2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

[Skate79]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Let's see, 1-1-1 against #2 Cornell, 1-1 against #3 Clarkson, a tie against #6 BC, 2-0 against #8 BU, for a combined 4-2-2 record against the #2 through #8 teams....

I have to say that in many years on this forum, yours is one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. Of course if you'd like to attempt to rebut, why don't you set forth your reasoning. Here. Now.

And two of those wins took place at Lynah and Cheel, two very tough places to play and win. Harvard is a very good road team and that might help them next weekend. Lest we forget the 4 OT thriller in '07? Yeah, we deserve to be there.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Four of UND's losses were against the greatest women's hockey team of the era (and they where the only team to beat them in two years)...and they single handedly knocked UW out of a #2 ranking by beating them twice.

That's nice. They also went 1-6-1 down the stretch and lost to a couple of vastly inferior teams.

They had the most difficult or second most difficult schedule in the country depending on whether you look at the RPI or KRACH.

Yes, and they were unsuccessful in maintaining a high enough winning percentage in that tough SOS to make the tournament.

And based on the KRACH, they were rated higher than BC.

Too bad.

So to say they were objectively worse than several other tournament teams is very misguided. Its just that the PWR system did not favor them.

No, they were definitely objectively worse than sevearl other tournament teams. According to KRACH, they were objectively worse than exactly 5 of them.

The annual whine and cheese club of fans out west complaining about this or that with respect to North Dakota is just comical. There is a VERY clear, objective system used to determine whether or not your team deserves to make the tournament field. They did not meet that minimum standard and now they will be sitting at home next week.

Seriously. 1-6-1 in the last 8 regular season games. What on earth makes your team God's gift to the NCAA tournament?

Yesterday's HE final was game of ebbs and flows. BC started out like they were going to run BU out of the building. Then BU gets the equalizer and all of sudden, momentum shifts. BC scores late in the second but BU comes out and slowly takes control in the third. Then with fives minutes left, BC comes on like storm troopers and if it wasn't for Sperry, probably would have found a way to win. I lost count of how many glorious chances the Eagles had right in front of her.

I think this will be one of the more compelling match ups because Clarkson plays a very structured defensive game and Howe is a terrific goalie. However BC's offensive prowess especially from their D pinching in will be interesting to watch. Wish the game were here.

Yep I agree with all of this. Looking forward to probably going despite the fact that it's 12 hours of driving for 2 hours of hockey.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Ttt, Did you get my message?

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Ttt, Did you get my message?

Yes, thanks!! Going to respond this afternoon when I have access to the spreadsheet again and can email you an actual copy. The attachment I had sent you was just a screenshot.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Seriously. 1-6-1 in the last 8 regular season games. What on earth makes your team God's gift to the NCAA tournament?

Well, since you are quoting 5mn_Major, I'd say the one loss this season and no losses last season are the primary things making the Gophers God's gift to the NCAA tourney. No idea why he's arguing for the no-names.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, thanks!! Going to respond this afternoon when I have access to the spreadsheet again and can email you an actual copy. The attachment I had sent you was just a screenshot.

I am on a business trip in the Pacific and will be in the air for your entire evening. Not sure how much time I will have to look at it. Did my explanation make sense at all?

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

I am on a business trip in the Pacific and will be in the air for your entire evening. Not sure how much time I will have to look at it. Did my explanation make sense at all?

Yes it did -- I'll play around with it tonight before I email you. No rush, I have an entire offseason to get it right now haha

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Well, since you are quoting 5mn_Major, I'd say the one loss this season and no losses last season are the primary things making the Gophers God's gift to the NCAA tourney. No idea why he's arguing for the no-names.

It is a bit of a head scratcher that 5mn_Major is arguing for the Whioux. The Whioux played themselves out of the tournament at the end of the season against MSU and OSU making it so they had one shot to make the tournament and that was to win the WCHA tournament. EOS.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Well, since you are quoting 5mn_Major, I'd say the one loss this season and no losses last season are the primary things making the Gophers God's gift to the NCAA tourney. No idea why he's arguing for the no-names.

