It’s all said and done in Women’s Division III action. All that’s left is the NCAA Touranament. It’s time to take a look at who I believe will be in the NCAA Tournament.
Let’s remind everyone that there are seven teams in the Division III Women’s Tournament.
• There are four automatic bids — the winners of the conference tournaments for the ECAC East, ECAC West, MIAC and NESCAC. This is Pool A.
• Then there is one bid for Pool B teams, those teams that are in conferences which do not get an automatic bid. In this case, it’s just the teams in the NCHA.
• And then there are two bids for Pool C teams. These are teams in the conferences which have automatic bids, but did not get the automatic bid.
With seven bids, we know that there are four teams already in the tournament. Those four teams are the Pool A teams. These four teams are:
MIAC Champion — Gustavus Adolphus
ECAC East Champion — Manhattanville
ECAC West Champion — Elmira
NESCAC Champion — Bowdoin
The next step is to award the Pool B bid to the tournament.
For this we take a look at the eligible teams. That is all the NCHA teams. Wisconsin-Stevens Point won the NCHA Championship, so that would lead us to believe that the Pointers should be awarded the Pool B bid. But that is not based on the criteria, so we have to look at the criteria.
Per the NCAA, the criteria for selection are:
• Win Percentage
• Strength of Schedule per the NCAA’s table
• Head-to-Head Results
• Record Against Common Opponents Within Region
• Record Against Ranked Teams Within Region
You can take those five criteria and create a PairWise Comparison table with them.
Ties are not broken by RPI as in the Division I PairWise, but rather by looking at all the criteria and then deciding — it’s subjective here.
Let’s take a look at the PairWise Rankings for the West Region, since that is where the NCHA is. Most notably. Let’s look at the NCHA teams which are tournament eligible.
Those three teams are the Pointers, Wisconsin-Superior and Wisconsin-River Falls. Per the rankings they are:
2 Wisconsin-Stevens Point
4 Wisconsin-Superior
5 Wisconsin-River Falls
Looking at the comparisons head-to-head between the three teams we see:
| Wis.-River Falls | Wis.-Stevens Point | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.6481 0 | 0.7391 1 |
| SOS | 9.4074 0 | 9.9565 1 |
| H2H | 0- 4- 1 0 | 4- 0- 1 1 |
| COP | 15- 5- 0 1 | 12- 5-1 0 |
| RNK | 4- 8- 1 0 | 7- 4- 2 1 |
| PTS | 1 | 4 |
| Wis.-River Falls | Wis.-Superior | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.6481 0 | 0.7222 1 |
| SOS | 9.4074 0 | 9.4074 0 |
| H2H | 3- 1- 0 1 | 1- 3- 0 0 |
| COP | 13- 6- 1 0 | 18- 3-1 1 |
| RNK | 4- 8- 1 0 | 6- 5- 0 1 |
| PTS | 1 | 3 |
| Wis.-Stevens Point | Wis.-Superior | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.7391 1 | 0.7222 0 |
| SOS | 9.9565 1 | 9.4074 0 |
| H2H | 2- 3- 0 0 | 3- 2- 0 1 |
| COP | 13- 1- 2 1 | 15- 4-0 0 |
| RNK | 7- 4- 2 1 | 6- 5- 0 0 |
| PTS | 4 | 1 |
From these three comparisons it is easy to see that Stevens Point wins two comparisons, Superior wins one and River Falls wins none.
Therefore we award the Pool B bid to Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
We now have five of our seven teams in the tournament.
It’s time to award the remaining two bids — the Pool C bids.
Let’s now take a look at the current PairWise Rankings for Division III Women on a national scale. Let’s look at the Top 10 of the Rankings on a national scale.
In rank order they are:
1 Manhattanville
1 Middlebury
3 Plattsburgh
4 Bowdoin
5 Elmira
6 Rensselaer
7 Gustavus Adolphus
7 Wisconsin-Stevens Point
9 St. Thomas
10 Wisconsin-Superior
Let’s take out the teams that already have Pool A bids to the Tournament (Manhattanville, Bowdoin and Elmira), plus our choice for Pool B, Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
1 Middlebury
3 Plattsburgh
6 Rensselaer
9 St. Thomas
10 Wisconsin-Superior
We have to eliminate Wisconsin-Superior because they are not eligible for a Pool C bid because they are a Pool B team. That leaves four teams for two spots.
Looking at the pure rankings themselves, Middlebury and Plattsburgh look like they will be the two teams, but let’s just confirm that with the comparisons.
Let’s take all four teams and do the head-to-head.
| Middlebury | Plattsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8750 1 | 0.8400 0 |
| SOS | 10.2500 0 | 10.4400 1 |
| H2H | 2- 0- 0 1 | 0- 2- 0 0 |
| COP | 10- 3- 0 0 | 7- 1- 1 1 |
| RNK | 7- 3- 0 1 | 6- 3- 2 0 |
| PTS | 3 | 2 |
| Middlebury | Rensselaer | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8750 1 | 0.7500 0 |
| SOS | 10.2500 1 | 9.6111 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 5- 0- 0 0 | 2- 0- 0 0 |
| RNK | 7- 3- 0 1 | 5- 3- 1 0 |
| PTS | 3 | 0 |
| Middlebury | St. Thomas | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8750 1 | 0.7407 0 |
| SOS | 10.2500 1 | 9.4815 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 1- 0- 0 1 | 0- 0- 1 0 |
| RNK | 7- 3- 0 1 | 3- 4- 1 0 |
| PTS | 4 | 0 |
| Plattsburgh | Rensselaer | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8400 1 | 0.7500 0 |
| SOS | 10.4400 1 | 9.6111 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 5- 0- 1 1 | 4- 2- 1 0 |
| RNK | 6- 3- 2 1 | 5- 3- 1 0 |
| PTS | 4 | 0 |
| Plattsburgh | St. Thomas | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8400 1 | 0.7407 0 |
| SOS | 10.4400 1 | 9.4815 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 0- 0- 1 0 | 0- 0- 1 0 |
| RNK | 6- 3- 2 1 | 3- 4- 1 0 |
| PTS | 3 | 0 |
| Rensselaer | St. Thomas | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.7500 1 | 0.7407 0 |
| SOS | 9.6111 1 | 9.4815 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| RNK | 5- 3- 1 1 | 3- 4- 1 0 |
| PTS | 3 | 0 |
Looking at the comparisons, Middlebury wins three of the six, Plattsburgh two of the six and Rensselear the last one.
