What's new
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.

Conference playoffs scary teams

Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

If we're strictly going off of right now, I say Maine is more dangerous than NU. The way I have it unfolding is Maine beats BU in the QFs. NU-Mack would be pretty interesting...

As for the WCHA lovefest, maybe they'll actually win the title for the first time since 2006...

Northeastern beat Merrimack in December at Lawler 2-1 so nothing is out of the question.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Or we can look at it...say...1985. WCHA has won 10, Hockey East has won 7.

What's fun, is that the WCHA has won 35 titles in its history, CCHA 8, Hockey East 7, ECAC 7, Independents 5, Tri-State 1.

Considering Hockey East has only existed for about 25-30 years, I'd say they've done pretty well. I'm not even saying the WCHA isn't the best conference or hasn't been. I guess my point is that Hockey East really hasn't taken a back seat to the WCHA over the past 20 years.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

I actually think both Holy Cross and UCONN are dangerous in the AHA. I don't know that either team could win the whole thing, but they are both gritty and could end someone else's thoughts of post season glory. UCONN has shown a bit of toughness this year that they have been missing over the last few years. They came from 3 goals down to beat AIC on the road and lock up a bye. Earlier in the year they gave up two quick goals, including a shorthanded one to UNion and came back to tie it. Did the same on the road at Mainer, scoring late to salvage a tie. They went into Dwyer and played Niagara tough the first night and blew them out the next. the goaltender is solid if not spectacular, and they have a couple of guys who can put the puck in the back of the net. And they are the type of team that isn't necessarily out because it is down. Holy Cross has put together a long unbeaten streak, has a solid goaltender and a couple of scorers. Thery also have some confidence having not lost in over a month. As I say, I agree that neither will be favored, but both are dangerous and could make life miserable for one of the favorites.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Serious question: (in this thread? I KNOW!) Are Genoway and Kristo done for the season? I'd heard they were, but if one or both isn't, yeah, I'd say they're finally somewhat healthy. But if they're both done, I wouldn't label them as such.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/195032

Chay Genoway was the only senior not in the lineup. Genoway is out with a leg injury and expected to return for the playoffs. . . Injured Sioux sophomore Danny Kristo (frostbite) attended both games this weekend.

Genoway is expected back soon.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Or we can look at it...say...1985. WCHA has won 10, Hockey East has won 7.

What's fun, is that the WCHA has won 35 titles in its history, CCHA 8, Hockey East 7, ECAC 7, Independents 5, Tri-State 1.

haha I think the comparison of 35-7-8 is foolish to make when one league has been around for 35 and 20 years longer than the others. After all, I believe the breakdown over the last twenty years has been 8-7-6 among the relevant 3, which I think shows a respectable amount of parity at least among the teams that end up winning it all. I also believe that since HE's formation the actual break down of titles has been 9 WCHA, 8 CCHA, 7 HE and 2 EZAC. Pretty decent level of parity, no? I'd say it's hard to say one is clearly up on a pedestal above the others, at least based on the metric of NCs.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Considering Hockey East has only existed for about 25-30 years, I'd say they've done pretty well. I'm not even saying the WCHA isn't the best conference or hasn't been. I guess my point is that Hockey East really hasn't taken a back seat to the WCHA over the past 20 years.

I'll agree with you there. Hockey East and the WCHA are 1 and 1a, however you want to order those, over the past 15-20 years. It goes in cycles as well. The WCHA dominated from about 2000-2006, winning 6 titles in 7 years, while Hockey East has dominated the last 3 seasons, winning all three titles. The WCHA has had a ton of different winners (9 different programs), while Hockey East tends to rely on BC, BU and Maine to win their titles. I think that leads a lot of people out here to natually assume that the west is better because of all the different teams that have won titles. As for this season, I think it's pretty even. If you look at the PWR, right now 8 "West" teams (WCHA and CCHA) would make the tournament and 8 "East" teams (HE, ECAC and AH) would make the tourney. At that point, we're lucky we have a tournament to sort out which side is better, or to see if they truly are pretty even.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

