2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Yes, I understand that's likely to be part of the issue here, but it's always rankled me just a bit. I think many people unwittingly conflate 'potential' with 'reputation,' and thus inflate a team's 'worth' not so much on what they've seen so far, but rather on what history tells them they should 'expect' going forward. NoDak seemingly always starts slowly under Hakstol, yet more often than not turns it up a notch come Jan/Feb; should we thus keep the previously-known-as Fighting Sioux in the Top Ten each November despite a so-so start? Michigan has advanced to the NCAAs a record 22 consecutive years (and counting), but does anyone really think that should boost their chances *THIS* year if their game doesn't improve in a Big Way in the coming weeks (boy, did they look over-matched vs. Cornell at MSG)?

God knows I'm hardly a Notre Dame football fan, but I have to respect the way they demonstrated their 'worth' on the field, rising incrementally each week all the way from 'others receiving votes' in the pre-season polls to unanimous #1 and a berth in the Nat. Champ. game come season's end (yes, being the sole bowl-eligible undefeated team certainly didn't hurt). It's been my observation - at least for hockey - that once you've landed in the polling Top 10 it's hard to get dislodged, especially if there's past history to back you up. But you better have some solid accomplishments to get you there in the first place. BC is a deserved #1, both from their play on the ice and as defending National Champions 30-1-0 in their last 31 games. There's nothing remotely like that in Minnesota's recent history, and that's what raised my eyebrows seeing the Gophers ranked in so many Top Five Lists. Prove it on the ice first (as Notre Dame did on the gridiron); playing the nation's 44th-toughest schedule shouldn't confer the degree of 'worth' they seem to have been given much too prematurely ...

Sweet. It's the old "The Gophers haven't played Anybody yet argument. An oldie, but a goodie. Nice work. Personally I'd place them out of the top 20. Satisfied?

[carltonbarrett]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

MN may not have played any top 10 teams, but is it better, like in DU's case, to have played a couple top teams in UNH and Yale but to have lost? We have no idea how MN will do against better competition, but we do know that DU lost to better competition, so good for them for trying, but they still failed their test. With only two losses, I would definitely have MN above DU.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

MN may not have played any top 10 teams, but is it better, like in DU's case, to have played a couple top teams in UNH and Yale but to have lost? We have no idea how MN will do against better competition, but we do know that DU lost to better competition, so good for them for trying, but they still failed their test. With only two losses, I would definitely have MN above DU.

So losing to bad teams is better than losing to good teams? Okay.

Please post your top 10. I'd love to see your rankings.

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

1. Boston College
2. New Hampshire
3. Notre Dame
4. Denver
5. Boston University
6. North Dakota
7. Yale
8. Miami
9. St. Cloud State
10. Minnesota

[Onion Man]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

1. Boston College
2. UNH
3. Minnesota
4. Notre Dame
5. Miami of Ohio
6. North Dakota
7. Denver
8. St. Cloud
9. Boston U
10 Dartmouth

[mcfarljd]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

1) BC
2) UNH
3) Miami
4) minnesota
5) denver
6) notre dame
7) BU
8) western michigan
9) north dakota
10) scsu

[x1795x]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Before I get to my rankings, I agree with the general sentiment; Minnesota is often ranked so high based on its reputation. If you were really looking at last years performance and potential and reputation was not one of your intangibles, why wouldn't a team like Union at least break your top ten? As an alum, I am biased, but the facts are as follows. Union lost only two players of consequence from a team that made it to last year's frozen four. It still has a Hobby Baker finalist in goal. This all would show Union has potential. Furthermore, the rating metrics, although not significant in November, rate Union in the top ten. (PWR: 6th RPI: 6th KRACH: 8th). Thus, according to objective, although potentially flawed metrics, the team has performed better than Minnesota.

Obviously, there are valid reasons to omit Union from the top ten. E.g., ECAC; Jeremy Welsh, who went pro last year, was a big part of the offense; they haven't been a contended for the top ten until recently; they tied UConn and lost to Merrimack. Yet, similar reasoning would also cuts against Minnesota being in the top ten. Minnesota has a lower-than-average SOS, it lost its goalie to graduation, it and lost to Mich. Tech, Wisconsin, and Minn. State. And, they've played below expectation for most of the Lucia era.

Thus, if you have Minnesota in your top ten, but not Union--it appears that Minnesota made the cut based on its reputation.

1: BU
2: NHU
5: Dartmouth
4: Denver
5: Yale
6: Union
7: BU
8: ND
9: Miami
10: Minnesota.

