Each week during the season, we look at the big events and big games around Division I men’s college hockey in Tuesday Morning Quarterback.
Ed: Jim, since our deadline for this column is before Monday night’s Beanpot semifinals, we’ll encourage college hockey fans to look elsewhere here on USCHO.com for coverage of the games.
Let’s turn to the race for the NCAA tournament. As is typical for early February, the top eight teams in the PairWise are nearly locks, with all having a 99% or better chance of making it in, either by winning their conference or as an at-large. Among those teams, there will be some jockeying for position – especially for the coveted regional No. 1 seed – but near the cutoff line of no lower than No. 14, there’s some volatility.
It’s all but certain that the automatic qualifiers from Atlantic Hockey and the CCHA will take two spots and there will not be an at-large from either conference. And we had been pretty certain in this space and on our USCHO Weekend Review podcast about ECAC Hockey having only one bid unless Quinnipiac is beaten in the league championship in Lake Placid.
Cornell, however, has something to say about that. The Big Red sit at No. 14 in the PairWise Rankings (prior to Monday’s games) and would be an at-large qualifier as the last team in.
Cornell has quietly put together a 10-game unbeaten streak, the eighth in coach Mike Schafer’s tenure. No games are a gimme, but the rest of the ECAC schedule for the Big Red is against teams they should be favored to beat.
Before we look at other teams on the edge of qualifying, how about Cornell’s rise in the rankings?
Jim: I feel like this year’s Cornell team is so much better than even its current PairWise position indicates. The Big Red began the year hot, had a minor slip up, but now are playing incredibly solid hockey.
I feel like Mike Schafer’s teams of late have peaked around the right time. Last year’s team got to a regional final and if the Big Red can get into the field of 16, they could make a run from a low seed.
Another team, despite some recent bumps in the road that I like, is Western Michigan. The Broncos stopped a three-game skid on Saturday by dominating Denver on the road on Saturday. I watched a good portion of that game and was impressed with this team’s speed.
The bubble right now for the NCAA tournament seems precarious. My concern is how high the bubble goes. Right now at 14, could we have a couple of postseason tournament upsets to move the cut line to 12? That would be the highest in recent memory?
Ed: That’s a great question. You’d need two of the four conferences with multiple bids (as of today) to have at least mild upsets. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility, or even probability.
I guess I’d look for teams with some current momentum who might cause an upset and teams that are unlikely to get bumped. I’ll start with the Big Ten and NCHC and leave Hockey East and ECAC Hockey to you. Then we can compare notes.
The Big Ten has four teams inside the bubble. Michigan is sitting the lowest at No. 12. The first round of the Big Ten playoffs is a best-of-three at the higher seed with the first-place team getting a bye to the semifinals.
The 5 vs. 4 and 6 vs. 3 matchups could see an upset. As things stand today based on percentages in the standings, you could see Notre Dame at Michigan for a series. I can conceive of Notre Dame pulling off an upset. They split in South Bend earlier in the season and have two coming up at Yost later this month.
In the NCHC, the teams just outside the bubble have had some impressive wins this season. I’m speaking of St. Cloud, Omaha, and Colorado College. Any of those three could put together some playoff victories to get in.
What about in the ECAC and Hockey East? The latter conference right now has five teams above the line. Could we see six? Will the ECAC manage two or more?
Jim: Maybe everything you just said combined with my rationale for both the ECAC and Hockey East make my rationale almost obsolete.
In Hockey East, I do believe that almost any team can beat any other on a given night. But the thought of doing it three or four times against the likes of BC, BU, Maine and likely Providence doesn’t seem likely. So scratch that off.
As for the ECAC, this could very well be the best chance to get a rogue team in if Cornell plays well down the stretch, moved into the top 12 in the PairWise and then neither the Big Red or Quinnipiac win the ECAC. This league always seems to deliver an unexpected champion, so why stop now?
I think it is now safe to say that we won’t see an independent team reach the tournament. And I can’t tell if that is good or bad. Arizona State could have a record number of wins for a school to not make the field. But looking back, the amount of home games the Sun Devils played this year makes me start to believe more and more in the PairWise.
I have consistently railed against the PairWise and its proportional divisions for a number of years (not to mention the criteria that were eliminated). But right now, I feel the PairWise is getting it right. Thoughts?
Ed: I will grudgingly admit that I think the PairWise is getting it right, though I’m disappointed in the hurdle Arizona State faces.
Over the past few months I’ve made arguments both in favor and against the current criteria. The thing that I’ve criticized most is that the formula gets massaged every so often, but that’s also probably why the PairWise is getting it right.
I guess my biggest gripe is about the RPI, the ratings percentage index. It’s good that it has been modified to give weight to road games and to apply bonuses to games against the top 20 in the RPI. It’s designed to provide context to your record by including the record of your opponents and your opponents’ opponents.
But that also means that 75% of it is outside of your control.
If you’re a good team with some conference opponents lowering your league’s overall non-conference winning percentage, then you’re pretty much stuck. I think that’s particularly the case when teams use travel money for trips against tough opponents to bolster their budgets while standing a poor chance of victory – and thus dragging their league down with them.
Still, the men’s NCAA D-I ice hockey championships committee is looking to improve. From their May 2023 minutes, it’s noted that they are looking at the NPI (NCAA percentage index) which is used by women’s hockey as a replacement for the RPI, as well as considering the impact of overtime and shootouts on head-to-head and common opponents comparisons.
So yes, the PairWise is working though it’s not yet optimal. But at least the PairWise is transparent, unlike the smoke-filled room of college hoops.
Jim: I won’t complain about the transparency of the process. And maybe this next argument sounds like a broken record for me as I have used it before.
Personally, besides being flawed as you mentioned, I also feel the RPI is too heavily weighted in the current criteria. There are only three criterion: RPI, head-to-head and common opponents. Because of the lack of criteria, the odds are you’ll have more ties (particularly when teams don’t play head to head). And the tie breaker is, well, the RPI. Thus, one criterion is often scored twice in the same comparisons.
Translation: a weaker or lowered RPI creates a difficult hurdle for teams that aren’t in the most powerful conferences.
Enough complaining, as I think we could be in for an exciting race towards Selection Sunday.