haha I think the comparison of 35-7-8 is foolish to make when one league has been around for 35 and 20 years longer than the others. I also believe that since HE's formation the actual break down of titles has been 9 WCHA, 8 CCHA, 7 HE and 2 EZAC. Pretty decent level of parity, no? I'd say it's hard to say one is clearly up on a pedestal above the others, at least based on the metric of NCs.
Not that it makes a difference, but the break down is 10-7-7.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Not that it makes a difference, but the break down is 10-7-7.

I'm sure felizmiguel wasn't paying attention to college hockey when Northern Michigan was in the WCHA.

I understand the whole argument about how certain conferences haven't been around along as others. However, the WCHA has won 35 national titles in 58 years as a conference. That's over 60% of the time. Hockey East has won 7 titles in 26 years (a little under 27%), ECAC has won 7 in 50 years (14%) and the CCHA has won 8 titles 39 years (a tad over 20%). To be that successful for that long is very impressive. To put it even more into perspective, Hockey East would have to win 28 of the next 32 titles to get to 60%. The ECAC would have to win the next 58 titles. Historically, the WCHA has been the best conference, and it isn't even close. Saying that, and like I said previously, over the past 20 years or so it's been relatively equal between the WCHA and Hockey East. In the last 20 years, the WCHA has won 8, Hockey East 7 and the CCHA 5.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

I'm sure felizmiguel wasn't paying attention to college hockey when Northern Michigan was in the WCHA.

I understand the whole argument about how certain conferences haven't been around along as others. However, the WCHA has won 35 national titles in 58 years as a conference. That's over 60% of the time. Hockey East has won 7 titles in 26 years (a little under 27%), ECAC has won 7 in 50 years (14%) and the CCHA has won 8 titles 39 years (a tad over 20%). To be that successful for that long is very impressive. To put it even more into perspective, Hockey East would have to win 28 of the next 32 titles to get to 60%. The ECAC would have to win the next 58 titles. Historically, the WCHA has been the best conference, and it isn't even close. Saying that, and like I said previously, over the past 20 years or so it's been relatively equal between the WCHA and Hockey East. In the last 20 years, the WCHA has won 8, Hockey East 7 and the CCHA 5.

yikes, my bad. guess my cursory amount of research that I put into my findings should have been a little less cursory haha
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

How many of those WCHA titles are Michigan's? A lot of this talk is like talking about Notre Dame Football. Historically,yes, they are on a different level but there is little to brag about recently. ND Football and the WCHA=The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be. The playing field has been leveled.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

How many of those WCHA titles are Michigan's? A lot of this talk is like talking about Notre Dame Football. Historically,yes, they are on a different level but there is little to brag about recently. ND Football and the WCHA=The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be. The playing field has been leveled.

None of the 10 are Michigan's.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

How many of those WCHA titles are Michigan's? A lot of this talk is like talking about Notre Dame Football. Historically,yes, they are on a different level but there is little to brag about recently. ND Football and the WCHA=The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be. The playing field has been leveled.

Michigan won 5 titles while a member of the WCHA.
Denver has won 7, North Dakota and Wisconsin 6, Minnesota 5, Michigan Tech 3, Colorado College, Northern Michigan and Michigan State 1 each.

The WCHA has won 9 National Championships since Notre Dame won its last in Football.

The only way the WCHA doesn't have anything to brag about is if you define "recently" as the last four years. Someone apparently has forgotten that prior to '07, the WCHA had won 6 out of 7 National Titles.

In the last ten years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
In the last 15 years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
In the last 20 years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
In the last 25 years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Michigan won 5 titles while a member of the WCHA.
Denver has won 7, North Dakota and Wisconsin 6, Minnesota 5, Michigan Tech 3, Colorado College, Northern Michigan and Michigan State 1 each.

