Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    I'm just gonna make my opinion on all this clear so everyone can stop taking offense for some stupid reason:

    (1) To the letter of the selection criteria, one of the alliance teams could realistically be in the top 8 of the Pairwise rankings next year (they may or not be admitted into the tournament by being in the top 8 of the Pairwise, more on that later, but if one of them has 3-4 losses, they will be in the top 8 *of the Pairwise*. Formulaically speaking, not necessarily selection-ally speaking).
    (2a) I think this is stupid.
    (2b) Moreover, I think the Pairwise is stupid in general. And also RPI. They're 95% the same thing nowadays anyway.
    (3) The selection committee will need to make the decision to either change the criteria, ignore the alliance teams (through whatever reasoning necessary, including weighing criteria in certain ways, or just straight up not including them in the PWR calculation in the first place), or allow them into the tournament. I assume these are the only options available. By all means let me know if I'm missing something here.
    (4) I think the D-II teams don't belong in the D-I tournament and shouldn't be selected.
    (5) I think it would be embarrassing to the sport to have a team who clearly doesn't belong get throttled in the tournament.
    (6) I think there is ambiguity to the situation.
    (7) I think it would be beneficial for someone on the committee to clarify where these teams stand before the season starts, so that there is not ambiguity.
    (8) I think the ambiguity of it all is interesting.
    (9) I think the mathematics of unconnected teams being ranked highly in the RPI is interesting.
    (10) I think you guys getting all uppity about me and others (4 pages, after all!) finding this interesting pretty bizarre.

    Hugs and kisses, Eeyore.
    Last edited by TonyTheTiger20; 01-27-2017, 11:40 PM.
    Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
    Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
    Twitter: @Salzano14


    Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Eeyore View Post
      You're leaving out a piece that the NCAA has said over and over again: they reserve the right to weight any one criterion more heavily than any other if they think that the margin in that criterion is substantially greater than the margin in the other(s). The record against common opponents most definitely can count for more than RPI. The NCAA has even refused to clarify just what it considers to be a significant difference between the criteria. They already have an out if they don't want to let these teams into the tournament with an at large bid if Holy Cross is a common opponent with other teams in the mix.

      Arafel is right. You're fanatically holding on to position by ignoring the NCAA's past history and every caveat to the situation. You keep insisting that things have only one possible interpretation when they manifestly don't. You've gone off the deep end on this one.
      Under the current rules
      NCC: All criteria are equal with RPI being the tiebreaker
      D-III: The committee decides what criteria to weight more than others from year to year.

      The current big girl tournament is for all D-I and D-II women's teams that meet the criteria. If somebody wants to make a legislative proposal to change the NCC to D-I only, they may.
      CCT '77 & '78
      4 kids
      5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
      1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

      ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

      I want to live forever. So far, so good.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

        Originally posted by joecct View Post
        Under the current rules
        NCC: All criteria are equal with RPI being the tiebreaker
        D-III: The committee decides what criteria to weight more than others from year to year.

        The current big girl tournament is for all D-I and D-II women's teams that meet the criteria. If somebody wants to make a legislative proposal to change the NCC to D-I only, they may.
        However, I would assume that under the circumstances it becomes D-I only, the rule that permits DII teams to declare for the D-I championship if no D-II championship is available would still apply. The D-II teams could declare join the same conference and the same situation would apply.
        2007-2008 ECAC East/NESCAC Interlock Pick 'em winner
        2007-2008 Last Person Standing Winner,
        2013-2014 Last Person Standing Winner (tie)
        2016-2017 Last Person Standing Winner

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

          Originally posted by NUProf View Post
          However, I would assume that under the circumstances it becomes D-I only, the rule that permits DII teams to declare for the D-I championship if no D-II championship is available would still apply. The D-II teams could declare join the same conference and the same situation would apply.
          ASSumption #1 on there being a D1 only tournament
          1. The D2 schools currently playing up, still play up as they are grandfathered in.
          2. The NCAA creates a National Collegiate Championship for D2 and D3 schools.\

          CONsequences
          1. Holy Cross and Sacred Heart play for the D1 title.
          2. Lindenwood is on an island with no access road.
          CCT '77 & '78
          4 kids
          5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
          1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

          ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
          - Benjamin Franklin

          Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

          I want to live forever. So far, so good.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

            Alright, so I have a bit of an update on this:

            (1) The committee wrote itself an out into the criteria that says each team will be evaluated "based on its full body of work." That wasn't in there before, so they at least have an out.

