2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

I would, personally, like to see one of two scenarios play out. Either:
A) eliminate the conference tourneys and award the league championship to the team with the best conf. record, OR
B) play the conf. season, and then seed the teams, based on record, for the conference tourney.
Either way, STOP awarding "Regular Season" championships. They are completely meaningless, and stupid.

Not anywhere near as stupid as awarding berths strictly on the basis of a brief conference tournament. (Ever hear of the concept of "sample size"?)

 

[OZFEST]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

And for all you fans in New York (except fish) Stonybrook made their first ever NCAA tourney......

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

I would had ZERO idea who Florida Gulf Coast was, VCU, Butler, Gonzaga, Wichita State ect ect if it wasn't for the AutoBid, and was probably the case for most everyone outside of those teams leagues.

I say again, would the teams of the MASCAC and ECACNE support a hockey program if they had ZERO chance to even make the dance? Even if Salve and Salem got pounded this year, at least we are talking about their schools in March.

I'm willing to bet you that every school you cited would have made the NCAAs if the field had been composed of the 64 best teams, as derived from a logical metric. The only reason any of them needed an AQ was because, without it, they would have been displaced by an AQ from The Moose Snout Conference of Southeastern Alaska. All your endless paragraphs on this topic are easily seen as a circular argument that actually supports a merit-based selection process.

(And admit it, if only to yourself, that your beloved Cards were hosed by the silly rules... I had Platty #2 in the East, and with a solid shot at the title. Salve and Salem didn't even belong in the same discussion.)

 

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

I'm willing to bet you that every school you cited would have made the NCAAs if the field had been composed of the 64 best teams, as derived from a logical metric. The only reason any of them needed an AQ was because, without it, they would have been displaced by an AQ from The Moose Snout Conference of Southeastern Alaska. All your endless paragraphs on this topic are easily seen as a circular argument that actually supports a merit-based selection process.

(And admit it, if only to yourself, that your beloved Cards were hosed by the silly rules... I had Platty #2 in the East, and with a solid shot at the title. Salve and Salem didn't even belong in the same discussion.)

RPI of the teams I cited:

Holy Cross - 251
Florida Gulf Coast - 215
Fairleigh Dickinson - 204
Austin Peay - 189
Green Bay - 112
Stony Brook - 59

Of those, perhaps only Stony Brook would have been considered for an at-large. But even that is a lower RPI than some teams that got left out, such as St. Bonaventure (30), San Diego St (41), Valpo (49) and Monmouth (52).

 

[Saints17]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

A guy walks into a D III hockey thread, he gets hit with an orange bouncy ball.

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Not anywhere near as stupid as awarding berths strictly on the basis of a brief conference tournament. (Ever hear of the concept of "sample size"?)

Hobart, Adrian, St.Norber, UWSP, and Augsburg will all have played just 3 games to be National Champion. Is appointing someone a National Champion near as stupid strictly on the basis of a brief "National" tournament? When I looked a couple weeks ago, Plymouth St (memory serving me correctly) was right around that #12 mark. What would have happened then? Then it would be okay to have a lowly team in the tournament?

For what it's worth, the ECACNE has a .427 OOC record the past 7 years, the previous 8 years prior .265 OOC record....

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

I'm willing to bet you that every school you cited would have made the NCAAs if the field had been composed of the 64 best teams, as derived from a logical metric. The only reason any of them needed an AQ was because, without it, they would have been displaced by an AQ from The Moose Snout Conference of Southeastern Alaska. All your endless paragraphs on this topic are easily seen as a circular argument that actually supports a merit-based selection process.

(And admit it, if only to yourself, that your beloved Cards were hosed by the silly rules... I had Platty #2 in the East, and with a solid shot at the title. Salve and Salem didn't even belong in the same discussion.)

