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!
If I wanted to read Minnesota propaganda I'd read a Wild blog.
They're saying it will be held at The Orleans. You'll get a chance to do both.
NDSU Bizon fan for sure. Well boys it was a good run but the clown car from Fagor found our hockey forum and now it's ruined.
NDSU Bizon fan for sure. Well boys it was a good run but the clown car from Fagor found our hockey forum and now it's ruined.
I am late to this game, but started reading when it was created. I like puzzles....so to see if Speed's comments were warranted, I put together some numbers. This wasn't a difficult or elaborate set, but like anything, took some time as I only looked up the information while on work breaks.
I went back over the last 20 years of NCAA Tournaments as that gives us more relevance to today's teams (Even though it would help my team, I could go back further, but it's not really relevant...which is why I believe that Speed's comments were absurd in the first place.)
Anyways, back to the numbers. I assigned 1 point if you made the tournament, and then an additional point for every game a team has won. So, in the modern era with 16 teams in the tournament, there would be 31 available points: 16 points (1 for each team), 8 points (2nd round), 4 points (3rd round - F4), 2 points (Championship Game), 1 extra point for the Champion. So the winner would have 5 points, runner up with 4 and so forth.
I then added up the total points for each conference as they currently exist after the realignment regardless of what conference the team was in when they won. That way, it would coincide with Speed's initial post of the B1G winning more. Let's take a little look-sey
2014-2015 - AHA (2), B1G (1), ECAC (3), HE (10), NCHC (13), WCHA (2)
2013-2014 - AHA (1), B1G (5), ECAC (7), HE (9), NCHC (6), WCHA (3)
2012-2013 - AHA (2), B1G (2), ECAC (11), HE (7), NCHC (8), WCHA (1)
2011-2012 - AHA (1), B1G (5), ECAC (5), HE (9), NCHC (6), WCHA (5)
2010-2011 - AHA (1), B1G (4), ECAC (4), HE (7), NCHC (14), WCHA (1)
2009-2010 - AHA (1), B1G (6), ECAC (5), HE (8), NCHC (7), WCHA (4)
2008-2009 - AHA (2), B1G (2), ECAC (4), HE (12), NCHC (8), WCHA (3)
2007-2008 - AHA (2), B1G (8), ECAC (3), HE (10), NCHC (8), WCHA (0)
2006-2007 - AHA (1), B1G (8), ECAC (2), HE (13), NCHC (6), WCHA (1)
2005-2006 - AHA (2), B1G (9), ECAC (3), HE (10), NCHC (6), WCHA (1)
2004-2005 - AHA (1), B1G (7), ECAC (4), HE (6), NCHC (12), WCHA (1)
2003-2004 - AHA (2), B1G (8), ECAC (1), HE (9), NCHC (11), WCHA (0)
2002-2003 - AHA (1), B1G (9), ECAC (4), HE (9), NCHC (4), WCHA (3) * Wayne St folded
*****************************************************
12 Team Tournament - 27pts available
*****************************************************
2001-2002 - AHA (0), B1G (9), ECAC (4), HE (9), NCHC (5), WCHA (0)
2000-2001 - AHA (1), B1G (9), ECAC (1), HE (8), NCHC (8), WCHA (0)
1999-2000 - AHA (2), B1G (5), ECAC (4), HE (10), NCHC (6), WCHA (0)
1998-1999 - AHA (0), B1G (6), ECAC (3), HE (12), NCHC (5), WCHA (1)
1997-1998 - AHA (0), B1G (11), ECAC (3), HE (9), NCHC (4), WCHA (0)
1996-1997 - AHA (0), B1G (6), ECAC (4), HE (6), NCHC (11), WCHA (0)
1995-1996 - AHA (0), B1G (8), ECAC (3), HE (9), NCHC (5), WCHA (2)
1994-1995 - AHA (0), B1G (9), ECAC (2), HE (10), NCHC (4), WCHA (2)
Totals - AHA (22), B1G (137), ECAC (80), HE (192), NCHC (157), WCHA (30)
Take what you want from it. The breakdown is:
HE
NCHC
B1G
ECAC
WCHA
AHA
The most recent few years is more relevant in my opinion as it shows what the trend has been. Even using the 20 years that I used is irrelevant but I wanted some history. Sure, I could go back to the 50's and 60's to support Speed's comments.....but Michigan then is not Michigan now....same can be said for Denver and ND then versus now....
I don't know why I even cared to do this...but it was kind of fun.
I am late to this game, but started reading when it was created. I like puzzles....so to see if Speed's comments were warranted, I put together some numbers. This wasn't a difficult or elaborate set, but like anything, took some time as I only looked up the information while on work breaks.
