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.

D1 Final eight

Re: D1 Final eight

Just seems very odd; UNH is #5 in the ranking but instead of getting #4 Harvard (would have been nice to see them play in Cambridge) they get shipped out to play #2 Minn-Duluth.
You missed the explanation.

(1) Committee only cares about comparisons of teams in the tournament for the seeding. Committee does not care that Cornell loses comparisons to UConn and Wisconsin like the USCHO Pairwise. Cornell beats Clarkson and UNH. Cornell is No. 5

(2) Committee does not but too much weight on tiny UNH edge over Clarkson in RPI. Clarkson dominates other categories (including head-to-head). UNH is No. 7.
I've been predicting Clarkson > UNH for days now if it came down to a tourney bid. UNH would've missed the tourney if Ohio State had won the WCHA tourney.

(3) Committee probably considers sending UNH to Harvard to avoid intraconference play, but thinks that would be too big a violation of bracket integrity

I have never seen something like this in the Men's seeding, which I am more familiar with. There they especially try to avoid first-round match-ups between division foes.
They've de-emphasized this since 2006, when No. 6 Harvard was sent to play No. 1 Wisconsin, and No. 8 BC was sent to play No. 3 Dartmouth. It's just generally not feasible to avoid without compromising bracket integrity.

There were also two intraconference matchups in 2008.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

What a joke the process is--Harvard is finishes third in the league and loses in the semis and is seeded while the two teams that played in the tourney finals and and finished ahead of it in the regular season are unseeded.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

What a joke the process is--Harvard is finishes third in the league and loses in the semis and is seeded while the two teams that played in the tourney finals and and finished ahead of it in the regular season are unseeded.

I have to say, I agree on this point. It seems that since it is at the discretion of the committee, at the very least Cornell would benefit from home ice, since they won both the RS and finals of the ECAC.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

I have to say, I agree on this point. It seems that since it is at the discretion of the committee, at the very least Cornell would benefit from home ice, since they won both the RS and finals of the ECAC.
But it's not at the discretion of the committee, and championships are not a criteria in the selection process.

If you think the selection process should be changed, you can recommend that, but you cannot claim the committee had a case to put Clarkson or Cornell above Harvard given the criteria. Harvard's margins over these teams were too large for any other outcome. This isn't like the Clarkson-UNH comparison, where UNH's RPI was better a by a few hundredths of a point.

If Cornell wanted to host, they have should have done better than 1-6 in nonconference play.

If Clarkson wanted to host, they should've done better than 0-2 against Minnesota, while Harvard went 1-0-1.

Where you may have the most legitimate gripe is that Harvard played all 7 of its nonconference games at home and went 5-0-2, and the committee does not weigh in the location of games at all. Harvard's only road wins were against the No. 7 through No. 12 teams in the ECAC. Having all nonconference games at home surely gave Harvard an advantage.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

I would say the most legitmate gripe is 0-3-2 vs Cornell and Clarkson in head-to-head competition. We don't need to bring out a magnifying glass to examine records against non-common opponents, when the teams play each other at least twice and have a 22-game common schedule that is balanced for home/away play.
 
Last edited:
Re: D1 Final eight

I would say the most legitmate gripe is 0-3-2 vs Cornell and Clarkson in head-to-head competition. We don't need to bring out the magnifying glass to examine records against non-common opponents, when the teams play each other at least twice and have a 22-game common schedule that is balanced for home/away play.

Okay then, so we should just ignore all non-common opponents between Harvard and Cornell. In those games Harvard went 3-0-2, while Cornell went 1-2 (I'll even completely discount the Mercyhurst sweep since they're No. 1). Those games included Harvard's 1-0-1 record against No. 3 Minnesota, Harvard's tie against UNH, and win against No. 9 UConn, No. 11 Northeastern. We'll also ignore Cornell's loss to No. 14 Syracuse and split against Niagara.

Wow, so we'd then ignore all of Harvard's best results, and all of Cornell's worst results. How convenient for Cornell!!!

I don't even need to discuss Clarkson, because Harvard has a better record against common opponents than Clarkson. And that doesn't even count Clarkson's loss to Vermont.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

And even if the NCAA did somehow take road & home games in account ... so remind me where all of Cornell's losses to nonconference non-common opponents of Harvard took place? All at Lynah.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

I personally have no problem with playing Harvard at harvard. Cornell's out of conference schedule results are what they are. And it didn't earn cornell home ice
 
Re: D1 Final eight

I think the most important thing is that they got the right 8 teams in the show. Each of the 3 ECAC teams has their positives and negatives and really distinguishing them for seeding is really tough.

