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.
Jim: A belated Happy Thanksgiving, Ed. I hope you didn’t overdo it with the turkey.
But the fact that Thanksgiving is in the rearview mirror, I think that means this is as good a time as any to take a deep dive into the PairWise Rankings. At this point in the season, about 70 percent of non-conference games have been played, meaning the volatility in the PairWise will continuously lessen.
Right now, there is actually an excellent geographic divide between eastern and western teams that would be qualified for at-large bids in the NCAA field.
If the season ended today, this would be the breakdown of bids by conference:
Hockey East: 5 (Boston College, Maine, Boston University, Providence, UMass Lowell)
NCHC: 4 (Western Michigan, St. Cloud State, Denver, Colorado College)
B1G: 3 (Michigan State, Michigan, Minnesota)
ECAC Hockey: 2 (Dartmouth, Cornell)
CCHA: 1 (Minnesota State)
AHA: 1 (Tournament champion)
Obviously, there is a lot of hockey left to be played. We also know that each conference tournament champion qualifies for the tournament and that could bump one of these teams. But right now, there are eight eastern teams and eight western teams. We don’t often see such a balanced group.
As you look at this list, which conferences seem to have the most upside? Is there one conference that seems to be most at risk of losing a team or two between now and mid-March when the field is announced?
Ed: Before I answer your questions, let me make one comment on volatility. The RPI – a component of the PairWise, and its tiebreaker – will be less volatile for individual teams, but PairWise positions will still be volatile right to the end. If previous seasons’ results are any indication, we’ll be looking at the fourth and fifth decimal points by the end of the six conference tournaments.
Speaking of previous seasons: that’s where I’m going to base some of my analysis. We’ve seen patterns over the past few years that we can couple with what we know about strength of schedule and non-conference winning percentages and how they affect where teams will end up.
I think Hockey East and NCHC are both more likely to lose a team than the other conferences.
Over the past few seasons, we’ve seen Hockey East with five or even six teams inside the PairWise bubble in December. As league play continues on, members of that conference tend to cannibalize each other because the talent is so high and the rivalries are so strong. I would be bullish on all five you mentioned at this point, but Providence and UMass Lowell are close to the edge of where teams can get bumped by automatic bids.
The same reasoning applies to the NCHC. Conference play is tight, and right now Colorado College is even closer to the cutoff than the Friars and River Hawks.
I think the Big Ten and ECAC are well-positioned to get one more team in. At No. 16, Ohio State would be out of the tournament, and right below them is Quinnipiac. It would not take much to get either of those two back inside the PairWise bubble. Plus, the ECAC has seemed particularly wide open when it comes to conference playoffs, so an AQ from an ECAC team in addition to two at-large bids is in the realm of possibility.
The CCHA is certainly in a position to get two teams in if Minnesota State stays in at-large territory.
Atlantic Hockey America is not going to go up or down. I’m not going out on a limb to say it will be just an automatic qualifier and no at-large team for that conference again this season.
Do you concur?
Jim: I totally agree with your analysis. And there is something about Atlantic Hockey America that makes me upset.
This conference isn’t new. Sure, to many it feels like the actual conference members seem new to Division I but the reality is most teams have been around for more than two decades.
Think about the fact that both Penn State and Arizona State have both qualified for the NCAA tournament quicker than many AHA schools.
And I am not here to beat on that conference. But at some point the AHA teams need to find a level. How can this conference get its head above water? What kind of wins does it take? Do AHA teams need to attract more nonconference opponents?
At this point, I feel like the league’s struggles are mostly based on not attracting non-league opponents. Does that mean facilities are the issue? Many schools eliminated that problem. But there are still a small few where many programs won’t travel.
You spend more time in AHA than most. What do you see as the biggest challenge?
Ed: The biggest challenge – and I know some will not like this – is indeed facilities. Maybe you can come to a program with a new or revamped arena with great amenities, but you’ll also have to play some games in buildings that aren’t quite up to par.
Even some top tier programs have had to make upgrades and renovations to keep pace or build new buildings. Most of them have bigger budgets than the AHA membership.
I enjoyed a tour of Sacred Heart’s Martire Family Arena a couple of weeks ago with their head coach C.J. Marottolo. The player accommodations are first class. The fan experience is terrific. And it’s a huge, multiple-orders-of-magnitude improvement over their old home.
But for every Sacred Heart (and a few other buildings in the conference) there’s also the opposite. And a player will have to play much of his schedule in one of those.
I should also note that Robert Morris is working on getting a new on-campus arena and that’s huge for that program.
Still, I don’t want to come off as too negative. Atlantic Hockey America has excellent coaches and is a competitive league with some great players. If it weren’t, big programs wouldn’t be siphoning its top talent via the portal. The conference has come a long, long way in the last decade in upgrading buildings and funding.
Nevertheless, college sports has become an arms race of facilities, NIL, and revenue sharing. It’s harder than ever to catch up to the blue-chip programs. Maybe major junior eligibility and possible roster limits from the House vs. NCAA settlement will help level the field.
We’re still early in seeing what opening D-I hockey to CHL players will look like and how all the dominoes will fall. Any insights so far?
Jim: I don’t have a lot of personal contact with schools (or for that matter CHL teams) where players will make commitments to attend a D-1 institution. I hear they are happening every day.
Where I do have some anecdotes is at the U.S. junior level, more specifically the NAHL as well as U.S. prep schools where coaches have told their players to possibly change their expectations on where they might attend college.
I have been told that coaches have told players to temper expectations about possibly heading to a Division I school and think more about Division III because of the enriched player pool that come (at this point mostly from 20-year-old players) aging out of the CHL and desiring the college route.
As someone who has spent 33 years in this sport, I approach this with melancholy. I want to see Division I college hockey become the best is can be and having the best players at all 64 Division I institutions matters to me.
But I also see this influx of talent as a massive position for college hockey.
I may be too old to embrace change that many see as positive, and I know that I’m not talking to a younger person than I. But do you look at current situations and worry that allowing CHL players into college hockey might make the sport worse and not better?
Ed: In the long run – say after four or five years – I believe things will settle out and the players who belong at D-I will be there. I think there will be more of a shakeup in the USHL and BCHL and that will filter through Tier II and below.
In the short term, players who went to major junior and who are academically eligible may take the route of college hockey that they didn’t expect to have. That will have an impact on 2004 and 2005 birth year players and maybe for a year or two after that, from what those close to it tell me.
In the longer term, players who are headed to a D-I program will have more options and major junior will be a fit for many of them. College-bound players from Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes will have more options close to home.
So I’m approaching this in a more positive light. There will be more players with more choices.
I just hope we have enough D-I programs in which to place them.
