Committee policy/rule changes

[DeltaOne81]

Since Age posted the Sneddon thing, here's the other recent news:

http://uscho.com/news/2003/06/24_006803.php

The article lists a bunch of little changes:

approving Hockey East's new 1 ref - 1 asst ref - 1 linesman system ( no mention of 4x4 OTs )

single-day tickets available for regionals - although full-session tickets get the better seats. Full-session tickets are also limited in price, to the range of $60 to $75
That one's a shot at Providence for sure. I wonder if there were some behind-the-scenes words

To 'solve' the seeding problem, they refused to relax the banding requirement, but instead relaxed the intra-conference matchup requirement
Wrong way to go about it in my opinion, but at least they found a solution to the problem. If you can switch 9 and 12, why can't you switch 12 and 13? But, hey, at least it avoids the issue. I guess the reason they went for this is it also 'solves' the problem of having 3 number 2's and 2 number 3's (or whatever) from the same conference with less fuss. So it solves both problems reasonably.

Agree to change the 15-second face-off rule to 18-seconds, to give the home team more time to match lines.

I think that's about it, but I may've missed a detail from the article.

[jtwcornell91]

Here's the primary source for that article:
http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/20030623/div1/4013n30.html

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote:
To 'solve' the seeding problem, they refused to relax the banding requirement, but instead relaxed the intra-conference matchup requirement
Wrong way to go about it in my opinion, but at least they found a solution to the problem. If you can switch 9 and 12, why can't you switch 12 and 13? But, hey, at least it avoids the issue. I guess the reason they went for this is it also 'solves' the problem of having 3 number 2's and 2 number 3's (or whatever) from the same conference with less fuss. So it solves both problems reasonably.

Actually, it seems to be intended only for the latter situation.  According to the NCAA News article, the issue came up because the rule against first-round conference matchups and the rule about keeping teams in their bands could potentially contradict each other.  There was no mention of seeding teams 1-16, or of the Cornell/Mankato situation.

The language of the article seems to imply that they'll only set up first round conference matchups if they need to to keep teams in their bands.

[ugarte]

While it is a bit odd to be willing to switch 9 and 12 but not 13 and 12, this is a reasonable solution.  The NCAA wants to stick with bands (presumably because a seed implies something specific about ranking: a 2 should always be "favored" over a 3), and relaxing the intraconference rule is the right way to reconcile these competing interests.

Of course, a 5-2 win over Mankato made the dispute last year a trivial distraction.

[jtwcornell91]

Here's the relevant part of the NCAA News article:

The group also reviewed the team selection process in detail. The main issue involved conference teams playing against each other in the first round, which the committee avoided last season. The issue was raised because of the policy possibly conflicts with another policy in place that states teams will be banded in groups of four.

The committee determined that it was more important to keep teams in their original seeds than to avoid conference match-ups. Therefore, if five teams make the tournament from the same conference and all are either placed in the second or third band of teams, two teams from the same conference will play each other in the first round.

"We hope the committee is never placed in this situation," said Ian McCaw, current chair of the committee. "However, we felt it was important to get feedback from the coaches and commissioners on this situation in case it does arise so we can deal with it effectively."

I don't think they're talking about a change in policy at all, just clarifying which rule (banding or avoiding first-round matchups) would take precedence in the hypothetical situation where they contradicted each other.

[cquinn]

[Q]Of course, a 5-2 win over Mankato made the dispute last year a trivial distraction.[/Q]

I'm glad they didn't use that as an excuse to keep the rules the same.  Even though Princeton won the ECACs as one of the 4 or 5 seeds in the first year we had the god-awful PIG, none of us thought that wasn't reason enough to keep the format.

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

Well, all this says was if the situation like this past year occurs, the NCAA has the flexibility to allow an inter-conference match-up in the first round.  Nothing says they have to exercise that option, and some nagging little fear makes me think the NCAA would make the same decision as last year, just to prove they did "the right thing" last year.

Though if you think about it, it could cut down on travel for the #4 seeds if they did allow inter-conference match-ups in the first round, as well as boost the # of fans in the regionals.

JH

[jtwcornell91]

Jeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
Well, all this says was if the situation like this past year occurs, the NCAA has the flexibility to allow an inter-conference match-up in the first round.

I don't think it even says that.  It says that they can allow an inter-conference matchup to avoid moving teams out of the bands.  (When they say "keep teams in their original seeds" I'm pretty sure they mean 1 seeds, 2 seeds, 3 seeds, and 4 seeds.)

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

Agreed, John, but if you look at what happened this year, the committee was able to avoid a first round interconference match-up without sacrificing the bands.  There was, however, one point where there was the potential for 3 WCHA schools in band 3 and two in band 2.  

I think that's the kind of thing they're rationalizing, not our having to play Mankato.  In that light, they could repeat last year's debacle and still be completely within their new recommendations.

Then again, I could just be a pessimist ::rolleyes::

JH

[stm22]

Dumb question: what's the diff between an 'assistant ref' and a 'lineman'?

--Steve M '03

[cbuckser]

An assistant referee can call minor penalties.  A linesman cannot.

[Jordan]

[q]An assistant referee can call minor penalties. A linesman cannot.
[/q]

Then if this system is just being implemented now, who called the penalty (was it unsportsmanlike conduct?  high sticking?  I don't even remember...) on Baby at the tail end of the first game @ BU in 2001?  Because IIRC it wasn't the referee, that being one of the complaints from our side.

Of course, I could be remembering the whole thing wrong...

[jtwcornell91]

Jordan wrote:

[q]An assistant referee can call minor penalties. A linesman cannot.
[/q]
Then if this system is just being implemented now, who called the penalty (was it unsportsmanlike conduct?  high sticking?  I don't even remember...) on Baby at the tail end of the first game @ BU in 2001?  Because IIRC it wasn't the referee, that being one of the complaints from our side.

Last year there were no linesmen in college hockey.  An officiating crew consisted (and will consist for other conferences) of one head referee and two assistant referees.  The assistant refs are supposed to call minors that the head ref doesn't see.  Our complaint was that the ref (Schmidt, I think, from the WCHA) was looking at the play and didn't call anything, but the AR (Quinn, from HE) called Baby for unsportsmanlike conduct anyway.

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]Craig wrote:

An assistant referee can call minor penalties. A linesman cannot.[/Q]Actually, if memory serves me, linesmen could always call "Too many men".

Any help out there? ::help::

[pat]

[Q]
Actually, if memory serves me, linesmen could always call "Too many men".
[/Q]

True, and report major penalties to the referee, etc. But my question is, didn't Hockey East propose using the four-man system used by the NHL?

[adamw]

No. Just this.

http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/06/29_006812.php