So, that confirms our selections of Middlebury and Plattsburgh.
Therefore our seven teams in the tournament are:
1 Manhattanville
1 Middlebury
3 Plattsburgh
4 Bowdoin
5 Elmira
7 Gustavus Adolphus
7 Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Now we need to break ties to determine the seedings.
We have two ties here, one in the east and one in the west. Therefore we break the ties using the regional PairWise Rankings.
Let’s break the Western tie with Gustavus Adolphus and Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Looking at the overall ranking, they each have six comparison wins. So let’s look at the individual comparison.
| Gustavus Adolphus | Wis.-Stevens Point | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8750 1 | 0.7391 0 |
| SOS | 10.5833 1 | 9.9565 0 |
| H2H | 1- 1- 0 0 | 1- 1- 0 0 |
| COP | 7- 2- 0 0 | 6- 0- 2 1 |
| RNK | 4- 3- 0 0 | 7- 4- 2 1 |
| PTS | 2 | 2 |
We have ourselves a tie. So we have to figure out who is the higher seed here.
Remember that this is subjective. There is no weight to either of the five factors, so the tie could be broken by any of the five criteria. We head to out-of-region competition to take a look.
The Gusties pick up a win over Colby and two losses to Bowdoin and Williams. The Pointers picked up a win over Williams, ties against Plattsburgh and Elmira and a loss to Middlebury. Breaking it down a little more, let’s take a look at out-of-region competition against teams already in the tournament.
It becomes clear that the Pointers are 1-1-2 against those teams while Gustavus Adolphus is 0-2.
I give Wisconsin-Stevens Point the sixth seed and Gustavus the seventh seed.
Now let’s break the Manhattanville-Middlebury tie.
| Manhattanville | Middlebury | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8696 1 | 0.8636 0 |
| SOS | 10.9130 1 | 10.1818 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 4- 1- 2 0 | 8- 3- 0 1 |
| RNK | 9- 2- 2 1 | 6- 3- 0 0 |
| PTS | 3 | 1 |
The head-to-head comparison favors Manhattanville. Therefore we award Manhattanville the number one seed. Or do we?
But if you go to the national comparison, the two are tied because of a switch with the winning percentage.
| Manhattanville | Middlebury | |
|---|---|---|
| WIN | 0.8696 0 | 0.8750 1 |
| SOS | 10.9130 1 | 10.2500 0 |
| H2H | 0- 0- 0 0 | 0- 0- 0 0 |
| COP | 4- 1- 2 0 | 8- 3- 0 1 |
| RNK | 9- 2- 2 1 | 7- 3- 0 0 |
| PTS | 2 | 2 |
Let’s look at record against teams that are in the tournament. Manhattanville is 2-1-2, Middlebury is 4-3-0. That still makes me choose Manhattanville as the number one seed.
The seven teams in the tournament by rank order are as follows:
1 Manhattanville
2 Middlebury
3 Plattsburgh
4 Bowdoin
5 Elmira
6 Wisconsin-Stevens Point
7 Gustavus Adolphus
Let’s now set our games.
Based upon the NCAA Championship Handbook, group by geography. That means that we have one matchup of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and Gustavus Adolphus. Let’s set that matchup as one of the first-round games next weekend. Who gets to host? The higher seed, in this case Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Geographic proximity, as defined by the NCAA, is within 500 miles of one another. Therefore all five of the teams are in geographic proximity with each other.
The closest matchups would be Bowdoin-Middlebury and Elmira-Plattsburgh, but since all teams are within 500 miles of each other, we will go with the matchups of Elmira at Middlebury and Bowdoin at Plattsburgh.
I know what everyone is saying. The tournament champions have to go on the road, while the two losers of the championship games get to host? That’s what the numbers say.
This also gives Manhattanville the bye and the right to host the Frozen Four.
But, Manhattanville cannot host the Frozen Four. A first-round game, yes, but not the Frozen Four due to its facility at the Playland Ice Casino.
Now the questions begs, do you take away Manhattanville’s bye? You can’t according to the criteria.
But you have to find a place for the Frozen Four to be played. The next logical step is to award it to Middlebury. We can do that, but then again there is the possibility that Middlebury will also gets the Men’s Division III Frozen Four.
But you can not make a decision based upon a possibility that Middlebury will win a first-round game and then be eligible to host the Frozen Four. Therefore we give it to Middlebury.
We now have our NCAA Division III Women’s Ice Hockey Championship set.
First Round
Gustavus Adolphus at Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Elmira at Middlebury
Bowdoin at Plattsburgh
Frozen Four
at Middlebury
Gustavus Adolphus/Wisconsin-Stevens Point vs. Manhattanville
Elmira/Middlebury vs. Bowdoin/Plattsburgh
The selections come out on Sunday, we’ll see how accurate our bracketology was.
