PDA

View Full Version : What is it going to take to see more new / different teams in the NCAA tournament?



Pages : [1] 2

shelfit
04-21-2015, 10:53 PM
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting tired of seeing basically the same programs making it to the NCAA playoffs every year at both the D1 and D3 levels. What will it take to see much more new blood in the NCAA post-season? This is intended to be a serious discussion. Sarcastic responses are easy so please try to be productive and add to the discussion.

kwhrs1
04-21-2015, 11:09 PM
Wait, Wait, let me guess. They put together better teams? Just guessing.

pokechecker
04-22-2015, 09:11 AM
Wait, Wait, let me guess. They put together better teams? Just guessing.

^
LOL

over time the number of players with high skills increase, it becomes difficult for the top teams to make claim to the best since there are more available than they can put on their team

FiveHoleFrenzy
04-22-2015, 09:33 AM
If you can swing it, relocate to the WCHA...
Lure Mark Johnson or Brad Frost away from their current teams...
Build a women's only hockey facility...
Buy a skating treadmill...
Don't schedule so many cupcakes...See the first suggestion...
And last but not least...Recruit more Minnesota kids. :)

OnMAA
04-22-2015, 09:58 AM
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting tired of seeing basically the same programs making it to the NCAA playoffs every year at both the D1 and D3 levels. What will it take to see much more new blood in the NCAA post-season? This is intended to be a serious discussion. Sarcastic responses are easy so please try to be productive and add to the discussion.

It would be interesting to throw out some stats on this first. In recent years there have been several new entrants into the NCAA tournament. Clarkson and Quinnipiac would be two examples, and this year we had RIT. Not all that long ago, Cornell and Quinnipiac used to be mired at the bottom of the ECAC.

Having said that the teams that seem to make the final seem to be fairly constant over the years. Point is that there are two elements to this discussion:

- New teams advancing to the tourney. (happening even in recent years)
- The teams that end up winning. (More of the same, other than Clarkson in 2014)

pgb-ohio
04-22-2015, 10:08 AM
Hire a coach with inside knowledge of a Big 3 program. Or better yet, hire one with inside knowledge of two such programs.;)

Also, pokechecker is correct:
...over time the number of players with high skills increase, it becomes difficult for the top teams to make claim to the best since there are more available than they can put on their teamAs the player talent grows, as coaching talent diffuses around the NCAA, it will become tougher and tougher to "corner the market."

We've already moved into a second stage. Although the top gun programs remain largely the same, the star player advantage has become more of a depth advantage.

It's important to remember that this state of affairs isn't unique to Women's Hockey. Many sports had a dominant team, or small group of dominant teams, at earlier points in their history: Yankees in MLB; Celtics/Lakers in NBA; Canadiens in NHL; UCLA Bruins in Men's NCAA Hoops. The evolution may not go as quickly as some of us would like. But as time goes on, it becomes tougher and tougher to maintain the dominance.

Also, note the evolution of Women's NCAA Hoops isn't all that far ahead of us. UConn has won what -- 10 of the last 20 titles? Don't follow either Hoops tournament closely, but I think Tennessee has won a good percentage of the rest of the Women's BB crowns.

brookyone
04-22-2015, 10:13 AM
I'm actually not at all tired of one particular component per a repetitive aspect to the NCAA tournament.

pokechecker
04-22-2015, 10:15 AM
It's important to remember that this state of affairs isn't unique to Women's Hockey.

yup, men's hockey was the same, today it is very difficult for the same teams to be at the top year after year

HNIF
04-22-2015, 10:33 AM
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting tired of seeing basically the same programs making it to the NCAA playoffs every year at both the D1 and D3 levels. What will it take to see much more new blood in the NCAA post-season? This is intended to be a serious discussion. Sarcastic responses are easy so please try to be productive and add to the discussion.

The top programs are where they are because they do their homework. Some of the top young women are uncovered by grade 8. By the time these ladies are ready to commit these schools doing their diligence have seen them play for YEARS. Nothing beats work and persistence when it comes to the recruitment process. I am rooting for the schools who are not there yet but have early contact and follow up consistently.

