What's new
By:
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.

2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Gordon Shumway said:
Just as a side note, UNH has beaten 3 of the teams on your list, and two of them twice. Oh yeah, they haven't lost to any of them either, but carry on.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Gordon, I will. And I am eminently honored that you have deigned to use your yearly post for this gem.
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I'm going to need a little clarification here. First, you have BU twice. Second, ND = ??.
Click to expand...

I also liked "NHU". I believe a UNH fan once had "UHN" on a sign, but I kinda like NHU.

1. BC
2. UNH
3. Minnesota
4. Denver
5. Miami
6. WMU
7. Union
8. Nebraska-Omaha
9. Notre Dame
10. Dartmouth
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

J.D. said:
I also liked "NHU". I believe a UNH fan once had "UHN" on a sign, but I kinda like NHU.
Click to expand...
A toothless maine child had UHN Sucks, with the UHN crossed out on one side and corrected on the other side, at the craphole Alfond in the early 2000's...
then a year or so later, when UNH played Cornell, there were three goofball UNH fans that had individual Letters and were holding them up incorrectly in Worcester which started the silliness full throttle
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

UNH? UHN? NHU? Who cares, just as long as they get "NCAA" right when the championship banner goes up one of these years. ;)
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

x1795x said:
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.
Click to expand...

We didn't lose to Wisconsin, we have 2 losses on the year.
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

x1795x said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

manurespreader said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Koho said:
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)
Click to expand...

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

Well said Koho.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

Koho said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

x1795x said:
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).
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012-2013: NCAA Rankings - Week 7

J.D. said:
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
Click to expand...
Of course I can. In fact, I did... :D

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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? ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top