Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

BSU: Third-place finish in their penultimate CHA season; they won three of the last six tournament titles and made the NCAAs as an at-large bid in 2009-2010
RIT: Third-place team in 2009-2010 in just their fifth Division I season

Third Place? Did they re-institute the consolation game at the FF in 2009 and 2010 and I missed it? Cause I saw BSU and RIT lose in the Semis and both left town shortly thereafter.

[FlagDUDE08]

My team got screwed! thread

Isn't this thread mis-titled, and should be "My team got screwed!"?

[joecct]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Want to make life interesting? Each league gets 1 bid.

Right now the NCAA would be
SCSU
ND
NMU
AFA
BU
Princeton

Wednesday nite
AFA v NMU
PU v BU

Thursday
AFA/NMU v SCSU
PU/BU v ND

Saturday
Finals

[stuckinwi]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Want to make life interesting? Each league gets 1 bid.

Right now the NCAA would be
SCSU
ND
NMU
AFA
BU
Princeton

Wednesday nite
AFA v NMU
PU v BU

Thursday
AFA/NMU v SCSU
PU/BU v ND

Saturday
Finals

I don't recall the 'Cats winning anything this year

[cetihcra]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Want to make life interesting? Each league gets 1 bid.

Right now the NCAA would be
SCSU
ND
NMU
AFA
BU
Princeton

Wednesday nite
AFA v NMU
PU v BU

Thursday
AFA/NMU v SCSU
PU/BU v ND

Saturday
Finals

Princeton isn't in if SCSU is in, or vice versa. How are you selecting these teams?

r

[gfmorris]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Third Place? Did they re-institute the consolation game at the FF in 2009 and 2010 and I missed it? Cause I saw BSU and RIT lose in the Semis and both left town shortly thereafter.

I was just marking down information from USCHO and not spending the time trying to run stuff like that to ground.

GFM

[joecct]

I don't recall the 'Cats winning anything this year

brain fart - MTU.
brain fart 2 - DU

[joecct]

Princeton isn't in if SCSU is in, or vice versa. How are you selecting these teams?

r

try this again. I upgafuked the conference champs.
B1G - ND
NCHC - DU
HEA - BU
ECAC - PU
WCHA - MTU
AHA - AFA

Byes - ND & DU
QF - BU/AFA and PU/MTU
SF ND v PU/MTU & DU v BU/AFA
F semi winners

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

You could construct a scenario (whether it's a good one matters about how you feel about the leagues of smaller schools) where each league gets two bids: one for the regular season champion, one for the conference tournament champion, with two potential twists:

1. If the RS champ wins the tournament, they get a first-round bye.
2. If the RS champ wins the tournament, another at-large team can be added to the tournament.

I like the idea of RS and Playoff Champ getting auto-bids. But I'd change your twists. If the RS Champ wins is also the Playoff Champ, the Playoff Runner-up gets the other bid.

Back in 1994 Colorado College rose from last place the the previous season to win the WCHA regular season, but after being upset in the WCHA quarterfinals 2 games to 1, they were not selected for the NCAA tournament. There was much complaining about how autobids were awarded and how the regular season champion deserved an autobid. Supposedly the committee then added a "CC Rule" that the RS champion of each league would always be selected until the NCAA learned of the rule and let it be known that each league was to get only one autobid, determined by each league. I have no idea if such a rule was ever invoked, but no regular season champion missed the tournament until the formation of the MAAC in 1998-99, when no MAAC team made the NCAA tournament. The following season the CHA was formed and Niagara won the regular season and tournament titles and made the NCAA field as an at-large team. Then in 2001 Clarkson won the ECAC regular season, was upset in the quarterfinals 2 games to 1 and missed the NCAA tournament.

As for byes, the NCAA tournament had them from 1988 through 2002. In 1988 no teams won both league titles, in 1989 only one did, in 1990 all four did and in 1991 three teams did. Of the 8 teams only one, Clarkson in 1991, failed to get a bye. Again there was much complaining about how a regular season and tournament champion deserved a bye, with many calling for a "Clarkson Rule" to insure that would happen. To my knowledge no such rule was ever invoked by the committee, but no other double champion from Hockey East, ECAC, CCHA or WCHA missed the bye until Michigan in 2002. Niagara (CHA, 2000) and Mercyhurst (MAAC, 2001) also won both leagues titles, but did not receive byes.

The entire AQ-travesty seems to be about aping the NC$$ hoops model... Problem is, college hockey isn't a cash-cow at any level, and it's seriously moronic to apply that model here. There is absolutely no justification for that, no matter how you care to slice it.

