The show will have more drama than usual.
In a normal year, at this point, we would already know exactly which 16 teams will be on the field. The NCAA uses Pairwise Rankings to select and seed the field. But because there is virtually no cross-conference game this season due to the changed times of the coronavirus pandemic, Pairwise is irrelevant.
NCAA Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Committee – Omaha associate sports director Mike Kemp, Vermont sports director Jeff Schulman, Penn State assistant sports director Michael Cross, Cornell coach Mike Schafer, Ferris State Bob coach Daniels and Robert Morris coach Derek Schooley – will be tasked with choosing the teams, distributing them and placing them in the regionals.
This article is an analysis of how the Herald believes that the Committee will address this task and, ultimately, select the teams.
To start, keep in mind:
- The loss and gain record is important, but you can’t get too attached to it. For example, Denver and Omaha played more games against North Dakota ranked first this season than the Army played against teams with a winning record. Think of the NCAA 2018 field. If you take non-conference games, Bowling Green was 17-6-5, Northern Michigan was 19-7-2, Union was 16-5-1 and Minnesota Duluth was 13-11. One of these teams entered: Minnesota Duluth. Meanwhile, none of the others were in the top three outside the tournament. In fact, with a conference record of 10-12-6, UND was ahead of all three as well.
-
The loss and gain records within the conferences can also be misleading, because all leagues outside the Big Ten had unbalanced schedules, some with significant imbalances.
- The Committee will not consider the results of the extension as total value wins / losses. They will consider them 55 percent win and 45 percent loss. They are much closer to draws than to victories and defeats in the eyes of the Committee.
How will the Committee determine which teams are best, especially between conferences?
It will be a very, very difficult job. I believe that the Committee will use historical data as a guide. It is not perfect, but it is the best option.
Conferences that traditionally do not receive as many teams in the tournament will argue that the past does not necessarily dictate the present and, this season, your conference is better than normal and deserves more bids than normal. They can be right. Your league may be better than normal. But it can also be worse than normal. We just don’t know. That is why I think the Committee relies on historical data.
In a way, this is the practice used to select how many teams from each European football league can advance to the Champions League – historical data on the performance of each league.
Since the realignment, the average number of teams that each league has placed in the NCAA tournament are: Atlantic Hockey 1, ECAC 3.16, Big Ten 2.16, Hockey East 4, NCHC 3.83 and Western Collegiate Hockey Association 1.67. Rounding off these numbers is equivalent to: AHA 1, ECAC 3, Big Ten 2, Hockey East 4, NCHC 4, WCHA 2.
ECAC had only a third (four out of 12) of its teams participating this season. One third of ECAC’s three proposals is equal to one. This leaves us with two wildcards to over-represent two leagues.
Let’s start setting up the field.
Six teams are automatically placed on the field by virtue of winning the post-season title of their conference. They are:
1. North Dakota (NCHC)
2. Minnesota (Big Ten)
3. UMass (Hockey East)
4. State of Lake Superior (WCHA)
5. American International (Atlantic Hockey)
6. St. Lawrence (ECAC)
There are six consensus blocks for making the field general choices:
7. Boston College (Hockey East)
8. Wisconsin (Big Ten)
9. Minnesota State-Mankato (WCHA)
10. St. Cloud State (NCHC)
11. Michigan (Big Ten)
12. Minnesota Duluth (NCHC)
There is a team that may not reach complete consensus due to the lack of games (15), but it seems highly unlikely that they will be left out:
13. Boston University (Hockey East)
This leaves three vacancies available.
Let’s start with what is most widely speculated as a lock: Quinnipiac from ECAC. The more I look at it, the more convinced I am that the Bobcats are a bubble team and not a block.
His record of 17-7-4 looks impressive. But Quinnipiac went 7-0 against Atlantic Hockey / Long Island University, 10-7-4 against everyone else: 4-2-1 against St. Lawrence, 4-1-1 against Colgate, 2-2-2 against Clarkson and 0-2 vs. Bowling Green. The latter will be a big problem for the Committee considering that Bowling Green is also a bubble team.
No, you cannot discount Atlantic Hockey wins. But keep in mind that NCHC and Big Ten were 20-0 against Atlantic Hockey last season and 34-3-1 in the past two seasons.
So, let’s keep the 13 blocks for now.
Looking at the historical data, this is where we are at this point:
Atlantic Hockey historical average: 1. Confirmed teams: 1 (American International).
Historical average of the Big Ten: 2. Confirmed teams: 3 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan).
ECAC historical average (changed to fewer teams): 1. Confirmed teams: 1 (St. Lawrence).
