USCHO Fan Forum
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Yup sucks even more if you have a large crowd following, reminds me of a few years ago when Oswego went there, Rink capacity is on the small side like Hobarts, good luck getting a ticket if they make it and you had interest in going.
Hoping Hobart does not have to travel to Adrian ...although happy to get into tournament....Saturdays Hobart-Utica game will be brutal...both teams will be hoping to get back to the AUD for the real final
Yup sucks even more if you have a large crowd following, reminds me of a few years ago when Oswego went there, Rink capacity is on the small side like Hobarts, good luck getting a ticket if they make it and you had interest in going.
pete99race
Rocking 'The Stone'
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Roughly 550 seats, plus standing room, at Adrian...I stand when I am there..
Yup sucks even more if you have a large crowd following, reminds me of a few years ago when Oswego went there, Rink capacity is on the small side like Hobarts, good luck getting a ticket if they make it and you had interest in going.
Roughly 550 seats, plus standing room, at Adrian...I stand when I am there..
LakerEagleLover
New member
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
There -> http://d3hockey.com/bracketology/men/2017/feb-28Where?
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Trinity over Augsburg, Hmmm
Webb has Augsburg out.
Trinity over Augsburg, Hmmm
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Thanks. I hadn't recognized the new choices across the top of the Bracketology page.
Thanks. I hadn't recognized the new choices across the top of the Bracketology page.
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
What might Augsburg's SOS move to, by virtue of their last game against St Thomas? Is it likely to break the .500 barrier?
It's no more challenging than any other east-west split is.
What might Augsburg's SOS move to, by virtue of their last game against St Thomas? Is it likely to break the .500 barrier?
OSUPBPMike
VOTL '09-13
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Looking for 2-3 tickets for Oswego game this weekend. not sure if anyone has any or knows of any. Thanks!
Looking for 2-3 tickets for Oswego game this weekend. not sure if anyone has any or knows of any. Thanks!
Trinity over Augsburg, Hmmm
Yes, absolutely.
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
No need to worry about that as Augsburg will defeat U$T on Saturday night and make it in.Yes, absolutely.
No need to worry about that as Augsburg will defeat U$T on Saturday night and make it in.
Cool. I'm certainly not worried about it and would imagine Augsburg is the favorite in that one.
If you wanna pull a Pool C bid out of the MIAC, a team would be best served to bring a regular season record like St. John's did in '04-'05 (not that it's impossible - see St. Thomas in '11-'12.)
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
If only...
Anything can happen in a given conference tournament, for instance, and a couple of upset wins in one of those those events can easily undo the RS, and award wildly exponential value to 2 or 3 games over a weekend. "A win is (not) a win" under this system; those two wins end-up > than the entire body of work that preceded them.
Not at all. Not at all.
A win is a win. A loss is a loss. No matter when or where they occur.
If only...
Anything can happen in a given conference tournament, for instance, and a couple of upset wins in one of those those events can easily undo the RS, and award wildly exponential value to 2 or 3 games over a weekend. "A win is (not) a win" under this system; those two wins end-up > than the entire body of work that preceded them.
Last edited:
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Yes. And I'd like to see that apply across the board.
Except in the WIAC and ECAC-W, a win is a win and a loss is a loss as they don't have the AQ.
Yes. And I'd like to see that apply across the board.
Yes. And I'd like to see that apply across the board.
And Notre Dame will win the 2018 FBS title.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
Ummm... OK. So you're saying that ND is someone's statistical favorite? IDTS.
To your "point", the FBS system was a lot better than the coach's poll, and a better metric than any other major college sport uses.
Sure, people had problems with it, but I'd guess that those folks never did the math. (Eg, just because some peoples' heads exploded when TCU won their last game a couple of years back and was overtaken by a team one spot behind them which had a better win that same day, didn't mean that TCU deserved to stay where they were, on the basis of an entire season.)