Harvard seems to have benefited from their OOC schedule giving them a significant boost in RPI rating. Wins over UNH and Minnesota along with the tie against Minnesota gave them a huge boost. The fact that all their OOC games were at home and their conference record was largely established by beating up on the lower schools would be a negative.

Clarkson likely played the most difficult schedule in college hockey, traveling to Minny and M'Hurst for a pair and facing every team in the tourney except Duluth. Unfortunately, they did not fare well against the Rodents and only managed a tie and loss against M'Hurst. Their last month of the season was plagued with injuries and they did not perform well down the stretch. Even so, they could have secured a home series with a win over Cornell today.

Cornell's OOC schedule was the weakest of the 3, although they did host M'Hurst twice (with 2 losses). They also had the disadvantage of losing players to the U-22 team which may have cost them 3 bad losses in early January. They were clearly the strongest team down the stretch and they brought home the bacon Sunday.

One of the things that seems quite evident here is that with the small number of programs, the number of OOC games that the Ivies play could significantly skew the RPI ratings. But I can't see that as an excuse; if Clarkson or Cornell wanted the higher seeding, they could have stepped up against the strong competition on their schedule.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

Just an observation, not a complaint, but Harvard making the top four is I believe an oddity when looked at historically. Back in the days of the 4-team tournament, SLU did finish in the top four despite being no better than 3rd in their league in the regular season or the tourney. But the ECAC was a strong league, and the top two teams finished above them. UMD last season nearly had home ice although they were 3rd in the WCHA regular season and tournament; again, the top two were seeded above them. This season, thanks to widespread parity and a scarcity of dominant teams, Harvard is able to make the top 4 without making its conference top 2 regular or post season, and neither of the #1/#2 teams placed above them.

I guess this demonstrates again how wide-open the season has been, unlike past seasons where many could have picked an 8-team field to start the year and had at least 7 right. Three first-time entrants into the field (BU, Clarkson, Cornell) echos that as well.
 
D1 Final eight

And even if the NCAA did somehow take road & home games in account ... so remind me where all of Cornell's losses to nonconference non-common opponents of Harvard took place? All at Lynah.

Dave, thou dost seem-some-to 'protest too much'; yet, this through my Green tinted glasses.

It seems to me a Dartmouth fan that time and again the Crimson gets the 'edge' wherever and whenever. Now where do I go to prove my case? Alas, too much hunting and case building and research for me what with the lacrosse season now underway.

Anyone?

And, too, Cornell can settle this the old fashioned way-by winning in Cambridge.

So I'm just going to, 'say', it often feels that Harvard somehow ends up being favored; the beneficiary of the break, cut, decision, circumstances, numbers, the way the ball bounces, judgment, etc., etc., etc. And while all appears as usual, fair and balanced/solid in your arguments as to not giving home ice to Cornell (etc.), despite Cornell beating Harvard once-at home-and their tieing once-in Cambridge-and Cornell being both the season winner in the ECAC and the ECAC Tournament winner, doesn't it somehow call out for redress?

Isn't there somewhere a 'crack' where we can ease our way up through onto higher ground?

Maybe all those games at home; maybe a factor for playing at home. Maybe even a 'factor': less awe of Western teams.
Etc.

Too, maybe that 'being favored' I allude to is somehow over the years earned. But that-another long 'case' study.
 
D1 Final eight

PS- Additionally as comefrombehind points out below as to Harvard's record vis a vis both Cornell AND Clarkson.

I would say the most legitmate gripe is 0-3-2 vs Cornell and Clarkson in head-to-head competition. We don't need to bring out a magnifying glass to examine records against non-common opponents, when the teams play each other at least twice and have a 22-game common schedule that is balanced for home/away play.
 
Re: D1 Final eight

Just an observation, not a complaint, but Harvard making the top four is I believe an oddity when looked at historically. Back in the days of the 4-team tournament, SLU did finish in the top four despite being no better than 3rd in their league in the regular season or the tourney. But the ECAC was a strong league, and the top two teams finished above them. UMD last season nearly had home ice although they were 3rd in the WCHA regular season and tournament; again, the top two were seeded above them. This season, thanks to widespread CHIPPITY and a scarcity of dominant teams, Harvard is able to make the top 4 without making its conference top 2 regular or post season, and neither of the #1/#2 teams placed above them.

I guess this demonstrates again how wide-open the season has been, unlike past seasons where many could have picked an 8-team field to start the year and had at least 7 right. Three first-time entrants into the field (BU, Clarkson, Cornell) echos that as well.

FYP ;)
 
Re: D1 Final eight

I don't think there's anything too sinister with Harvard's schedule.

