College Hockey:Committee makes another change to NCAA tournament selection criteria
For the fifth straight season, the NCAA men’s ice hockey committee has altered the selection criteria for the national tournament.
This season, the list of teams under consideration — those that are compared against each other to form the basis of the PairWise Rankings — has been expanded to all teams with a Ratings Percentage Index score of .500 or better, NCAA associate director of championships Kristin Fasbender said.
In the previous four seasons, the teams under consideration were limited to the top 25 teams in the RPI.
As of Wednesday, the change adds nine schools to the PairWise Rankings, which mimic the selection process used by the committee to select the at-large teams for the NCAA tournament.
Also, recent NCAA championship manuals show that the committee last year quietly removed the line that required both teams to have played at least 10 games against teams under consideration for that comparison to be factored into the overall comparison between schools.
Previous changes to the criteria included a requirement that teams have a winning percentage of .500 or better for at-large consideration; the addition and then removal of a bonus points system for quality non-conference victories; and alterations to the formula for calculating the RPI.
It’s believed that this year’s tweak was made at least in part to remove what could be considered an arbitrary limit of teams under consideration.
The PairWise Rankings replicate the committee’s process in comparing all of the teams under consideration against each other based on four criteria: RPI, record against common opponents, head-to-head competition and record against other teams under consideration.
For each comparison won, a team receives one point, except for the head-to-head comparison, for which each team receives one point for each game victory in the teams’ series. The final order reflected in the PairWise Rankings is based on the number of comparisons won. If two teams win the same number of comparisons, the team with the higher RPI is ranked higher, breaking the tie.
This year’s change makes the number of teams under consideration dependent on performance instead of a fixed figure.
Meanwhile, the women’s ice hockey committee has gone the opposite direction as the men’s committee.
According to the 2011 championship handbook, one of the criteria is record against teams in the top 12 of the RPI; that comparison formerly was made against teams with a RPI of .500 or better.
As of Wednesday, that change eliminated six teams from the PairWise Rankings.
Changes in detail
Here are the recent changes the men’s committee has made to the selection criteria, starting in 2003:
2003: Changed the RPI equation to 25-50-25 from 35-50-15 (all RPI equations listed as winning percentage-opponents’ winning percentage-opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage); added undefined bonus points to a team’s RPI for winning home, road and neutral-site non-conference games against teams in the top 15 of the RPI; adjusted a team’s RPI to prevent losing points for winning conference postseason games against weaker opponents; defined the pool of teams under consideration as those with an RPI of .500 or better.
2007: Changed the RPI equation to 25-21-54; changed the bonus points system to count only for road non-conference wins against teams in the top 15 of the RPI; added all games to the RPI adjustment for winning games against weaker opponents; redefined the pool of teams under consideration as those in the top 25 of the RPI; added a condition that the comparison of record against teams under consideration would be used only if both teams have played 10 or more games against such teams.
2008: Eliminated the bonus points.
2009: Added a requirement that to be eligible for at-large selection, a team must have a winning percentage of .500 or greater.
2010: Eliminated the condition that the comparison of record against teams under consideration would be used only if both teams have played 10 or more games against such teams.
2011: Redefined the pool of teams under consideration as those at .500 or better in the RPI.



The following is a self-policing forum for discussing views on this story. Comments that are derogatory, make personal attacks, are abusive, or contain profanity or racism will be removed at our discretion. USCHO.com is not responsible for comments posted by users. Please report any inappropriate or offensive comments by clicking the “Flag” link next to that comment in order to alert the moderator.
Please also keep “woofing,” taunting, and otherwise unsportsmanlike behavior to a minimum. Your posts will more than likely be deleted, and worse yet, you reflect badly on yourself, your favorite team and your conference.