HA... didn't even realize Major was a Gopher fan. If there's one team that has ever or will ever be "God's gift to the NCAA tourney" it is the 2013 and 2014 Gophers.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

A while ago, some were saying that the PWR is worse than the KRACH...I disagreed as they are two different measurements. On the flipside, PWR is not the determinant of great teams either. Games are won and lost on the ice.

Nobody hates UND more than Minnesotans, but its too bad that they won't have a chance to prove themselves on the ice. Good news for TTT is that BC will show us just how amazing the BC team is relative to UND in the tourney and that his pompous remarks are accurate.

 

[joegrav]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Nobody hates UND more than Minnesotans, but its too bad that they won't have a chance to prove themselves on the ice.

Except for the 30+ regular season games they had to prove themselves on the ice, followed by a conference tournament they had to prove themselves on the ice. As long as you ignore the entirety of October through March 8, sure, they didn't have ample opportunity to prove themselves on the ice.

Good news for TTT is that BC will show us just how amazing the BC team is relative to UND in the tourney and that his pompous remarks are accurate.

The relative strength or weakness of BC compared to Clarkson is irrelevant to this discussion. We have very incomplete information to determine whether BC is better than Clarkson or whether either team can compete with Minnesota or Wisconsin. We have 30+ games of hockey in both league and tournament formats demonstrably showing that North Dakota is not. And even with that body of work, they still would have made the tournament if they won a couple of more games down the stretch rather than going 1-6-1.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Harvard's short bench strategy is unlikely to be successful against Wisconsin.

So pardon my ignorance, but Harvard only having 10 forwards is a bit of a shock to me. Is it a Harvard thing or an ECAC dictated thing?

 

[ARM]

It is a bit of a head scratcher that 5mn_Major is arguing for the Whioux.

I remember around the time of the final year of a four-team tournament, Eastern fans would be chiding Wisconsin for not winning enough games to make the NCAAs. Minnesota and UMD fans would say that we understand why the Badgers aren't in the tournament, but they are a much better team than you think. Eventually, the Bulldogs and Gophers could no longer hold UW back and it was unleashed on the entire country come March.

This is a similar deal. Yes, we understand why UND didn't make the tournament, and it was a mess to which it contributed. Take three Olympic-caliber players off of any roster, and it makes a difference, especially because another of UND's best players was dealing with an injury at the time. UND understands the reality of the situation; the system won't allow five losses to OSU and MSU combined. It's fine if you are Mercyhurst, and lose two of three to those teams, because the Lakers don't have anyone in their league that is going to slap them around. Sort of like BC. The current system rewards teams that are the best team in a weak league. That's how it is.

As a fan of the Gophers, I'm glad that North Dakota is out. I really don't need to see a sixth UND vs UM meeting for the third consecutive year. Give me anyone else just for a change of diet. But as a fan of the women's game, the tournament is the poorer because of the absence of UND, because they are a top-five caliber club. I found the hope of some that UW would be sent to UM in the quarters rather pathetic. Do you want to compete or just hide in the East and hope nobody sees you?

 

[joegrav]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

This is a similar deal. Yes, we understand why UND didn't make the tournament, and it was a mess to which it contributed. Take three Olympic-caliber players off of any roster, and it makes a difference, especially because another of UND's best players was dealing with an injury at the time. UND understands the reality of the situation; the system won't allow five losses to OSU and MSU combined. It's fine if you are Mercyhurst, and lose two of three to those teams, because the Lakers don't have anyone in their league that is going to slap them around. Sort of like BC. The current system rewards teams that are the best team in a weak league. That's how it is.