The WCHA has won 9 National Championships since Notre Dame won its last in Football.

The only way the WCHA doesn't have anything to brag about is if you define "recently" as the last four years. Someone apparently has forgotten that prior to '07, the WCHA had won 6 out of 7 National Titles.

In the last ten years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
In the last 15 years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
In the last 20 years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference
In the last 25 years: WCHA has more titles than any other conference

not to mention 2005 with the ALL- WCHA frozen four...has any other conference done that?

EDIT: That is the only time it happened at any level, any sport, male or female.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

I'm sure felizmiguel wasn't paying attention to college hockey when Northern Michigan was in the WCHA.

I understand the whole argument about how certain conferences haven't been around along as others. However, the WCHA has won 35 national titles in 58 years as a conference. That's over 60% of the time. Hockey East has won 7 titles in 26 years (a little under 27%), ECAC has won 7 in 50 years (14%) and the CCHA has won 8 titles 39 years (a tad over 20%). To be that successful for that long is very impressive. To put it even more into perspective, Hockey East would have to win 28 of the next 32 titles to get to 60%. The ECAC would have to win the next 58 titles. Historically, the WCHA has been the best conference, and it isn't even close. Saying that, and like I said previously, over the past 20 years or so it's been relatively equal between the WCHA and Hockey East. In the last 20 years, the WCHA has won 8, Hockey East 7 and the CCHA 5.

The WCHA, as currently constituted, was actually founded in 1959. It was the MCHL in 1951 and the WIHL until 1958.

The ECAC was founded in 1962.

The CCHA was founded in 1971.

Hockey East was founded in 1984.

The Atlantic Hockey Association was founded in 2003 (as part of NCAA division 1).

Then there's the Ivy League, which is a thing in and of itself and I won't get into it here.

All other things being equal, you'd assume that how likely it would be for a conference to win would depend on how many other conferences there are and how many teams are in those conferences. (I'm assuming here all teams are equally good, and the distribution is truly random, so that any differences are indicative of the quality of the team and the conference it is in.)

Just looking at the years, the WCHA had no rival as a conference for eleven seasons, from 1951 until 1962. They may not have won every national title held in that period, as there may have been independents, or schools that would later form another league, such as BC in 1949 and RPI in 1954. Even if you assign the national championships belonging to teams that eventually formed the league, or are currently in a league, it's doubtful to me that it's a fair method of comparing leagues.

So in those 11 seasons (ten of which held their national championship games at CC's home rink, where the Tigers played for the title four times and won it twice-- no neutral sites in those days) the WCHA won nine times. If you group all teams as "WCHA teams" and "all other teams" you'd expect them to win 50%, although I'd argue that it's debatable whether the assembly of Independent teams really did have a 50% shot at the time; many of those championship games were blowouts of the 7-1, 7-3, 13-6 and 13-4 variety.

So the first decade or so of the last 60 years of hockey history begins with utter dominance of a league that is the only organized college hockey league at the division 1 level, either playing amongst itself for the national title, or wiping the floor with Eastern teams apparently not of the same caliber. The only exception was 1949, where BC played Dartmouth in the final. So the WCHA's national title rate is almost 82%, and should either have been 100% (if you consider that no other conference can win it, since none of the other conferences exist yet) or 50%, if you consider "all non-WCHA teams" to be a conference. It's arguable that these years skew the all-time results in a way that is difficult to account for when attempting to compare the conferences today.

From 1959-1969 the picture is a little different, but not much. The tournament got moved around starting in 1958. The ECAC is founded in 1962, although no member wins a national championship since Cornell in 1967. From the East in those years, only Clarkson and St. Lawrence even make it to a final. In 1960, the National Championship game was held at Matthews Arena in Boston-- between Denver and Michigan Tech.

