2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

[OnMAA]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

What he's talking about is that the WCHA has 4 more teams in the top 15 that would have made the tournament in the men's sport (which has been happening each of the last several years). Frankly each of those 4 WCHA teams played a total of 8 games against a top 4 team. Very few teams played one game against a top 4 team...let alone eight. So if one was to back those eight games out (and that would still leave a SOS that would rank in line with schools from other conferences), you'd have UND at 22-4-3 (approximate PWR 3), UMD at 20-4-5 (approximate PWR 4), BSU at 21-13-1 (approximate PWR 7), and OSU at 17-8-3.

The net message is that this is an issue because there are only 4 at large bids. One could make the claim that the 4 conference champions may be the same as the 4 at large bids...true, but they may not. Maybe four at large bids for 36 teams is the norm for Olympic sports, but its still a terrible ratio.

8 out of 36 is about 22-23%. That is a pretty good ratio to bring to the NCAA field. In the most glorious tourney of them all, B-Ball there are 347+ D1 teams, and 64 make the field, so that is less than 20%. In other words "Quit yer complaining".

 

[dennismaruk77]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

The fact that UND, and UMD for that matter are not in the final 8 is a black eye for the sport of woman's hockey. The best ranking system without doubt is the NFL based Rutter Rankings that have UND at 5, and UMD at 6. In fact 5 of the top 10 are from the WCHA. But sadly only 2 representatives from the West. To grow the game of woman's hockey the season ending tourney should feature the best teams, and not the "fortunate" teams.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

To grow the game of woman's hockey the season ending tourney should feature the best teams, and not the "fortunate" teams.

I disagree with that notion. To grow the game of women's hockey, you have to have representation from all leagues. Said this in the past. If the same team or league wins every year, that may be good for the development of the top players in that league, but not necessarily to grow the game in general. These are two different ways of "growing" the game. Therefore you need the middle ground approach to accomplish both.

 

[zoofer]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

I've gotta agree with OnMAA, the larger the base of fans that each team represents join the FF, the better....how does it improve the game if 3000 avid fans always go to the Dance? If that base can be enlarged, how is it bad for the game?
Question for everyone.....do you follow women's sports, ie. softball, field hockey, soccer, or just women's hockey because we love hockey? How do we grow the game.......IMHO.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

I disagree with that notion. To grow the game of women's hockey, you have to have representation from all leagues. Said this in the past. If the same team or league wins every year, that may be good for the development of the top players in that league, but not necessarily to grow the game in general. These are two different ways of "growing" the game. Therefore you need the middle ground approach to accomplish both.

spoken like a true leftie, the ends justify the means

never mind that you have to step on someone deserving, it's all part of the greater good, right?

what exactly do you mean by "grow the game"
it appears to me it is already experiencing healthy growth, that isn't good enough for you?

c'mon ONMAA, what you really are saying is that for the eastern teams to win, they need "help" from an uneven playing field

 

[Timothy A]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

Then it's double elimination, then a best of 3...that like 942,000 games in one tournament. The women's tournament should be 2 super regionals with the winner of each regional playing a best 2 of 3 for the title. That would be awesome.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

8 out of 36 is about 22-23%. That is a pretty good ratio to bring to the NCAA field. In the most glorious tourney of them all, B-Ball there are 347+ D1 teams, and 64 make the field, so that is less than 20%. In other words "Quit yer complaining".

again, just like a leftie, it's all in the quota

BTW WCHA vs. the rest in NCAA tournie:
won 40
lost 8

in the last 8 years it's 26-3

 

[LtPowers]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

again, just like a leftie, it's all in the quota

Whereas the "rightie" philosophy is "the rich get richer", I suppose?

Every team had the same shot at making the tournament. If you didn't make it, play better next year.