Actually you have it backwards, since the automatic qualifiers in the basketball tournament are not the ones bringing in the money, it is the at-large teams from the power conferences that bring in the money. In fact, with 32 automatic qualifiers in the men's basketball tournament they could eliminate 36 teams from the tournament, but again, there would go the money.

Simply put, more AQs = more teams in D-I. More teams mean more scholarships and more opportunities for young men to get an education and maybe make the NHL. While it is true that the top talent still goes to the higher-profile leagues, there is an increasing amount of AHL-and-higher talent coming out of these schools.

This is currently happening in men's DI lacrosse. Just eight years ago there were only six conferences with autobids (the ACC was to small) and 60 teams. This year there are ten conferences (including the ACC) with autobids and 71 teams, with 2 more programs starting up next year.

The NCAA Men's Hockey Tournament already has more teams in it than they would be allowed by usual NCAA minimum guidelines of approximately 1 tournament team for every 7 teams in the sport. By that, hockey should only get 8 or 9 (8.6, exactly) teams in the tournament. So increasing the tournament size even more beyond 16 is probably unlikely.

It is much closer to 1 in 5 in men's basketball (68 out of 351, or 19.37%), so that would be back to 12 teams for hockey. However, the NCAA uses different numbers for different sports, so that is not a fixed ratio. For example, in men's lacrosse the NCAA had a 16 team tournament for 60 teams in 2010, slightly more than 1 out of 4 teams. With expansion to 71 teams they originally added 2 teams to go to 18, but dropped one and now have 17 teams, slightly less than 1 out of 4. In field hockey it is an 18 team field for 78 teams overall, just over 23%, or slightly less than 1 out of 4 teams and women's ice hockey has 8 out of 36 teams, 22%. So well men's hockey has one of the highest ratios, if not the highest, it is not as far out of wack as you make it seem.

But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

Sean

[walrus655321]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

It is much closer to 1 in 5 in men's basketball (68 out of 351, or 19.37%), so that would be back to 12 teams for hockey. However, the NCAA uses different numbers for different sports, so that is not a fixed ratio. For example, in men's lacrosse the NCAA had a 16 team tournament for 60 teams in 2010, slightly more than 1 out of 4 teams. With expansion to 71 teams they originally added 2 teams to go to 18, but dropped one and now have 17 teams, slightly less than 1 out of 4. In field hockey it is an 18 team field for 78 teams overall, just over 23%, or slightly less than 1 out of 4 teams and women's ice hockey has 8 out of 36 teams, 22%. So well men's hockey has one of the highest ratios, if not the highest, it is not as far out of wack as you make it seem.

But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

Sean

64 out of 297 baseball teams make the CWS, that's 21.5%, even more than men's hoops

[Bender14]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Back in 1994 Colorado College rose from last place the the previous season to win the WCHA regular season, but after being upset in the WCHA quarterfinals 2 games to 1, they were not selected for the NCAA tournament. There was much complaining about how autobids were awarded and how the regular season champion deserved an autobid. Supposedly the committee then added a "CC Rule" that the RS champion of each league would always be selected until the NCAA learned of the rule and let it be known that each league was to get only one autobid, determined by each league. I have no idea if such a rule was ever invoked, but no regular season champion missed the tournament until the formation of the MAAC in 1998-99, when no MAAC team made the NCAA tournament. The following season the CHA was formed and Niagara won the regular season and tournament titles and made the NCAA field as an at-large team. Then in 2001 Clarkson won the ECAC regular season, was upset in the quarterfinals 2 games to 1 and missed the NCAA tournament.

As for byes, the NCAA tournament had them from 1988 through 2002. In 1988 no teams won both league titles, in 1989 only one did, in 1990 all four did and in 1991 three teams did. Of the 8 teams only one, Clarkson in 1991, failed to get a bye. Again there was much complaining about how a regular season and tournament champion deserved a bye, with many calling for a "Clarkson Rule" to insure that would happen. To my knowledge no such rule was ever invoked by the committee, but no other double champion from Hockey East, ECAC, CCHA or WCHA missed the bye until Michigan in 2002. Niagara (CHA, 2000) and Mercyhurst (MAAC, 2001) also won both leagues titles, but did not receive byes.

Actually you have it backwards, since the automatic qualifiers in the basketball tournament are not the ones bringing in the money, it is the at-large teams from the power conferences that bring in the money. In fact, with 32 automatic qualifiers in the men's basketball tournament they could eliminate 36 teams from the tournament, but again, there would go the money.

This is currently happening in men's DI lacrosse. Just eight years ago there were only six conferences with autobids (the ACC was to small) and 60 teams. This year there are ten conferences (including the ACC) with autobids and 71 teams, with 2 more programs starting up next year.