Denver, Michigan, Michigan Tech, and North Dakota win every national championship in that decade except the one won by Cornell-- in which they beat Boston University. So that's another strong decade for the WCHA, which won 90% of the decade's championships, although that includes 3 seasons where there was no other league, and 7 where that league was an arguably much weaker ECAC.

Things become a lot more comparable in the 70s. Eastern teams win four national championships (Cornell and BU), and more eastern teams make the field (BC and Clarkson). For a five-year span, the tourney is held either in New York or in Boston. The CCHA is founded in 1971 but does not win a national championship this decade. Against one league in its infancy (the CCHA) and one in its second decade (ECAC) the WCHA wins six of ten national championships for a win percentage of 60%-- double what you'd expect the mathematical 33% to be, if every league had an equal chance. (There's been no compensation for league size here-- the league history pages for the WCHA show when schools joined and left, but not all of them do.)

In short, WCHA teams spent three decades winning nearly all of the national championships because they were the first organized league by more than a decade, and the other leagues don't rise their play to a level to even approach having an equal chance to win for the WCHA's first thirty years.

As you point out, the last 20 years, with four major conferences, you'd expect each to win at a rate of about 25%-- or five championships. In that span, the WCHA has won three more than expected (40%), Hockey East two more than expected (35%), and the CCHA exactly as many as expected (25%), while the ECAC has won none.

The "35 titles in 58 years" is not a number that can be compared to anything, because for much too long during that span there were no other leagues at all, or else no competitive leagues. During the period where all four current extant leagues can be said to have been competitive, the WCHA has been more successful to almost exactly the same extent to which it can be said that the ECAC has been unsuccessful, and only slightly more successful than Hockey East (which arguably only came into existence in 1986, but essentially skimmed the cream off the top of the ECAC to form a new league, and then added other members later.) The WCHA's number over 58 years is lifted to 60% by adding in results in three decades in which there was little or no credible, organized competition. The numbers excluding that period come much closer to approaching parity, the ECAC's drought notwithstanding.

For Hockey East to equal the WCHA's all-time national championship winning percentage at 60%, they would have to, as you put it, win 28 of the next 32. I'm sure they'll be willing to make the attempt if the WCHA agrees to disband this year, the CCHA in ten years, and the ECAC ten years after that, just so that Hockey East can have a chance to achieve the same feat under the same conditions as the WCHA did. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

The WCHA, as currently constituted, was actually founded in 1959. It was the MCHL in 1951 and the WIHL until 1958.

The ECAC was founded in 1962.

The CCHA was founded in 1971.

Hockey East was founded in 1984.

The Atlantic Hockey Association was founded in 2003 (as part of NCAA division 1).

Then there's the Ivy League, which is a thing in and of itself and I won't get into it here.

All other things being equal, you'd assume that how likely it would be for a conference to win would depend on how many other conferences there are and how many teams are in those conferences. (I'm assuming here all teams are equally good, and the distribution is truly random, so that any differences are indicative of the quality of the team and the conference it is in.)

Just looking at the years, the WCHA had no rival as a conference for eleven seasons, from 1951 until 1962. They may not have won every national title held in that period, as there may have been independents, or schools that would later form another league, such as BC in 1949 and RPI in 1954. Even if you assign the national championships belonging to teams that eventually formed the league, or are currently in a league, it's doubtful to me that it's a fair method of comparing leagues.

So in those 11 seasons (ten of which held their national championship games at CC's home rink, where the Tigers played for the title four times and won it twice-- no neutral sites in those days) the WCHA won nine times. If you group all teams as "WCHA teams" and "all other teams" you'd expect them to win 50%, although I'd argue that it's debatable whether the assembly of Independent teams really did have a 50% shot at the time; many of those championship games were blowouts of the 7-1, 7-3, 13-6 and 13-4 variety.

