REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION I MEN'S ICE HOCKEY COMMITTEE
ACTION ITEMS.
1. Automatic
Qualification.
a. Recommendation. That the following receive automatic
qualification for the 2007 NCAA Division I Men’s Ice Hockey
Championship: Atlantic Hockey
Association, Central Collegiate Hockey Association, College Hockey America,
ECAC Hockey League, Hockey East Association and the Western Collegiate Hockey
Association.
b. Rationale. All eligible conferences are being recommended
for automatic qualification.
c.
Estimated Budget Impact.
None.
d.
Student-Athlete Impact.
None.
2. Regional Awards
Program.
a.
Recommendation. That the Men’s Frozen Four awards
program be modified to award only a national champion
trophy and that the remaining trophies be reallocated to implement a regional
awards program in order to provide recognition to each of the four regional
champions, effective with the 2007 championship.
b.
Rationale.
The change would increase the total number of trophies needed for the
Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Championship from four to five. The national office staff has received
feedback from participating institutions of their preference to display,
recognize and highlight their regional championship as opposed to only their
Men’s Frozen Four participation.
This same recommendation was made by men’s and women’s
basketball last year and was approved and implemented with the 2006
championships. Since the estimated
budget impact was less than $500, it did not go through the budget process.
c. Estimated
Budget Impact. $444.15.
d. Student-Athlete
Impact. None.
3. Rating Percentage Index
(RPI).
a.
Recommendation. That the Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
for men’s ice hockey be modified as follows: (a) won-lost record remains 25 percent;
(b) opponents' winning percentage from 50 to 21 percent; and (c) and opponents'
opponents’ winning percentage from 25 to 54 percent.
b. Rationale. Over the last couple of years, the
committee observed that the current RPI discourages teams from playing certain
opponents because playing and winning against these opponents would
significantly lower their RPI. The
committee noticed that for many teams it was truly better to not play a contest
at all than to play certain teams and win. These negative games (games that are won,
but causes the RPI to decrease) may cause teams and conferences to reduce the
number of games played outside of their leagues or to severely limit the
ability of some teams to get quality non-conference games on their schedule. Another flaw with the current percentages
is that a team could have wins against two teams that are ahead of it in the
RPI, yet receive fewer points for one of the teams it defeated that is higher
than the other team it defeated. During
the 2005-06 season, there were 117 games out of 941
where teams would have been better off not playing than winning because of its
negative effect on the RPI.
After working with the
software developer of the RPI, the committee believes that the new formula can
reduce the number of negative-impact games, while at the same time not change
the order of teams in the RPI. The
modification simply reduces the number of negative-impact games and rewards
teams for competing. Had the
recommended RPI been used in 2005-06, the number of negative games would have
been reduced from 117 to four.
c. Estimated
Budget Impact. None.
d. Student-Athlete
Impact. None.
4. Selection Criteria.
a.
Recommendation. That the following modifications be made
to the selection criteria:
(1) That when reviewing the category of “teams under consideration,” automatic qualifiers are not automatically included in this category. Further, “teams under consideration” will be redefined as those teams that finish in the top 25 of the final RPI.
(2) That the category of “teams
under consideration” will be used only if the two teams being compared
have played a minimum of ten games each versus “teams under consideration.”
(3) That any win which results in a decrease in a team’s RPI will not be included. Currently, this policy applies to conference postseason tournaments. This would extend the application to the regular season as well.
(4) That
the bonus points for the RPI will be redefined as follows:
(a) A “home” game is defined as one that takes place in the facility that the institution uses primarily for “home” games.
(b) A “neutral” game is
defined as one that does not take place in an institution’s primary
facility.
(c) Bonus
points are awarded only for wins on the road (in the opponent’s primary
facility) and will be used for interconference games only.
Note: The current selection criteria are as follows:
(1) RPI.
(2) Head-to-head
competition.
(3) Results
versus common opponents.
(4) Results
against teams under consideration (“teams under consideration”
defined as those teams at .500 or above in the RPI).
b. Rationale. These recommendations further serve to
“fine-tune” the current selection criteria and process. These additional changes (in addition to
the recommended change in the percentages used for the RPI) further reduce the
negative-impact wins (those wins where a team was better off not playing the
game because it caused its RPI to decrease) down to zero.
c. Estimated
Budget Impact. None.
d. Student-Athlete
Impact. None.
The National Collegiate Athletic
Association