NESCAC

[Kuiper]

On the broader question of NESCAC dominance, I think the NPI system has really elevated it to a whole new level.  When selection committees were making the decision, they naturally pushed back against having "too many" teams from one conference.  The NPI eliminates that influence.

Why is NESCAC so strong under the NPI?  Mostly it's because they are structurally set up to have magnificent non-conference records against mostly weaker teams that go on to do well in their local conferences.  I say structurally because they are close by and the obvious candidates for non-conference games.  Because they go on to do well, the opponents NPI score at the end of the season is usually pretty decent.  When all the teams in the conference follow this scheduling formula and mostly do well in non-conference games, it raises the SoS scores for all teams when they play each other in conference.  NESCAC then reinforces that with a large conference tournament that allows teams to build their SoS with more games against each other.

[nescac1]

NPI certainly helps the back-end tourney teams get in (but really they deserve it, is there ever a year where NESCAC doesn't have at least 7 of the best 64 teams in the country?).  But let's face it, those Tufts, Conn, and Amherst juggernauts were getting in the tourney under any system, and NPI doesn't help you win games (let alone titles) against other elite competition ...

[Kuiper]

NPI certainly helps the back-end tourney teams get in (but really they deserve it, is there ever a year where NESCAC doesn't have at least 7 of the best 64 teams in the country?).  But let's face it, those Tufts, Conn, and Amherst juggernauts were getting in the tourney under any system, and NPI doesn't help you win games (let alone titles) against other elite competition ...

As I said, NESCAC was strong before NPI, but the sheer number of teams getting in, which is what you emphasized in your original post, is a function of the NPI system.  NESCAC did have a natural advantage under the old system because their opponents spanned at least two regions, if not three, which increased their odds of getting wins over regionally ranked teams (that and the fact that they dominated in their own region), but there were definitely years where the selection committee left out some NESCAC teams to try to spread around the wealth.  Increasing the size of the tournament also helps in this regard and would have helped regardless of the system.

[nescac1]

Honestly, I was more focused on the top NESCAC teams dominating the tournament over the past ten years (why I focused on titles won and second place finishes) as opposed to more getting in - that's to me the more significant change from the first 20 years of NESCAC participation to the recent far more elevated rate of tourney success.