Powers &8^]

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

spoken like a true leftie, the ends justify the means

never mind that you have to step on someone deserving, it's all part of the greater good, right?

what exactly do you mean by "grow the game"
it appears to me it is already experiencing healthy growth, that isn't good enough for you?

c'mon ONMAA, what you really are saying is that for the eastern teams to win, they need "help" from an uneven playing field

I'm actually very right wing when it come to politics, but also believe in due process and opportunity for all.

In Canada the grass roots growth of the the game has stalled and flatlined, and amongs boys its been declining for a while. The improvements of the women's game at the highest levels was for years fuelled more by the grass roots growth than anything else. Sure, improved training and dieting techniques etc helped, but the grass roots numbers doubling every few years or so was by far the biggest catalyst. While the game is presumably still growing in some of the non-traditional markets, in Canada that is no longer the case.

So then the question becomes what do you want to see growth wise:
- Better quality product at the elite level ?
- Opportunities for more players to play college ?
- More players involved at the grass roots ?
- A true pro league for the post college player ?

IMHO, the biggest one is to grow the game at the grass roots. It is the catalyst for all the other growths....JMO.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

Then it's double elimination, then a best of 3...that like 942,000 games in one tournament. The women's tournament should be 2 super regionals with the winner of each regional playing a best 2 of 3 for the title. That would be awesome.

That ain't gonna happen as long is it is run by the NCAA. One and out it will be.
For comparison, in the CIS everything is a 2 of 3 series to get to league champs, and the National tourney is a round robin of some sort amongst 6 (er make that now 8) teams, so one loss does not eliminate teams.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

Minnesota (the school) is riding a two game losing streak to Liberty League schools.

RIT is a Liberty League school

No way it hits 0-3.

 

[DC78-82]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

The fact that UND, and UMD for that matter are not in the final 8 is a black eye for the sport of woman's hockey. The best ranking system without doubt is the NFL based Rutter Rankings that have UND at 5, and UMD at 6. In fact 5 of the top 10 are from the WCHA. But sadly only 2 representatives from the West. To grow the game of woman's hockey the season ending tourney should feature the best teams, and not the "fortunate" teams.

Why doesn't the WCHA just withdraw from NCAA consideration and call the Final Faceoff your "National" Tournament?


In the 2013 - 2014 season, Minnesota was arguably the best team in D1. Except on that one day in March. Clarkson was the Cinderella team that had to fight the odds to earn a spot, but that's what it's all about, isn't it? Beating the odds, believing in your team, earning the spot, and playing the game. To say that RIT's body of work over the season is # 8 in the country is obviously not right, but to say that they have not earned a spot in the tournament is just plain wrong.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

In the 2013 - 2014 season, Minnesota was arguably the best team in D1. Except on that one day in March. Clarkson was the Cinderella team that had to fight the odds to earn a spot, but that's what it's all about, isn't it? Beating the odds, believing in your team, earning the spot, and playing the game. To say that RIT's body of work over the season is # 8 in the country is obviously not right, but to say that they have not earned a spot in the tournament is just plain wrong.

Agree 100% with what you are saying with one small note. Yes Clarkson was the "Cinderella" team that beat a very good (dominant at times) Minnesota team, but in the grander scheme of things, Clarkson was not that much of a "Cinderella" team. They had a star studded lineup with lots of seniors and one of the best goalers in the nation. The "Cinderella" part was that they won the two FF games as a team without one of their best players who got hurt during the ECAC tourney.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

The best ranking system without doubt is the Rutter Rankings that have UND at 5, and UMD at 6.

I want to print and frame this post and look at it whenever I need a smile on a dreary day. It's perfect.

 

[Bhikukhu]

Agree 100% with what you are saying with one small note. Yes Clarkson was the "Cinderella" team that beat a very good (dominant at times) Minnesota team, but in the grander scheme of things, Clarkson was not that much of a "Cinderella" team. They had a star studded lineup with lots of seniors and one of the best goalers in the nation. The "Cinderella" part was that they won the two FF games as a team without one of their best players who got hurt during the ECAC tourney.

