PDA

View Full Version : D1/D2 scheduling alliance for 2017-18



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

KTDC
01-26-2017, 08:50 AM
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-college-womens-hockey/2017/1/26/14356336/2018-ncaa-womens-hockey-tournament-franklin-pierce-holy-cross-sacred-heart-st-michaels-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."

TonyTheTiger20
01-26-2017, 11:10 AM
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...

joecct
01-26-2017, 12:23 PM
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)

Timothy A
01-26-2017, 12:47 PM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Just apply common sense and ignore the D2 teams.

PrezdeJohnson09
01-26-2017, 12:50 PM
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.

joecct
01-26-2017, 01:36 PM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Just apply common sense and ignore the D2 teams.

Then you change it to a D1 tournament, but the D2's can still backdoor into the tournament by forming a conference and declaring to participate in the D1 tournament.

So much for expanding the base. Right Michigan, Michigan State, Ferris State, Western Michigan, and the UP schools? And UNO, DU, CC? You too!

TonyTheTiger20
01-26-2017, 01:56 PM
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)

Well the reason they aren't forming an actual conference (and making this a one-year deal) is that everyone is expecting Holy Cross to be in WHEA in '18-'19. Then they're down to 5 teams and they need to figure something out again.

TonyTheTiger20
01-26-2017, 01:57 PM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Just apply common sense and ignore the D2 teams.

Well, yes, but they need to change the tournament to "D-I" instead of "national collegiate" first haha

I mean, that's what they do in men's. There are a handful of D-II teams (my wife's alma mater Stonehill among them) that are not eligible for either tournament, and they just have their conference tournament and be done with it.

joecct
01-26-2017, 02:31 PM
Well, yes, but they need to change the tournament to "D-I" instead of "national collegiate" first haha

I mean, that's what they do in men's. There are a handful of D-II teams (my wife's alma mater Stonehill among them) that are not eligible for either tournament, and they just have their conference tournament and be done with it.

Tony

There is an obscure bylaw that allows D2 teams without a D2 championship (for example ice hockey) to form a 6 team conference and declare that they want to play in the D1 tournnament.

I don't think there's a waiting period, either. If I was the NE10, I'd do it, just to give apoplexy to a whole bunch of people.

shelfit
01-26-2017, 03:57 PM
Tony

There is an obscure bylaw that allows D2 teams without a D2 championship (for example ice hockey) to form a 6 team conference and declare that they want to play in the D1 tournnament.

I don't think there's a waiting period, either. If I was the NE10, I'd do it, just to give apoplexy to a whole bunch of people.

Apoplexy?! Aaaaaaargh, you're making my brain hurt! (Get it? ;) )

TonyTheTiger20
01-26-2017, 07:17 PM
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.
I have an idea:

Cancel the D-III tournament. Start a D-II tournament. D-III teams are allowed to play *UP*, right?

joecct
01-26-2017, 10:46 PM
I have an idea:

Cancel the D-III tournament. Start a D-II tournament. D-III teams are allowed to play *UP*, right?

Not anymore. 2010-100 killed playing up. But, I believe in theory you could create a D-II/D-III National Collegiate Championship.

Timothy A
01-27-2017, 06:34 AM
Doesn't the amount of games played against teams under consideration affect the rating? All the D1 teams less the 3 in the scheduling group would have 30+ and the 3 D2's would have 20.

joecct
01-27-2017, 06:44 AM
Doesn't the amount of games played against teams under consideration affect the rating? All the D1 teams less the 3 in the scheduling group would have 30+ and the 3 D2's would have 20.

IIRC D2 may schedule 30 games to 25 for D3 and 34 (36) for D1.

In order to be considered for the National Collegiate Championship, you need to play 20 games against eligible teams.

Presently, the Ivy Group plays 29 while the rest of the ECAC plays 34.

ARM
01-27-2017, 07:41 AM
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?The DII team could try to compete with the best and play competitively against the best. If that team successfully demonstrates that it can do so, it should be in the tournament. Trying to find a pool of teams that are even worse and getting into the tournament through a technicality goes against the spirit of competition.

