NCT Bid Proposal

[CUDangled]

I have an idea I would like to present to the group for your thoughts.

First, I will include the tail end of a post I was replying to when I started to explain this idea...

__________________________________________________ ___

Considering Emory recieved the auto-bid for nationals, whoever was next on your list of D2 teams (Elon or Miami?) was passed over 14 times (13 at-large bids, and 1 alternate position). If I was from the SECRHL I would want to speak with whoever represented the region at the bid meeting to find out what happened.

I will admit I was surprised that the SECRHL only recieved an auto-bid, I was expecting 3 teams from their region to recieve bids.

3 teams out of the SE would have been a little extreme. There was a huge drop-off after Emory. You may have an arguement for Elon...but Miami was pretty inconsistent to be considered for the NCT. Maybe they had good reasons (injuries, etc.) but the fact remains that the bids for the NCT are primarily picked by people not familiar with the adversity that a team has faced over the course of the season. So record is one of the primary indicators of team strength.

Perhaps in the future each team wishing to be considered for nationals should submit a bid proposal...?

This is way off topic...I am going to start a new thread.
__________________________________________________ ___

Here is my suggestion...

Each team wishing to be considered for the NCT will submit a BRIEF summary their season/results to the NCT committee. Maybe one page at the most. You would have the opportunity to explain why you feel you are a good selection for the NCT. Perhaps your record shows a four game skid in January?but that was because your team could not safely travel to an event because of a blizzard. Maybe your top two scorers got the flu and were unable to play for two weeks and in the mean time you had tournaments on back to back weekends. This wouldn?t be a chance to excuse your shortcomings during the season, just explain why your team deserves a bid. You would also be required to include a brief explanation of how you intend to fund your trip to the NCT. Sponsor, school, players fee, etc.

Each year the NCT bid committee gets together and spends hours going over team stats, etc. to select teams for the NCT. Once bids go out teams have days/weeks to determine if they are going to accept the bid or not. Then, if a team drops an alternate is selected giving them even less time to prepare. My idea would solve a few issues.

#1 - we would not give bids to teams that have no intention of accepting the bid either for financial, injury or other reasons

#2 - the bid committee would have a better understanding of the hardships you overcame during the season and you have an avenue to explain any bumps in your season
I remember there was a lot of heart burn over some of the bids for the CA teams. But realistically how well came the east coast reps in the bid meeting truly understand the dynamics of your league and vice versa. Maybe losses to school XYZ are completely explainable, just as a MCRHL team can justify a loss to LU A.

Just my $0.02.

[RustyPipes27]

Or you can just play and let your record speak for itself...

A win is a win and a loss is a loss, no matter the circumstances.

[BccCP33]

heres a great idea: win and your in!

if you're on the fence about even being able to make it into the NCT theres a good chance your team isn't going to win. there arent any george masons in hockey.... save your school the money.

[MBurke]

I don't know if I agree with giving bids to the teams with better persuasive writers.

We really need to have any combination of the following:

- More interregional play

- Several videotaped games of each team being considered for a bid

- More than 24 hours between regionals and the bid selection meeting (most regions have their championship tournaments the weekend immediately prior to Selection Monday)

The main problem is just that there's lack of OBJECTIVE information out there about teams and how they relate to the teams we see all year - having teams write about their own problems, excuses and reasons for losses won't ultimately help the process.

[Leaferguy]

there arent any george masons in hockey....

Yes, there is:

http://www.gmuhockey.net/

[BccCP33]

Yes, there is:

http://www.gmuhockey.net/

you got me

[CUDangled]

I am not suggesting that you make excuses...as I posted earlier. I am suggesting that you give a summary of your season so that reps from over regions have a better understanding of your season.

If you are a DI team that didn't play a single DII, DII or B team all season, you TYPICALLY are looking at a tougher season than a DI team who had 5-6 games against B teams. So it might be nice to have the chance to point that out.

Or if you play in a region that allows you to "request" the events you attend, as the SE did last year, your team may be seeking out the events that typically host the better teams for better competition.

The reason I suggest that is that the "win all your games" scenario doesn't work for some teams. They feel that they DID win enough games to be eligible and they still feel slighted. There is a lot of talk on this board that the SE should have sent more DII teams...or that XYZ from California (sorry forgot the school name) got the shaft and should have gotten a bid.

We keep saying "cross regional play" but for many schools geography/finances prevent that. Take the Southern Florida teams...they have to drive ~7-8 hours just to get out of the state and another ~10 hours just to get to another region.

If this document was prepared and simply presented to the bid comittee, it may be a helpful tool. Of course you would have to take everything with a grain of salt, knowing that the information came from a bias source...but it could be helpful none the less.

