Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 121

Thread: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

  1. #21
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by shelfit View Post
    If they don't create a conference they don't get an AQ. I don't see any of these teams getting an at large bid either. I hope nobody loses any sleep over this. Lol.
    The way RPI works, one of them can absolutely can get an at-large bid. If one team is solidly better than the other teams (which is absolutely possible if not probable), then they will absolutely be in the at-large conversation. Since they would only be playing each other, RPI won't be able to determine how good that group of teams are relative to the rest of the teams (not that it does a good job of that anyway, but I digress).

    For example, I just plugged into my calculator having Holy Cross go 4-1 in its first round-robin against the rest of these teams, with the other teams having 3-2 or 2-3 records, give or take, and Holy Cross made the tournament. Not only that, but St. Anselm was knocking on the door as well. The others were scattered throughout the field.

    1 Wisconsin 0.6679
    2 St. Lawrence 0.6314
    3 Minnesota-Duluth 0.6119
    4 Clarkson 0.6106
    5 Minnesota 0.6041
    6 Holy Cross 0.5938
    7 Boston College 0.5910
    8 Robert Morris 0.5879
    9 St. Anselm 0.5704
    10 Quinnipiac 0.5561
    11 Cornell 0.5541
    12 North Dakota 0.5459
    13 Princeton 0.5428
    14 Vermont 0.5368
    15 Colgate 0.5359

    (Note that other team's RPI's don't match what the rest of the teams have right now because I swapped out Merrimack for Post since they aren't yet built into my calculator and deleted Merrimack's games against everyone else.)

    So, expand that out to a full season with Holy Cross going 16-4, and that should be plenty good enough to make it into the tournament. Ditto to anyone else.

    One of thes teams making the tournament next year is not only a possibility, but it's a realistic one.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    555

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    The way RPI works, one of them can absolutely can get an at-large bid. If one team is solidly better than the other teams (which is absolutely possible if not probable), then they will absolutely be in the at-large conversation. Since they would only be playing each other, RPI won't be able to determine how good that group of teams are relative to the rest of the teams (not that it does a good job of that anyway, but I digress).

    For example, I just plugged into my calculator having Holy Cross go 4-1 in its first round-robin against the rest of these teams, with the other teams having 3-2 or 2-3 records, give or take, and Holy Cross made the tournament. Not only that, but St. Anselm was knocking on the door as well. The others were scattered throughout the field.

    1 Wisconsin 0.6679
    2 St. Lawrence 0.6314
    3 Minnesota-Duluth 0.6119
    4 Clarkson 0.6106
    5 Minnesota 0.6041
    6 Holy Cross 0.5938
    7 Boston College 0.5910
    8 Robert Morris 0.5879
    9 St. Anselm 0.5704
    10 Quinnipiac 0.5561
    11 Cornell 0.5541
    12 North Dakota 0.5459
    13 Princeton 0.5428
    14 Vermont 0.5368
    15 Colgate 0.5359

    (Note that other team's RPI's don't match what the rest of the teams have right now because I swapped out Merrimack for Post since they aren't yet built into my calculator and deleted Merrimack's games against everyone else.)

    So, expand that out to a full season with Holy Cross going 16-4, and that should be plenty good enough to make it into the tournament. Ditto to anyone else.

    One of thes teams making the tournament next year is not only a possibility, but it's a realistic one.
    I don't think the selection committee has to automatically choose teams based on PairWise, so I don't see this happening. Even if it could, it shouldn't.
    "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!

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Arafel View Post
    I don't think the selection committee has to automatically choose teams based on PairWise, so I don't see this happening. Even if it could, it shouldn't.
    Exactly. Strength Of Schedule in this case should read Weakness Of Schedule. It's not going to happen. Guaranteed.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    34,751
    Quote Originally Posted by shelfit View Post
    Exactly. Strength Of Schedule in this case should read Weakness Of Schedule. It's not going to happen. Guaranteed.
    Then form a conference and get the AQ.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,455

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    On the men's side, back in the early days of Atlantic Hockey, I'm pretty sure the NCAA explicitly said that they reserved the right not to award them an at large bid until they played enough games against the rest of the D1 conferences to make a comparison meaningful.

