2010-2011 Division I Polls

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Hopefully the relatively favorable scheduling for Cornell / Minnesota / UMD / Wisconsin doesn't end up playing a major role in determining which 8 teams play NCAAs or get to host.

Not following why you think that teams like Cornell (Harvard & Dartmouth) and UMD (BSU x 2) have a favorable schedule as opposed to Mercyhurst, which only had a single game versus Niagara during 4 Nations absences. The list of teams missing people because of 4 Nations is larger this year than I can remember when you include BC, UND, OSU, and MSU to go along with BU, MC, Cornell, UMD, and Harvard. Wisconsin and Minnesota didn't have to play while their players were gone, but outside of the Gophers' trip to Clarkson, neither has had their full roster for a game yet this year, so I don't know that absences being tied to 4 Nations makes them any more damaging. If one starts putting asterisks by losses this year, where do you draw the line?

Similarly, Bemidji beat both Mercyhurst and UMD when both teams were at full strength.

UMD was w/o Larocque and Irwin, plus Gray was injured, when they lost in Bemidji.

 

[scrambledlegs]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

UMD was w/o Larocque and Irwin, plus Gray was injured, when they lost in Bemidji.

I was going to disagree because the game was on November 5th and I thought they didn't leave till the 6th. However, after reviewing the scoresheet, I do agree they weren't there.

And I think that may be part of the problem. I don't remember this event stretching over two weekends in the past. 2 weeks seems like a pretty long time for students to be missing school.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

I don't remember this event stretching over two weekends in the past. 2 weeks seems like a pretty long time for students to be missing school.

The event doesn't stretch over two weeks, but Hockey Canada added a team camp to the front end of it. Other countries had camps also, but they didn't require their collegians to attend. Hockey Canada has other priorities.

 

[joehockey]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Interesting weekend

1. Cornell 180 (12) - not active
2. Wisconsin 165 (5) - not active
3. Minnesota Duluth 146 (1) - not active
4. Mercyhurst 139 (1) - not active
5. Boston University 110 - tied Vermont twice
6. North Dakota 105 - lost to BSU and tied BSU
7. Minnesota 63 - not active
8. Boston College 62 - lost to SLU and tied Vermont
9. The Ohio State 35 - lost twice to MSU
10. Harvard 25 - lost to QU and tied Princeton
Others receiving votes: Providence College, 17 - not active

http://usahockey.com/Template_Usahoc...3_01&id=198180[/QUOTE]

 

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Interesting weekend

I agree. Although, I guess the "not active" teams make it a little less interesting than usual.

8. Boston College 62 - lost to SLU and tied Vermont

BC also tied SLU.

I think the top 5 in the country are obvious. After that, one might be able to put about a dozen names in a hat and pick them out to fill the ranking. Dartmouth has the 3rd best winning percentage, and their loss is to the team with the 2nd best win %. Are they a legit contender, or just off to a good start? How good is "Q"? PC has some good results, but they've also lost a couple games one wouldn't have expected them to lose. Interesting indeed.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Note BC was No. 6 not No. 8 before. They're still undefeated with Schaus in net. I'd keep them at 6, though I agree it's not clear cut since they don't have any victories over top opponents yet. We'll see what happens against BU next weekend. If they split, they can probably keep their ranking. A point or less they should drop.

I'd go with North Dakota at No. 7, given their sweep of Minnesota, splits with BU and UMD. That's clearly the best resume of the other WCHA teams. And the MSU loss doesn't look as bad any more.

I'd go with Bemidji at No. 8, wins now over Meryhurst, Duluth, and North Dakota, and one bad loss to Wayne State.

I'd go with Minnesota at No. 9, the win over Wisconsin and losses only to the teams I've already ranked above them. It's close between Bemidji and Minnesota at this point, but I'd take Bemidji's quality wins outweigh the Wayne State loss.

I'd go with Dartmouth at No. 10. You're right, we can't really identify whether they're 3rd or 15th at this point, but they are undefeated aside from the Cornell loss. Their resume to date reminds me of Northeastern for much of last season.

