Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

[Slapper]

[JosephPSchmoe]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Because losing sucks?

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Mark Johnson was asked this question this week, and his response was on the order of that it helps that the league is so competitive, so the team or teams that emerge have been well tested and have improved over the course of the season. I think that is true now, but I doubt it was more true of the WCHA than other leagues 10 years ago.

[northhockey]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Because are conference is top to bottom better than any other conference and with the low priority nccaa puts women's hockey at, still finds a way to get it done every year even when seeding is sometimes quite awful

[Eeyore]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

At this point, I'd have to say that the top WCHA teams are simply better. The interesting question is why that is the case. My hypothesis is that the top WCHA teams entered women's hockey by spending a lot more money on their programs. That makes it a lot easier to recruit top talent. It's also why I think Hockey East is in the process of supplanting the ECAC as the top eastern conference.

It's also interesting to think about whether girls hockey being an increasingly important sport at the high school level, rather than the sort of traveling teams and prep schools that dominate in the east, has an effect on this. I have no data on this and no opinion one way or the other. I just wonder whether or not it makes a difference.

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Neither UMD nor Wisconsin has relied much on HS talent.

[puckskillz]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Neither UMD nor Wisconsin has relied much on HS talent.

I would agree. Even the Gophers top players are transplants from non HS programs. Kessel, Schoullis, Davis, Terry, West, Raty,... 6 of the top 7 point getters.. Bemidji, OSU not relying on HS players alone.. I would agree that the schedule just dictates that you cannot take a night off. The bottom half of the WCHA is always trying to steal a game from the top three or four teams. I also believe the WCHA plays a more creative style of hockey and depends less on disciplined systems and allows their players to create.

[AggiesHockey]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Having Johnson coaching Wisconsin certainly helps their cause. Great school, great campus, and probably one of the best D1 college hockey coaches in Wisconsin.

Having Miller coach UMD helps their cause. She taps into her pipeline of Canadian Olympians.

Having U of M at the epicenter of Minnesota High School hockey certainly helps their cause. Lot of suburban Minneapolis / St Paul girls grow up dreaming of playing for the Gophers. They don't have to recruit much.

Then you got yer Ralph Englestad Arena at UND. The Taj Mahal of hockey arenas.

[Bumbles]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I'd agree with what MJ said. Most weekends in the WCHA are an absolute war where they are playing against some the best talent in the world and in the country. If you look at Cornell's roster, they have just as much talent as Minny, if not more. National players and All-Americans left and right but in that game, it just didn't really seem like they would beat Minny. Minny seemed so experienced and played with a ton of poise. Cornell competed but the fact that Minny had been in so many similar situations probably gave them the confidence and the edge to win that game. This was said last year as well but Eastern teams need to make sure they strengthen their OOC schedules.

[dave1381]

This is not a new debate here. I believe the common thread through time here is that the WCHA teams play a larger share of their schedule against other top 4 teams, and that's the no.1 reason. I'll comment on other explanations.

(1) the NCAA champion from WCHA is simply deeper & more talented - this may be true, but I don't see a huge talent difference between Cornell and the finalists. Same goes for most other years. I think the teams are close enough talentwise that you'd have the east pick up a few titles along the way, unless thee

[PTS34]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

It's even narrower than the "WCHA"... real question is why are Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD always winning?

The strangest thing about it is that Eastern teams did just fine until after 1999.

[Skate79]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

It's even narrower than the "WCHA"... real question is why are Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD always winning?

The strangest thing about it is that Eastern teams did just fine until after 1999.

Actually eastern teams (Harvard in particular) did fine through 2005. Harvard made the NCAA tournament championship game three years in a row ('03-'05) which is something of a feat given we were competing against teams who could offer scholarships.

The disparity and concentration of championships that lie with Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD says more about their programs including recruiting efforts, coaching, schedules and an overall physical and mental toughness come March that the eastern schools just can't seem to match. At this point, I think a Hockey East team has probably the best chance to unseat one of the above. I don't see the ECAC being competitive in the tournament despite Cornell's success the past three seasons in reaching the Frozen Four.

[EastFan1]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Congrats to MN.

Not sure why, but one obvious advantage is that "the three" have hosted half of the NCAA championships which is convenient to all three. MN gets the FF again in 2013. No one in the east must want to host. If the ECAC or HE host in 2014, that will be five years. The NCAA must prefer a location half way between HE and the PAC12.

Next year will be interesting. MN and WI are going to be hurt by graduation. If my bookie would place the bet, I would definitely lay money on "the field" over "the three" in 2013.

[mnpokecheck]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Congrats to MN.

Not sure why, but one obvious advantage is that "the three" have hosted half of the NCAA championships which is convenient to all three.

So you're saying 1/2 have been in East and 1/2 in the West.....Stop the Presses.......

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

EastFan1's point about hosting mattering isn't crazy. You can make a good case that the East has been extremely unlucky in terms of Frozen Four's being hosted in the west in years it was relatively stronger.

Ask the following questions (1) In the two years where the East came closest to winning, who hosted the Frozen Four? (2) In the years in which Eastern teams were the No. 1 seed, who hosted the Frozen Four?

Answers:
(1) 2003, UMD over Harvard in 2 OT, @ UMD
2010, UMD over Cornell in 3 OT, @ Minnesota

(2) 2001, No. 1 Dartmouth, @Minnesota (won by UMD)
2006, No. 1 UNH, @Minnesota (won by Wisconsin)
2008, No. 1 Harvard, @UMD (won by UMD)

So while I have no doubt that the WCHA has been stronger (after all top WCHA teams have had no trouble winning at Eastern host sites), it's indisputable that some luck in hosting has played a role in the extent of the WCHA's dominance. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that at least 1 on those 5 Frozen Fours mentioned might have flipped on an Eastern host site.

--------

My last post in this thread got cut off. The question I was asking was whether the WCHA's strength from "top-to-bottom" is important to it's success, as opposed to merely its strength from the top 3 or 4. It makes a lot more sense to me that the 10-to-14 game the top 4 WCHA contenders get against each other is far more important than Bemidji being stronger than Princeton, or Mankato/St. Cloud being stronger than teams like Vermont or the Brown/Yale pairing. One reason I believe that is that the bottom half of the WCHA has not historically had a huge edge over the bottom half of the East, though the strength of the 4th-to-6th place teams in the WCHA is clearly at an all time high this year.