I went back over the last 20 years of NCAA Tournaments as that gives us more relevance to today's teams (Even though it would help my team, I could go back further, but it's not really relevant...which is why I believe that Speed's comments were absurd in the first place.)
Anyways, back to the numbers. I assigned 1 point if you made the tournament, and then an additional point for every game a team has won. So, in the modern era with 16 teams in the tournament, there would be 31 available points: 16 points (1 for each team), 8 points (2nd round), 4 points (3rd round - F4), 2 points (Championship Game), 1 extra point for the Champion. So the winner would have 5 points, runner up with 4 and so forth.
I then added up the total points for each conference as they currently exist after the realignment regardless of what conference the team was in when they won. That way, it would coincide with Speed's initial post of the B1G winning more. Let's take a little look-sey
2014-2015 - AHA (2), B1G (1), ECAC (3), HE (10), NCHC (13), WCHA (2)
2013-2014 - AHA (1), B1G (5), ECAC (7), HE (9), NCHC (6), WCHA (3)
2012-2013 - AHA (2), B1G (2), ECAC (11), HE (7), NCHC (8), WCHA (1)
2011-2012 - AHA (1), B1G (5), ECAC (5), HE (9), NCHC (6), WCHA (5)
2010-2011 - AHA (1), B1G (4), ECAC (4), HE (7), NCHC (14), WCHA (1)
2009-2010 - AHA (1), B1G (6), ECAC (5), HE (8), NCHC (7), WCHA (4)
2008-2009 - AHA (2), B1G (2), ECAC (4), HE (12), NCHC (8), WCHA (3)
2007-2008 - AHA (2), B1G (8), ECAC (3), HE (10), NCHC (8), WCHA (0)
2006-2007 - AHA (1), B1G (8), ECAC (2), HE (13), NCHC (6), WCHA (1)
2005-2006 - AHA (2), B1G (9), ECAC (3), HE (10), NCHC (6), WCHA (1)
2004-2005 - AHA (1), B1G (7), ECAC (4), HE (6), NCHC (12), WCHA (1)
2003-2004 - AHA (2), B1G (8), ECAC (1), HE (9), NCHC (11), WCHA (0)
2002-2003 - AHA (1), B1G (9), ECAC (4), HE (9), NCHC (4), WCHA (3) * Wayne St folded
*****************************************************
12 Team Tournament - 27pts available
*****************************************************
2001-2002 - AHA (0), B1G (9), ECAC (4), HE (9), NCHC (5), WCHA (0)
2000-2001 - AHA (1), B1G (9), ECAC (1), HE (8), NCHC (8), WCHA (0)
1999-2000 - AHA (2), B1G (5), ECAC (4), HE (10), NCHC (6), WCHA (0)
1998-1999 - AHA (0), B1G (6), ECAC (3), HE (12), NCHC (5), WCHA (1)
1997-1998 - AHA (0), B1G (11), ECAC (3), HE (9), NCHC (4), WCHA (0)
1996-1997 - AHA (0), B1G (6), ECAC (4), HE (6), NCHC (11), WCHA (0)
1995-1996 - AHA (0), B1G (8), ECAC (3), HE (9), NCHC (5), WCHA (2)
1994-1995 - AHA (0), B1G (9), ECAC (2), HE (10), NCHC (4), WCHA (2)
Totals - AHA (22), B1G (137), ECAC (80), HE (192), NCHC (157), WCHA (30)
Take what you want from it. The breakdown is:
HE
NCHC
B1G
ECAC
WCHA
AHA
The most recent few years is more relevant in my opinion as it shows what the trend has been. Even using the 20 years that I used is irrelevant but I wanted some history. Sure, I could go back to the 50's and 60's to support Speed's comments.....but Michigan then is not Michigan now....same can be said for Denver and ND then versus now....
I don't know why I even cared to do this...but it was kind of fun.
I confess I had exactly the same thought and can confirm that despite all the rumors to the contrary, Wolverines can do simple division correctly.
The B1G is clearly 3.2 MN_Sioux_Fan units better than everyone else. Thanks. We all anxiously await our giant trophy's for winning.
Except PSU. Probably can just send them one of those green participation ribbons.
To be honest, I had already considered the averages of teams. My post wasn't to say one league is better or tougher than others. More simply, it was to refute the "facts" that Speed tried to use for his/her basis on tournament experience. As any Gopher fan can attest to, trying to use the total number of Championships (which were predominantly won a long time ago) as a measurement of league toughness, is like saying that UND is better than MN because 7>5. In both of those statements, there are facts but there is no logic, or should I say, it doesn't hold water.
Now, since I started, I am going to go further with some numbers to try and even out the playing field. Soon to follow
