Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

Added
Division III Hot Topics (2012)

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

SUMMARY - ALL DIVISIONS/COLLEGIATE TOTAL CHAMPIONSHIPS - Championships History (through June 3, 2012)

Note, DIII begins on page 21 of 29.

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

From here -

When looking at all NCAA championships as a whole, around 75 percent of the teams competing in NCAA championships travel to preliminary and final sites by bus. In Division I, teams within 400 miles of a championship site travel by bus, and teams in Division II and Division III take to the highways when the site is within a 500-mile range from their campus.

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

Added: NCAA Division III Exploratory, Provisional and Reclassifying Membership Process Calendar of Activities and Timeline

[NUProf]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

The goals still aren't power play goals, but the penalty is now assessed. Actually what this means is that the section itself is moot (not mute, moot) since there are no such waived penalties any more.

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

Sec. 7, Article 5 no longer applies. This clearly hasn't been updated for the most recent rules

So this has been changed?

Article 5. Waived penalties are penalties that are never actually assessed to a player. These should not be recorded on the official scoresheet. Any goal scored during a delayed penalty situation is NOT a power-play goal and the penalty is NOT charged to the offending player.

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

Just added (to the first post): 2012 NCAA Official Ice Hockey Statistics Rules

Sec. 7, Article 5 no longer applies. This clearly hasn't been updated for the most recent rules

[Hammer]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

CCHA Conference games tied after 65 minutes advance to a three-player shootout with the winning team receiving an extra point in the standings.

And yet in the NCAA's eyes it is regarded as a tie. Now how is the NCAA going to do this if everyone goes to a shootout? We're making a bigger mess than the one we're trying to clean up here.

[Hammer]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

Losses, ties and shootout wins. It's ridiculous.

You starting to see what I mean, now?

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

16 is wins, but what are the other things?

win - loss - tie - shootout win*

CCHA Conference games tied after 65 minutes advance to a three-player shootout with the winning team receiving an extra point in the standings.

[NUProf]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

I guess my point is, if we're so bent on having a winner, let's get rid of the point system and go straight to W-L. Otherwise there's no need for the shootout.

In the CCHA, my alma mater, Ferris State, finished with a 16-7-5-1 record. Friends, that is not a W-L record. That is a locker combination.

16 is wins, but what are the other things?

[Hammer]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

I guess my point is, if we're so bent on having a winner, let's get rid of the point system and go straight to W-L. Otherwise there's no need for the shootout.

In the CCHA, my alma mater, Ferris State, finished with a 16-7-5-1 record. Friends, that is not a W-L record. That is a locker combination.

[NUProf]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

I am completely on board here.



I guess my point is that if we are going to a shootout, we want to determine a winner and a loser. If you win, you should get the full benefit of such, and vice-versa. A team could conceivably get zero shots on goal and miss the net by 10 feet on every shootout attempt, and get rewarded with a point. Now, this is admittedly completely ridiculous and never going to happen, but I just do not like rewarding losses.

I am completely anti-shootout, especially if we're rewarding teams that get beat, since someone somewhere wants a winner so badly. We forget about the other end of it.

I'm not that wild about a shoot out, but I guess if the two teams have played 70 minutes on the ice to a standstill it's fairer to regard the game as a tie, but if you don't and insist that there has to be a winner, the shootout winner doesn't really deserve as much credit as a team that won a game by scoring a goal in the course of play. However all games should contribute the same number of points to the standings, so one team gets 2 points, it means the losers have to get 1. I really don't like the soccer system.

[norm1909]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

Just added (to the first post): 2012 NCAA Official Ice Hockey Statistics Rules

[Hammer]

Re: Links to Current NCAA Hockey Manuals (2012)

I agree and disagree. If the game ends on the ice, regardless of whether the OT is 4X4 it has still been won. If the 10 4X4 with the long change doesn't produce a winner just call it a tie. With that system there would be a lot fewer ties.

I am completely on board here.

If you insist on a shootout fine, but do use the three point system 3 points for a win, 0 for a loss if the game is settled before the shootout. 2 points for a shootout win, 1 point for a shootout loss.

I guess my point is that if we are going to a shootout, we want to determine a winner and a loser. If you win, you should get the full benefit of such, and vice-versa. A team could conceivably get zero shots on goal and miss the net by 10 feet on every shootout attempt, and get rewarded with a point. Now, this is admittedly completely ridiculous and never going to happen, but I just do not like rewarding losses.

I am completely anti-shootout, especially if we're rewarding teams that get beat, since someone somewhere wants a winner so badly. We forget about the other end of it.