Historical average for Hockey East: 4. Confirmed teams: 3 (Boston College, UMass, Boston University).
Historical NCHC average: 4. Confirmed teams: 3 (UND, St. Cloud State, Minnesota Duluth).
WCHA historical average: 2. Confirmed teams: 2 (MSU-Mankato, Lake Superior State).
This means that we put one of the two “wildcards” – or points of overrepresentation – with the Big Ten. I don’t think anyone is going to discuss this.
We still have two historically underrepresented leagues – Hockey East and the NCHC.
Considering the dominance of the NCHC in both the regular season non-conference and the NCAA tournament in recent years, there is no real case of under-representation of the NCHC this season. I’m also not sure if there is a big case for under-representing Hockey East.
Add a fourth NCHC team: Denver or Omaha.
Add a fourth Hockey East team: Providence, UConn or UMass Lowell.
These teams are very, very close, so take your pick.
This leaves the final “wildcard” location.
The eight possibilities here are: a fifth NCHC team (one left over), a fifth Hockey East team (one of the two left over), a fourth Big Ten team (Notre Dame), a third WCHA team (Bemidji State or Bowling Verde), a second ECAC team (Quinnipiac) or a second Atlantic Hockey team (Army).
I find it highly unlikely that Atlantic Hockey will get a second team. Atlantic Hockey has not done that since the realignment and was 2-10-2 against ECAC this season.
I don’t think Big Ten can get a fourth team, considering that he is already a bit overrepresented and the fact that Notre Dame managed to host his post-season tournament and lost in the first round.
Quinnipiac has an argument for ECAC to win the final seat: There was a frustrated winner at the conference tournament, and leagues that have frustrated winners are usually over-represented. However, the only The cross-conference data we have between these bubble teams is a scan at Bowling Green in Quinnipiac.
Considering that Bemidji State was 3-1 against Bowling Green this season and went further in the conference tournament, I think the Committee will nominate the Beavers ahead of the Falcons. Also, if he uses a record against ordinary opponents, I think this is an argument to put Bemidji State ahead of Quinnipiac as well. Beavers can pretty much put an end to that end.
However, if the Committee believes it is dividing its hair in relation to the last teams, I would not be surprised if it falls into the league that most deserved the benefit of the doubt to be overrepresented. The NCHC is 32-16 in the national tournament since the realignment. He won the last four national championships with three different teams taking home the title. He routinely posted the best percentage of off-conference wins in the regular season.
The big question will be the perspective of Denver’s 10-13-1 record. But remember: three of those defeats came in overtime, none of your wins came. In addition, Denver was expected to play against a staggering team at Colorado College (which reached 1-13 in its last 14 games) to end the regular season, but was eliminated – through no fault of its own. The Tigers had a shutdown of the COVID-19 and Denver had those critical games erased.
If Omaha makes it to the tournament, 16 of Denver’s 24 games this season will be against NCAA tournament teams, seven against the nation’s No. 1 team. Yes, about 30 percent of Denver’s games this season were against North Dakota.
There is no doubt that the Committee followed what happened on the women’s side, where the NCAA chose not to over-represent the most historically dominant conference, the WCHA. Looking back and seeing how the tournament went, it was the wrong decision.
So, I think the last point comes down to Bemidji State and the NCHC, but the Committee gives the NCHC the benefit of the doubt.
General seeding:
1. North Dakota
2. Minnesota
3. Boston College
4. Minnesota State-Mankato
5. Wisconsin
6. UMass
7. St. Cloud State
8. Michigan
9. Minnesota Duluth
10. Boston University
11. Providence
12. Omaha
13. Denver
14. State of Lake Superior
15. American International
16. São Lourenço
The Committee has historically tried to put 1 against 16 in the first round, and I don’t think they will deviate from that this year. MSU-Mankato and Wisconsin could change positions 4-5 – especially if the Committee takes into account Wisconsin’s three defeats, although significantly shorthanded due to players in World Juniors and others in the COVID-19 protocol.
After some minor adjustments to get rid of possible confrontations at the conference in the first round and to minimize travel a little, here we are:
Fargo Regional
1. North Dakota vs. 16. St. Lawrence
7. St. Cloud State vs. 10. Boston University
Loveland Regional
4. MSU-Mankato vs. 13. Denver
5. Wisconsin vs. 12. Omaha
Bridgeport Regional
2. Minnesota vs. 15. American International
6. UMass vs. 9. Minnesota Duluth
Albany Regional
3. Boston College vs. 14. Lake Superior State
8. Michigan vs. 11. Providence