  6. #26
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Arafel View Post
    I don't think the selection committee has to automatically choose teams based on PairWise, so I don't see this happening. Even if it could, it shouldn't.
    I mean, I'm just going off their own explicitly written selection criteria. Play 20 D1/D2 games and you're eligible. Once eligible, here's how they're selected: x, y, z.

    Otherwise what's the point of having a combined D1/D2 tournament if D2 teams can't be selected?

    RPI is pretty explicitly written into the selection criteria.

  7. #27
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    On the men's side, back in the early days of Atlantic Hockey, I'm pretty sure the NCAA explicitly said that they reserved the right not to award them an at large bid until they played enough games against the rest of the D1 conferences to make a comparison meaningful.
    It says in the women's criteria that they must play 20 games against D1/D2 teams to be selected. That's exactly what they're doing.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    34,751
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    It says in the women's criteria that they must play 20 games against D1/D2 teams to be selected. That's exactly what they're doing.
    According to USCHO, the 3 criteria are
    RPI
    Common Opponents
    Head to Head

    If the NEWSA (New England Women's Scheduling Alliance) plays just those 20 games amongst themselves, CoP and H2H drop in comparison so the only criteria would be RPI.

    Oh what a mess you've gotten us in, Ollie!

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,455

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    It says in the women's criteria that they must play 20 games against D1/D2 teams to be selected. That's exactly what they're doing.
    That's what the men's criteria said, too, but the NCAA overrode them. I was incorrect about it being Atlantic Hockey; rather, it was the AHA's predecessor the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference that was denied at-large bids that RPI said they ought to get. In 2000, Quinnipiac finished the season with the 4th best RPI in the country, but it did not get a tournament invite. In 2001, both Quinnipiac and Mercyhurst had top 10 RPIs, but neither got in.

    I suspect that the NCAA will do the same thing in this case.

  10. #30
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    That's what the men's criteria said, too, but the NCAA overrode them. I was incorrect about it being Atlantic Hockey; rather, it was the AHA's predecessor the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference that was denied at-large bids that RPI said they ought to get. In 2000, Quinnipiac finished the season with the 4th best RPI in the country, but it did not get a tournament invite. In 2001, both Quinnipiac and Mercyhurst had top 10 RPIs, but neither got in.

    I suspect that the NCAA will do the same thing in this case.
    Didn't you say that there was something in the criteria saying they had the ability to do so?

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,455

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    Didn't you say that there was something in the criteria saying they had the ability to do so?
    I can't find them to prove it, but I'm pretty sure there was nothing in the criteria that said they could override them. I'm not even sure why there would have to be; the NCAA is free to change the criteria any time it wants to.

  12. #32
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I'm not even sure why there would have to be; the NCAA is free to change the criteria any time it wants to.
    Because I would think that teams would want it to be clear on exactly what they need to do in order to make the tournament.

    As it stands right now, the selection criteria is very clear and very explicit and the Group Of Six would be meeting that criteria next year. Right?

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    34,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I can't find them to prove it, but I'm pretty sure there was nothing in the criteria that said they could override them. I'm not even sure why there would have to be; the NCAA is free to change the criteria any time it wants to.
    I believe there was a provisio if a conference's OOC RPI (record??) was so low, the committee could disavow any knowledge of them.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,455

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    Because I would think that teams would want it to be clear on exactly what they need to do in order to make the tournament.

    As it stands right now, the selection criteria is very clear and very explicit and the Group Of Six would be meeting that criteria next year. Right?
    The NCAA made the announcement that they would not be obligated to select a MAAC team for an at large bid prior to the beginning of the 1998-99 season, which was the MAAC's first year. So, all teams did know what they had to do to make the tournament. In the case of the MAAC, that included upgrading their programs in future years. The MAAC first got a team into the NCAA tournament in 2001, when Mercyhurst became the first automatic qualifier by winning the conference tournament.

    The issues involved were very similar to what would happen with this new conference. Not only did the MAAC not play enough non-conference games against the other D1 leagues to be able to make meaningful comparisons, it also restricted its members to a small number of scholarships (five, I think it was). The NCAA basically said that, if they wanted to be eligible for at large bids, they had to act like D1 programs.