Harvard clearly should fall out at this point. Outdone by both Dartmouth and Quinnipiac. Ohio State could be in mix at some point, but it was pretty rough for them to go 0-3-1 without Spooner. But they don't have any results worthing of a ranking at the moment.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

And in terms of the top 5, I'd go

1, Wisconsin, 2. UMD, 3. Mercyhurst, 4. Cornell, 5. BU

The Mercyhurst road win over Cornell matters more at this point than their losses to Bemidji and Niagara. And Cornell doesn't have the kind of quality wins on its resume yet that Wisconsin and UMD have. When you can make an argument either way purely based on results, I'm going to give WCHA teams with players who've proven they can win NCAA titles the nod.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

And ARM, thanks for the critique of my 4 Nationa analysis. I clearly missed a few. Teams were more similarly affected than I had expected.

That said, it is distorting the results. Perhaps this belongs in the computer ranking thread, but usually the Rutter rankings and RPI do a good job of matching my intuition and heuristics about where teams should rank, but these two weeks of results have thrown things out of whack. The BC and Mercyhurst results hurt those teams in the Rutter rankings and RPI far more than I think they should in terms of how I'd rank teams. I just highlight those results because they're pretty big upsets relative to what we'd expect, so they have quite an impact on both rankings.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Note BC was No. 6 not No. 8 before. They're still undefeated with Schaus in net. I'd keep them at 6, though I agree it's not clear cut since they don't have any victories over top opponents yet.
... Ohio State could be in mix at some point, but it was pretty rough for them to go 0-3-1 without Spooner. But they don't have any results worthy [sic] of a ranking at the moment.

OSU was also missing Minttu Tuominen and Annie Svedin for their last three games. For one to buy that BC belongs at #6, they must be given a grace that is not extended to a lot of other teams. I get that Schaus is very important to the Eagles, but anyone who has watched Spooner knows that she is a dominant player and vital to how far the Buckeyes can go as well. Put the BC and OSU results side by side, and it is hard to conclude that the Eagles have better results. BC losing to SLU by a 7-3 score is a bad result; it can't merely be discarded. The next day, the Schaus-less Eagles managed a tie with the Saints, so I conclude that Molly or no, BC had enough in the Friday game to avoid a 4-goal loss had the players in uniform shown up.

The computer isn't going to care who was missing from a particular roster on a given day. At a certain point, we also have to look at how a team did, regardless of whether or not they were at full strength.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Ok, you make some good points,. You've convinced me that the WCHA teams I have 7-9 should be above BC. But I still don't agree BC=OSU to date.

In the RPI, BC is 8 and OSU is 14. In the Rutter rankings, BC is 12 and OSU is 13. Four of OSU's wins are against consensus bottom 5 teams (RMU & SCSU), and their other two wins are against Syracuse, who BC also beat. BC doesn't exactly have a number of great results either -- their best win is against Northeastern. And yes, I'm giving some weight to the team with two senior All-Americans who've twice led this team to NCAAs.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

In your preseason picks, you identified some separation between certain groupings of teams. I don't have a problem with you ranking BC above OSU, or any of the rest of the WCHA teams not named UW and UMD, as long as they fall in a rest of the top 10 grouping, as opposed to the top 5 grouping. If you had ranked North Dakota above BC, I could probably make an argument why that was incorrect as well. A lot of these teams are so close in their results to date, that a person can slant the statistics in the direction that they want them to go.

If MSU-Mankato continues to play as well as they've started (5th in conference winning percentage), it increases the likelihood that the WCHA only gets UW, UMD, and their tournament champ into the NCAAs. If that champ is one of those two, then the possibily deepest conference in the NCAA era could only get two teams into the tournament. The losses just pile up playing 4 games against opponents if the quality extends 7-deep. Of course, some team could get on a roll and separate from the pack now that 4 Nations is behind us. But there are always holiday camps to further disrupt rosters.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Right, and I agree. Whoever is No. 6, is closer to No. 7 than to BU at this point. The voters reflected that sentiment with BC last week, and if BC holds onto No. 6, the gap with No. 7 can only narrow further (and it's possible BC will drop).

