Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

    Do you asterisk an Olympic Year as such?

    It's something that Ive seen a little discussion on that I think would make for an interesting offseason discussion.

    This season we saw Boston U, Clarkson, and Cornell, build from their 08-09 seasons as well as Robert Morris, Quinnipiac, and Northeastern pull off some impressive wins and some other upsets on the power teams. And still newbie program Syracuse managed to ride a freshman and their senior Goalie to much success landing just short of the conference tournament title.

    We saw New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Boston College struggle at times to replace what they lost to the Olympics and Graduation. Minnesota-Duluth conversely lost 6 seniors and 3 players to the Olympics (Not including Larocque who played the second half in Duluth) and still won a National Championship.

    As we have seen in the past Olympic years can harbor strange results. However do you chalk this season up as another Olympic Year or is it finally the growth in competition we have all been expecting starting to come to the forefront?
    The WCHA Dynasty
    Wisconsin
    National Championships: 2011,2009,2007,2006; Runners Up: 2012, 2008
    MOP Winners: Bauer (07), Duggan (11), Knight (11), Vetter (06, 09)

    Minnesota
    National Championships: 2012, 2005, 2004, 2000 (AWCHA); Runners Up: 2006
    MOP Winners: Darwitz (05), Killewald (00), Raty(12), Wendell (04)

    Minnesota-Duluth
    National Championships: 2010, 2008, 2003, 2002, 2001; Runners Up: 2007
    MOP Winners: Blais (10), Martin (08), Ouellette (03), Rooth (01)

  • #2
    Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

    There is some Olympic effect. For example, both UMD and Cornell would have been approximately a line deeper had they had their players lost due to an Olympic year. But having watched the hockey on Sunday, I didn't get the feeling it was "lesser" hockey. Eight to ten years ago, the product was much more dependent on the top stars; if they weren't there, the product suffered. I think that is less true now, because there are more players who can play at a high level.
    "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

      Originally posted by WHKY blogger View Post
      Do you asterisk an Olympic Year as such??
      No....While some teams are clearly affected more than others, this is still a team sport. Secondly, some teams lose stars due to injury etc, and you don't use an asterisk for that either.

      Originally posted by WHKY blogger View Post
      This season we saw Boston U, Clarkson, and Cornell, build from their 08-09 seasons as well as Robert Morris, Quinnipiac, and Northeastern pull off some impressive wins and some other upsets on the power teams. And still newbie program Syracuse managed to ride a freshman and their senior Goalie to much success landing just short of the conference tournament title.
      Interesting you mention BU, Clarkson and Cornell. All three of these programs are on the rise anyways, and if you look at recruiting classes and players returning, I would expect all three of these teams to be at or near the top in their divisions next year. Syracuse is a program on the rise regardless, with a coach that has a proven track record to build a program. Even in their rookie campaign they were better than the predictions by most pundits.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

        No, not any more. True in 1998 & 2002, but the Olympic effect is much less relevant today.

        In 2002, Brown & Niagara made the Frozen Four, UMD & Minnesota were good but not overly dominant. In 2003, UMD/Minnesota/Harvard/UNH were all a class above everyone else. The underclassmen in the Kaz top 10 list in 2002 didn't even get team nominations in 2003 for the most part. Brown & Niagara were average teams.

        In 2006, the Frozen Four teams were UNH, Wisconsin, SLU, and Minnesota. In 2007, Wisconsin & SLU both made the Frozen Four, & UNH still hosted an NCAA game, despite not having a big infusion of Olympic talent. Harvard only did marginally better in 2007 relative to 2006 despite picking up 3 Olympians.