So the first decade or so of the last 60 years of hockey history begins with utter dominance of a league that is the only organized college hockey league at the division 1 level, either playing amongst itself for the national title, or wiping the floor with Eastern teams apparently not of the same caliber. The only exception was 1949, where BC played Dartmouth in the final. So the WCHA's national title rate is almost 82%, and should either have been 100% (if you consider that no other conference can win it, since none of the other conferences exist yet) or 50%, if you consider "all non-WCHA teams" to be a conference. It's arguable that these years skew the all-time results in a way that is difficult to account for when attempting to compare the conferences today.

From 1959-1969 the picture is a little different, but not much. The tournament got moved around starting in 1958. The ECAC is founded in 1962, although no member wins a national championship since Cornell in 1967. From the East in those years, only Clarkson and St. Lawrence even make it to a final. In 1960, the National Championship game was held at Matthews Arena in Boston-- between Denver and Michigan Tech.

Denver, Michigan, Michigan Tech, and North Dakota win every national championship in that decade except the one won by Cornell-- in which they beat Boston University. So that's another strong decade for the WCHA, which won 90% of the decade's championships, although that includes 3 seasons where there was no other league, and 7 where that league was an arguably much weaker ECAC.

Things become a lot more comparable in the 70s. Eastern teams win four national championships (Cornell and BU), and more eastern teams make the field (BC and Clarkson). For a five-year span, the tourney is held either in New York or in Boston. The CCHA is founded in 1971 but does not win a national championship this decade. Against one league in its infancy (the CCHA) and one in its second decade (ECAC) the WCHA wins six of ten national championships for a win percentage of 60%-- double what you'd expect the mathematical 33% to be, if every league had an equal chance. (There's been no compensation for league size here-- the league history pages for the WCHA show when schools joined and left, but not all of them do.)

In short, WCHA teams spent three decades winning nearly all of the national championships because they were the first organized league by more than a decade, and the other leagues don't rise their play to a level to even approach having an equal chance to win for the WCHA's first thirty years.

As you point out, the last 20 years, with four major conferences, you'd expect each to win at a rate of about 25%-- or five championships. In that span, the WCHA has won three more than expected (40%), Hockey East two more than expected (35%), and the CCHA exactly as many as expected (25%), while the ECAC has won none.

The "35 titles in 58 years" is not a number that can be compared to anything, because for much too long during that span there were no other leagues at all, or else no competitive leagues. During the period where all four current extant leagues can be said to have been competitive, the WCHA has been more successful to almost exactly the same extent to which it can be said that the ECAC has been unsuccessful, and only slightly more successful than Hockey East (which arguably only came into existence in 1986, but essentially skimmed the cream off the top of the ECAC to form a new league, and then added other members later.) The WCHA's number over 58 years is lifted to 60% by adding in results in three decades in which there was little or no credible, organized competition. The numbers excluding that period come much closer to approaching parity, the ECAC's drought notwithstanding.

For Hockey East to equal the WCHA's all-time national championship winning percentage at 60%, they would have to, as you put it, win 28 of the next 32. I'm sure they'll be willing to make the attempt if the WCHA agrees to disband this year, the CCHA in ten years, and the ECAC ten years after that, just so that Hockey East can have a chance to achieve the same feat under the same conditions as the WCHA did. :)

... I was hopeing for a more interesting conclusion to that novel you just wrote.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

For Hockey East to equal the WCHA's all-time national championship winning percentage at 60%, they would have to, as you put it, win 28 of the next 32. I'm sure they'll be willing to make the attempt if the WCHA agrees to disband this year, the CCHA in ten years, and the ECAC ten years after that, just so that Hockey East can have a chance to achieve the same feat under the same conditions as the WCHA did. :)

Don't be silly. The Big 10 will win every championship in the future. :D Anywho, this started as scary teams in your conference. A couple of WCHA posters listed some and and Easterner had to reply with the old WCHA LOVEFEST. J.D. got the ball rolling.
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

thread_direction.gif
 
Re: Conference playoffs scary teams

Just looking at the years, the WCHA had no rival as a conference for eleven seasons, from 1951 until 1962. They may not have won every national title held in that period, as there may have been independents, or schools that would later form another league, such as BC in 1949 and RPI in 1954. Even if you assign the national championships belonging to teams that eventually formed the league, or are currently in a league, it's doubtful to me that it's a fair method of comparing leagues.