"Win all your games" works for the first few bids, but after that, you have SEVERAL teams near a ~.600 record. How are they sorted out?

Another example is BCC in the SE. If it weren't for the fact that the SE only had 1 DIII team, thus an autobid, they could have been overlooked. Which we would probably all agree would be a mistake. But, since they are a first year team and the majority of the country was saying "who are they"...it is something to think about. Their "NCT proposal" could have been something as simple as "We have secured the financing to travel to St. Louis should be get a bid and we have proven our talent level over the course of the season with victories over X, Y and Z who are some of the top teams in the region/country.

You don't think high school atheletes put together media packages for college scouts to look at? Or college atheletes for the pro scouts? You could say "just play well in your games and you will get noticed" but that isn't always enough.

Simply put, how could it hurt.

I constantly hear two negative comments on this board that do nothing but hold us back. "We will never be NCAA" and "You need more cross-regional play". Either comment may be true, but they are rarely followed up with constructive steps to get closer to the goal. Matter of fact, few people are even setting new goals for the league...the current "status quo" is to do what we did last year, just a little better.

Come on guys, lets get creative. With all those sharp "college minds" out there, we have to be able to come up with some good ideas. Lets tap this resource and see our league grow and strengthen. Don't focus some much on WHERE the NCT is held and focus more on making the event BIGGER. Why are we so concerned about what another school has and we don't...lets focus on what we can do to catch up. Level the playing field at the higher level, rather than bringing the top programs down to everyone else.

[goodrid12]

Here's an idea:

People actually look at the schedule teams play. Look at Miami.
They played 5 games against D1 schools. Two of the games were against a FIU. One game was against Florida State who beat Florida in regionals and Florida went to nationals. They also played Broward CC and scored more goals against them in a 12-9 lost then SCCC did in the national championships. So if we take away all their D1 and D3 losses and wins. They are now looking at a 9-4 record against d2 and b teams. That's a .692 winning percentage which is higher (my math could be wrong cuz ties throw me off) albany, hofstra, west chester, shippensburg, drexel. You might say the ECRHA is tougher and miami tied millersville the ecrha worst team. I say Shippensburg and the eventual national champion stony brook tied millersville who also beat west chester. Also, Miami lost to Emory every time they played. Yet the game that matters most went into OT just an hour after they played an OT game against UNC in the semifinal. Also a 6-5 OT lost is better then a 6-3 lost that Hofstra put up against Emory. So, after the longest post of my life on this board here is my final message. Our selection committee needs to look into more detail in the selection process. I have spent about 15 minutes looking at scores to come up with this argument. It can't be that hard to tell that Miami was more deserving of a bid over other schools that got one. Just as a side note, I do not play for Miami but I do play for Emory but not any more since i graduate in August.

[BccCP33]

[quote=CUDangled;34971]

Another example is BCC in the SE. If it weren't for the fact that the SE only had 1 DIII team, thus an autobid, they could have been overlooked. Which we would probably all agree would be a mistake. But, since they are a first year team and the majority of the country was saying "who are they"...it is something to think about. Their "NCT proposal" could have been something as simple as "We have secured the financing to travel to St. Louis should be get a bid and we have proven our talent level over the course of the season with victories over X, Y and Z who are some of the top teams in the region/country.

quote]

oh boy. did you see how many points we had? considering how many teams there are in d3, the fact that we were a first year team wouldn't of even matterd (not to mention the southeastern division isnt much of a cakewalk.)

If your regional director wants to go to bat for you when bids between school A and B are on the line, then that outcome alone should prove your team, is worthy (considering directors are above politics and more focused on merit) because those immediate officials have seen your abilities throughout the regular season and know your capabilities come nationals.

In the case of d2,(like i said i didnt wantch any games that i cant remember except the ship) and teams froms the southeast feeling that they were shafted... long story short there is little hope for a team that has between 6- 9 losses on the season. that teams "NCT proposal" should go something like: if you have any room we'll play too..

[BccCP33]

Here's an idea:

People actually look at the schedule teams play. Look at Miami.
They played 5 games against D1 schools. Two of the games were against a FIU. One game was against Florida State who beat Florida in regionals and Florida went to nationals. They also played Broward CC and scored more goals against them in a 12-9 lost then SCCC did in the national championships. So if we take away all their D1 and D3 losses and wins. They are now looking at a 9-4 record against d2 and b teams. That's a .692 winning percentage which is higher (my math could be wrong cuz ties throw me off) albany, hofstra, west chester, shippensburg, drexel. You might say the ECRHA is tougher and miami tied millersville the ecrha worst team. I say Shippensburg and the eventual national champion stony brook tied millersville who also beat west chester. Also, Miami lost to Emory every time they played. Yet the game that matters most went into OT just an hour after they played an OT game against UNC in the semifinal. Also a 6-5 OT lost is better then a 6-3 lost that Hofstra put up against Emory. So, after the longest post of my life on this board here is my final message. Our selection committee needs to look into more detail in the selection process. I have spent about 15 minutes looking at scores to come up with this argument. It can't be that hard to tell that Miami was more deserving of a bid over other schools that got one. Just as a side note, I do not play for Miami but I do play for Emory but not any more since i graduate in August.

did u see us requesting to play d2 and b team because we're from a d3 school? it doesnt work that way.