        Sure, it's true some teams that were weak in Olympic years will be much improved. In 2006, Dartmouth was average, and then they were ECAC champs in 2007. Wisconsin was average this season, and I'm sure they'll be much better next year. But in terms of good teams in 2010 disappearing in 2011 (like Brown & Niagara between 2002 and 2003), that effect is gone. The programs who improved in 2010 are here to stay.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

          UMD actually lost five-- Irwin, Martin, Holmlov, Winberg, and Asserholt. And that doesn't include the ten games Tuominen and Posa missed. But if you recruit those players, that is the trade-off. UMD knew it coming in and thought they would struggle just to be in the top-eight this year.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

            Five seniors and five Olympians (plus Larocque) gone for the Bulldogs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

              Originally posted by JosephPSchmoe View Post
              Five seniors and five Olympians (plus Larocque) gone for the Bulldogs.
              What you really gotta count is the ones that would have been there if there were no Olympics. That is presumably (to lazy to look it up ) less than the number 5 listed above.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

                Yes. Especially in the case of Wisconsin (who lost several players and their coach to the olympics), it can be a major obstacle for a team to overcome.
                A Badger living in Buckeye country.
                Originally posted by MadCityRich
                He blossomed after he left the U, and they still named a city in Minnesota after him?
                Originally posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet
                Sieve, Minnesota? Never heard of it.
                Originally posted by Timothy A
                I know my distain of anything and everything related to IL or MN is totally insane, but that's me; you can't change the genetics.
                "The state of North Dakota may not exist. It's like South Dakota's Canadian girlfriend." -- Stephen Colbert

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

                  Originally posted by dave1381 View Post
                  No, not any more. True in 1998 & 2002, but the Olympic effect is much less relevant today.

                  In 2002, Brown & Niagara made the Frozen Four, UMD & Minnesota were good but not overly dominant. In 2003, UMD/Minnesota/Harvard/UNH were all a class above everyone else. The underclassmen in the Kaz top 10 list in 2002 didn't even get team nominations in 2003 for the most part. Brown & Niagara were average teams.

                  In 2006, the Frozen Four teams were UNH, Wisconsin, SLU, and Minnesota. In 2007, Wisconsin & SLU both made the Frozen Four, & UNH still hosted an NCAA game, despite not having a big infusion of Olympic talent. Harvard only did marginally better in 2007 relative to 2006 despite picking up 3 Olympians.

                  Sure, it's true some teams that were weak in Olympic years will be much improved. In 2006, Dartmouth was average, and then they were ECAC champs in 2007. Wisconsin was average this season, and I'm sure they'll be much better next year. But in terms of good teams in 2010 disappearing in 2011 (like Brown & Niagara between 2002 and 2003), that effect is gone. The programs who improved in 2010 are here to stay.
                  You always give such great, thorough responses backed up by facts. Thanks for never disappointing.

                  (would rep you but.....must spread!!! )

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

                    Originally posted by OnMAA View Post
                    What you really gotta count is the ones that would have been there if there were no Olympics. That is presumably (to lazy to look it up ) less than the number 5 listed above.
                    Team Canada: Haley Irwin
                    Team Sweden: Elin Holmlov, Pernilla Winberg, Kim Martin, Jenni Asserholt

                    That's five.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

                      No you don't *. If you don't * a year that a team used an inelligible player during the regular season, then you sure don't * an Olympic year. Certain teams lost a lot, but as much complaining as people are doing is insulting to all college hockey teams. Even Wisconsin, (who lost a ton) had a chance to get into the NCAA tourney. Not to mention duluth winning. (those two teams seem the most vocal this year on what they lost.)

                      Here's to hoping that the parity is here to stay. Is it next season yet?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?

                        Originally posted by UNHKazooMonkey View Post
                        No you don't *. If you don't * a year that a team used an inelligible player during the regular season, then you sure don't * an Olympic year. Certain teams lost a lot, but as much complaining as people are doing is insulting to all college hockey teams. Even Wisconsin, (who lost a ton) had a chance to get into the NCAA tourney. Not to mention duluth winning. (those two teams seem the most vocal this year on what they lost.)

                        Here's to hoping that the Chippity is here to stay. Is it next season yet?
                        FYP

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X