PDA

View Full Version : UCHC Standings



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Fishman'81
02-07-2018, 08:25 PM
For the 700th time. The selection process is the one that is mandated by the NCAA in all DIII sports. It has nothing to do with whether the schools are private or public. The same rules are used in Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, etc. If curling were an NCAA sport they would use the same process. The size of the field is determined by the number of schools sponsoring the sport. Subtract the number of Pool A bids from that number and you have the number of Pool B and Pool C bids. are available.

And, for the 700th time, simply because D-3 apparently regards its by-laws as having been shelpped-down the mount by Moses himself (as do you), they are not.

D-3 can easily make things more equitable... That won't require a Constitutional Convention, last I checked. :rolleyes:

Adam_Krug#1
02-07-2018, 08:45 PM
And, for the 700th time, simply because D-3 apparently regards it's by-laws as having been shelpped-down the mount by Moses himself (as do you), they are not.

D-3 can easily make things more equitable... That won't require a Constitutional Convention, last I checked. :rolleyes:
Facepalm

Sir Nubs
02-07-2018, 11:01 PM
And, for the 700th time, simply because D-3 apparently regards its by-laws as having been shelpped-down the mount by Moses himself (as do you), they are not.

D-3 can easily make things more equitable... That won't require a Constitutional Convention, last I checked. :rolleyes:

Pretty sure it does. It's called the NCAA Convention. Where the membership passes their rules.

NUProf
02-09-2018, 03:54 PM
And, for the 700th time, simply because D-3 apparently regards its by-laws as having been shelpped-down the mount by Moses himself (as do you), they are not.

D-3 can easily make things more equitable... That won't require a Constitutional Convention, last I checked. :rolleyes:

My point is simply this: the NCAA will not make special rules for just DIII hockey. It was tried once to allow games against DII teams playing in DIII hockey conferences to be counted as part of primary criteria for hockey. That small sport-specific change never got to be a proposal before the NCAA Convention. This means that any major changes in the selection process are about as likely as Unicorn sighting.

Fishman'81
02-09-2018, 05:00 PM
My point is simply this: the NCAA will not make special rules for just DIII hockey. It was tried once to allow games against DII teams playing in DIII hockey conferences to be counted as part of primary criteria for hockey. That small sport-specific change never got to be a proposal before the NCAA Convention. This means that any major changes in the selection process are about as likely as Unicorn sighting.

I'll certainly take your word for that. You have proven to be erudite on this topic.

But, my point continues to be this: why doesn't D-3 just tailor the calculus to whatever sport is in question? It ain't as though there's going to be a great hue and cry either way, in the largely invisible sphere of D-3 sports of any ilk. Are you saying that the NCAA even bothers to micro-manage such small potatoes?

(I suppose that it wouldn't shock me if they did, the disingenuous morons that they are, but I'm curious as to why they'd bother.)

Fishman'81
02-09-2018, 05:06 PM
Pretty sure it does. It's called the NCAA Convention. Where the membership passes their rules.

No school is required to join the NCAA. Big-time football has considered opting-out for years now. Why doesn't D-3 hockey? A free-for-all on that lowly level might start the revolution!

joecct
02-11-2018, 04:31 AM
No school is required to join the NCAA. Big-time football has considered opting-out for years now. Why doesn't D-3 hockey? A free-for-all on that lowly level might start the revolution!

Are you sure you're not a closet NESCACer?

Fishman'81
02-11-2018, 05:50 PM
Are you sure you're not a closet NESCACer?

That reference is cryptic to me. I'm interested in being clued-in, if you care to do that.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
02-12-2018, 01:00 PM
That reference is cryptic to me. I'm interested in being clued-in, if you care to do that.

The NESCAC has at time viewed themselves as not fitting in with the rest of D3 and considered establishing a D4 or even leaving the NCAA. Their gripe has essentially been that D3 is not student-centric enough (the NESCAC is why D3 doesn’t allow redshirts anymore, and they were instrumental in delaying the allowable start date for hockey because of their fear of overlapping seasons, for example).

The real problem with leaving the NCAA is money. With their 0.5% share of the DI Basketball TV money, D3 would have no funding for its national championship tournaments. Do some hockey programs generate a small profit over operational costs? Yes, but only a few do and it’s certainly not enough to pay for tournament travel between Minneapolis and Boston, which is (roughly) the geographic footprint of D3 hockey. And good luck finding sponsors without the NCAA’s brand recognition.

I 100% agree with you that the system is nonsensical and there are much better alternatives. But I also agree with NUProf in that there is no point wasting our breath asking for a change, because getting 450 schools to sign off on a major exception for a sport that fewer than 80 play is simply not going to happen.

NUProf
02-12-2018, 03:38 PM
I 100% agree with you that the system is nonsensical and there are much better alternatives. But I also agree with NUProf in that there is no point wasting our breath asking for a change, because getting 450 schools to sign off on a major exception for a sport that fewer than 80 play is simply not going to happen.