            (2) Man, that is going to cause some serious heartburn for bubble teams at tournament time, especially if St. A's is way up there like top 4 or so.

            https://www.bcinterruption.com/bosto...lection-issues
            Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
            Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
            Twitter: @Salzano14


            Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

              Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
              Alright, so I have a bit of an update on this:

              (1) The committee wrote itself an out into the criteria that says each team will be evaluated "based on its full body of work." That wasn't in there before, so they at least have an out.

              (2) Man, that is going to cause some serious heartburn for bubble teams at tournament time, especially if St. A's is way up there like top 4 or so.

              https://www.bcinterruption.com/bosto...lection-issues
              Oh for ****'s sake Grant, I'm literally embarrassed for you that you actually posted that tripe. Take it down before you destroy any semblance of being an actual journalist.

              First you say:

              "This would appear to give the selection committee a way out of selecting a team for the tournament if their schedule was not comparable to the rest of Division I, even if an eligible team (say, St. Anselm) made it into an at-large position based on RPI"

              Then you end by saying:

              "Not only will a top 8 alliance team have no clue whether or not they are even being considered for selection, but think about what the bubble teams will be going through. If you’re sitting in 7th or 8th in the Pairwise among “regular” D-I teams, but St. Anselm is looming in 4th in the RPI to potentially knock you out despite not having a D-I caliber roster, you’re going to have a very, very long and stressful day to look forward to."

              And you literally ignore what Sarah Fraser told you.

              All I can conclude is that you are hoping you'll get hits by being controversial. I supposed in our age of Cheetos Jesus and "alternative facts" you can just make up whatever you want, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should still try to actually be a journalist.
              "So life's a *****. What do you want to do, cry about it? " - Kara "Starbuck" Thrace

              "Wanna go get sugared up on mochas?" - Willow Rosenberg

              Check my website. College hockey; it's what it's all about!

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                Originally posted by Arafel View Post
                Oh for ****'s sake Grant, I'm literally embarrassed for you that you actually posted that tripe. Take it down before you destroy any semblance of being an actual journalist.
                I have to admit when I saw you were reading the thread I got REALLY EXCITED!

                First you say:

                "This would appear to give the selection committee a way out of selecting a team for the tournament if their schedule was not comparable to the rest of Division I, even if an eligible team (say, St. Anselm) made it into an at-large position based on RPI"

                Then you end by saying:

                "Not only will a top 8 alliance team have no clue whether or not they are even being considered for selection, but think about what the bubble teams will be going through. If you’re sitting in 7th or 8th in the Pairwise among “regular” D-I teams, but St. Anselm is looming in 4th in the RPI to potentially knock you out despite not having a D-I caliber roster, you’re going to have a very, very long and stressful day to look forward to."
                I mean the fact that they gave themselves an out means that they're going to be ambiguity about it, no? I would not like to be in 9th in the PWR with St. A's sitting in 4th, would you?

                And you literally ignore what Sarah Fraser told you.
                I do not know what this means

                All I can conclude is that you are hoping you'll get hits by being controversial. I supposed in our age of Cheetos Jesus and "alternative facts" you can just make up whatever you want, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should still try to actually be a journalist.
                Did you, like, personally write the NCAA handbook and are mad that I'm criticizing? I can't figure out why you're so personally offended by all this.

                *Clearly* it's an interesting quirk of how the criteria is set up and how the Pairwise works. You can not think so, that doesn't bother me, but the visceral response is nothing short of bizarre.
                Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                Twitter: @Salzano14


                Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                  What if an Alliance team runs the table and is left home? Candace can remember the hue and cry when undefeated Adrian was left out of the D3 men's tournament.

                  The difference was Adrian's strength of schedule (a criteria) was in the toilet and the committee had a justification.
                  CCT '77 & '78
                  4 kids
                  5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                  1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                  ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                  - Benjamin Franklin

                  Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                  I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                    Originally posted by Arafel View Post
                    Oh for ****'s sake Grant, I'm literally embarrassed for you that you actually posted that tripe. Take it down before you destroy any semblance of being an actual journalist.

                    First you say:

                    "This would appear to give the selection committee a way out of selecting a team for the tournament if their schedule was not comparable to the rest of Division I, even if an eligible team (say, St. Anselm) made it into an at-large position based on RPI"

                    Then you end by saying:

                    "Not only will a top 8 alliance team have no clue whether or not they are even being considered for selection, but think about what the bubble teams will be going through. If you’re sitting in 7th or 8th in the Pairwise among “regular” D-I teams, but St. Anselm is looming in 4th in the RPI to potentially knock you out despite not having a D-I caliber roster, you’re going to have a very, very long and stressful day to look forward to."

