USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
'09-'10 D-III Bracketology
- Thread starter Say What?
- Start date
LadyFalconsFan
Registered User
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
that would be BEER country, thank you very much. not whining. just stating what i saw. i do wish the best of luck to GAC next weekend.
ok, now that i said that i'll be waiting for another one of your smart remarks that make you so many friends in the world outside the internet.
Say What??? I do believe Carville and Matalin and a few of their close personal friends are blogging again!!!! Look fast as they make a quick exit from their vacation in Wisconsin Whine Country!!!!
that would be BEER country, thank you very much. not whining. just stating what i saw. i do wish the best of luck to GAC next weekend.
ok, now that i said that i'll be waiting for another one of your smart remarks that make you so many friends in the world outside the internet.
egon_getts
Registered User
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Anyone who would rank the rinks this way has obviously never been to Hamline or ST. OLAF...for goodness sake, now there's a terrible rink!
Umm...that IS a shot on goal. That's how it works. If it's a dump in on net, it's a shot. Think about an empty net goal from the opposite end. That's obviously a SOG, right? How about one of those flukey bouncy goals from the neutral zone that you see from time to time? GAC gets a lot of SOG. Not always that many great scoring chances, but shots from bad angles and way out are still shots.
As for the RF game, both teams attempted moe shots than were on net, and MANY of RF's best chances went wide.
Can't wait to see the great hockey this weekend! It should be exciting and fast-paced. I'm especially excited to see if Norwich can keep stringing together big wins. I hope so!
Anyone who would rank the rinks this way has obviously never been to Hamline or ST. OLAF...for goodness sake, now there's a terrible rink!
Umm...that IS a shot on goal. That's how it works. If it's a dump in on net, it's a shot. Think about an empty net goal from the opposite end. That's obviously a SOG, right? How about one of those flukey bouncy goals from the neutral zone that you see from time to time? GAC gets a lot of SOG. Not always that many great scoring chances, but shots from bad angles and way out are still shots.
As for the RF game, both teams attempted moe shots than were on net, and MANY of RF's best chances went wide.
Can't wait to see the great hockey this weekend! It should be exciting and fast-paced. I'm especially excited to see if Norwich can keep stringing together big wins. I hope so!
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Say What??? Per a photo of the scoreboard at the end of the game,
, shots were 35-14 Gustavus per the guys in the box. I wonder what game the "Official" scorekeeper was looking at???
Say What??? Per a photo of the scoreboard at the end of the game,
Last edited:
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Could someone please explain why Amherst is playing GAC and Elmira is playing Norwich in the semifinals on Friday? The NCAA states: In semifinals, No. 1 seed plays lowest remaining seed, other two remaining seeds meet. Why wouldn't Amherst(1) play Norwich (6), and Elmira (2) play GAC (4)?
Could someone please explain why Amherst is playing GAC and Elmira is playing Norwich in the semifinals on Friday? The NCAA states: In semifinals, No. 1 seed plays lowest remaining seed, other two remaining seeds meet. Why wouldn't Amherst(1) play Norwich (6), and Elmira (2) play GAC (4)?
PrezdeJohnson09
Proud supporter of Osmirwich hockey
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
No.
It's a set bracket.
If the favorites would have won out...you would have had #1 Amherst playing #4 GAC and #2 Plattsburgh playing #3 Elmira
No.
It's a set bracket.
If the favorites would have won out...you would have had #1 Amherst playing #4 GAC and #2 Plattsburgh playing #3 Elmira
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
I know at the end of the 2nd, the web announcers were saying shots were 31-5, and I'm guessing thats what the live stats had it at. I'm pretty sure the scoreboard said 28-6. So its actually the "official" scorer who is adding in more shots. Who knows!
To respond to RJDJR or whatever, I know the official shot count doesn't matter and that Gustavus dominated the game. It is just a pattern you see at Gustavus, every whack at the puck counts as a shot for the Gusties, but they have to either go in, or be very close to be counted as a shot for the other team.