I agree with OnMAA on this, I would not call Clarkson a "Cinderella" team last year. The Second Ranked Team beating the First Ranked team isn't exactly an upset. And I think a lot of the people in the Forums had them Number 1.

If they managed to win it again this year you might be able to call them a "Cinderella" team. But even though I doubt they will win it again, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. It's one and done, anything can happen in a one game series and they have always been a team that plays far better against good teams than they do against lesser teams.

 

[Royale with Cheese]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

That ain't gonna happen as long is it is run by the NCAA. One and out it will be.
For comparison, in the CIS everything is a 2 of 3 series to get to league champs, and the National tourney is a round robin of some sort amongst 6 (er make that now 8) teams, so one loss does not eliminate teams.

That's to bad, imagine how fun this weekend would be with best of three series to get to the frozen four. It would likely only add 1 or 2 days to the travel itinerary and might actually turn a profit at a place like wisco. If we had some Sunday overtime drama you might even get some tv ratings. In the field of 8 this year you could easily have 3 Sunday games.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

Frankly each of those 4 WCHA teams played a total of 8 games against a top 4 team. Very few teams played one game against a top 4 team...let alone eight. So if one was to back those eight games out ....

I concur about the RIT autobid, but otherwise let's look at the statistics. Yes, RIT encountered no Rutter Top Four teams, and I would prefer that RIT not be in the tourney.

But all of the teams that got into the tourney at #5 through #7 played more than one game against Rutter Top Four competition. Clarkson played 2 games against Rutter Top Four teams, Quinnipiac 3 and BU 6. Their combined record was 2-6-3 (32%). UMD and UND played 8 and 9 games, respectively, against Rutter Top Four teams. Their combined record was 1-13-3 (15%). So I clearly see why UMD and UND would want their performance against Rutter Top Four opponents to be disregarded, but I don't see why their subpar performance against Rutter Top Four competition should vault them ahead of Clarkson, Quinnipiac and BU.

Likewise, BSU and OSU had a combined 3-12-2 record (24%) against Ritter Top Four competition, so again I fail to see why that makes them superior to Clarkson, Quinnipiac and BU.

BTW, it appears that ALL of the HE, ECAC and WCHA teams (28 out of 34 teams, or more than 80% of all DI teams) played at least two games against a Rutter Top Four opponent. Over 80% playing two or more games is not "very few teams" playing even one game. Just sayin'.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

I'm actually very right wing when it come to politics,

a right wing Canadian is still pretty left

if the rich always get richer, why isn't UMD still top dog?
maybe you are talking about money, then why isn't OSU top dog?
why has UND & BSU risen while UMD fallen?

c'mon, there is all of 50,000 people in Grand Forks
and there are more deer than people in Bemidji

if they can do it, why can't anybody else?

the fact is women's hockey is getting screwed by the minimize flight rule, it is less than a drop in the bucket compared to the NCAA budget
but don't look for anything to change since the biggest conference, the ECAC, is the one who benefits most by this rule

 

[pokechecker]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

Every team has the same shot at winning the tournament. If you didn't, play better next year.

Powers &8^]

fixt it 4 U

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2015 Pairwise Discussion & Predictions

It should be noted that minimizing flights and travel distance are concerns in all NCAA tournaments other than D1 football. That's even true of the men's basketball tournament, though it isn't as strictly enforced there. The difference is that, in women's ice hockey, there are so few conferences and teams that prioritizing proximity ends up meaning that teams from the same conference need to play each other.

The field for the softball regional here in Minneapolis last year was Minnesota, Auburn, North Dakota State, and Wisconsin-Green Bay. That's one team that they need to put on a plane. The other regionals had similar makeups. There are just so many conferences whose champion made the tournament that they could fill out the bottom half with local non-conference teams.

The problem isn't that the NCAA has instituted a system for women's hockey that stifles things. It's that they haven't made an exception for women's hockey from the system they have in place for everything else. I doubt that this sport is going to be important enough in their eyes to justify creating an exception.