LoL once again Fish, speaking before knowing anything. No, those teams would NOT have been in, but thanks for playing.

and no, my beloved Cards were not hosed due to Salve and Salem, my beloved Cards were hosed because of DIII teams HAVING to play DII teams and losing a game (Williams) they should have won. Salem and Salve wouldn't have mattered had both (maybe even one) of the other things happened. Sorry, I've been around DIII hockey, seen a few more games then you, and seen a lot more Championship games then you have to give up the whole AQ process....wait until the ECAC W adds their next team, goes to a 2 game league schedule, and your SOS drops thru the floor. I'm sure you'll have another excuse then.

 

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

The only reason any of them needed an AQ was because, without it, they would have been displaced by an AQ from The Moose Snout Conference of Southeastern Alaska.

Even counting dual membership in the WCHA, I believe the Moose Snout Conference only has five teams - all five of the only four-year schools in Alaska. Those would be:

Alaska-Fairbanks
Alaska-Anchorage
Alaska Southeast
Alaska Bible
Alaska Pacific

And, as the WIAC can attest, five schools are not enough to qualify for an AQ bid.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

RPI of the teams I cited:

Holy Cross - 251
Florida Gulf Coast - 215
Fairleigh Dickinson - 204
Austin Peay - 189
Green Bay - 112
Stony Brook - 59

Of those, perhaps only Stony Brook would have been considered for an at-large. But even that is a lower RPI than some teams that got left out, such as St. Bonaventure (30), San Diego St (41), Valpo (49) and Monmouth (52).

Ummm... Wasn't referencing your post. (And RPI is a lousy metric anyway. Everybody knows that.)

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

LoL once again Fish, speaking before knowing anything. No, those teams would NOT have been in, but thanks for playing.

and no, my beloved Cards were not hosed due to Salve and Salem, my beloved Cards were hosed because of DIII teams HAVING to play DII teams and losing a game (Williams) they should have won. Salem and Salve wouldn't have mattered had both (maybe even one) of the other things happened. Sorry, I've been around DIII hockey, seen a few more games then you, and seen a lot more Championship games then you have to give up the whole AQ process....wait until the ECAC W adds their next team, goes to a 2 game league schedule, and your SOS drops thru the floor. I'm sure you'll have another excuse then.

Why would I have an excuse? I don't want any conference to get an AQ. The fact that the W adds a couple of cannon-fodder teams in order to get one is just another indictment of the entire travesty.

And please, VCU and Wichita State (at least) were locks that year as top-64 teams. Just because nobody else has the spare time to spend half his life concocting obtuse posts defending the indefensible doesn't negate the facts.

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Why would I have an excuse? I don't want any conference to get an AQ. The fact that the W adds a couple of cannon-fodder teams in order to get one is just another indictment of the entire travesty.

And please, VCU and Wichita State (at least) were locks that year as top-64 teams. Just because nobody else has the spare time to spend half his life concocting obtuse posts defending the indefensible doesn't negate the facts.

LOL you? Facts? LoL. Only in your little world Fish...

 

[snc11]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Fish...Last year I was unhappy that a 20-6-2 SNC team got left out. They were 1 of thee 20-win teams not to make it to the tournament (UWRF and Mass-B). I thought for sure that a defending champion with only 6 losses (3 to the #1 ranked team on the road) would get a chance to defend their title. My opinion, at the time, was that if you can't even make it to your conference championship (Trinity), you shouldn't be able to make it to the National Tournament. I had to eat crow (or bantam). I was wrong as Trinity went on to win the NCAA's.

Plattsburgh is this years 20-game winning team to be left out (along with Plymouth). It happens every year. Plattsburgh isn't a defending national championship and, honestly, they didn't really compete in their conference championship on home ice. My guess is that the coaches and players would all admit that Salem St. and Salve Regina are not to blame for their fate. They will learn from it.

Out of curiosity, has an at-large team ever given up 7 goals in any one game?

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

Fish...Last year I was unhappy that a 20-6-2 SNC team got left out. They were 1 of thee 20-win teams not to make it to the tournament (UWRF and Mass-B). I thought for sure that a defending champion with only 6 losses (3 to the #1 ranked team on the road) would get a chance to defend their title. My opinion, at the time, was that if you can't even make it to your conference championship (Trinity), you shouldn't be able to make it to the National Tournament. I had to eat crow (or bantam). I was wrong as Trinity went on to win the NCAA's.