                    And you literally ignore what Sarah Fraser told you.

                    All I can conclude is that you are hoping you'll get hits by being controversial. I supposed in our age of Cheetos Jesus and "alternative facts" you can just make up whatever you want, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should still try to actually be a journalist.
                    This seems like an awfully strong personal attack arising out of something that wouldn't normally seem to create a lot of emotion. I don't profess to know much about this but Grant does raise issues and puts a lot of content into this board. I agree that it is a bit bizarre.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                      Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                      I have to admit when I saw you were reading the thread I got REALLY EXCITED!


                      I mean the fact that they gave themselves an out means that they're going to be ambiguity about it, no? I would not like to be in 9th in the PWR with St. A's sitting in 4th, would you?

                      I do not know what this means

                      Did you, like, personally write the NCAA handbook and are mad that I'm criticizing? I can't figure out why you're so personally offended by all this.

                      *Clearly* it's an interesting quirk of how the criteria is set up and how the Pairwise works. You can not think so, that doesn't bother me, but the visceral response is nothing short of bizarre.
                      Grant, you keep trying to pound this nonexistent point, like you've done since you first published your piece last spring, when there is LITERALLY nothing there. You postulate a scenario where St. A's is in fourth in the PairWise and the team sitting ninth would be worried. They are NOT, in any way, shape or form, going to take St. A's over a team that plays a D-I schedule. And as I said, you LITERALLY ignored what Sarah Fraser told you, that each team's "full body of work" will be evaluated. You ignore every precedent, every semblance of fact, to try to pigeonhole things into your narrow interpretation, insisting in the face of all evidence that the sky is in fact yellow.
                      "So life's a *****. What do you want to do, cry about it? " - Kara "Starbuck" Thrace

                      "Wanna go get sugared up on mochas?" - Willow Rosenberg

                      Check my website. College hockey; it's what it's all about!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                        Originally posted by Rightnut View Post
                        This seems like an awfully strong personal attack arising out of something that wouldn't normally seem to create a lot of emotion. I don't profess to know much about this but Grant does raise issues and puts a lot of content into this board. I agree that it is a bit bizarre.
                        No, Grant doesn't raise issues. He is tilting at windmills like Don Quixote. At best, he's taking an interesting alternate reality and trying to see how things might shake out in that alternate reality, but the alternate reality has absolutely zero correlation with how things will shake out.
                        Last edited by Arafel; 10-09-2017, 03:58 PM.
                        "So life's a *****. What do you want to do, cry about it? " - Kara "Starbuck" Thrace

                        "Wanna go get sugared up on mochas?" - Willow Rosenberg

                        Check my website. College hockey; it's what it's all about!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                          Picky point. You don't need a D1 schedule to qualify. You need 20 games vs. D1 or D2 schools to qualify.

                          If the committee wants to disparage D2, then make it a D1 only tournament and F the D2s over like they do to the men.
                          CCT '77 & '78
                          4 kids
                          5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                          1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                          ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                          I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                            Originally posted by joecct View Post
                            Picky point. You don't need a D1 schedule to qualify. You need 20 games vs. D1 or D2 schools to qualify.

                            If the committee wants to disparage D2, then make it a D1 only tournament and F the D2s over like they do to the men.
                            Do you think that ANY of the D-2 schools would be competitive with the D-I? If not, then what's the point. If you do, while I admire the spirit, I'd say that it is misplaced. No D-II school is going to be competitive with the men's D-I programs, nor will schools like St. A's or Franklin Pierce do well against a Clarkson or Boston College. The national tournament is meant to showcase the best teams.

                            Regardless, this is all academic, because none of the D-II schools will be competing in the NCAA D-I tournament in March.
                            "So life's a *****. What do you want to do, cry about it? " - Kara "Starbuck" Thrace

                            "Wanna go get sugared up on mochas?" - Willow Rosenberg

                            Check my website. College hockey; it's what it's all about!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                              Originally posted by Arafel View Post
                              Do you think that ANY of the D-2 schools would be competitive with the D-I? If not, then what's the point. If you do, while I admire the spirit, I'd say that it is misplaced. No D-II school is going to be competitive with the men's D-I programs, nor will schools like St. A's or Franklin Pierce do well against a Clarkson or Boston College. The national tournament is meant to showcase the best teams.
                              With respect, I think everyone here agrees with you on all of these points, although maybe not on some semantics with the last one (it's not "the best teams" but rather "the four teams who won their conference championship plus the four teams ranked the highest in a complicated, imperfect, (straight-up bad), formula." This is semantics though and it's neither here nor there).