    You may not think that it would be a good idea for the NCAA to take this approach, but the precedent they set indicates that they are very much willing to do so. This may also have something to do with why these schools are calling it a "scheduling alliance" rather than just calling themselves a conference.

  15. #35
    Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Southern New York
    Posts
    8,556

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    The NCAA made the announcement that they would not be obligated to select a MAAC team for an at large bid prior to the beginning of the 1998-99 season, which was the MAAC's first year. So, all teams did know what they had to do to make the tournament. In the case of the MAAC, that included upgrading their programs in future years. The MAAC first got a team into the NCAA tournament in 2001, when Mercyhurst became the first automatic qualifier by winning the conference tournament.

    The issues involved were very similar to what would happen with this new conference. Not only did the MAAC not play enough non-conference games against the other D1 leagues to be able to make meaningful comparisons, it also restricted its members to a small number of scholarships (five, I think it was). The NCAA basically said that, if they wanted to be eligible for at large bids, they had to act like D1 programs.

    You may not think that it would be a good idea for the NCAA to take this approach, but the precedent they set indicates that they are very much willing to do so. This may also have something to do with why these schools are calling it a "scheduling alliance" rather than just calling themselves a conference.
    I may be off here, but new conferences have a waiting period to be granted their autobid into the NCAA Tournament once they meet the criteria set forth in the rules, thus it was not guaranteed. I don't think it had anything to do with how "poor" the MAAC was. They had a waiting period.

    If the teams being discussed come together and become a Conference, I don't think there is anything the "big dogs" can do to stop them from getting an at-large bid once the time frame allows. It could be just a DIII rule, but I have a feeling it's Division wide. They will have to get their ducks in a row and make sure they are full members yadda yadda, but if they do everything correctly the should be awarded an automatic bid.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,455

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by PSUChamps2001 View Post
    I may be off here, but new conferences have a waiting period to be granted their autobid into the NCAA Tournament once they meet the criteria set forth in the rules, thus it was not guaranteed. I don't think it had anything to do with how "poor" the MAAC was. They had a waiting period.

    If the teams being discussed come together and become a Conference, I don't think there is anything the "big dogs" can do to stop them from getting an at-large bid once the time frame allows. It could be just a DIII rule, but I have a feeling it's Division wide. They will have to get their ducks in a row and make sure they are full members yadda yadda, but if they do everything correctly the should be awarded an automatic bid.
    Yes, they can get an automatic bid, as the MAAC did in its third year. That's not the same as an at large bid, and, as I said, there is precedent of the NCAA saying that teams in a new conference won't necessarily get an at large bid even if they meet the same criteria as teams in an established conference: playing at least 20 games against D1/D2 competition and having an RPI in the top (8 - automatic qualiiers outside the top 8).

  17. #37
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Was the men's tournament a National Collegiate tournament or a D1 tournament?

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,455

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    Was the men's tournament a National Collegiate tournament or a D1 tournament?
    I have no idea, but I also have no idea why it matters.

  19. #39
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I have no idea, but I also have no idea why it matters.
    Because in women's it's a combined tournament for both D1 and D2 teams. They're playing the number of qualifying games that the requirements tell them to play.

    I realize we're going in circles here. I think what I'm saying is that the NCAA may or may not change the criteria next year to say that they have to play more than just themselves in order to qualify, like they did for the men, but as it stands right now they meet the very explicit criteria given.

    I think the fact that it's a combined D1/D2 tournament matters. How else would D2 teams be expected to play? They're D2, they aren't going to play a D1 schedule. You know what I mean?

    Put another way, to the letter of the rule the NCAA has a predicament here that they should probably resolve in writing before next season starts to prevent any ambiguity on what could happen. But, NCAA, so. Lol
    Last edited by TonyTheTiger20; 01-20-2017 at 10:50 PM.

  20. #40
    #SOAR TonyTheTiger20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    East Hampton, CT
    Posts
    10,140

    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    I wrote an article about this. Includes a brief comment from the St. Michael's head coach and Sarah Fraser, the chair of the selection committee:

    http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston...ls-anselm-post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •