{"id":25600,"date":"2003-03-10T20:48:28","date_gmt":"2003-03-11T02:48:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uscho.com\/2003\/03\/10\/csi-ncaa\/"},"modified":"2010-08-17T19:55:25","modified_gmt":"2010-08-18T00:55:25","slug":"csi-ncaa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2003\/03\/10\/csi-ncaa\/","title":{"rendered":"CSI: NCAA"},"content":{"rendered":"
I can’t even begin to count the number of times I was asked by D-III hockey fans over the weekend, “Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall during the conference calls?”<\/p>\n
Since none of us outside the committees was privy to the conversations that took place during the selection of the three at-large teams or the seeding, let’s do a little forensic investigation and see if we can piece together what happened. A little CSI: NCAA<\/i>, or Dragnet<\/i>, with names changed to protect the innocent.<\/p>\n
The first step in the selection of teams was easy. Six teams in conferences with automatic qualifiers won their tournaments: St. Norbert in the NCHA, St. John’s in the MIAC, SUNYAC champ Oswego, Norwich in the ECAC East, ECAC Northeast winner Wentworth, and the lone upset, Trinity in the NESCAC.<\/p>\n
With six teams in place, that left three for the committee to choose: the single Pool B bid, for a team from the two leagues without autobids — the MCHA and ECAC West — and the two Pool C bids, for teams in the six autobid conferences that didn’t win their league titles.<\/p>\n
The selection committee has five criteria on which to rank at-large teams: in-region winning percentage, in-region head to head results, in-region results against common opponents, strength of schedule as determined by in-region opponents’ winning percentage, and results against teams already in the tournament.<\/p>\n
It appears that the criteria were followed explicitly by the committee.<\/p>\n