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.

2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Birdwatcher said:
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 !
Click to expand...

See..? We can get along after all! (And Genny Bock goes great with bullhead once they're out of the pail and cooked, too!)
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

KnightsOfTheRound said:
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.
Click to expand...

I could expend a lot of hot air here on a number of points (as per usual) but I'll suffice it to say this: if nothing matters aside from the conference tournaments, why not just play them at the beginning of the season and save all the expense and trouble of all those *meaningless* RS games?
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Fishman'81 said:
I could expend a lot of hot air here on a number of points (as per usual) but I'll suffice it to say this: if nothing matters aside from the conference tournaments, why not just play them at the beginning of the season and save all the expense and trouble of all those *meaningless* RS games?
Click to expand...

The SUNYAC does not allow everyone in the conference tournament, so their RS is very meaningful.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Very serious question Fish. In the ultimate Fish hockey world, the ***CAA, how would you set things up? What measures would you use to select? Seedings? Tie breakers? Committee?
 
PSUChamps2001 said:
Very serious question Fish. In the ultimate Fish hockey world, the ***CAA, how would you set things up? What measures would you use to select? Seedings? Tie breakers? Committee?
Click to expand...

Easy. All ECAC-W teams plus the two highest nationally ranked teams outside the ECAC-W. There are your national quarterfinals... 😉
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

PSUChamps2001 said:
I'd still like to see a replay on the Hobart no-goal. It sure looked like twine moved. I know the light went on yadda yadda, but I'm still not sure why Taylor didn't even ask for a discussion about it.

Great game by UMB tho. That third periof they just gutted it out from an onslaught of Hobart pressure.
Click to expand...

I was at the game , directly behind the goal and it was a Hobart goal as the puck hit the top iron dropped down behind the goal line and then bounced out. Could not believe the ref did not see it. Does not matter because UMB scored a second goal. UMB is a very good team and the goalie was outstanding. Hobart threw everything at them and they found a way to keep the charging Statesmen out(except for that one). Good luck to UMB ..they have some big boys and the goalie is HOT….don't count them out
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Russell Jaslow said:
The SUNYAC does not allow everyone in the conference tournament, so their RS is very meaningful.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of the concept of sample-size..? Guess not, since you and many others apparently, um, "think" that a single game -which just happens to be played at the very end of the season- trumps everything that happened during 25+ RS games. (And even if the PS tournament in a particular conference doesn't include every single team under that umbrella, it certainly includes some teams that don't deserve National consideration.)

Talk about an utter dearth of logic. You really ought to work on that GED, Russ.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

PSUChamps2001 said:
Very serious question Fish. In the ultimate Fish hockey world, the ***CAA, how would you set things up? What measures would you use to select? Seedings? Tie breakers? Committee?
Click to expand...

Jeez Champs, have been saying for years that I want a transparent and objective metric such as the KRACH to select the field. (I would settle for a PWR type of thing but it wouldn't translate as well to D-3, with so little East-West comparative data available.) And, yes, ditch the AQ's.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Fishman'81 said:
Jeez Champs, have been saying for years that I want a transparent and objective metric such as the KRACH to select the field. (I would settle for a PWR type of thing but it wouldn't translate as well to D-3, with so little East-West comparative data available.) And, yes, ditch the AQ's.
Click to expand...

No, No...I know this. But you just always leave it at this....details...details...how are you computing your "KRACH" and in what percentile. Do we play a "just for fun" conference tournament? Do we play more non-conference games and ditch the 2 or 3 game conference series? Do we include MASCAC, ECAC NE, NE10 teams into the schedules? Especially in regards of SOS for the KRACH?
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Play conference tournaments if you like, but weigh the results just as you would RS games. Most every team would be better-off over-scheduling OOC games, though, in a merit-based system.

Bad teams in bad conferences would always be left out, but why shouldn't they be? Even the AQs that have been available to them haven't improved their performance as a group.
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Fishman'81 said:
Play conference tournaments if you like, but weigh the results just as you would RS games. Most every team would be better-off over-scheduling OOC games, though, in a merit-based system.

Bad teams in bad conferences would always be left out, but why shouldn't they be? Even the AQs that have been available to them haven't improved their performance as a group.
Click to expand...

Frankly, if you took the bottom 1/3 of the DIII teams and tossed them out, and then did away with any sort of big "conference" schedule where teams had to play one another more and more, a purely statistical system would work. There are just too many variables with the current structure of the DIII landscape for it to be possible. Too many weak teams getting huge win% by beating even weaker teams, so when an average to slightly above average team plays them, their SOS goes up. If we eliminate those said "weak" teams, the theory would work somewhat. DI has some weak teams/conferences (don't get me wrong), but not the same amount of said weak teams/conferences as DIII does. So using an RPI, KRACH, whatever system with the current structure....people would find ways around it to post their numbers...guarantee....
 
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

PSUChamps2001 said:
Frankly, if you took the bottom 1/3 of the DIII teams and tossed them out, and then did away with any sort of big "conference" schedule where teams had to play one another more and more, a purely statistical system would work. There are just too many variables with the current structure of the DIII landscape for it to be possible. Too many weak teams getting huge win% by beating even weaker teams, so when an average to slightly above average team plays them, their SOS goes up. If we eliminate those said "weak" teams, the theory would work somewhat. DI has some weak teams/conferences (don't get me wrong), but not the same amount of said weak teams/conferences as DIII does. So using an RPI, KRACH, whatever system with the current structure....people would find ways around it to post their numbers...guarantee....
Click to expand...

The KRACH works pretty well even in your scenario. Witness how Plymouth won a whole ton of games against bad teams and never came near the top-11 KRACH... SOS and W% must be integrated for either stat to carry any legitimate weight.
 
Fishman'81 said:
The KRACH works pretty well even in your scenario. Witness how Plymouth won a whole ton of games against bad teams and never came near the top-11 KRACH... SOS and W% must be integrated for either stat to carry any legitimate weight.
Click to expand...

They were #12 (IIRC) the week before the NCAA Selections....see my post a few pages back...

Edit: Currently Plymouth St is ranked #15....I'm not sure how you say even 15 isn't "near" the Top 11. This was a team who A. won a bunch of games against the 70 something worst SOS. A win over 1 mediocre/average DIII team and they are in the Top 11, which is exactly my point with the teams and structure of the KRACH as it currently sits. A team can go out and play some of the worse teams in DIII (just have to have good records), and make it in.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

You're right as far as the numbers go, but if your (Plymouth's, in this case) SOS is that feeble, you need to win nearly every game you play in order to garner the statistical benefit of the doubt...

Had Plymouth won-out, there would be no logical reason to assume that they wouldn't have done as well against better competition. But they didn't win out, and they played a very weak schedule, so there you go. Every loss against a weak team will kill you, especially when you don't have a single quality win to offset it. (And, similarly, you'll note that the KRACH didn't penalize PSU much at all for losing one game against a very good opponent, because they had a bunch of quality wins that preceded that one game.)

Look, I'm not saying that any metric is even close to perfect... But the current system makes far, far much less sense than does the KRACH, clearly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top