Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

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

  • #31
    Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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?
      Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
      Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
      Twitter: @Salzano14


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

      Comment


      • #33
        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.
        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


        • #34
          Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

            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.
            Remy Babineaux
            remyb616@gmail.com
            D3FHL Web Page

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

              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).

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                Was the men's tournament a National Collegiate tournament or a D1 tournament?
                Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                Twitter: @Salzano14


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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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, 10:50 PM.
                    Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                    Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                    Twitter: @Salzano14


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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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
                      Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                      Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                      Twitter: @Salzano14


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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                        Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                        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
                        Thanks TTT.

                        Hopefully Sarah Fraser is feeling a little more vigorous by next season. Her quote sounds honorable on it's surface, but if no changes means Brown level teams (or below) are into the tournament.....their lack of intent would eliminate team(s) anyway of course. Just replace worthy teams with unworthy teams through passivity.

                        "The committee reviews the selection criteria on an annual basis. While there is no guarantee that the criteria will not change, it is not the committee's intent that changes in the criteria would eliminate teams from being eligible for selections."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                          Originally posted by KTDC View Post
                          Thanks TTT.

                          Hopefully Sarah Fraser is feeling a little more vigorous by next season. Her quote sounds honorable on it's surface, but if no changes means Brown level teams (or below) are into the tournament.....their lack of intent would eliminate team(s) anyway of course. Just replace worthy teams with unworthy teams through passivity.

                          "The committee reviews the selection criteria on an annual basis. While there is no guarantee that the criteria will not change, it is not the committee's intent that changes in the criteria would eliminate teams from being eligible for selections."
                          I agree with you, but on the other hand, why have it be a D-I/D-II combined tournament in the first place if D-II teams can't compete? Both in the sense of eligibility and also in the sense of getting run out of the building?

                          The solution to this is to have the D-II teams in the D-III tournament, really. But, it's not, so, here we are...
                          Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                          Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                          Twitter: @Salzano14


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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                            I agree with you, but on the other hand, why have it be a D-I/D-II combined tournament in the first place if D-II teams can't compete? Both in the sense of eligibility and also in the sense of getting run out of the building?

                            The solution to this is to have the D-II teams in the D-III tournament, really. But, it's not, so, here we are...
                            Lindenwood???

                            C'mon alliance! Form a conference and after 2 years you're automatically in the tournament!

                            (Of course the tournament will immediately expand to 9 teams)
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                              This whole thing is ridiculous. Just apply common sense and ignore the D2 teams.
                              Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
                              "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
                              Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18

                                Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                                The solution to this is to have the D-II teams in the D-III tournament, really. But, it's not, so, here we are...
                                This has been talked about and tried for 10-15 years on the men's side and the NCAA hasn't budged. They aren't going to allow the D1 or D2 teams to play in D3 tournaments.

                                That is what forced the D3 schools to finally do what is taking place now. It wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue from the D3 side of things if the games against those teams counted for the NCAA selection criteria. The problem is they don't count in primary so every D3 team that plays them, loses games that count which can effect winning percentage and other things.
                                The Poster Formerly Known as Purple_and_Gold10©
                                "The Prezidential Three - Elmira, Oswego, Norwich" © Joecct
                                GO EAGLES!!! R.I.P. L.H. #4 In our hearts forever
                                GO LAKERS!!!
                                GO CADETS!!! R.I.P. Charlie Crosby '63
                                "Reisweber trying to circle in front of the net, he does, HE SCORES! that's it! Oswego State has done it!! The Lakers take home the first NCAA title of any kind in school history. It's celebration time in Upstate New York!"
                                Oswego State '09

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X