re point 1: NCAA hockey uses an objective system, not a smoke-filled room of people deciding in their Infinite Wisdom who is best. That means sometimes, bleep happens. Maybe you lose three of your best players due to injury all at the same time. Maybe you have players suspended for an academic scandal. Or maybe they go to the Olympics. You can't account for these things in any objective rankings system. It would be far, far worse to bring subjectivity into it, and have some committee person say "well, with their Olympians, North Dakota probably would have won game X, Y and Z, so they're in, and this other team with a better record is out." Talk about not having a chance to prove it on the ice.

re point 2: Well obviously the system rewards being the "best team in a weak league." It's the NATIONAL tournament, designed to pit teams from various conferences in a tournament to go at one another. It is not WCHA Tournament Phase II: Electric Boogaloo. We can all reasonably assume that the WCHA is a stronger conference than any of the others, but until we see the teams actually play one another we can't say that with 100% certainty.

The World Cup would probably be "better" if it just took the 32 top ranked soccer teams in the world rather than taking the top teams from each continent and putting them together to test themselves against one another, but then it wouldn't be The World Cup. There's no point in having a national tournament if teams from a particular conference are going to be excluded from competing in it because it's perceived to be weaker.

 

[Numbers]

I remember around the time of the final year of a four-team tournament, Eastern fans would be chiding Wisconsin for not winning enough games to make the NCAAs. Minnesota and UMD fans would say that we understand why the Badgers aren't in the tournament, but they are a much better team than you think. Eventually, the Bulldogs and Gophers could no longer hold UW back and it was unleashed on the entire country come March.

This is a similar deal. Yes, we understand why UND didn't make the tournament, and it was a mess to which it contributed. Take three Olympic-caliber players off of any roster, and it makes a difference, especially because another of UND's best players was dealing with an injury at the time. UND understands the reality of the situation; the system won't allow five losses to OSU and MSU combined. It's fine if you are Mercyhurst, and lose two of three to those teams, because the Lakers don't have anyone in their league that is going to slap them around. Sort of like BC. The current system rewards teams that are the best team in a weak league. That's how it is.

As a fan of the Gophers, I'm glad that North Dakota is out. I really don't need to see a sixth UND vs UM meeting for the third consecutive year. Give me anyone else just for a change of diet. But as a fan of the women's game, the tournament is the poorer because of the absence of UND, because they are a top-five caliber club. I found the hope of some that UW would be sent to UM in the quarters rather pathetic. Do you want to compete or just hide in the East and hope nobody sees you?

This is an insightful post. I agree completely. And, I would add that tournament results cannot be used to prove or refute this, because of the smallness of their sample size. The reality is that the best metrics we think we have are RUTTER & KRACH and they both would put Note Same in the field in spite of the Olympic related hiccup.

I don't mean to day they should be in, and I agree that 17 games in the years is enough.

Same with the Wisconsin at Minnesota discussion. It would be a horrible move by the committee. The women's game profit from more years like this one and its bracket.

 

[ARM]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Joe, I don't have a problem with any of that. It's just when people say to UND, "Win more games," it isn't just that simple. Yes, they can win the league tourney and get an auto bid, but that means having to beat UW and UM on back-to-back days. Do I think they belong with the current rules? No, definitely not. But I think the fact that they were behind Quinnipiac in how the current criteria works illuminates a problem. It is better to play strong opponents fewer times. I think that is unfortunate, and it won't lead to more intriguing out-of-conference games going forward.

 

[joegrav]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Joe, I don't have a problem with any of that. It's just when people say to UND, "Win more games," it isn't just that simple. Yes, they can win the league tourney and get an auto bid, but that means having to beat UW and UM on back-to-back days. Do I think they belong with the current rules? No, definitely not. But I think the fact that they were behind Quinnipiac in how the current criteria works illuminates a problem. It is better to play strong opponents fewer times. I think that is unfortunate, and it won't lead to more intriguing out-of-conference games going forward.

