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.

2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

FYI - as of this morning, the NCAA had yet to "formally approve" the broadcasts/webcasts for tonight's games....nice.
 
Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

Ozz said:
So why do we bother to have an NCAA tournament? Should we simply crown the National Champion after the regular season?

The 11 best teams do not make the NCAA tournament. The 4 best teams do not always make it to Lake Placid. The best team does not always win the National Championship. I am OK with all of this...
Click to expand...

Just FYI - and I explain all this elsewhere. If all goes according to form, three of the top 4 teams could make to Lake Placid, and either the 4th won't have made it because they lost to the third or vice-versa. That's what my computer tells me.
 
Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

polarbearfan said:
Awarding a bid to each eligible conference is the best way to do things. The conference choice of having their tournament champion get the AQ is fine by me as well.

In determining who the best teams in the country are, across conferences, D3 hockey is ill-equipped. Sometimes all we have to compare conferences is 5 or 6 games that feature a team from conference X and conference Y out of hundreds played by each conference. 75% of games a NESCAC team plays are in conference, I'm not sure how many in other conferences off the top of my head but I imagine its comparable. We are always talking about sample size, how can you possibly compare the NESCAC (I'm using them as an example because it's what I know, not saying they are getting the short end of the stick) to the ECAC W based off of a sample size of what, 4 games? For the same reason I think SOS is one of the more overrated metrics out there, an 8-1 loss by Conn College, the 8th place team in the NESCAC, to Hobart, a team tied for the first place in the ECAC W skews the SOS for the entire conference. Do we really learn anything about the comparison of the ECAC W to the NESCAC from that, especially since margin of victory is not considered in any metric? In the same line, Bowdoin beats two of the lesser teams in the ECAC E. We don't learn much about either conference by those either yet those games go a long ways in the SOS metric for each conference. Some of this is may be exaggerated a bit but the point still stands, until there is enough crossover between conferences (and it sounds like we are headed in the opposite direction) each conference needs to be awareded a bid, ECAC W included.
Click to expand...

good post. +1 or whatever...

Too much manipulated math. Don't talk to me about best team in the country based on your own value system. Let playoff hockey be based on who keeps winning, not based on doing a reset at the end of the regular season by a committee.
 
Fishman'81 said:
With all due respect, I disagree with both of your points. (Altazo's on page three.)

The W has gotten very few bids in the past 10 years, and what bids they have received have had them pitted against one another so often that the conference's PS W% is skewed. The W's OOC PS record is a winning one during that span, IIRC, despite the complete lack of W PS home-games.

(As far as the insanity of tournament-champions getting AQs, consider this: a reasonable Eastern metric has Utica, Norwich and Hobart bunched-up 1-3 at the top of it, and none of them would be in the NCAAs if we relied on tournament conferences being the be-all, end-all.)

So, this very year, are you saying that the 3 best resumes in the East should be summarily discarded because some goalie on a so-so team had a great game on a Friday night in late February..? Does that really sound reasonable to you, to just discard a 25+-game season for the sake of a weekend-tournament red-herring? Please.

Just to be clear, no personal attack was intended: you're not alone in endorsing the idiocy of this system... This very small field needs to be chosen more rationally, without a doubt.
Click to expand...

I have one post on page 1, and a couple on pages 8 and 9.

If I remember correctly, in '01 or '02 RIT ran the regular season table going undefeated before being upset by Plattsburgh in the NCAA's. Surely, RIT's "resume" that season was the most impressive of any team in the nation. By your logic they should have been awarded the national title. That doesn't sound too reasonable either, does it? Is it fair that Plattsburgh won that day just because they had a hot goalie or they caught RIT on an off night?
 
altazo said:
I have one post on page 1, and a couple on pages 8 and 9.

If I remember correctly, in '01 or '02 RIT ran the regular season table going undefeated before being upset by Plattsburgh in the NCAA's. Surely, RIT's "resume" that season was the most impressive of any team in the nation. By your logic they should have been awarded the national title. That doesn't sound too reasonable either, does it? Is it fair that Plattsburgh won that day just because they had a hot goalie or they caught RIT on an off night?
Click to expand...

I would even add Neumann in that breath as well. Plattsburgh that season was one of the best DIII teams around....yet Neumann won.

IMO we haven't really seen the best team since they went to a single elimination tournament. The old days you had two or three game series.
 
PSUChamps2001 said:
I would even add Neumann in that breath as well. Plattsburgh that season was one of the best DIII teams around....yet Neumann won.

IMO we haven't really seen the best team since they went to a single elimination tournament. The old days you had two or three game series.
Click to expand...

I think there is little doubt SNC was clearly the best team in 2008 and Norwich was the best team in 2010.

But thanks for backing me up on my point with Fish.
 
Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

PSUChamps2001 said:
I would even add Neumann in that breath as well. Plattsburgh that season was one of the best DIII teams around....yet Neumann won.

IMO we haven't really seen the best team since they went to a single elimination tournament. The old days you had two or three game series.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows the rules. IMO, the best team is the team that wins the National Championship defined by those rules. If you want to play your season with the goal of winning your regular season title, great. If you want to play your season to win the National Championship, you need to win the games it takes to do so. The best team in the country is the one that is able to do so.
 
Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

PSUChamps2001 said:
I would even add Neumann in that breath as well. Plattsburgh that season was one of the best DIII teams around....yet Neumann won.

IMO we haven't really seen the best team since they went to a single elimination tournament. The old days you had two or three game series.
Click to expand...

I did like the old method of having a two game series in the quarterfinals. The probability that the "better" team wins is certainly higher if you have more than one game.
 
Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

NUProf said:
I did like the old method of having a two game series in the quarterfinals. The probability that the "better" team wins is certainly higher if you have more than one game.
Click to expand...

Well that solves the first round upset problem but does nothing for the who gets in dilemma (if it is one).

Anyone over here know the dimensions of the ice at the Utica Aud? I read the ice surface is sketchy and the rink humid, but no one has mentioned the size of the pond.
 
Re: 2013 "I was screwed by the NCAA" thread...

petrietodonovan said:
Well that solves the first round upset problem but does nothing for the who gets in dilemma (if it is one).

Anyone over here know the dimensions of the ice at the Utica Aud? I read the ice surface is sketchy and the rink humid, but no one has mentioned the size of the pond.
Click to expand...
Are you going to ask that in every thread? http://www.uticaaud.org/pages/page.cfm?page=ExhibitorInformation It was answered in the Utica/NYS thread but here is what I found when I googled it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top