D2D
04-22-2015, 11:14 AM
yup, men's hockey was the same, today it is very difficult for the same teams to be at the top year after year
2011 - Minnesota-Duluth
2013 - Yale
2014 - Union
2015 - Providence

Each a first time winner going all the way back to 1948 - pretty amazing. It may take just as long (67 years) before we see something similar on the women's side.

EastFan1
04-22-2015, 11:17 AM
In the past, the NCAA has dropped the number of scholarships to try to improve parity. If women's hockey had 8 scholarships instead of 18, the competition would get interesting. Won't happen, but that change would disperse the talent and make for some very tough recruiting decisions.

Cali
04-22-2015, 03:01 PM
Also, pokechecker is correct

Wait, what??

PuckRush
04-22-2015, 03:22 PM
I have a thought, but not sure it's right. It's based on FiveHoleFrenzy's post.

This is for ECAC and Hockey East, because I can only speak for those conferences from experience. This may work in WCHA and CHA, but those more familiar with player thinking out there will know better.

From the players I know, it seems like the formula for picking a school is: Academic Rank + Facilities Rank + Coaching Rank + Campus/Location Rank* = Desirability Score. *Campus/Location rank is a combined measure of a) desirable location and b) campus life.

So if we ranked each school 1 to 5 in each of the four areas, with 5 being best, and added them together, the sum is the Desirability Score and hence, the schools that get the best players.

This doesn't really work for Ivies, because there are two other factors - no scholarships and grades/scores. I'll address them separately.

Here's how I think it plays out here in the east:

-An example of a high desirability score: Boston College - great facilities, excellent academics, great and beautiful location, and proven coaching.
-An example of a mid-level desirability score: St Lawrence - it's all good, but their campus/location rank (location, size of school) probably adds a level of difficulty.
-Examples of lower-level scores: I think of Colgate, for example - what a great school academically and a beautiful place, but it seems that two or more other factors drag them down. I don't mean that Colgate isn't going to have an upward trajectory over the next few years, but that's the perception now, which affects recruiting (but I'd send my kid there in a minute).

The Ivies:

-High Desirability: I really think Harvard is the most desired landing spot for girls that have the grades and skills. Harvard ranks high in all 4 areas.
-Mid Desirability: Every Ivy is desirable, but in terms of hockey desirability, it's tough to beat Harvard. Anyone not named Harvard has a steep hill to the National Championship game because Harvard picks first, and everyone else fights over the rest of the eligible players.
-Low Desirability: I don't want to isolate Brown, but that school does not support it's hockey at the same level as it's peers, and it shows in this formula. The Brown players are great by the way - I know many of them and it's all good. Just an obvious problem that exists now. It can all change for the good overnight.

Sorry if I offended anyone. Just sharing a thought. I think if this is true, the winning formula out east is:

1. Build a great rink.
2. Have a nice campus, good campus life, and lucky you if you are in a desirable location.
3. Have high standards for academics.
4. Hire good coaching.

In whatever order you'd like...

EastFan1
04-22-2015, 05:05 PM
I think if this is true, the winning formula out east is:

1. Build a great rink.
2. Have a nice campus, good campus life, and lucky you if you are in a desirable location.
3. Have high standards for academics.
4. Hire good coaching.

In whatever order you'd like...

"Close to Mom" wins out for many.

ne7minder
04-22-2015, 05:07 PM
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting tired of seeing basically the same programs making it to the NCAA playoffs every year at both the D1 and D3 levels. What will it take to see much more new blood in the NCAA post-season? This is intended to be a serious discussion. Sarcastic responses are easy so please try to be productive and add to the discussion.

There just is not a large enough talent pool to staff all the teams. The bestway to fix that is to encourage more your girls to play the game, thousands more so that there are 50-75 more elite players entering college every year. That way the top 4-5 teams could not scoop up all the best talent. Problem is that would take 10-15 years to see full results. A poor way to do it would be to half the number of D-1 teams. That would have the same effect of distributing the best players more evenly. The down-side is fewer women being able to have the full college hockey experience. The absolute worst way (the one that would produce the most immediate results in altering the finish) would be to allow the women to play the crappy game the men play. Hooking, holding, interference and physical abuse will drag down the good teams and elevate the thugs. This is how the NHL works & D-I men's as a minor league affiliate of the NHL follows their lead.