The flip side of that argument is that if BC played a couple of games against Wisconsin and beat them this year they would probably be hosting rather than be #6. And if North Dakota posted the record it posted this year against weaker competition, they would be far lower in the rankings. Strength of schedule can work for you or against you.

"Win more games" actually is simple and accurate because the implication here is that North Dakota is not being given a fair chance to compete for the national championship. Competing for the national championship would realistically mean beating two of the best teams in the sport in back to back games... maybe 3 if you get unlucky with your draw. If they can't win a couple more games against Minnesota or Wisconsin over the course of a long season then why should they get another crack at them when other teams have not had that chance?

I'm not arguing that Mercyhurst or BC would win a best-of-7 series against North Dakota. I honestly have no idea how such a series would go. But I am saying that there's no point in having a whole season if we're just going to say "the system is broken unless all of the good WCHA teams get into the tournament" and assume those teams are better than the top-ranked teams in HEA and CHA.

The same thing is true on the men's side. If you look at the Hockey East standings right now, there are basically eight really good teams in the 11 team conference. Notre Dame finished 8th in the league but by most measures is a top-12 team nationally. However, there are going to be at least 3, maybe 4 of those very good teams who end up missing the tournament. Given that every team in the league has a chance to lock their position into the tournament by winning the conference, there should be no pity party for the teams who miss out.

 

[Call It]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

Let's see, 1-1-1 against #2 Cornell, 1-1 against #3 Clarkson, a tie against #6 BC, 2-0 against #8 BU, for a combined 4-2-2 record against the #2 through #8 teams....

I have to say that in many years on this forum, yours is one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. Of course if you'd like to attempt to rebut, why don't you set forth your reasoning. Here. Now.

I did not go to Harvard but from my calculations from the games you listed, they were .500. Is .500 ball the threshold?

vs RPI (#24) & Yale (#21), they are 3-3-1, again .500 Rankings in the (Rutter Rankings as of 3/9/14).

Also, were not even a Finalist in the ECAC.

 

[ARM]

"Win more games" actually is simple and accurate because the implication here is that North Dakota is not being given a fair chance to compete for the national championship.

I don't mean to imply that. I do think that some do not have an appreciation for how hard it can be to qualify as the third team from the WCHA, because of having to play 10 games above the two teams above you in the standings, like UND did.

Competing for the national championship would realistically mean beating two of the best teams in the sport in back to back games... maybe 3 if you get unlucky with your draw. If they can't win a couple more games against Minnesota or Wisconsin over the course of a long season then why should they get another crack at them when other teams have not had that chance?

Now you are using a more-demanding standard for North Dakota than others. Other teams are getting in with nothing to prove that they are capable of beating three top teams. UND has won against UM, UW, and Clarkson this year. It actually has one of the strongest resumes from that standpoint.

But I am saying that there's no point in having a whole season if we're just going to say "the system is broken unless all of the good WCHA teams get into the tournament" and assume those teams are better than the top-ranked teams in HEA and CHA.

I'm not saying that. If you concede that it may be difficult for a team like North Dakota to make the NCAA field, then I'm happy.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: 2014 Women's D-1 National Tournament

I did not go to Harvard but from my calculations from the games you listed, they were .500. Is .500 ball the threshold?

vs RPI (#24) & Yale (#21), they are 3-3-1, again .500 Rankings in the (Rutter Rankings as of 3/9/14).

Also, were not even a Finalist in the ECAC.

Since when is a 4-2-2 record a .500 record? I'd say 10 out of a possible 16 points is a .625 record. Against the #2 through #8 teams. Leading one to infer that you "belong" in an 8-team tournament that includes those very teams.

To be an ECAC Finalist, you'd have to be up there with #2 Cornell or #3 Clarkson. Harvard isn't up there, but it does have a 2-2-1 overall record against those teams. A .500 record to be sure, but maybe a .500 record against the #2 and #3 teams is some evidence that you belong somewhere in the top 8?