{"id":25635,"date":"2003-03-17T22:26:21","date_gmt":"2003-03-18T04:26:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uscho.com\/2003\/03\/17\/many-questions-answers-on-eve-of-tourney\/"},"modified":"2010-08-17T19:55:25","modified_gmt":"2010-08-18T00:55:25","slug":"many-questions-answers-on-eve-of-tourney","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/2003\/03\/17\/many-questions-answers-on-eve-of-tourney\/","title":{"rendered":"Many Questions, Answers On Eve of Tourney"},"content":{"rendered":"
The NCAA and the Division I men’s ice hockey committee discussed the upcoming NCAA tournament, clarified some lingering issues, and exulted the current state of college hockey during a scheduled media conference call Monday.<\/p>\n
The new 16-team, four-regional tournament structure has the entire hockey community giddy with anticipation, and the committee is no exception. It also means the selection and seeding of teams takes on a number of new wrinkles to account for it.<\/p>\n
The process of selection is still objective, but a purposefully-murky bonus criterion for “good wins” has been thrown into the mix, just to make Selection Sunday more interesting. <\/p>\n
On the other hand, the seeding process can introduce a number of subjective factors, though the committee still vows to “go by the numbers,” per its ascribed guidelines. Still, there’s a mandate to keep teams in their proper “by the numbers” seed, while also trying to avoid first-round intra-conference matchups, and keep host teams in their home region. There’s a potential for some tricky conflicts, and there might not be a precedent to handle them.<\/p>\n
“This is something we haven’t done before [a 16-team tournament]; it’s new territory that we’re covering,” said Ian McCaw, athletics director at Massachusetts and chair of the men’s ice hockey committee. “So some of the issues may be made more complicated depending on how the teams are placed in [their seeds].<\/p>\n
“But overall, going to a 16-team championship will be a tremendous advantage for us. Obviously the four regional sites — we’ll be crowning a regional champion at four sites — we’ll avoid first-round byes, which I think all of us feel created a real competitive advantage for the top four seeds in the past, and it creates a much more competitive championship overall. So we think the benefits outweigh any of the challenges we might face.”<\/p>\n
And the recent announcement that two Division I teams will drop their programs — Iona and Fairfield — has done nothing, McCaw said, to derail hockey’s growth and popularity.<\/p>\n
“Obviously it’s something that everyone in the college hockey community would view as being disappointing,” McCaw said, “but in my opinion, they reflect more a campus decision in terms of how they were going to handle their program relative to their mix of sports that they offer, as opposed to a trend in college hockey.<\/p>\n
“We continue to see growth in attendance, TV ratings are up. … Every barometer we have to gauge interest and enthusiasm for college hockey is showing the sport continues to grow, and we don’t expect anything different this year. We think this will be one of the most exciting and competitive championships ever contested.”<\/p>\n
The committee spent a lot of time trying to clarify some outstanding questions in its NCAA tournament selection and seeding process.<\/p>\n
For example, the guidelines state that the four No. 1 seeds will be ranked among themselves, 1-4, and then, in order, placed closest to home. The question is, how literal an interpretation will there be? Since “a flight is a flight,” would Colorado College be moved out of the West Regional in Minneapolis, to avoid a second-round matchup with the Gophers?<\/p>\n
“The No. 1 seeds will be placed as close to home as possible in order of their 1 to 4 ranking,” McCaw said. “That is what we have in the handbook, and that is how the committee would proceed in terms of locating the No. 1 seeds.”<\/p>\n
Last season, the NCAA put travel restrictions in place, which left the committee with little flexibility. Those restrictions are no longer in place, but with a war in Iraq looming, would they return?<\/p>\n
“We’re taking a look at all possible contingencies,” said NCAA Director of Championships Tom Jacobs. “There is not a policy as there was last year, and keeping teams within a certain radius. So now it’s pretty much business as usual in terms of what we had prior to last year. But it’s a pretty fluid situation, it could change on a daily basis.”<\/p>\n
On whether the committee would look to pit the lowest-seeded teams — i.e. the MAAC and CHA autobid teams — against the top two overall seeds, McCaw could not say for sure.<\/p>\n
“That’ll be a committee decision and obviously one we’ll have considerable discussion about,” he said.<\/p>\n
A potential topic of controversy is the seeding of Boston University, and the possible selection of St. Cloud State. This year, the committee reverted back to a 25-50-25 weighting of RPI, which means the strength of schedule component takes a much larger role. BU and SCSU have played the toughest schedules in the country (according to KRACH<\/a>); when you combine that with potential boost the new bonus point criterion could give, and the elimination of the Last 16 criterion, then a 13-loss BU team may get a No. 1 seed, and a barely-.500 St. Cloud could very well make the tournament.<\/p>\n But the numbers are what they are, and the committee is steadfast that no subjectivity will enter the picture.<\/p>\n “We’ve gone strictly by the numbers,” McCaw said. “That’s the way the committee has handled it. And there’s really a strong feeling within the coaching community, and certainly the feeling of our committee, that those are the agreed upon criteria and that’s what we’re going to follow in terms of determining who the tournament participants are going to be and what the seeds are within the championship.”<\/p>\n