2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Just a heads up for those still wanting to post their top 10 and have it count toward the CHW power rankings, your top 10 must be posted by Noon (eastern), so you have about 90 minutes left to do so.

Also, thank you to all of those who have already submitted their top 10.

[Tipsy McStagger]

You're right. This isn't about Union; its about posters rating Minnesota so high because of its potential. Those posters are saying one thing and doing another. If you leave aside the Gopher's reputation, they're potential is comparable to Union's. Union lost only major point contributor. Last year, both teams won their league and made the Frozen Four. Both teams lost very little. Union has a previous Hobey finalist. Union won 72% of its games last year. Last year, Union lost only three games after Christmas.

Based on the stats Koho says constituted a team's potential, Union's resume looks pretty similar to Minnesota's. So why would one team, (supposedly) based on mostly its potential, be consistently rated so high, and the other team consistently not included in folks' top ten? My answer: reputation is creeping into posters' rating criteria.

For the record, its legitimate to use reputation as a criteria in selecting a top ten. Yet, its bad form to deny that you're using reputation.

Lastly, I don't want to disparage Lucia's legacy with the Gophers. His accomplishments are impressive, but outside of last year he hasn't finished in the top four in the WCHA in since 2007. I misspoke. Lucia hasn't underperformed for most of his Gopher tenure. He's just underperformed the last couple of years (outside of last year).

Maybe people think Union's record combined with their quality of opponent isn't impressive enough to merit top 10 status. Or maybe they think that if Union played any of the teams in their top 10 they would lose.

[manurespreader]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Who knows what system people on here use to rate the teams. It's certainly fun to do regardless. BUT.. the writers/ media guys certainly use reputation over pretty much anything else. Witness, Michigan ranked so high for several weeks this year, Lowell ranked high early this year, Yale ranked high even as a .500 team last season. I don't think any of those teams are top ten but they got ranked like they were.

Personally I try to rank teams on talent and achievement. In Minnesota's case they have a lot of talent, and a fair bit of achievement ( I don't know if talent is the same as potential or not). We all don't get to see every team, so it's reputation, reading the score sheets and the game summary's, and some guesswork I would think as well.

Here's another example, U Mass, they have played quite well seems to me, but have either tied or lost vs some high ranked teams. It's hard to place them high, but on the other hand I would think they are pretty good and will pull some surprises as the year goes by. So when someone beats them I give the winner a good bit of credit though the polls don't. And last, I use Kratch a lot and I wonder why people don't mention it more often. I think the pwr this time of year is not a good metric..... Just my two cents though.

[duper]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

You can't base it on what overall history tells you though...

And, I'm not sure why my post from earlier was deleted, so let me express it again (nothing to do with you)....

whyyyyyyyyyyy

Of course I can. In fact, I did...

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.

It'll never happen. He seems to believe that being a sports fan is about talking smack to fans of other teams without actually saying ANYTHING yourself. If you state an opinion, someone may prove you wrong. And carltonbarrett obviously doesn't have enough courage to face that risk.

Kinda makes you wonder; if someone is that spineless, but also that belligerent when it comes to something as monumentally trivial as sports, what is he like about things that matter?

[mnstate0fhockey]

For the record, its legitimate to use reputation as a criteria in selecting a top ten. Yet, its bad form to deny that you're using reputation.
.

Going to have to disagree with you on your point that Minnesota is rated where they are at because of "reputation". Reputation and potential are two different things. Minnesota isn't ranked where they are because of their name. They are ranked where they are because of the potential of the team they put on the ice this year in the eyes of many.

Rank Minnesota where you like. That's your right. I don't have them high right now either. But you won't find many people who will agree that Minnesota was ranked so high coming into this season just because of "reputation". And those who had them ranked high likely still have them higher than their recent play may warrant, not because of "reputation", but because of their potential.

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

You're right. This isn't about Union; its about posters rating Minnesota so high because of its potential. Those posters are saying one thing and doing another. If you leave aside the Gopher's reputation, they're potential is comparable to Union's. Union lost only major point contributor. Last year, both teams won their league and made the Frozen Four. Both teams lost very little. Union has a previous Hobey finalist. Union won 72% of its games last year. Last year, Union lost only three games after Christmas.

Based on the stats Koho says constituted a team's potential, Union's resume looks pretty similar to Minnesota's. So why would one team, (supposedly) based on mostly its potential, be consistently rated so high, and the other team consistently not included in folks' top ten? My answer: reputation is creeping into posters' rating criteria.

For the record, its legitimate to use reputation as a criteria in selecting a top ten. Yet, its bad form to deny that you're using reputation.

Lastly, I don't want to disparage Lucia's legacy with the Gophers. His accomplishments are impressive, but outside of last year he hasn't finished in the top four in the WCHA in since 2007. I misspoke. Lucia hasn't underperformed for most of his Gopher tenure. He's just underperformed the last couple of years (outside of last year).

