New Rules?

[Jim Hyla]

USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam:-D, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

[Al DeFlorio]

USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam:-D, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men's ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

[Josh '99]

USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam:-D, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men's ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

As if JTW can explain anything mathematical in nature in under five minutes.  :-}

If I had to wager a guess, the problem (or, at least, a problem) is that the committee likes having criteria that are objective, and, even more so, likes having criteria that both objective and fairly easily understandable to a broad audience (and rightly so, I think).  While KRACH (or something along those lines) is a better way to rank teams, it's als fairly opaque to the average observer, and I think there's some tension between wanting a better system but also not wanting that better system to come at the cost of the transparency of the process.  Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they don't give a crap, but in any case it's nice to know they actually do want a better system.

[Al DeFlorio]

USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam:-D, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men's ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

As if JTW can explain anything mathematical in nature in under five minutes.  :-}

If I had to wager a guess, the problem (or, at least, a problem) is that the committee likes having criteria that are objective, and, even more so, likes having criteria that both objective and fairly easily understandable to a broad audience (and rightly so, I think).  While KRACH (or something along those lines) is a better way to rank teams, it's als fairly opaque to the average observer, and I think there's some tension between wanting a better system but also not wanting that better system to come at the cost of the transparency of the process.  Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they don't give a crap, but in any case it's nice to know they actually do want a better system.

It's pretty clear the NCAA has no intention of looking for a "better system" to replace pairwise.  All they're looking to do is fix the TUC cliff within the existing pairwise, and that doesn't require rocket science.  We've had several suggestions to fix it right here on eLynah.

[Josh '99]

USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam:-D, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men's ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

As if JTW can explain anything mathematical in nature in under five minutes.  :-}

If I had to wager a guess, the problem (or, at least, a problem) is that the committee likes having criteria that are objective, and, even more so, likes having criteria that both objective and fairly easily understandable to a broad audience (and rightly so, I think).  While KRACH (or something along those lines) is a better way to rank teams, it's als fairly opaque to the average observer, and I think there's some tension between wanting a better system but also not wanting that better system to come at the cost of the transparency of the process.  Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they don't give a crap, but in any case it's nice to know they actually do want a better system.

It's pretty clear the NCAA has no intention of looking for a "better system" to replace pairwise.  All they're looking to do is fix the TUC cliff within the existing pairwise, and that doesn't require rocket science.  We've had several suggestions to fix it right here on eLynah.

Granted, but I would suggest that they see the existing pairwise with the TUC cliff fixed as a "better system" than what they have now (whether it's a "better system" or an "improved version of the existing system" is splitting hairs), even if it's only incrementally better rather than a ground-up reworking.

[Jim Hyla]

ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

    Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
    Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
    Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
    Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.  
    Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
    Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
    Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

[Jim Hyla]

USCHO reports that FF may go to Sat./Mon. schedule.

Maybe Adam can tell us more about this and the rules discussion, and if any of the changes are realistic in 2014.

[marty]

ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

    Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
    Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
    Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
    Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.  
    Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
    Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
    Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

Just do away with the ice altogether and play volley ball.  The first two ideas seem to point in that direction.

(Also, will keeping informed with the NHL equipment standards allow for play without face protection? I know I must be missing the point of that item...)

[KeithK]

ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

    Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
    Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
    Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
    Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.  
    Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
    Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
    Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

Just do away with the ice altogether and play volley ball.  The first two ideas seem to point in that direction.

(Also, will keeping informed with the NHL equipment standards allow for play without face protection? I know I must be missing the point of that item...)

I don't understand why they seem to spend so much time trying to tinker with the rules of a sport that is "mature".  Hockey's been a pretty good game for a long time.  It doesn't need constant tweaks to the rules every year.

I understand the approach when there is somesignificant new development that needs to be addressed (whether injury, equipment, play style).But I don't see that here.

[Towerroad]

ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

    Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
    Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
    Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
    Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.  
    Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
    Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
    Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I understand that most hockey rinks use DiHydrogen Oxide in their ice. This is a very very powerful solvent and should be banned.

Also, the puck has hard edges and should be replaces with a nerf like product to prevent injury.

Don't even get me started on skates.



I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

Just do away with the ice altogether and play volley ball.  The first two ideas seem to point in that direction.

(Also, will keeping informed with the NHL equipment standards allow for play without face protection? I know I must be missing the point of that item...)

[Trotsky]

I don't understand why they seem to spend so much time trying to tinker with the rules of a sport that is "mature".  Hockey's been a pretty good game for a long time.  It doesn't need constant tweaks to the rules every year.

An organism's first priority is to perpetuate itself.

[KeithK]

I don't understand why they seem to spend so much time trying to tinker with the rules of a sport that is "mature".  Hockey's been a pretty good game for a long time.  It doesn't need constant tweaks to the rules every year.

An organism's first priority is to perpetuate itself.

Yeah, good point.But these are people (coaches) who already have jobs.

[Jim Hyla]

RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

"Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn't be a 16-team tournament. That's where the growth is coming from."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2013/07/19/rits-wilson-fix-home-game-inequality-before-adjusting-pairwise-looking-at-on-campus-regionals/#ixzz2ZluW20Y1

[RichH]

RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

"Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn't be a 16-team tournament. That's where the growth is coming from."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2013/07/19/rits-wilson-fix-home-game-inequality-before-adjusting-pairwise-looking-at-on-campus-regionals/#ixzz2ZluW20Y1

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

[KeithK]

RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

"Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn't be a 16-team tournament. That's where the growth is coming from."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2013/07/19/rits-wilson-fix-home-game-inequality-before-adjusting-pairwise-looking-at-on-campus-regionals/#ixzz2ZluW20Y1

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

I'd push for a rule like: a team must play a minimum of xx% of their out of conferencegames on the road (not neutral ice) over a yy year window. The percentage might be 25 or 33 and maybe you use a three year window.  As for enforcement, the ideal penalty would be tournament eligibility.  But maybe excessive home games are counted as loasses for the offending team.

Ok, so this is probably a pipe dream. I'm not sure how the rule committee/power structure is set up.  Is it even possible for a large number of schools to force a rule change over the objection of a few large schools?  I have to imagine the number of DI teams in the have-not category exceed the haves.

OTOH, a rule like this might result in an even more disconnected schedule where the NCHC and B10 type schools only play each other. Which wouldn't necessarily be good for the sport either.