it out, tying twice a Northeastern team that both Harvard and St. Lawrence beat handily. UMD played a tough schedule, took points from each of the top three eastern teams (2-3-1, that's 3.5 extra losses for you), lost a bunch of games in their own conference, and were still a win or two away from making the top four. Wisconsin could have made it by winning out its nonconference schedule and maybe stepping it up just another notch, while UMD could have gotten in probably one more win over Dartmouth. (note that this is, of course, an analysis of getting into a 4-team tourney, but it's certainly instructive in terms of getting into an 8-team)