So in those 11 seasons (ten of which held their national championship games at CC's home rink, where the Tigers played for the title four times and won it twice-- no neutral sites in those days) the WCHA won nine times. If you group all teams as "WCHA teams" and "all other teams" you'd expect them to win 50%, although I'd argue that it's debatable whether the assembly of Independent teams really did have a 50% shot at the time; many of those championship games were blowouts of the 7-1, 7-3, 13-6 and 13-4 variety.

So the first decade or so of the last 60 years of hockey history begins with utter dominance of a league that is the only organized college hockey league at the division 1 level, either playing amongst itself for the national title, or wiping the floor with Eastern teams apparently not of the same caliber. The only exception was 1949, where BC played Dartmouth in the final. So the WCHA's national title rate is almost 82%, and should either have been 100% (if you consider that no other conference can win it, since none of the other conferences exist yet) or 50%, if you consider "all non-WCHA teams" to be a conference. It's arguable that these years skew the all-time results in a way that is difficult to account for when attempting to compare the conferences today.

From 1959-1969 the picture is a little different, but not much. The tournament got moved around starting in 1958. The ECAC is founded in 1962, although no member wins a national championship since Cornell in 1967. From the East in those years, only Clarkson and St. Lawrence even make it to a final. In 1960, the National Championship game was held at Matthews Arena in Boston-- between Denver and Michigan Tech.

Denver, Michigan, Michigan Tech, and North Dakota win every national championship in that decade except the one won by Cornell-- in which they beat Boston University. So that's another strong decade for the WCHA, which won 90% of the decade's championships, although that includes 3 seasons where there was no other league, and 7 where that league was an arguably much weaker ECAC.

Things become a lot more comparable in the 70s. Eastern teams win four national championships (Cornell and BU), and more eastern teams make the field (BC and Clarkson). For a five-year span, the tourney is held either in New York or in Boston. The CCHA is founded in 1971 but does not win a national championship this decade. Against one league in its infancy (the CCHA) and one in its second decade (ECAC) the WCHA wins six of ten national championships for a win percentage of 60%-- double what you'd expect the mathematical 33% to be, if every league had an equal chance. (There's been no compensation for league size here-- the league history pages for the WCHA show when schools joined and left, but not all of them do.)

In short, WCHA teams spent three decades winning nearly all of the national championships because they were the first organized league by more than a decade, and the other leagues don't rise their play to a level to even approach having an equal chance to win for the WCHA's first thirty years.




The "35 titles in 58 years" is not a number that can be compared to anything, because for much too long during that span there were no other leagues at all, or else no competitive leagues.

You raise valid points regarding the length of time each conference has been in existence. However, you have to remember one thing. From the 1947-48 season through the 1979-80 season, a stretch in which WCHA teams clearly dominated the championships, by everyone's agreement, the NCAA put two eastern teams and two western teams in the Frozen Four. Didn't matter which conference they belonged to. You win two games and you're the champ. The west dominated. To the extent they played another WCHA team for the championship, it's because both WCHA teams beat eastern teams in the semi's.

'81-'87 there were 8 teams, and again four from the east and four from the west, playing each other. The west again dominates, with the WCHA winning 4 and the CCHA winning 2, RPI winning the other.

But it's at that point you start to see more parity. It results from two principle factors, imho. First, the HE-WCHA scheduling agreement from the mid-80's that resulted in substantially more, and meaningful, games played between eastern and western teams during the regular season. Second, the expansion again of the number of teams in the tournament.
 
Back
Top