[CUDangled]

quote]

If your regional director wants to go to bat for you when bids between school A and B are on the line, then that outcome alone should prove your team, is worthy (considering directors are above politics and more focused on merit) because those immediate officials have seen your abilities throughout the regular season and know your capabilities come nationals.

In the case of d2,(like i said i didnt wantch any games that i cant remember except the ship) and teams froms the southeast feeling that they were shafted... long story short there is little hope for a team that has between 6- 9 losses on the season. that teams "NCT proposal" should go something like: if you have any room we'll play too..

First, there were several near .500 teams that got bids

Second, even if your regional director/rep goes to bat for you, it isn't a guarantee that your team will get a bid. Just ask the California teams. Their rep did everything he could and some teams still feel they got the shaft.

The point is, if people OUTSIDE of the region are not familiar with a team, it is almost like one strike against them.

With the proposals, ALL the regions would get to a chance to get the 30 second summary of your program. Maybe the regional director/rep would edit the proposals first to remove "whining" and "excuses" so it is more of a "just the facts" summary.

Like the guy from Emory posted a few posts back. Clean and simple explanation of why he feels Miami should have gotten a bid. You may agree or disagree, but at least it was stating his case (even though he is with another team).

This is common practice when selections are based on bids in other sports...just thought I would throw the idea out here. I guess we are just stuck in the "status quo" rut.

You think a college football team doesn't "lobby" for a bowl invite? That is a great comparison to our situation. You have far more teams in the league than could possibly play each other during the course of a season and the only comparison you POSSIBLY have is performance against similar opponents. Yet still one team is chosen over another, sometimes even when they have a "better" record.

Take the BCS games and compare those to our auto-bids. Those selections are pretty cut and dry. But the rest of the bowl selections are not so easy. Especially when you have an undefeated team that IS NOT ranked #1. So much for your "Win all your games" theory.

[CUDangled]

Here's an idea:
People actually look at the schedule teams play

With the current setup where a bid selection meeting starts at 9pm and MUST be completed that night...be realistic. They don't have the time to do an in-depth analysis of every team. You just said your research took 15 minutes. Multiply that by 50+ that are considered for the NCT. Not practical... Teams are lucky if 5 minutes of research is done.

If the research was done ahead of time for them, then yes, they could review the synopsis...like you just laid out. They don't have the time to DO that research in the meeting.

Thus...the proposal would be helpful. They could read it and say, "wow, they have a good point" or "these guys are dreamin"...

[BccCP33]

" so much for your win all your games theory"

if the QUALITY of teams you're playing doesn't match up to the QUALITY teams other schools are playing, then that should just invite more inter regional play to prove so - im all for that.

Lets take Boise State v.s.University of Florida.... both good football teams -HOWEVERERERERERERERER Florida would've stompped them out JUST like they did Ohio State BECAUSE Florida played QUALITY teams all year long and were undoubtably the best football team in the nation because of it ( sorry bout' that USC).

[MBurke]

Reps already do most of the objective lobbying for teams in terms of the 'valid' arguments you're saying could be raised by this persuasive argument paper, and being able to give a counterpoint in discussion is a heck of a lot easier than having 30-50 sheets with paragraphs on them that you have to compare between.

http://www.ncrha.org/compare.php is what I created for the reps to use in the meeting. Not ideal but definitely shaves a lot on the research time.

[goodrid12]

Well start the meeting before 9 pm if you worried about finishing. Also, my arguement wasn't for BCCC playing D2 teams it was Miami had a very tough schedule. They were absolutely screwed last year and you figured they would have gotten the benefit of the doubt this year. Here's my point: It took 15 minutes for me to look up scores and see that miami has a very valid point to be in. There are 20 D2 teams. 7 are Autobids and I think another 3-5 or "Autobids". That leaes 8 teams left and that's 2 hours of research. Start the meeting before 9, say like 7. And you could prob. finsih before 1 am. Late night I know but it's once a year. I think the NCRHA does a great full time job on part time pay and this isn't a complaint. I just feel like there is a preset bias to teams from different regions to different regions and is why teams get shafted.