Say What??? Per a photo of the scoreboard at the end of the game,, shots were 35-14 Gustavus per the guys in the box. I wonder what game the "Official" scorekeeper was looking at???
I know at the end of the 2nd, the web announcers were saying shots were 31-5, and I'm guessing thats what the live stats had it at. I'm pretty sure the scoreboard said 28-6. So its actually the "official" scorer who is adding in more shots. Who knows!
To respond to RJDJR or whatever, I know the official shot count doesn't matter and that Gustavus dominated the game. It is just a pattern you see at Gustavus, every whack at the puck counts as a shot for the Gusties, but they have to either go in, or be very close to be counted as a shot for the other team.
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
How would you interpret this which is what is printed in the 2009-1010
Women's Division III NCAA Tournament online description?
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/ncaawd3/#ixzz0iNv6mKdH
How would you interpret this which is what is printed in the 2009-1010
Women's Division III NCAA Tournament online description?
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/ncaawd3/#ixzz0iNv6mKdH
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Well, I really don't know because I haven't seen that many Gustavus games over the years (in person or on line). But such "claims" that one team is systematically treated one way while the others are not, are the province of whiners. Given that the "official" scorer had the shot differential even greater than the clock manager, and that the reported shots in the St Catherine's and WRF games were not out of line with what I perceived them to be, in my opinion the claims in your post don't stand up, at least with respect to the WRF game. Like I said, whether your assertion is true with respect to GA in general, I do not know, but I seriously doubt it. I think it may be far more likely that the theory proposed by others in this thread, that GA tends to throw pucks on net when other teams might be more inclined to work for a better shot, is a much more plausible explanation for why GA tends to out-shoot opponents, often by large margins.
Well, I really don't know because I haven't seen that many Gustavus games over the years (in person or on line). But such "claims" that one team is systematically treated one way while the others are not, are the province of whiners. Given that the "official" scorer had the shot differential even greater than the clock manager, and that the reported shots in the St Catherine's and WRF games were not out of line with what I perceived them to be, in my opinion the claims in your post don't stand up, at least with respect to the WRF game. Like I said, whether your assertion is true with respect to GA in general, I do not know, but I seriously doubt it. I think it may be far more likely that the theory proposed by others in this thread, that GA tends to throw pucks on net when other teams might be more inclined to work for a better shot, is a much more plausible explanation for why GA tends to out-shoot opponents, often by large margins.
Last edited:
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
I've always said GA throws the puck at the net every chance they get and thats why they have so many shots. That is why against good teams they can get 40+ shots per game and only score 1 or 2 goals. The difference I see this year and last was that they actually have a goaltender who can stop shots as well.
I've always said GA throws the puck at the net every chance they get and thats why they have so many shots. That is why against good teams they can get 40+ shots per game and only score 1 or 2 goals. The difference I see this year and last was that they actually have a goaltender who can stop shots as well.
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
The link you provided goes to the USCHO page which has inaccurate information. It also says the highest seed hosts, and the number 1 seed gets the bye...both of which have not happened now or in the past. The NCAA handbook does not state that information anywhere. It doesn't even talk about seeding and matchups beyond the original seedings. In no other NCAA sport is the bracket realigned after a playoff round. Imagine the basketball bracket being realigned after each round...impossible.
The link you provided goes to the USCHO page which has inaccurate information. It also says the highest seed hosts, and the number 1 seed gets the bye...both of which have not happened now or in the past. The NCAA handbook does not state that information anywhere. It doesn't even talk about seeding and matchups beyond the original seedings. In no other NCAA sport is the bracket realigned after a playoff round. Imagine the basketball bracket being realigned after each round...impossible.
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Just curious ... where does USCHO get the information they present if not from the NCAA? And why would USCHO post information ostensibly stating or reflecting NCAA policy if they did not think it really stated or reflected NCAA policy?