It is much closer to 1 in 5 in men's basketball (68 out of 351, or 19.37%), so that would be back to 12 teams for hockey. However, the NCAA uses different numbers for different sports, so that is not a fixed ratio. For example, in men's lacrosse the NCAA had a 16 team tournament for 60 teams in 2010, slightly more than 1 out of 4 teams. With expansion to 71 teams they originally added 2 teams to go to 18, but dropped one and now have 17 teams, slightly less than 1 out of 4. In field hockey it is an 18 team field for 78 teams overall, just over 23%, or slightly less than 1 out of 4 teams and women's ice hockey has 8 out of 36 teams, 22%. So well men's hockey has one of the highest ratios, if not the highest, it is not as far out of wack as you make it seem.

But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

Sean

That's good stuff

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

But no matter what you think of the automatic qualifiers, the NCAA has clearly set out rules on how the are assigned to conferences and that is not likely to change.

Sean

Actually, the NCAA grants auto-bids to the conferences. The individual conferences themselves determine how they are awarded. They all choose to give them to their post-season tournament champions. I remember not so long ago (relatively speaking) when many conferences, most notably the PAC-10 and Big-10, did not have post-season basketball tournaments. They chose to award their auto-bids to the regular season champs.

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

Actually, the NCAA grants auto-bids to the conferences. The individual conferences themselves determine how they are awarded. They all choose to give them to their post-season tournament champions. I remember not so long ago (relatively speaking) when many conferences, most notably the PAC-10 and Big-10, did not have post-season basketball tournaments. They chose to award their auto-bids to the regular season champs.

Thanks, but I already knew that. What I was trying to state (not very well, apparently) was that the NCAA has clearly set out rules for granting an automatic bid to a conference and once initially eligible a conference will continue to get an autobid as long as they continue to met those rules.

I hope that is clearer.

Sean

[LynahFan]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

If your conference regular season champ doesn't earn an at-large bid, then your conference sucks (and yes, this could often apply to the ECAC). The only ways that happens are 1) the RS champ loses a ton of OOC games to screw their own record, 2) the other teams in the conference lost so many OOC games that your RS champ's gaudy record against them doesn't mean diddly, or 3) a combination of the two.

Keep math simple - get your PWR up, win your tourney, or go home.

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Power rankings making conference play irrelevant

If your conference regular season champ doesn't earn an at-large bid, then your conference sucks (and yes, this could often apply to the ECAC). The only ways that happens are 1) the RS champ loses a ton of OOC games to screw their own record, 2) the other teams in the conference lost so many OOC games that your RS champ's gaudy record against them doesn't mean diddly, or 3) a combination of the two.

Keep math simple - get your PWR up, win your tourney, or go home.

Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 8 teams 34 regular season champions have not made the tournament. Three in the 8 team field, 2 coming from the ECAC as it split into three division each with its own regular season champion, eight in the 12 team field, and twenty-three in the 16 team field.
Eight Teams
1981 – ECAC East – Boston College
1983 – CCHA – Bowling Green
1984 – ECAC Ivy – Harvard
Twelve Teams
1992 – ECAC – Harvard
1994 – WCHA – Colorado College
1999 – MAAC – Quinnipiac
2000 – MAAC – Quinnipiac
2001 – ECAC – Clarkson
2001 – CHA – Alabama Huntsville
2002 – MAAC – Mercyhurst
2002 – CHA – Wayne State*
Sixteen Teams
2003 – CHA – Alabama Huntsville
2004 – ECAC – Colgate
2004 – CHA – Bemidji State
2005 – AH – Quinnipiac
2006 – ECAC – Dartmouth (tie)
2006 – ECAC – Colgate (tie)
2006 – CHA – Niagara
2007 – AH – RIT
2007 – CHA – Niagara
2008 – AH – Army
2008 – CHA – Bemidji State
2009 – AH – RIT (tie)
2011 – AH – RIT
2014 – AH – Mercyhurst
2015 – AH – Robert Morris
2016 – B1G – Minnesota
2016 – WCHA – Michigan Tech
2016 – AH – Robert Morris
2017 – HEA – Boston College (tie)
2017 – WCHA – Bemidji State
2017 – AH – Canisius
2018 – HEA – Boston College
2018 – AH - Mercyhurst

* also won league tournament, but league had no autobid

By conference the MAAC/Atlantic Hockey has 13; the CHA had 7; the ECAC has 7; the WCHA has 3; Hockey East has 2; the B1G has 1; and the CCHA had 1.

Sean