Pingback: BMW Cars For Sale in USA @ www.AutoDriver.com – Find Your New Dream Car | insurance answers
Pingback: Hello Kitty Fine Jewelry is a Brilliant Accessory for Both Young and Old | Radioval
Pingback: Tweets that mention Committee makes another change to NCAA tournament selection criteria :: USCHO.com :: U.S. College Hockey Online -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:21 pm | BZEE Finance
Pingback: The Search For Wedding Favors | Singles Love Dating Personals
Pingback: Detailing the PairWise | Rink and Run
Pingback: Anyone know of PLR article sites where one can select specific articles and buy only those articles? | SiteMembershipScript Blog
Pingback: How to achieve Chinese furniture the “Vivid” | eZineArticleBarn
Pingback: Links and Distractions, Red Cow Edition « Timothy Boger
Pingback: What Should Know Before Buying A Jogging Stroller | Double Baby Strollers
Pingback: MadWrite! » Get Proper Help To Stop Snoring Now | STOP SNORING TIPS|HOW TO STOP SNORING
Pingback: Selection In Musical Instruments Shopping
Pingback: From Fired To Hired | bags shoping
Pingback: The right move? | Tips for Golf
Pingback: xbox giveaway participating retailers
Pingback: Aubrey Haver
Pingback: Aubrey Wickert
Pingback: xbox 360
Pingback: penis advantage reviews
Pingback: mike geary truth about abs
Pingback: edu links
Pingback: hostgator coupon codes
Pingback: free ipads
Pingback: best led tvs
Pingback: penis advantage reviews
Pingback: free xbox 360
Pingback: portable dvd player for kids
Pingback: the truth about six pack abs review
Pingback: does penis advantage work
Pingback: penis advantage reviews
Pingback: Landon Mockler
Pingback: Antonio Lafrance
Pingback: edu link building service
Pingback: host gator coupon
Pingback: how to get a free ipad
Pingback: best led tv brand
Pingback: buy backlinks
Pingback: free xbox
Pingback: penis advantage review
Pingback: Sandi Diefenderfer
Pingback: Honey Curson
Pingback: Sandi Diefenderfer
Pingback: Gerry Zarlenga
Pingback: Jayne Ladeau
Pingback: Johnie Sjulstad
Pingback: Vada Tolman
Pingback: Roy Hequembourg
Pingback: Karla Roddick
Pingback: Pamella Hohensee
Pingback: Deja Tuell
Pingback: Deja Tuell
Pingback: Enrique Tarascio
Pingback: Demetrius Sweatman
Pingback: Stevie Saleeby
Pingback: Hiroko Prestidge
Pingback: In Silva
Pingback: Paris Ludvigsen
Pingback: Sherry Sees
Pingback: Stevie Saleeby
Pingback: tao of badass review
Pingback: tao of badass
Pingback: Karla Roddick
Pingback: Latanya Bafford
Pingback: Beverley Waldrep
Pingback: Freddie Folmer
Pingback: Huey Cluff
Pingback: Jada Bernd
Pingback: Annalisa Narrow
Pingback: Nita Burkins
Pingback: Kip Arnt
Pingback: Pablo Syrstad
Pingback: Oneida Galleta
Pingback: Willa Balogun
Pingback: Melonie Gharing
Pingback: Lawanna Schreuder
Pingback: Jimmy Ingwerson
Pingback: Rita Linzan
Pingback: Garret Otsuka
Pingback: Nick Dutel
Pingback: Marcellus Penird
Pingback: Jude Flam
Pingback: Kaitlyn Haithcock
Pingback: Mistie Trim
Pingback: Wilburn Niglio
Pingback: Michael Spivey
Pingback: Eloy Mckisson
Pingback: Tad Spallina
Pingback: Trenton Matysiak
Pingback: Davis Prusinski
Pingback: Mario Arguellez
Pingback: Brandon Dae
Pingback: Gwenn Propp
Pingback: Tessie Haugaard
Pingback: Elliot Artibee
Pingback: Tyrone Ragusa
Pingback: Georgeanna Michie
Pingback: Darius Badagliacca
Pingback: Virgil Kiker
Pingback: Herma Heckers
Pingback: Hobert Dentel
Pingback: Rupert Copland
Pingback: Emelina Holsworth
Pingback: Matilde Levers
Pingback: Ron Farkus
Pingback: Jesica Lamos
Pingback: Kum Kotas
Pingback: Issac Spruill
Pingback: Melania Peak
Pingback: Ciera Gilcrest
Pingback: Barrie Penz
Pingback: Zackary Couper
Pingback: Brianna Urrea
Pingback: Teddy Briant
Pingback: Johnnie Olewine
Pingback: Calvin Hubbert
Pingback: Lucius Gumina
Pingback: Setsuko Subler
Pingback: Kermit Sammut
Pingback: Aracely Warrior
Pingback: Hilton Schumans
Pingback: Serita Umphress
Pingback: Quinn Corpening
Pingback: Cleotilde Tallant
Pingback: Ron Farkus
Pingback: Salome Dimare
Pingback: Cecil Shau
Pingback: Soraya Iacovissi
Pingback: Nicky Seikel
Pingback: Anton Fermo
Pingback: Warren Majercik
Pingback: Magan Villafane
Pingback: Luise Kaspar
Pingback: Michale Chritton
Pingback: Kelly Cortijo
Pingback: Anjelica Hoffelt
Pingback: Cole Bahl
Pingback: Marcelino Zetina
Pingback: Dean Kimmey
Pingback: Wilbur Visalli
Pingback: Grisel Stotz
Pingback: Mitch Sleeper
Pingback: Arielle Kozlak
Pingback: Deidre Meinsen
Pingback: Jamison Mackellar
Pingback: Dean Pounder
Pingback: Troy Tegner
Pingback: Van Fogo
Pingback: Victor Hulin
Pingback: Josef Watring
Pingback: Ola Chicca