It's not fun for the D-II teams that there isn't a D-II tournament, but the reason that there isn't is because there are so few D-II programs play women's hockey. There isn't a perfect solution. D-II programs should be in the National Collegiate Tournament if they belong there, not because they did some bare minimum that suggests they've done enough to pass through a loophole. If the committee doesn't have enough discretion to judge such situations, then why have a committee at all?

TonyTheTiger20
01-27-2017, 08:45 AM
Doesn't the amount of games played against teams under consideration affect the rating?Nah TUC was removed from the criteria last year.


Trying to find a pool of teams that are even worse and getting into the tournament through a technicality goes against the spirit of competition.I totally agree with this but I believe Coach Donovan when he said that they didn't even realize it was a possibility when they set the schedule.

I mean, intuitively, it doesn't make sense to think that the top team in that alliance would be in the top 8 of the Pairwise. But, mathematically, it absolutely could (I almost want to say "probably" depending on the out-of-alliance games the teams have scheduled).

FWIW I have heard (but have not confirmed) that Holy Cross may have scheduled 8 games on their own against WHEA teams next year. That will kill Holy Cross's chances but it's not enough crossover games to prevent, say, St. Anselm from getting in. I was able to get St. Anselm in pretty easily at 15-5-0 even adding 8 losses to bad Hockey East teams to Holy Cross's record.

PrezdeJohnson09
01-27-2017, 09:22 AM
Nah TUC was removed from the criteria last year.

I totally agree with this but I believe Coach Donovan when he said that they didn't even realize it was a possibility when they set the schedule.

I mean, intuitively, it doesn't make sense to think that the top team in that alliance would be in the top 8 of the Pairwise. But, mathematically, it absolutely could (I almost want to say "probably" depending on the out-of-alliance games the teams have scheduled).

FWIW I have heard (but have not confirmed) that Holy Cross may have scheduled 8 games on their own against WHEA teams next year. That will kill Holy Cross's chances but it's not enough crossover games to prevent, say, St. Anselm from getting in. I was able to get St. Anselm in pretty easily at 15-5-0 even adding 8 losses to bad Hockey East teams to Holy Cross's record.

No offense to Saint Michael's...but they also probably aren't one of the teams that would consistently be in contention for this scenario either given their record over the years.

The teams this stands to benefit most are likely Holy Cross, Saint Anselm and Franklin Pierce and perhaps they had a different mindset going into this alliance scheduling agreement.

TonyTheTiger20
01-27-2017, 09:35 AM
No offense to Saint Michael's...but they also probably aren't one of the teams that would consistently be in contention for this scenario either given their record over the years.

The teams this stands to benefit most are likely Holy Cross, Saint Anselm and Franklin Pierce and perhaps they had a different mindset going into this alliance scheduling agreement.

I had the same thoughts you did if I'm being honest.

St. Anselm in particular (5-0-0 against these teams this year) stands to benefit. Holy Cross would have if they weren't playing 8 WHEA teams next year like I heard, but St. Anselm could absolutely do it. Hell, they're in 1st place in the RPI right now (granted that's because they have a perfect record but still).

joecct
01-27-2017, 10:24 AM
I had the same thoughts you did if I'm being honest.

St. Anselm in particular (5-0-0 against these teams this year) stands to benefit. Holy Cross would have if they weren't playing 8 WHEA teams next year like I heard, but St. Anselm could absolutely do it. Hell, they're in 1st place in the RPI right now (granted that's because they have a perfect record but still).

If Holy Cross plays even 1 WHEA team it introduces Common Opponents into the PWR. If HC goes 0-8, then you better be perfect in the SA vs. HC, ou you'll lose the comparison.

TonyTheTiger20
01-27-2017, 10:33 AM
If Holy Cross plays even 1 WHEA team it introduces Common Opponents into the PWR. If HC goes 0-8, then you better be perfect in the SA vs. HC, ou you'll lose the comparison.
It doesn't introduce common opponents for the scheduling alliance teams -- if Holy Cross plays Merrimack, St. A's won't have Merrimack as a common opponent with Holy Cross.

If Holy Cross goes 0-8 vs. the WHEA teams (which they will) they won't be in the discussion anyway. The question is what it does to the rest of the alliance teams, which is to say "nothing" vis a vis common opponents.