                              But is there precedent though? I ask that seriously, is there any sort of precedent for a D-II team actually meeting the criteria to qualify for the D-I/NC tournament? To joecct's point, what is the point of even explicitly saying what the D-II teams need to do to qualify for the tournament if they can't actually qualify by meeting that criteria? Frankly the whole setup is a mess and they shouldn't be combined in the first place, but here we are.

                              Anyway... I don't think it's as obvious as you're saying that they definitely, 100% would not select one of these teams. Yes, they have the ability to nix these teams at the end if the don't want them in. And yeah they'll probably do that. But if you're the coach of, say, Ohio State, and you're sitting in 9th with St. A's in the top 4, that you are 100% confident that your team will be in the tournament?

                              I think it's interesting enough to be worthy of discussion rather than just to be immediately dismissed as something I should be "embarrassed" about. If you have some insider knowledge as to how the committee plans on dealing with this that the rest of us don't, that's information I would love to chat about. I respect the the hell out of the time you put into covering and promoting the sport. I don't know that the personal attack was worthy of the level of professionalism you normally present in your work, and I'm sorry you think I'm just trying to sensationalize the situation. I just find it interesting, and so I wrote about what I find interesting. But regardless of all this, I still respect and admire your love and knowledge of the game that you give us every week.
                              Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                              Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                              Twitter: @Salzano14


                              Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                                Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                                With respect, I think everyone here agrees with you on all of these points, although maybe not on some semantics with the last one (it's not "the best teams" but rather "the four teams who won their conference championship plus the four teams ranked the highest in a complicated, imperfect, (straight-up bad), formula." This is semantics though and it's neither here nor there).

                                But is there precedent though? I ask that seriously, is there any sort of precedent for a D-II team actually meeting the criteria to qualify for the D-I/NC tournament? To joecct's point, what is the point of even explicitly saying what the D-II teams need to do to qualify for the tournament if they can't actually qualify by meeting that criteria? Frankly the whole setup is a mess and they shouldn't be combined in the first place, but here we are.

                                Anyway... I don't think it's as obvious as you're saying that they definitely, 100% would not select one of these teams. Yes, they have the ability to nix these teams at the end if the don't want them in. And yeah they'll probably do that. But if you're the coach of, say, Ohio State, and you're sitting in 9th with St. A's in the top 4, that you are 100% confident that your team will be in the tournament?

                                I think it's interesting enough to be worthy of discussion rather than just to be immediately dismissed as something I should be "embarrassed" about. If you have some insider knowledge as to how the committee plans on dealing with this that the rest of us don't, that's information I would love to chat about. I respect the the hell out of the time you put into covering and promoting the sport. I don't know that the personal attack was worthy of the level of professionalism you normally present in your work, and I'm sorry you think I'm just trying to sensationalize the situation. I just find it interesting, and so I wrote about what I find interesting. But regardless of all this, I still respect and admire your love and knowledge of the game that you give us every week.
                                Grant, I can 100 percent accurately say that if St. A's is in the top four without having played a single D-I program, Ohio State at 9 in the PW would be in.

                                And yes, there is precedent. That precedent was discussed ad nauseam earlier in this thread with what happened with the MAAC schools back in the late 90s. When Niagara was awarded an at-large bid, the year it won the CHA and there was no auto-bid, that team had played MANY D-I schools, beating Boston University, Princeton, Cornell, Merrimack, Brown, Colorado College, Omaha, and Western Michigan. They had the body of work to get in where a team like Quinnipiac did not.

                                St. A's and St. Michael's and Franklin Pierce have not, to my knowledge, notified the NCAA of an intention to compete under D-I rules and offer D-I scholarships, as, for instance, a few men's teams like AIC and Bentley do.

                                A more interesting discussion would be, for instance, to take the members of the scheduling alliance and discuss the creation of women's NE-10 conference by trying to get AIC or Assumption in. There is a men's NE-10, yet, three NE-10 members actually compete up at the men's D-I level: AIC, Bentley, and Merrimack. Merrimack is also a WHEA member, and Bentley is rumored to be in the process of creating a women's team, likely in the next 2-3 years. Does Bentley follow its men's team example and go for
                                full scholarship limit and try to join the CHA to compete against schools like RIT and Mercyhurst that its men's program does, or does it drop to D-II and play St. A's et. al.
                                "So life's a *****. What do you want to do, cry about it? " - Kara "Starbuck" Thrace

                                "Wanna go get sugared up on mochas?" - Willow Rosenberg

                                Check my website. College hockey; it's what it's all about!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X