Just curious ... where does USCHO get the information they present if not from the NCAA? And why would USCHO post information ostensibly stating or reflecting NCAA policy if they did not think it really stated or reflected NCAA policy?
Last edited:
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
I don't know...last time I checked I don't run USCHO!
Clearly, however, USCHO is mistaken on these matters.
2 does not play 7, 3 does not play 6...etc. The NCAA D3 Women's handbook clearly states that geographic proximity takes precedence over seeding. As far as the host institution is concerned it states: "The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained." I think that refers more to the quarterfinals. Appendix A also shows the bracket, which clearly shows how the tournament would run, and that it would not be reseeded after the first round.
I don't know...last time I checked I don't run USCHO!
Clearly, however, USCHO is mistaken on these matters.
2 does not play 7, 3 does not play 6...etc. The NCAA D3 Women's handbook clearly states that geographic proximity takes precedence over seeding. As far as the host institution is concerned it states: "The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained." I think that refers more to the quarterfinals. Appendix A also shows the bracket, which clearly shows how the tournament would run, and that it would not be reseeded after the first round.
Last edited:
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Wonder why the host wouldn't take the early game Friday? Seems to be standard procedure in the quarters. Do they have a choice when it gets to the FF?
Wonder why the host wouldn't take the early game Friday? Seems to be standard procedure in the quarters. Do they have a choice when it gets to the FF?
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
My thought is attendence(?) More locals will be able to attend the game after working hours. Middlebury was the late game on Friday last year as well.
My thought is attendence(?) More locals will be able to attend the game after working hours. Middlebury was the late game on Friday last year as well.
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Hmmm. I question the strategy in that decision...but we'll take it.
How did it work out for the Panthers?
Hmmm. I question the strategy in that decision...but we'll take it.
How did it work out for the Panthers?
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Not as well as it did for Plattsburgh the 2 years before that. Going back 5 years...the host has always had the late game.
Hmmm. I question the strategy in that decision...but we'll take it.
How did it work out for the Panthers?
Not as well as it did for Plattsburgh the 2 years before that. Going back 5 years...the host has always had the late game.
5 4 Fighting
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Say What??? I’ll say this first, USCHO is a great site. It is a grand arena concerning information on all collegiate hockey, whether that is schedules, scores, standings, statistics, links or just commiserating on the Fan Forum. But as USCHO freely admits, when it comes to D-III Women’s Hockey, the staff and/or volunteers just do not have time, wherewithal or sense of urgency to keep up with or provide the most current NC$$ information. (As I noted quite frequently to a certain USCHO correspondent, the information provided on the USCHO Ranking page and in the Forum concerning the Regional and National PWC computations and comparisons is based on old NC$$ regulations. Something that was never admitted to or changed.) Therefore I will take anything and everything the USCHO site has to offer except for information concerning what the NC$$ does or is doing. For that I go to NC$$.org and NC$$.com.
Say What??? I’ll say this first, USCHO is a great site. It is a grand arena concerning information on all collegiate hockey, whether that is schedules, scores, standings, statistics, links or just commiserating on the Fan Forum. But as USCHO freely admits, when it comes to D-III Women’s Hockey, the staff and/or volunteers just do not have time, wherewithal or sense of urgency to keep up with or provide the most current NC$$ information. (As I noted quite frequently to a certain USCHO correspondent, the information provided on the USCHO Ranking page and in the Forum concerning the Regional and National PWC computations and comparisons is based on old NC$$ regulations. Something that was never admitted to or changed.) Therefore I will take anything and everything the USCHO site has to offer except for information concerning what the NC$$ does or is doing. For that I go to NC$$.org and NC$$.com.
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
As was stated earlier on this post, it is NCAA policy for host school to play in second game. It would seem that attendance ($) is biggest reason.
As was stated earlier on this post, it is NCAA policy for host school to play in second game. It would seem that attendance ($) is biggest reason.