You have described the issue. Hockey wanted to try to make a carve out for the DII hockey programs that tried to fit into the D3 world. Nothing came of it because there was a fear that it would set a precedent for other sports making changes. There are number of sports that probably would want some changes to fit their unique situations. Since the general philosophy is "same rules for every sport," sports with lower levels of participation are not going to be allowed to make their own rules. I agree there are inequities in the system as far as hockey is concerned. One thing that would increase at large bids would be to change the minimum number of teams for a Pool A bid from 7 to a larger number like 10. Doing so would eliminate the tendency for single sports leagues to evolve with (remarkably) seven or 8 members.

Since the NCAA rule is one tournament slot for every 6.5 teams, Pool C bids occur because of the teams in leagues with more than 7 teams. Two 10 teams leagues will together generate two Pool A bids and one Pool C bid. (20 team produce 3 NCAA slots). However, it there were 21 teams in 3 7 team leagues, they will produce 3 Pool A bids and no Pool C bids.

Fishman'81
02-12-2018, 11:04 PM
You have described the issue. Hockey wanted to try to make a carve out for the DII hockey programs that tried to fit into the D3 world. Nothing came of it because there was a fear that it would set a precedent for other sports making changes. There are number of sports that probably would want some changes to fit their unique situations. Since the general philosophy is "same rules for every sport," sports with lower levels of participation are not going to be allowed to make their own rules. I agree there are inequities in the system as far as hockey is concerned. One thing that would increase at large bids would be to change the minimum number of teams for a Pool A bid from 7 to a larger number like 10. Doing so would eliminate the tendency for single sports leagues to evolve with (remarkably) seven or 8 members.

Since the NCAA rule is one tournament slot for every 6.5 teams, Pool C bids occur because of the teams in leagues with more than 7 teams. Two 10 teams leagues will together generate two Pool A bids and one Pool C bid. (20 team produce 3 NCAA slots). However, it there were 21 teams in 3 7 team leagues, they will produce 3 Pool A bids and no Pool C bids.

Thanks, guys, but I don't see any intrinsic merit in the putative D-3 "logic", and I'm pretty-sure that D-3 wouldn't be denied the 0.5% cut of the hoops $ if they were to propose a more equitable system, even if it varied from sport to sport in some considered way.

Does anyone seriously think that the NCAA brass gives a flying ---- about D-3 hockey, or about D-3 sports in general..? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the NCAA would be perfectly fine with fair metrics determining every D-3 playoff-field, should D-3 ask for it, and be would fine with reasonable variations of them here and there to suit different sports.

(Why in the world would they not? I haven't heard a thing that would make me think otherwise.)

Russell Jaslow
02-13-2018, 09:55 AM
Thanks, guys, but I don't see any intrinsic merit in the putative D-3 "logic", and I'm pretty-sure that D-3 wouldn't be denied the 0.5% cut of the hoops $ if they were to propose a more equitable system, even if it varied from sport to sport in some considered way.

Does anyone seriously think that the NCAA brass gives a flying ---- about D-3 hockey, or about D-3 sports in general..? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the NCAA would be perfectly fine with fair metrics determining every D-3 playoff-field, should D-3 ask for it, and be would fine with reasonable variations of them here and there to suit different sports.

(Why in the world would they not? I haven't heard a thing that would make me think otherwise.)

I think you are getting two thoughts mixed up...

First, the 0.5% cut that was mentioned was in response to your idea of pulling hockey out of the NCAA. Who would pay for the sport on the national tournament level without the NCAA kicking in 0.5%?

As for "intrinsic merit in the putative D-3 "logic"" -- I don't think many of us are disputing your point about the fact that various sports should be allowed different rules. After all, as you point out, they do that in D1. However, it's the D3 members themselves who insist on this. And nobody has been able to change their minds.

The NCAA is not some mysterious entity in the Netherlands. It's made up of members who decide the rules. And the D3 members have been quite clear many times that all D3 sports should be run the same. And like someone pointed out, even when hockey tried to change the rules -- counting the games against D2 schools in the criteria -- those members shot it down.

And no, I'm not defending them. I don't like it either. But, it's not the "NCAA" per se that is dictating this. It is the membership. The NCAA is just carrying out the members' wishes. And until someone can convince the membership otherwise, that's where your anger should be pointed to.

PrezdeJohnson09
02-13-2018, 09:59 AM
I think you are getting two thoughts mixed up...

First, the 0.5% cut that was mentioned was in response to your idea of pulling hockey out of the NCAA. Who would pay for the sport on the national tournament level without the NCAA kicking in 0.5%?

As for "intrinsic merit in the putative D-3 "logic"" -- I don't think many of us are disputing your point about the fact that various sports should be allowed different rules. After all, as you point out, they do that in D1. However, it's the D3 members themselves who insist on this. And nobody has been able to change their minds.

