Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Penn State Eligible For 2013 NCAA Tournament


Apologies if this is old news to some of you, as what I'm about to write was apparently reported by USCHO back in April (although, notably, even they had it wrong at first). It's definitely new to me though, and I assume to many of you as well.

Penn State's athletic department has confirmed that the men's and women's hockey teams will immediately be eligible for the NCAA tournament upon joining Division I this season. The programs are the beneficiary of the following NCAA bylaw interpretation:
An active Division I member institution that adds a new sport is not subject to the two-year conformity requirement prior to being eligible to enter a team or individual in an NCAA Championship, inasmuch as the requirement is intended to apply only to a member institution that is in the Division I reclassification process. [References: NCAA Bylaws 18.4.2.2 (championships - eligibility) and NCAA Bylaw 3.2.4.4.1 (intent to sponsor varsity sport)]
NCAA Bylaw 18.4.2.2 states that an institution must establish compliance with all freshman and transfer eligibility and financial aid requirements for a two-year period prior to being allowed in an NCAA championship tournament. The fact that last season's Icers allowed transfers Bryce Johnson, Justin Kirchhevel, Nate Jensen and Taylor Holstrom to compete without putting in a year in residence (the "sit-out" year) is one example of non-compliance that would have meant that the two-year clock could not have started prior to this season. Bylaw 3.2.4.5.1 (which I believe was the intended reference, not 3.2.4.4.1) applies NCAA recruiting regulations to a sport from the time an institution demonstrates an intent to sponsor it on a varsity level.

Those two bylaws (mostly the first one) led to confusion among the message board set - and with yours truly, to be completely honest - as to PSU's eligibility. That was compounded when Guy Gadowsky, citing a different rule, told The Pipeline Show last month that "we are eligible for the NCAA tournament because we play over 20 NCAA [Division I] games."

Thanks to the NCAA's saying that the bylaws in question weren't meant to apply to a long-established Division I institution like Penn State adding a new sport, consider the question definitively answered.

The interpretation probably benefits the men's team more than the women, as College Hockey America won't have an autobid to the tournament for two years, and no team other than national power Mercyhurst has proven able to wrangle an at-large bid among CHA teams - even tournament champ Robert Morris had to sit at home last year. By the time the women's program has a shot at an autobid, the interpretation will be moot. The men, on the other hand, will likely have several shots at Teams Under Consideration (which are vital the the PairWise Rankings used to determine at-large bids in hockey...I'll save the full explanation for when it's necessary) this year, possibly including Union, Air Force, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Miami, Ohio State and RIT. And of course, there's the matter of 20 games against established Goliaths in the Big Ten in 2013-2014.

I suppose it's worth mentioning that the 2013 Frozen Four for men is in Pittsburgh, while the championship moves across the commonwealth to Philadelphia in 2014. Should PSU stun the hockey world and make the NCAA interpretation matter (and it would be stunning, make no mistake about that), that fact will certainly be a part of a potentially incredible storyline.

Theoretically, it can be done. All that's left is to actually do it, which is admittedly the slightly harder part.

12 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummm...sorry about that...I'm tired and accidently clicked "remove content" instead of "view comment." I think an "are you sure" would have been appropriate there.

      Going off of the memory of what you said, I completely agree. Realistically, we're probably not going to make the NCAA tournament. But what eligibility does is provide context for the season. It gives us a goal, a reason to care about other games, and new ways to measure progress even without making it (if we're a TUC at any point during the season, for example).

      Delete
    2. Don't worry. Was more interested in whether you agreed than the longevity of the post. I'm glad that I'm not alone in that feeling too. I think Penn State will definitely be a TUC during part of the season at least. Also, into the future, the fact that Penn State is a team that will count for PWR helps with building stronger OOC schedules into next season and beyond including the chance of getting games against programs like BC, BU, Cornell, or Notre Dame.