That sort of statistical integrity is what many of you apparently fail to appreciate. The last game you play counts no more than any other game you play, if you are evaluating a single season in a logical sense.
And Notre Dame will win the 2018 FBS title.
Ummm... OK. So you're saying that ND is someone's statistical favorite? IDTS.
To your "point", the FBS system was a lot better than the coach's poll, and a better metric than any other major college sport uses.
Sure, people had problems with it, but I'd guess that those folks never did the math. (Eg, just because some peoples' heads exploded when TCU won their last game a couple of years back and was overtaken by a team one spot behind them which had a better win that same day, didn't mean that TCU deserved to stay where they were, on the basis of an entire season.)
That sort of statistical integrity is what many of you apparently fail to appreciate. The last game you play counts no more than any other game you play, if you are evaluating a single season in a logical sense.
Last edited:
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
If only...
Anything can happen in a given conference tournament, for instance, and a couple of upset wins in one of those those events can easily undo the RS, and award wildly exponential value to 2 or 3 games over a weekend. "A win is (not) a win" under this system; those two wins end-up > than the entire body of work that preceded them.
But that wasn't what the original question was about which I responded to.
Based on the original question, I stand by my answer.
What you are bringing up is an entirely different (albeit, should not be ignored) topic.
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread
The Division III culture has decided - for better or worse - that the way to award NC bids is to emphasize conference championships. The conferences have decided (in all sports) that the way to award a championship is through a conference tournament. The formulae for determining field size has also created an increasing number of conferences being formed that (magically) have just about 7 teams. The best way to get to a point at which there are more at large bids is to increase the minimum size of a conference for an AQ from 7 to 10. There would be a consolidation of conferences - the number of Pool A slots would go down, the number of Pool B and C slots would correspondingly increase. Pool C slots largely come from the excess teams in conferences (the number of teams in conferences in excess of 6.5). This is not just a hockey thing, this same effect is found in every DIII sport. The conferences, want their tournaments to mean something, so they award their Pool A slot to the winner of the tournament. You can argue philosophy all you want, but that is how it plays out given the way the NCAA does things in all sports. Teams and fans need to play in the system that exists. We can argue all we want about what would be better, but it would require agreement from more than just hockey people to change this. There are a lot of entrenched interests and conference philosophies that would have to be changed. In particular, the "little" conferences in all sports like the system as it works. If you think the CCC or the MASCAC is going to voluntarily give up their AQ in hockey or award their AQ to the regular season champion, you are not thinking.
If only...
Anything can happen in a given conference tournament, for instance, and a couple of upset wins in one of those those events can easily undo the RS, and award wildly exponential value to 2 or 3 games over a weekend. "A win is (not) a win" under this system; those two wins end-up > than the entire body of work that preceded them.
The Division III culture has decided - for better or worse - that the way to award NC bids is to emphasize conference championships. The conferences have decided (in all sports) that the way to award a championship is through a conference tournament. The formulae for determining field size has also created an increasing number of conferences being formed that (magically) have just about 7 teams. The best way to get to a point at which there are more at large bids is to increase the minimum size of a conference for an AQ from 7 to 10. There would be a consolidation of conferences - the number of Pool A slots would go down, the number of Pool B and C slots would correspondingly increase. Pool C slots largely come from the excess teams in conferences (the number of teams in conferences in excess of 6.5). This is not just a hockey thing, this same effect is found in every DIII sport. The conferences, want their tournaments to mean something, so they award their Pool A slot to the winner of the tournament. You can argue philosophy all you want, but that is how it plays out given the way the NCAA does things in all sports. Teams and fans need to play in the system that exists. We can argue all we want about what would be better, but it would require agreement from more than just hockey people to change this. There are a lot of entrenched interests and conference philosophies that would have to be changed. In particular, the "little" conferences in all sports like the system as it works. If you think the CCC or the MASCAC is going to voluntarily give up their AQ in hockey or award their AQ to the regular season champion, you are not thinking.