If the season ended today with no autobids, I think North Dakota would be in the NCAAs, though I agree there's some danger of the WCHA getting only two teams in.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

This week's USCHO Poll:

<code>USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
November 15, 2010
Team (First Place Votes) Record Points Last Poll
1 Wisconsin (15) 9-1-0 150 1
2 Cornell 6-1-0 130 2
3 Minnesota-Duluth 8-2-0 115 3
4 Mercyhurst 7-2-0 114 4
5 Boston University 8-1-3 90 5
6 Minnesota 6-5-0 60 7
7 Boston College 7-1-4 56 6
8 North Dakota 6-4-2 34 8
9 Dartmouth 5-1-0 27 NR
10 Providence 8-3-1 20 10
Others Receiving Votes: Ohio State 16, Bemidji State 7, Quinnipiac 3, Northeastern 2, Harvard 1</code>

 

[comefrombehind]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
November 29, 2010

Team (First Place Votes) Record Points Last Poll
1 Cornell (7) 10-1-0 139 2
2 Wisconsin (8) 12-2-0 138 1
3 Mercyhurst 10-2-0 114 3
3 Minnesota-Duluth 10-4-0 114 4
5 Boston University 11-2-3 88 5
6 Boston College 10-2-4 82 6
7 Minnesota 10-5-0 56 7
8 North Dakota 8-4-2 45 8
9 Ohio State 8-6-2 22 10
10 Northeastern 9-3-4 8 NR
10 Providence 11-5-1 8 NR

Others Receiving Votes: Dartmouth 4, Harvard 3, Bemidji State 2, Quinnipiac 2

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

I find it strange that Wisconsin splits the No. 4 team at home and loses 1st place votes to a No. 2 team who lost at home to the only top tier opponent it played all season.

Seems Cornell is likely to go 31-2 with two losses to Mercyhurst, but get the No. 1 seed in NCAAs. They're a lot like Harvard in 2007-08. Mercyhurst will be No. 2, like UNH in 2007-08 (the analogy being that both UNH that year and Mercyhurst this year beat the No. 1 team). Then like 2007-8, Wisconsin and UMD will be 3 and 4 in some order and end up playing each other in the NCAA final once again.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Seems Cornell is likely to go 31-2 with two losses to Mercyhurst, but get the No. 1 seed in NCAAs. They're a lot like Harvard in 2007-08. Mercyhurst will be No. 2, like UNH in 2007-08 (the analogy being that both UNH that year and Mercyhurst this year beat the No. 1 team). Then like 2007-8, Wisconsin and UMD will be 3 and 4 in some order and end up playing each other in the NCAA final once again.

UW was actually the #5 team in 2008, opening on the road. The key difference in the comparison of this year and that is that Mercyhurst, not Duluth, is hosting this time.

It's hard to say which of UMD/UW is the better team right now. I haven't seen the Badgers yet, but had I seen their games in Minneapolis, I'd have probably come away with two different estimates of their strength on two different nights. Right now, I'd say the Bulldogs are ahead, although they seem to be riding the rollercoaster a bit, getting pumped for some games and lazing through others. Both are great up front, have some questions on D, but UMD is much more settled in net. It's been a while since a team has won a title getting average play from their goaltender, so unless the a star emerges between the pipes in Madison, I'd lean toward the 'Dogs as the best in the west.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Seems Cornell is likely to go 31-2 with two losses to Mercyhurst, but get the No. 1 seed in NCAAs.

Cornell is likely gonna lose more than 2 games this year, cause they are missing 8 players due to TC-U22 commitments sometime in January. Secondly, they have only lost once to MC sofar (in OT IIRC), so saying they'll lose twice to them is being a bit premature.

 

[BadgerFan11]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

I find it strange that Wisconsin splits the No. 4 team at home and loses 1st place votes to a No. 2 team who lost at home to the only top tier opponent it played all season.