      Delete
    3. It should definitely help with next year, beyond whatever commitments we've already made. 20 Big Ten games, presumably 2 in Pittsburgh, which leaves 12 others. I have to think Union and RIT will make return trips. I also have to think that most of the AHA series this year were one (well, two) offs, but maybe a couple aren't. Eligibility will definitely make a difference in the doors that will be open for those last 4-8 games.

      Delete
  2. Why doesn't the CHA have an autobid for the women's tournament?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They haven't been able to keep six teams around until (hopefully) now.

      Delete
  3. Here's Aaron's comment that I actually deleted. Luckily I'm one of those people that keeps 20 tabs open, one of which happened to be an older version of this post...

    "Slightly harder." I love it. Haha I hate to be the PWR guy that people on eLynah and other fora criticize, but it does make the season, even if Penn State ends up not making the tournament, feel more like a "real" season than a series of games conceptually. Now, I will have to arrange my workload and travel schedules so that I can watch the games with maximum PWR consequences. The New York City-Schenectady trip from Michigan-Cornell to Penn State-Union is all but guaranteed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would love PSU to make it in 2013, but the fact that they CAN makes me happy.

    But I'd be even happier if they made it in 2014 when for some reason it is being hosted in Philly by the ECAC...Cornell/PSU national championship game?? :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. With next year's schedule consisting of three games against Div. III teams, plus almost ten exhibition games, there is absolutely no way PSU would make the tournament. It might be possible via by-laws, but it would not happen. Even if PSU went undefeated (obviously, this would not happen), their strength of schedule is just too weak. PSU being eligible for the tournament next year means nothing to me. I am just excited to see them play some Div. I hockey next season. The NCAA tournament will come in time (and I think it will be sooner than some believe).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The good news there is that the RPI and PWR doesn't care at all about our DIII and ACHA games. RPI is based on winning percentage, opponents' winning percentage and opponents' opponents' winning percentage, counting only DI games. Get that number above .500 and you're a "Team Under Consideration" and become part of the PairWise Rankings, which compares you individually against all other TUCs based on RPI, record vs. TUCs, record against common opponents and head-to-head.

      Now, just within our 23 DI games, the schedule's still pretty weak, but it is notable that Atlantic Hockey teams Air Force, Niagara and RIT all ended last season as TUCs playing most of those same teams. Michigan State made the tournament winning 15 of 31 comparisons, and if we went unbeaten in our likely 10-11 games against TUCs this year, that's seven won comparisons right there (for each team that would involve beating). Plus likely many others, given the impacts on our TUC record and common opponents comparisons with every major conference team out there, should that happen.

      Now, all of that out of the way, we're not making the NCAA tournament, because going unbeaten against the TUCs on the schedule is a ludicrous ask, and in fact, I'd be thrilled if we win one of those games. But like I said in a different comment, it gives the season some context, and offers some intermediate goals, like simply becoming a TUC. In all honesty, I'm with you in that I won't really start caring about making the NCAA tournament until about year four.

      Delete
  6. But I thought with PSU, that CHA was up to six now. Not yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are, but there's a two-year waiting period before they get an autobid. It's really been a tough road for the league (three of the 10 members its ever had have dropped the sport), so hopefully it can find some stability for the first time ever. Because really, as locked in as the men were before PSU helped shake things up, the women might be even worse without the CHA there as an entry-level conference.

      USCHO did a nice piece on all of this a little bit ago: http://www.uscho.com/2011/10/06/cha-moves-forward-despite-step-back/ . It cites Bylaw 31.3.4.2, which provides the six-team minimum and that the teams "must have conducted conference competition together for the preceding two years in the applicable sport" (I'm quoting the actual bylaw there, not the article). Lindenwood's situation as a new NCAA member might actually delay things another year since they're apparently not a *full* member until 2013-14, but I'm honestly not completely clear on their status or its implications. Blame Niagara for causing that to matter, if it does, since they wouldn't need LU to count with the Purps around.

      Just noticed that the USCHO thing was actually written before Niagara dropped and RIT joined. Yikes.

      Delete