NCAA Tournament Selection Process

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

The NCAA Ice Hockey Committee is considering a change to the NCAA Tournament Selection Process. I think it is agreed that an objective-based system is best as subjective-based ones are subject to bias. It seems that it will come down to 3 methods to chose from. The first is straight KRACH. 1-16 on the KRACH ratings make the tournament (well 14 if you add in the MAAC and CHA auto-bids). Second is using KRACH along with other criteria to break close calls. The third is using the Pairwise, which is used right now. This is at least how I understand it.

My opinion is to use the KRACH with limited criteria to break close calls. I don't think that down the stretch games should be a factor as less importance will be placed on the begining of the season, but record against TUC's should be one.

*Note to Duluth fans...no matter which system is used, Duluth still doesn't make the tournament. In fact according to USCHO, you wouldn't have been close. The beneficaries of these changes would have been Providence or Michigan State. The changes would also only have affected North Dakota's seeding, as they would have made the tournament either way as well.

Here's a link to the article: The Last Change

[JMB]

*Note to Duluth fans...no matter which system is used, Duluth still doesn't make the tournament. In fact according to USCHO, you wouldn't have been close. The beneficaries of these changes would have been Providence or Michigan State. The changes would also only have affected North Dakota's seeding, as they would have made the tournament either way as well.

I agree with your post regarding the use of KRACH vs. RPI and about Duluth.

The only reason, IMO, that Duluth even deserved consideration was because of the way they played "down the stretch" compared to St. Cloud. But the argument by USCHO regarding Duluth and SCSU clearly indicates that they did not deserve to make the NCAA field.

Just because Duluth was playing better the last few weeks of the season, doesn't mean that they were the better OVERALL team. Duluth did in fact win more head-to-head matchups (4-3) this season, but it's not like they beat them all 7 times. Here's the season series between UMD and SCSU (without the 1st round of the WCHA playoffs):

11/22/2002, St. Cloud State 3 @ Minnesota-Duluth 2

11/23/2002, Minnesota-Duluth 4 @ St. Cloud State 2

01/24/2003. Minnesota-Duluth 2 @ St. Cloud State 3

01/24/2003, St. Cloud State 1 @ Minnesota-Duluth 3

Before the playoffs, they split the games, then Duluth won the playoff series 2-1. Does it logically make any sense for us to consider these games less than we do the games in March? No, it doesn't. Fact of the matter is that those teams playing well down the stretch deserve no more consideration than teams that play well at the beginning of the year.

The NCAA playoffs should be for those teams that play well ALL year, not just for part of it. And yes, Duluth played well all year (22-15-5), but their non-conference schedule included Notre Dame (twice), Lakehead, Bemidji State (twice), Union (twice) and Rensselaer (twice). In these games they went 5-3-1, so they didn't exactly "light 'em up" in non-conference play.

[JWG]

I disagree, I think some consideration shoudl be given to play down the stretch. Teams that are playing well late are the teams that tend to perform well in the tournament. CC wasn't playing well late and was the only #1 not to advance to the Frozen Four (ok, bad environement for them to play in). MSU-Mankato lost 2 in the Final 5 and then a 3rd in the NCAA tournament.

I'm not saying make record over last 15 a considerable criteria, but maybe use it as the tie-breaker. Two teams fairly equal, why not take the team playing well now for a better trounament?

[JMB]

MSU-Mankato lost 2 in the Final 5 and then a 3rd in the NCAA tournament.

I'm not saying make record over last 15 a considerable criteria, but maybe use it as the tie-breaker. Two teams fairly equal, why not take the team playing well now for a better trounament?

Mankato finished 2nd in the WCHA. Just because they lost 2 games in the Final 5 (one to a team that finished tied with them in the standings), doesn't mean you ignore the rest of the season and award a tournament berth to another team.

Besides, the argument that St. Cloud and Duluth were fairly equal doesn't hold water. If Duluth played better at the beginning of the year, and played a better schedule, then they'd have an argument. The fact is they didn't, and they paid for it at the end of the year.

Here's probably the best example of WHY strength-of-schedule is incorporated into NCAA selection process. Given the following three teams, who should make the tournament (only pick one):

Team A: 22-13-1 (.625 winning %)

Team B: 22-10-2 (.676 winning %)

Team C: 20-8-9 (.662 winning %)

[JWG]

Mankato finished 2nd in the WCHA. Just because they lost 2 games in the Final 5 (one to a team that finished tied with them in the standings), doesn't mean you ignore the rest of the season and award a tournament berth to another team.

Besides, the argument that St. Cloud and Duluth were fairly equal doesn't hold water. If Duluth played better at the beginning of the year, and played a better schedule, then they'd have an argument. The fact is they didn't, and they paid for it at the end of the year.

Here's probably the best example of WHY strength-of-schedule is incorporated into NCAA selection process. Given the following three teams, who should make the tournament (only pick one):

Team A: 22-13-1 (.625 winning %)

Team B: 22-10-2 (.676 winning %)

Team C: 20-8-9 (.662 winning %)

I'm not comparing UND to MSU or St. Cloud. Duluth was 21 or 22 in the Pairwise, not too upset there.

I'm thinking more about the Michigan State's or the Providence's. The bubble teams that were bumped because of automatic bids. My thoughts are maybe last 15 games should have been used to determined who between them and the 13 and 14 teams (which would have been St. Cloud and Ohio State (?)) should have made the tournament. My suggestion is meant to push a team up 10 spots in the PWR or anything.

[JMB]

[The Sicatoka]

I, for one, am glad that "last 16" didn't matter this season.

UND (last 16 before NCAA seedings): 5-9-2.

Ouch.