What's new
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.

2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Agreed.

Anyone writing off UMass Boston and Geneseo this weekend is crazy.

Point and St. Norbert may have the experience factor but UMass and Geneseo are playing some darn good hockey.

Was really impressed with their goaltending and defense (more so late in the game). That Lamier kid has some great moves. Was a really great game to watch. I'd definitely say UMB is the #4 team going into the weekend, but a good night of goaltending can change that.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

It seems that Western D3 hockey is much stronger generally that the east now. St. Norbert, Adrian, and Pointers are probable the best 3 teams in the country. Watching the Adrian/Point game they keep talking about all the outstanding Adrian freshmen and there outstanding stats. Is is thet the Western teams recruit more in the NAHL, have better coaching, or more financial aid. Because whatever they are doing it is working. In the East you have more and more teams being formed recruiting from the same pool of players the D1 teams don't want. I would to see all the eastern teams make a strong puch for NAHL players.

This sounds like the exact same thing that everyone was saying last year. And then Trinity ran away with it. Underestimate at your own peril.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

This will be my 10th FF with SNC...hope to see three great games..nothing more, nothing less!!
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Interesting to read all the nonsense (on both sides) about AQs. Fact of the matter - teams that finish well in their league get good seeds in their conference tournament. Fail to win your tournament and you put yourself at the mercy of the selection process. If you can't win the big one in your league tournament, why should you have a stake on a national championship.

As for the smaller conferences, they have demonstrated they have won in their own league - give them a shot at the title. If they lose, they lose. That doesn't impact who does win. Win a championship get a chance to play for the title - don't win, you shouldn't be a national champion if you aren't a conference champion.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Friday game times:

4:00 pm: UW-Stevens Point vs. Geneseo
7:30 pm: UMass-Boston vs. St. Norbert

Championship game is 7:00 pm Saturday.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Should be a great time in Lake Placid, wish I could be there but 80 degrees in Florida is just too much to give up. Hoping UMB keeps playing well, would love for them to take it all. I'll do something I normally don't... I predict Genny and UMB in the finals.:eek: Lot's of fresh new blood out there to claim the title.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Interesting to read all the nonsense (on both sides) about AQs. Fact of the matter - teams that finish well in their league get good seeds in their conference tournament. Fail to win your tournament and you put yourself at the mercy of the selection process. If you can't win the big one in your league tournament, why should you have a stake on a national championship.

As for the smaller conferences, they have demonstrated they have won in their own league - give them a shot at the title. If they lose, they lose. That doesn't impact who does win. Win a championship get a chance to play for the title - don't win, you shouldn't be a national champion if you aren't a conference champion.

With affection, the above is beyond odd to hear from a putative stats-guy.

Conferences are mere constructs based on geography, philosophy, political affiliations, etc.; in and of themselves, these alliances possess no intrinsic value... And conference tournaments that effectively negate a much larger body of work (the RS) are, at best, statistically indefensible.

The AQ's don't potentially "impact who wins" ? Please.

This year's best example of both points was Platty's exclusion via the AQ gifts. Are you contending that the Cards had no legitimate shot at the NC? Or that Salem or Salve did..? Any way you slice it -and very very clearly- we aren't seeing the most-deserving teams playing in the tournament on the basis of any merit-based metric... And that is precisely the gripe that we anti-AQ types have.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Don't forget to dash out and get a 12 of Genny Bock right now. It's the best brew they make and only available for a few short weeks. (Goes well with hockey, too.)

One time I agree Fish....We used to stock up on Bock for bullhead season....line in the river....campfire on the shore...Bock in the cooler and a pail full of bullhead...now that is Spring !
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Conferences are mere constructs based on geography, philosophy, political affiliations, etc.; in and of themselves, these alliances possess no intrinsic value... And conference tournaments that effectively negate a much larger body of work (the RS) are, at best, statistically indefensible.

The AQ's don't potentially "impact who wins" ? Please.

This year's best example of both points was Platty's exclusion via the AQ gifts. Are you contending that the Cards had no legitimate shot at the NC? Or that Salem or Salve did..? Any way you slice it -and very very clearly- we aren't seeing the most-deserving teams playing in the tournament on the basis of any merit-based metric... And that is precisely the gripe that we anti-AQ types have.

You seem to be making a rational argument that the NCAA tournament would be better if they just picked the 11 "best" teams. I don't know the details of your proposal for doing that, but I disagree in principle that it would be better that way.

You say the conferences are mere constructs, and that may be true (technically), but many of us enjoy them and the tradition associated with them. Division 1 may be a joke nowadays with revolving door conferences, but in D3 traditional conferences still mean something. I enjoy that my team plays a SUNYAC schedule where it is guaranteed to play each of its most heated rivals in a home and home series, and that each season is capped by a conference tournament. And the NCAA AQ, like it or not, lends great weight to the outcome of the conference tournaments. If there were no stakes attached to the conference championship then why should anybody care?

I think we would be losing something if the 11 "best" teams (by somebody's criteria) just got selected at the end of the season. The downside of using the full season as criteria for a tournament berth is that the majority of teams would be eliminated before the midway point of the season. With the AQ, most teams have something to play for the whole season. And with the criteria being as subjective as it is (or surely would be), the #12-20 teams are still going to be salty when they get snubbed for the big dance.

Every team that makes the postseason in an AQ conference controls its own destiny with regards to the NCAA tournament and a national championship. Keep winning and you keep playing. The conference tourney is like the opening rounds of the NCAA tournament. With regards to Plattsburgh being snubbed, most Cards fans on this board seem more at peace with what happened than you do. If you don't win your conference championship you should not be too upset to be snubbed for the national tourney.
 
Back
Top