The NCAA is not some mysterious entity in the Netherlands. It's made up of members who decide the rules. And the D3 members have been quite clear many times that all D3 sports should be run the same. And like someone pointed out, even when hockey tried to change the rules -- counting the games against D2 schools in the criteria -- those members shot it down.

And no, I'm not defending them. I don't like it either. But, it's not the "NCAA" per se that is dictating this. It is the membership. The NCAA is just carrying out the members' wishes. And until someone can convince the membership otherwise, that's where your anger should be pointed to.

The ONLY counterpoint I have to that and I hope it was brought up in the discussions. How many other conferences in the country or other sports have instances where Division II teams were member of Division III conferences because Division II hockey does not exist?

Russell Jaslow
02-13-2018, 01:39 PM
The ONLY counterpoint I have to that and I hope it was brought up in the discussions. How many other conferences in the country or other sports have instances where Division II teams were member of Division III conferences because Division II hockey does not exist?

I was just using that as an example of a potential unique rule situation...

But to carry your rhetorical question further ... I don't know. LOL

PrezdeJohnson09
02-13-2018, 01:46 PM
I was just using that as an example of a potential unique rule situation...

But to carry your rhetorical question further ... I don't know. LOL

I know you were...it just seems crazy to me that exemptions weren't allowed on that front.

vcxc3200
02-14-2018, 01:00 PM
According to The UCHC site (http://theuchc.com/calendar.aspx?path=mhockey&season=2017-18), (scroll to the bottom) Elmira has preemptively been awarded the League's first "AQ" and is hosting a first round NCAA game!?

Negative, good sir. That schedule imports directly from the School's, as it's on the same web provider. Up to the schools to decide whether or not they want to put that info in or wait until later. Some like to do it for planning purposes, just in case, and so their fans know those dates in advance in an easy to find spot. They typically take them down once the opportunity to play officially no longer exists. Lots of schools do that on their sites, and from a conference side when it pulls that information directly from school schedules, sometimes it becomes a lot easier to leave it there until a school takes it down on their end so it doesn't cause a ripple effect anywhere. Such is the nature of networkable sites.

For reference:

http://athletics.elmira.edu/schedule.aspx?path=mhockey

Hope that helps.

vcxc3200
02-14-2018, 01:06 PM
More NCAA cartel garbage. This league, as the "ECAC West", had 7 of the same teams that it does this year. For some stupid reason the name change reset the AQ clock.

All subject to appeal/reapplication. That one's not over, especially with the given rationale for denying the waiver.... (See below) So i'd say a fair chance that the bid may arrive for next season after reapplication. What we believe to be sensible doesn't always happen, but the hope is that they'll have to backpedal and award the bid after the conference has a year in. We'll see. Right now the 19-20 clock is the active one, but that could get overturned.

Actual language from the Championships Committee minutes....
"The committee did not approve a request from the United Collegiate Hockey Conference to waive the first year of the two-year waiting period to receive automatic qualification. The committee was not comfortable with giving a year of
credit to a conference that was not yet active (the conference will be active in 2017-18) and
whose members were previously part of a conference that was not eligible for automatic
qualification."

elbojpb
02-14-2018, 10:04 PM
All subject to appeal/reapplication. That one's not over, especially with the given rationale for denying the waiver.... (See below) So i'd say a fair chance that the bid may arrive for next season after reapplication. What we believe to be sensible doesn't always happen, but the hope is that they'll have to backpedal and award the bid after the conference has a year in. We'll see. Right now the 19-20 clock is the active one, but that could get overturned.
Might be the only way for the UCHC to get an NCAA bid. The 1st bracketology analysis has the UCHC being shut out this year.

Transplanted Tiger Fan
02-17-2018, 08:41 AM
So I ran the numbers in-attempt to anticipate all the possible standings configurations, and I think I got it right. From what I could decipher, Utica is a "lock" for the top seed, and Stevenson has secured the second seed despite what happens today. Therefore, semi-final games will be held in Utica & Stevenson on Saturday 2/24. However Wednesday 2/21 is still "TBD"...

Utica & LVC Win:

Neumann @ LVC
Elmira @ Manhattanville

Utica & Elmira Win:

Neumann @ Elmira
LVC @ Manhattanville

Manhattanville & LVC Win:

Neumann @ Manhattanville
Elmira @ LVC

Manhattanville & Elmira Win:

Neumann @ Manhattanville
LVC @ Elmira

It looks like there will be a Wednesday game in Manhattanville no-matter what happens today as well. Fortunately, the LVC/Elmira game has an early start (5:00pm) so we can catch most of both UCHC games that affect the final standing today! I didn't get-into the analysis of either game ending in a tie... ran-out of coffee, but I can say this... any tie(s) will not affect the outcome of the 1 & 2 seeds.

It's a good day for Hockey.

Cheers!!!
~TTF

sshablak
02-17-2018, 09:27 AM
What happens if there's a four way tie for first, UC wins all tiebreakers ?