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: Among all of the changes in D-I men’s hockey this year — CHL eligibility, more NIL money, and roster caps — there is also a new statistical method to select and seed teams for the NCAA tournament, the NCAA Power Index, or NPI. We’ve been watching it as the season has progressed (and discussing it in this space) and just like the PairWise Rankings that preceded it, it had early numbers that made no sense.
But now, it’s coming into focus.
Jim, I thought we’d visit the December 1 NCAA field as it would have been, and then as it stands today. Last month, Dartmouth, early in its Ivy League-abbreviated season, was 8-0-0 and at the top of the NPI. The number of teams “inside the bubble” in each conference looked like this:
- AHA – Automatic Qualifier only
- B1G – 4 teams (Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State)
- CCHA – 1 team (Minnesota St.)
- ECAC – 4 teams (Dartmouth, Cornell, Quinnipiac, Harvard)
- HEA – 1 team (Northeastern)
- NCHC – 5 teams (Minnesota Duluth, Denver, North Dakota, W. Michigan, St. Cloud State)
There haven’t been a lot of changes in the intervening 37 days, but now 16-4-0 Michigan is at the top and the CCHA has taken away a team from the NCHC:
- AHA – AQ only
- B1G – 4 teams (Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State
- CCHA – 2 teams (Augustana, Minnesota State)
- ECAC – 4 teams (Dartmouth, Quinnipiac, Cornell, Princeton)
- HEA – 1 team (Connecticut)
- NCHC – 4 teams (North Dakota, Minnesota Duluth, Western Michigan, Denver (all four currently top 8)
Before we look at teams on the bubble and their prospects, I’d like to get your take on how little this has changed since December, and whether we can see this start to lock in. We should take into consideration that the bulk of non-conference play has ended (except for independents). I was surprised that it has moved as little as it has, and I’m wondering if we’ll see the pattern we used to with the PWR, with about 80 percent of the field as it stands in the NPI at mid-January making the tournament, and maybe the top four or five almost a certainty.
JIM: Oh the NPI! I feel like between now and Selection Sunday we’re going to spend more time talking about the NPI in this space than anything, but as you point out, it’s for good reason.
The NPI, when all is said and done, is still going to look a lot like the PairWise. Yes, the actual numbers that you see next to a team’s name when you read the NPI looks significantly different than the PairWise. We used to deal in percentages, and a PairWise percentage around .6000 (yes, we needed four decimal places to differentiate at times) was considered excellent and typically a team around .5400 was on the PairWise bubble. Now we look at NPI and Michigan’s NPI is 59.64. The bubble team, Minnesota State, has an NPI of 54.40. I’m seeing a trend here which might at least make us understand the numbers a little better — from what I can see, the representative number for the PairWise and NPI is different by a factor of 10.
Now that said, the math itself is a bit different and that’s where things change the most. But even the facts that you provided, Ed, show that much like the PairWise, once you hit the beginning of December it is much easier to fall out of the top 15 than it is to climb from outside in.
I’m most interested to watch what happens as we get even closer to the season’s end. In the past, if you were a top 10 PairWise team come Feb. 1, you usually had better than an 85 percent chance to make the tournament. As I’ve had conversations and attempted to learn more about the NPI, I’m becoming increasingly confident that will hold true with the NPI.
And that would lead us to Selection Sunday. We all will run the PairWise from this season and compare it to the NPI and the final tournament field. Again, my gut is that they will look nearly identical. But if there is a difference of say one team making it vs. missing it when you compare the new system to the old, prepare for plenty of whining.
ED: Oh, and I know where some of the whining will be from — and that’s because there no longer are head-to-head and common opponents comparisons. That’s by design, so that a weak team that has a good weekend upset sweep over a top opponent doesn’t get in based on those two games. We could see a team bumped that beat a team that’s in. If that bumped team has a large fan base, the outcry on social media will be huge. (As will the mockery in return.)
But at least we’re not like college football — it’s done by numbers that everyone can see.
Since it seems to be easier to fall out of the top 15 than to climb in, things are already looking precarious for bubble teams. Currently the teams on the outside looking in: Boston College (16), Harvard (17), Providence (18), St. Thomas (19), and St. Cloud State (20). Meanwhile, on the edge: Augustana (13), Minnesota State (14), and Connecticut (15).
Depending on how the “Mendoza Line” (look it up) moves, we could see five ECAC teams and three CCHA teams in the tournament, with only one from Hockey East. Or a little success from BC and Providence could change that.
What are your early predictions, or let’s even just say educated guesses, on how teams might move into and out of the top 15?
JIM: Really, you’re asking for me to make an on-the-record prediction here? Well be prepared for a lot of hedging.
I feel like the list of teams right below the bubble includes a lot of name brands that most expected to make the tournament when the season began.
As I look at the teams on the wrong side of the bubble, the two that interest me the most are Boston College and St. Thomas, but for very different reasons. Boston College has a difficult enough schedule remaining that with moderate success (I’m talking about .650-.700 winning percentage — great but not other worldly) they could wedge their way in. St. Thomas isn’t in the same position — the Tommies won’t play a schedule that will boost their NPI significantly UNLESS they go on a tear in the CCHA. That said, I think that’s a possibility.
But when you move teams in, you have to move teams out, so what teams are most vulnerable? The way I see it, what is left for most at this point is conference games, so teams in conferences with lower average NPIs are most at risk if they lose a few key conference games down the stretch. So if I have to name those teams, I would say Minnesota State, Augustana and Princeton are the most susceptible to dropping below the cut line.
That’s as much of a prediction as you’re getting from me.
ED: Fair enough. I don’t disagree with your takes on this. Or hedging a little.
Before we wrap up, it has been a disappointing IIHF World Junior Championship for both the U.S. and Canada. As we’re writing this, Team Canada is taking on Finland in the bronze medal game, and the Americans have already returned to campus or their billet family.
Expectations understandably were high for both teams, with the U.S. having won back-to-back titles, and Canada always considered a failure if they return without a gold medal.
Many factors have been cited by fans and media. For Team USA, perhaps the talent level is a step below the last several years, and fingers were pointed (fairly or unfairly) at the goalies in particular. In any case, there just wasn’t the swagger or bravado of the past couple of tournaments.
For Canada, there seems to be a lot of blame pointed toward the six CHL players who are playing in or committed to the NCAA. They are playing a different system and schedule now. Some north-of-the-border social media voices are even suggesting that NCAA players be banned from Team Canada in the future.
I’m more inclined to see this as cyclical. We also need to remember that these are young players, and certainly some of the outbursts and lack of sportsmanship have revealed that. I’m not worried about either program going forward. Both will learn from their mistakes and find ways to improve. And Canada will adjust to the NCAA route, and eventually embrace it (an on-the-record prediction).
JIM: I’m not sure that there is much blame for the American team. The reality is a couple of decades or so ago, winning a medal was a dream for even most optimistic of imaginations. So the fact this year’s team fell short after winning three straight and two gold medals gets a pass from me.
Team Canada, on the other hand, gets my attention because this was a straight-out failure. This was one of the more talented teams in recent memory and it seems that the adults here — the coaches and administrators running this team — couldn’t put their egos aside. Anyone who wants to blame players — youth under the age of 20 — is extremely misguided.