ARM
04-22-2015, 06:05 PM
In the past, the NCAA has dropped the number of scholarships to try to improve parity. If women's hockey had 8 scholarships instead of 18, the competition would get interesting.Reduction of scholarships has occurred in sports like football where the number of scholarship athletes was far greater than the number of players who competed in any given contest. In women's hockey, the number of players who actually play in a game is much closer to 18 than it is to 8. Sure, it would benefit programs that aren't making much of an effort to compete today, but at a cost of losing more than half of the athletic scholarship opportunities for women's hockey student athletes. I'm more interesting in doing right by the athletes than the underachieving programs, most of which would still find a way to fail to be any more competitive than they currently are.

OnMAA
04-22-2015, 10:33 PM
"Close to Mom" wins out for many.

"Far away from home" wins out for some as well.

I quote my oldest daughter in 2005 when she was in grade 10/11 on the way home during a long ride from a hockey tourney (Stoney):

Me: "Where do you want to go to University Cass"
Cass: "Far away day Dad"
Me: "You better talk to your mom first"

One of those conversations in the car you never forget !!!

Fast forward 10 years... She did go far away... Has been far away for 8 years ... Currently on the West Coast, Married and just about to enter the working world as an MD...She is coming back to Ontario this summer.... :)

OnMAA
04-22-2015, 10:43 PM
Reduction of scholarships has occurred in sports like football where the number of scholarship athletes was far greater than the number of players who competed in any given contest. In women's hockey, the number of players who actually play in a game is much closer to 18 than it is to 8. Sure, it would benefit programs that aren't making much of an effort to compete today, but at a cost of losing more than half of the athletic scholarship opportunities for women's hockey student athletes. I'm more interesting in doing right by the athletes than the underachieving programs, most of which would still find a way to fail to be any more competitive than they currently are.

Not only that. If the number of schollies is reduced, along with the recent decline of the canuck dollar and the increase in funding by schools in the CIS, would lead to more Canuck top talent staying in Canada.

Blackbeard
04-23-2015, 01:01 AM
The absolute worst way (the one that would produce the most immediate results in altering the finish) would be to allow the women to play the crappy game the men play.

Speaking of crappy, although I know that this is not what you meant, I just watched bits of the Jets/Ducks final game. I've had virtually zero interest in the NHL for decades and don't see that changing. Got tired of watching fights waiting for hockey games to break out and grew tired of the things that you mentioned. Although there were no fights, at least that I saw, the Jets looked like a B2 team...absolutely horrible passing...into the skates, behind the recipient and often to open ice with no team mates around...over and over and over again. I don't recall ever seeing a D1 women's team look that bad. These are guys making seven figure salaries...it's embarrassing, to put it mildly.

Although I realize that that's a small sample, I think it's just like that friend of mine who runs the scrimmages has often said..."the women are more talented, their game is pure and there is no BS. The men are just faster and they are stronger...that's it."

The fans were the story of the night...the first playoff series in Wpg. in 19 years and they watched their team go down 4 straight. Even so, the broadcasters gave the fans the 3rd star of the night! Don't ever recall seeing that before.

The other plus was Cassie Campbell was there doing some commentating and player interviews.

But as for the hockey...there's reasons why I like women's hockey and what I saw tonight only reinforced them...not that they needed it.

Blackbeard
04-23-2015, 01:13 AM
along with the recent decline of the canuck dollar and the increase in funding by schools in the CIS, would lead to more Canuck top talent staying in Canada.

Don't expect this to be permanent. The US dollar is temporarily the best looking horse in the glue factory because of it's reserve currency status, however so fragile, and the stupidity of many people. The reserve currency status is quickly eroding and is on its last legs. That freight train is coming down the track and the carnage will be far greater than most can even imagine. Actually, most are blissfully unaware.