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.

2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

GB Puck Fan said:
SNC #1? We're 4-3 since the sweep of Adrian, losing to MSOE and CUW (twice!)... A bit surprising to me...
Click to expand...

Quality wins versus Adrian (2), Point and St. Thomas very important, esp. if the Tommies win the MIAC conference playoffs...
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Fishman'81 said:
Well, you can't "manipulate" who your conference-mates play. All a team can do -especially if they play in a so-so conference such as the NEHC- is to seek quality OOC scheduling.

That's all there is to it; there's no grand conspiracy at play -or one even remotely possible, considering all the variables involved- and the typical SOS metrics are good enough to hang our hats on, lacking anything better.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you could manipulate it that way, but that combination of circumstances for the top teams in the CCC is why Endicot has such a strong SOS, despite being in a realatively weak conference. No conspiracy implied, but that is how it happens.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

pete99race said:
Quality wins versus Adrian (2), Point and St. Thomas very important, esp. if the Tommies win the MIAC conference playoffs...
Click to expand...

It would appear so.

I would think, then, that a win Saturday (not a given) would hopefully would clinch a bid (unless lots of east tourney upsets, of course.)

Not wanting to count chickens, but I am a bit less worried than I was...
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

NUProf said:
Didn't say you could manipulate it that way, but that combination of circumstances for the top teams in the CCC is why Endicot has such a strong SOS, despite being in a realatively weak conference. No conspiracy implied, but that is how it happens.
Click to expand...

?

Endicott has a ghastly SOS of 52 via KRACH, but when you win as many games as they have, giving them the benefit of the doubt -at least to some extent- is logical... There's no way to disprove they they wouldn't have an equally gaudy record vs. a much better SOS. And I'd make the same argument in favor of Norwich (SOS 28).

As far as the rankings go, I'm stunned that they still have Utica at #8. Even as a fan, I can't agree with that.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

You whinned and cried how pathetic it would be if Plymouth State got a bid last year. Comical.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh said:
When they post new NCAA rankings on Tuesday, the links at the bottom (usually) update to the latest stats sheets. After a few days, they usually seem to revert to the 2011 stats until the next week's rankings.
Click to expand...

Got them. With age goes the memory :o
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Fishman'81 said:
?

Endicott has a ghastly SOS of 52 via KRACH, but when you win as many games as they have, giving them the benefit of the doubt -at least to some extent- is logical... There's no way to disprove they they wouldn't have an equally gaudy record vs. a much better SOS. And I'd make the same argument in favor of Norwich (SOS 28).

As far as the rankings go, I'm stunned that they still have Utica at #8. Even as a fan, I can't agree with that.
Click to expand...

SOS is 8th by the statistics used in the selection process.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

peddler said:
SOS is 8th by the statistics used in the selection process.
Click to expand...

As if that means anything.

The committee is not bound in any way to honor any specific metric, and I never implied that they were. Any attempt to make their assessment even appear transparent is to be barking-up the wrong tree.

They have carte blanche, period. And we just have to live with it.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Tom Coughlin said:
I'm impressed that Amherst's D3 record managed to be a date.
Click to expand...

It never fails that some piece of that information is formatted wrong, or relates to "2012", or is unavailable immediately after you look at it the first time (and fail to save it then).
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Fishman'81 said:
As if that means anything.

The committee is not bound in any way to honor any specific metric, and I never implied that they were. Any attempt to make their assessment even appear transparent is to be barking-up the wrong tree.

They have carte blanche, period. And we just have to live with it.
Click to expand...


You mean they could even use KRACH in their SOS calculations? No, tell me it's not so!
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

peddler said:
You mean they could even use KRACH in their SOS calculations? No, tell me it's not so!
Click to expand...

You must know that there is no way of discovering exactly how they determine their rankings, or maybe you don't...
 
Last edited:
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Fishman'81 said:
You must know that there is no way of discovering exactly how they determine their rankings, or maybe you don't...
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I have not chosen to care about "discovering exactly how they determine their rankings". I actually spend my time speculating about who might be ranked where, how the bracket might end up, and whether I will end up in Utica in March, rather than worrying about "discovering" what goes on in the smoke-filled rooms of The Committee.

For as long as I have read and participated in this forum, I have also found it extremely sad to listen to posts that shout out the validity of their perspective as the only valid one. Especially those that denigrate others, or allude to suspicious conspiracy theories. It seems to requires a particular kind of insecurity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top