Seems Cornell is likely to go 31-2 with two losses to Mercyhurst, but get the No. 1 seed in NCAAs. They're a lot like Harvard in 2007-08. Mercyhurst will be No. 2, like UNH in 2007-08 (the analogy being that both UNH that year and Mercyhurst this year beat the No. 1 team). Then like 2007-8, Wisconsin and UMD will be 3 and 4 in some order and end up playing each other in the NCAA final once again.

couldnt agree more. Obviously im partial to a particular team, but i find it frustrating that teams with weaker schedules receive higher praise for their lack of losses - even with their lack of impressive wins, while teams with very dificult schedules aren't rewarded for their impresssive wins even with only 1 or 2 losses to top talent. Don't get me wrong, i agree that Cornell and Mercyhurst are talented teams and deserve some praise for their impressive season - but does anyone truly believe either are better than UW, UMD or even Minny?
Put Cornell or Mercyhurst in the WCHA, and they'd be .500 teams - if you can't see this you have blinders on.

obviously there's no way around this (e.g. - Boise State and TCU atop the BCS for much of the year), and we always see the cream rise to the top in the playoffs when WCHA opponents are matched up with ECAC or CHA (see the entire national championship history). So while i understand that the current rankings mean very little right now and are usually ignored completely by smart players and coaches, it continues to irritate me that poll voters can't see through to the "strength of schedule" reality.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

couldnt agree more. Obviously im partial to a particular team, but i find it frustrating that teams with weaker schedules receive higher praise for their lack of losses - even with their lack of impressive wins, while teams with very dificult schedules aren't rewarded for their impresssive wins even with only 1 or 2 losses to top talent. Don't get me wrong, i agree that Cornell and Mercyhurst are talented teams and deserve some praise for their impressive season - but does anyone truly believe either are better than UW, UMD or even Minny?
Put Cornell or Mercyhurst in the WCHA, and they'd be .500 teams - if you can't see this you have blinders on.

obviously there's no way around this (e.g. - Boise State and TCU atop the BCS for much of the year), and we always see the cream rise to the top in the playoffs when WCHA opponents are matched up with ECAC or CHA (see the entire national championship history). So while i understand that the current rankings mean very little right now and are usually ignored completely by smart players and coaches, it continues to irritate me that poll voters can't see through to the "strength of schedule" reality.

I'm on record from before the start of the season that Cornell and Wisco are numbers 1 and 2 this year, and I'm sticking by that. Not too many others were giving Wisco a placing higher than 5th at the time. Does not mean Cornell and Wisco will meet in the the final, but I'd be surprised if they don't make it to the final 4.

IMHO you are underestimating Cornell big time. Cornell is an Ivy team that gets out of the gate a month later than the non-ivy teams. They showed last year that they improved vastly over the year, winning when it counted down the stretch in both the ECAC and the NCAA tournament, when no one gave them much of a chance. With an even stronger and much deeper line-up this year, expect much of the same. Wisco simply has IMHO the best college player in the Nation, and she can and will carry her team.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2010-2011 Division I Polls

Well my preseason projections for the Frozen Four were UMD 1, Mercyhurst 2, Wisconsin 3, Cornell 4. The only thing I'd change is I'd move Wisconsin above Mercyhurst now. (I agree with ARM's assessment about who the favorite is). If I were voting in the poll, I'd put Wisconsin No. 1, even though I'd still favor UMD to win the title, since Wisconsin has been more consistent thus far. I think most people who gave this any serious thought expected Wisconsin to be at least back in the Frozen Four this year.

It's foolish to say Mercyhurst and Cornell would be .500 teams in the WCHA. If they were in the WCHA, they'd both be much better for it. However, it's not like it's pure luck that has given the WCHA 10 straight NCAA titles, and if anything the WCHA is deeper than ever before, and the ECAC is weaker (Mercyhurst's schedule is a bit stronger, due to three Frozen Four caliber noncon games and a somewhat stronger CHA, Hockey East is stronger in some dimensions as well). So the WCHA teams have to be the favorites until there's evidence to the contrary.

Cornell has no WCHA or Hockey East games on its nonconference schedule, and the weakest ECAC ever, so certainly there's a lot of reason to question their current ranking, esp. if they don't beat Mercyhurst. Cornell in fact hasn't played the WCHA much in recent history (their last win over a WCHA opponent was almost 10 years ago), so certainly the burden of proof is on them to show they can beat a top WCHA opponent.