[mnstate0fhockey]

Yes, I understand that's likely to be part of the issue here, but it's always rankled me just a bit. I think many people unwittingly conflate 'potential' with 'reputation,' and thus inflate a team's 'worth' not so much on what they've seen so far, but rather on what history tells them they should 'expect' going forward. NoDak seemingly always starts slowly under Hakstol, yet more often than not turns it up a notch come Jan/Feb; should we thus keep the previously-known-as Fighting Sioux in the Top Ten each November despite a so-so start? Michigan has advanced to the NCAAs a record 22 consecutive years (and counting), but does anyone really think that should boost their chances *THIS* year if their game doesn't improve in a Big Way in the coming weeks (boy, did they look over-matched vs. Cornell at MSG)?

God knows I'm hardly a Notre Dame football fan, but I have to respect the way they demonstrated their 'worth' on the field, rising incrementally each week all the way from 'others receiving votes' in the pre-season polls to unanimous #1 and a berth in the Nat. Champ. game come season's end (yes, being the sole bowl-eligible undefeated team certainly didn't hurt). It's been my observation - at least for hockey - that once you've landed in the polling Top 10 it's hard to get dislodged, especially if there's past history to back you up. But you better have some solid accomplishments to get you there in the first place. BC is a deserved #1, both from their play on the ice and as defending National Champions 30-1-0 in their last 31 games. There's nothing remotely like that in Minnesota's recent history, and that's what raised my eyebrows seeing the Gophers ranked in so many Top Five Lists. Prove it on the ice first (as Notre Dame did on the gridiron); playing the nation's 44th-toughest schedule shouldn't confer the degree of 'worth' they seem to have been given much too prematurely ...

I certainly see your point on reputation skewing people's judgements. And again, based on performance so far this year, I'm not completely disagreeing with you on how you would rank Minnesota. However, I do disagree with you on Minnesota's potential.

They returned more scoring this season than any other team in college hockey by a wide margin, and returned all defenseman from a team that only allowed 2.3 goals/game and 24.9 shots/game last season. Plus, they brought in two highly touted freshmen defenders. Not to mention, they were the highest scoring team in college hockey last year and made it to the Frozen Four. Goaltending was their biggest concern coming into this season and Adam Wilcox has risen to the occasion.

They have just been very inconsistent so far this season. They have pretty consistently dominated in offensive zone time and shots on net, they just haven't been able to capitalize. Part of that can be contributed to the shuffling of lines and chemistry, and part of it is just being a little snake bitten. Lots of posts being hit and open nets missed so far this season. They also struggled to move the puck out of their zone efficiently at the start of the season as their freshmen defenders adjusted and a few of our veterans were struggling. This has been much improved recently.

So, while I agree that Minnesota probably shouldn't be a Top 5 team based on performance so far (and maybe not even a Top 10 team if you consider they haven't played a single team with a winning record thus far), it's hard to argue that the potential isn't there for this team to be amongst the very best in the nation regardless of reputation.

Just my $0.02. Working on rankings now

[Gordon Shumway]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

1. BC
2. Denver
3. Notre Dame
4. Minnesota
5. UNDakota
6. Miami
7. WMU
8. Dartmouth
9. SCSU
10. BU

Just as a side note, UNH has beaten 3 of the teams on your list, and two of them twice. Oh yeah, they haven't lost to any of them either, but carry on.

[mnstate0fhockey]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Here are my rankings:

1. BC
2. UNH
3. Denver
4. Miami
5. Notre Dame
6. Union
7. North Dakota
8. SCSU
9. BU
10. Nebraska-Omaha

Note: I tend to rank more on "what you've shown me so far" more than anything. Until the Gophers play more consistently, I can't put them in my Top Ten. The talent is there to beat anyone, but there have been too many defensive lapses (much better recently) and scoring has been too streaky (despite extensive offensive zone time and scoring opportunities).

[UncleRay]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

#56 is generous.........but because Maine is SO bad, they were left out of the rankings, just like UNH was left out of your's

I make my rankings based on the likelihood of who will win the National Championship.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

1: BU
2: NHU
5: Dartmouth
4: Denver
5: Yale
6: Union
7: BU
8: ND
9: Miami
10: Minnesota.

I'm going to need a little clarification here. First, you have BU twice. Second, ND = ??.

[JB]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

I'm going to need a little clarification here. First, you have BU twice. Second, ND = ??.

Well clearly ND is the University of Notre Dakota.

[x1795x]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

I'm going to need a little clarification here. First, you have BU twice. Second, ND = ??.

Apologies. I meant to mirror current PWR. Thus, my rankings should read:

1 Boston College
2 New Hampshire
3 Dartmouth
4 Denver
5 Yale
6 Union
7 Boston University
8 Notre Dame
9 Miami
10 Minnesota


Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwi...#ixzz2DNI4rqBo

[UncleRay]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Just as a side note, UNH has beaten 3 of the teams on your list, and two of them twice. Oh yeah, they haven't lost to any of them either, but carry on.

Thank you, Gordon, I will. And I am eminently honored that you have deigned to use your yearly post for this gem.