Maybe the people who claimed they were not using reputation when they voted Minnesota so high misspoke too? See how fun that is?

In all seriousness, who cares? Union is a great team and will be there at the end of the year, and hopefully Minnesota will be too. There is absolutely no need to pull a JDUBBS and get all worked up over something that is less important than what next "big hit" song Kesha will come up with.

[x1795x]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

I too am not arguing about Union being included or that MN should be high, but as was pointed out, the potential is there on MN. They only lost one major point contributor and returned a player who could end up being a Hobey contender. The one big question mark before the season, goalie, doesn't appear to be a problem thus far. They won the McNaughton last year and made it to the frozen 4. And while there were a few disappointing years, I don't think many people would say 2 NC's, 3 McNaughtons, a .649 winning percentage is below expectations by most people's count for Lucia's era.

You're right. This isn't about Union; its about posters rating Minnesota so high because of its potential. Those posters are saying one thing and doing another. If you leave aside the Gopher's reputation, they're potential is comparable to Union's. Union lost only major point contributor. Last year, both teams won their league and made the Frozen Four. Both teams lost very little. Union has a previous Hobey finalist. Union won 72% of its games last year. Last year, Union lost only three games after Christmas.

Based on the stats Koho says constituted a team's potential, Union's resume looks pretty similar to Minnesota's. So why would one team, (supposedly) based on mostly its potential, be consistently rated so high, and the other team consistently not included in folks' top ten? My answer: reputation is creeping into posters' rating criteria.

For the record, its legitimate to use reputation as a criteria in selecting a top ten. Yet, its bad form to deny that you're using reputation.

Lastly, I don't want to disparage Lucia's legacy with the Gophers. His accomplishments are impressive, but outside of last year he hasn't finished in the top four in the WCHA in since 2007. I misspoke. Lucia hasn't underperformed for most of his Gopher tenure. He's just underperformed the last couple of years (outside of last year).

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

I don't care about opinion polls, but consider that the Gophers were a conensus Top 2 pre-season pick because they were a Frozen Four team returning the majority of their nucleus - not because they are MN. They can't help that the schedule has played out as it has, but you don't start dropping teams several spots because the schedule isn't difficult you drop them if they s**t the bed against said schedule. I think they are fine at anywhere between 3-5 right now and when the Gophers have had poor seasons the rankings followed. If they start losing to TUCs or getting swept by bottom feeders the rankings will rightfully adjust so I'm not following the logic behind the whining here. Doesn't matter anyway because the PWR will bare this all out in a few months.

[mnstate0fhockey]

I too am not arguing about Union being included or that MN should be high, but as was pointed out, the potential is there on MN. They only lost one major point contributor and returned a player who could end up being a Hobey contender. The one big question mark before the season, goalie, doesn't appear to be a problem thusfar. They won the McNaughton last year and made it to the frozen 4. And while there were a few disappointing years, I don't think many people would say 2 NC's, 3 McNaughtons, a .649 winning percentage is below expectations by most people's count for Lucia's era.

Well said Koho.

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

I think that goes both ways. And I don't think Western fans do this as much as Eastern fans. Western fans are usually more realistic. And I am not big on poles, but here goes;
1.MN
2.Denver
3. NoDak
4. SCSU
5.Neb Omaha
6.CC
7 Mankato State (must be good - beat MN)
8 Mich Tech (Ditto)
9. BC
10 Wis (tied MN)

Eastern Bias. UAA should be on this list over BC. They tied MN; BC has yet to play the Gophers this year.

[Koho]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

I also generally agree with many Eastern posters that western fans over rate their teams as a rule and don't give enough credit in the east.

I think that goes both ways. And I don't think Western fans do this as much as Eastern fans. Western fans are usually more realistic. And I am not big on poles, but here goes;
1.MN
2.Denver
3. NoDak
4. SCSU
5.Neb Omaha
6.CC
7 Mankato State (must be good - beat MN)
8 Mich Tech (Ditto)
9. BC
10 Wis (tied MN)

[Koho]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

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.

I too am not arguing about Union being included or that MN should be high, but as was pointed out, the potential is there on MN. They only lost one major point contributor and returned a player who could end up being a Hobey contender. The one big question mark before the season, goalie, doesn't appear to be a problem thusfar. They won the McNaughton last year and made it to the frozen 4. And while there were a few disappointing years, I don't think many people would say 2 NC's, 3 McNaughtons, a .649 winning percentage is below expectations by most people's count for Lucia's era.

[SanTropez]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

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.

We didn't lose to Wisconsin, we have 2 losses on the year.

[Gordon Shumway]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

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

You're quite welcome.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Well clearly ND is the University of Notre Dakota.

According to the Pairwise abbreviations, ND = North Dakota and NT = Notre Dame.