Plattsburgh is this years 20-game winning team to be left out (along with Plymouth). It happens every year. Plattsburgh isn't a defending national championship and, honestly, they didn't really compete in their conference championship on home ice. My guess is that the coaches and players would all admit that Salem St. and Salve Regina are not to blame for their fate. They will learn from it.

Out of curiosity, has an at-large team ever given up 7 goals in any one game?

So now we should have a criteria based on last years performance? That is one of the all time dumbest things ever. Maybe we should have a "best appearing jersey" criteria too lol

Oh and by the way, I know of at least one National Champion that has given up 8 goals in a game, lost by 6 and went on to win the National Title.....

And upon further review....another one off of the boards...

2005-2006 Augsburg 7 SNC 4

SNC 23-4-2...I guess they shouldn't have been in the dance that year either...

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Does the ECAC East/NEHC give out a trophy for the regular-season? If it doesn't you are contradicting yourself with the title of this thread you started. http://board.uscho.com/showthread.p...-16-17-straight-ECAC-East-titles-and-counting

I said its PR/team/media created. I fall into those categories.

 

[Sir Nubs]

So now we should have a criteria based on last years performance? That is one of the all time dumbest things ever. Maybe we should have a "best appearing jersey" criteria too lol

Oh and by the way, I know of at least one National Champion that has given up 8 goals in a game, lost by 6 and went on to win the National Title.....

And upon further review....another one off of the boards...

2005-2006 Augsburg 7 SNC 4

SNC 23-4-2...I guess they shouldn't have been in the dance that year either...

A little different getting beat in an early regular-season game than getting smashed in your conference championship game. As for using last year's tournament performance as criteria, this is actually a criteria in Division III football selection. So it's not unprecedented. You Plattsburg people are killing me though. All you had to do was beat either Williams or Geneseo and you'd be in the tournament. You lost both so you're out. That's how it goes. Deal with it.

 

[Sir Nubs]

I said its PR/team/media created. I fall into those categories.

You said no trophy, no title. It's still a contradiction no matter which way you spin it.

 

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament Thread

A little different getting beat in an early regular-season game than getting smashed in your conference championship game. As for using last year's tournament performance as criteria, this is actually a criteria in Division III football selection. So it's not unprecedented. You Plattsburg people are killing me though. All you had to do was beat either Williams or Geneseo and you'd be in the tournament. You lost both so you're out. That's how it goes. Deal with it.

Seeing how I've never heard of Plattsburg just shows your intelligence. Actually...all we had to have is the DII games count in the SOS and we would have been in. And by the way, since you're the expert, A. It was "any one game", and B. on top of that it doesn't matter when the game is...thanks for playing...

BTW, that's called secondary criteria when dealing with two undefeated teams......the same SECONDARY criteria that WOULD have put Plattsburgh in...

 

[Sir Nubs]

Seeing how I've never heard of Plattsburg just shows your intelligence. Actually...all we had to have is the DII games count in the SOS and we would have been in. And by the way, since you're the expert, A. It was "any one game", and B. on top of that it doesn't matter when the game is...thanks for playing...

What Division II games did Plattsburg(h) play this year?

 

[joecct]

Even counting dual membership in the WCHA, I believe the Moose Snout Conference only has five teams - all five of the only four-year schools in Alaska. Those would be:

Alaska-Fairbanks
Alaska-Anchorage
Alaska Southeast
Alaska Bible
Alaska Pacific

And, as the WIAC can attest, five schools are not enough to qualify for an AQ bid.

And over on the D1 thread, falling oil prices have hit Akaska hard and the legislature is taking a long look at intercollegiate athletics.

But I digress. We have the system we have because we are members of D-III and D-III loves the one size fits all philosophy is picking a championship field.

 

[PSUChamps2001]

What Division II games did Plattsburg(h) play this year?

You're the smart one, figure it out lol