Last season, Harvard played four road nonconference games in a row and went 0-3-1. The Beanpot was on neutral ice & Harvard went 1-1. Harvard missed the tournament just barely, despite winning the ECAC title.

This season, all those games Harvard played on the road, Harvard got to play at home. Harvard also happened to host the Beanpot this season. Getting all those games at home certainly helped Harvard get home ice (though as I pointed out, Cornell had a lot of nonconference defeats at home too). Maybe you could argue Harvard was more focused in nonconference play given that their failures there cost them an NCAA bid last season.

So bottom line, there's no sense in which Harvard has been consistently favored over time by it's schedule -- it's that you, as rival fan, only notice the anomalies that go in favor of your rival. Things just happened to work out such that Harvard got 7 nonconference home games this year. I don't think this is overall a good thing. Harvard missed the tourney last year & gets home ice this year. I think Harvard would've preferred to make the tourney last year & just make the tourney this year without home ice. This might have been the outcome if Harvard had a more balanced home-road schedule year-to-year.
 
Last edited:
Re: D1 Final eight

Dave's points are solid and this Harvard bashing is getting old fast. I didn't hear anyone coming to our defense last year when we won the ECAC regular season title and beat the two teams in back of us during the regular season who wound up going to the NCAAs. Harvard lost in the semis last year on home ice and couldn't get it done during the regular season out of conference. So they didn't have enough to get them in. No one who bleeds Crimson and White had a problem with that. We accepted our fate even though we felt we deserved to go. That's life.

I don't profess to understand the ins and outs of the selection process. But here are the facts:

We beat Minnesota when they were ranked #2 in the country
We tied UNH when they were #3 in the country.
We beat SLU when they were #7 in the country
We beat Providence when they were #9 in the country
We beat Northeastern when they were #7 in the country.

We also beat UConn when they were unranked in December. And yes, we had a poor in-conference record against the top six teams. No denying that.

As far as Dartmouth is concerned, there was a lot of hemming and hawing on this board in '08 when they were selected over Clarkson for the NCAAs. Right or wrong, they got in so I don't buy that Harvard gets some 'special' treatment and favoritism. Dartmouth has a track record as an NCAA participant. Clarkson and Cornell are newcomers to the Big Dance and so they've earned their way in. That will help them in future seasons.

The teams that made it deserve to be there and you can argue until the cows come home about who deserves home ice. How do think the Wildcats feel about facing UMD again? Think they have a gripe?
 
Re: D1 Final eight

What a joke the process is--Harvard finishes third in the league and loses in the semis and is seeded while the two teams that played in the tourney finals and and finished ahead of it in the regular season are unseeded.

It appears I was too harsh in my assessment of Harvard's ranking given their overall record -- they deserve to dance.
 
How to Achieve Utter Parity

How to Achieve Utter Parity

In this year when it seems like everybody has beaten everybody else at least once (always in OT!), the NCAA tournament ought to seek to get as close to ultimate parity as possible.

True, it's not possible to achieve a pure dead heat on the order of the high school cross country team in a dual match that perceives that every member of their team is ahead, whereupon the leaders slow down so that the entire team can cross the finish line holding each others' hands.

But c'mon, let's climb that asymptotic slope towards absolute parity!

PROCEDURAL STEPS

1. Overtime. All seven games must be decided in OT (just not in shootouts, please!).

2. Disputed goals. All deciding goals must be scored off a skate with a borderline kicking motion, so that the losers can grouse that the winning goal shoulda been waved off.

3. Controversial calls. Likewise, the referees must make enough questionable calls and noncalls to cast doubt on the legitimacy of each result. For 35 years now, we Bostonians have had to live with the nagging realization that the 1975 World Series isn't over yet: setting aside Umpire Ambister's foolish attempt to tag Pudge Fisk with a catcher interference call, we realize it's still the top of the tenth, two outs, man on second, batter up -- but we worry as the years go by that by the time Major League Baseball gets around to letting the game finish, many of the key players will be unable to compete....

4. Injuries and illnesses. Yup, there have to be enough vicissitudes of this kind to fuel exchanges like my recent whiny alibi "Ryabkina couldn't play when we lost to you" and the riposte "but you had Kessler that night" variety. And let's be creative about it: all the Olympic teams and U-22 squads should call last-minute team meetings in their home countries, creating new complaints of the "we're losing three players again and you're not losing Kessler again 'cause you've already lost Kessler" variety.

5. Never-ending scenarios. Just as there are no tiebreakers for the fifth set of the Wimbledon championship match, just deuces, there should be no shootout for the NCAA final, just an endless string of OTs (and we thought five was a big number!). Lights go out. Zamboni creates a gusher from a buried water pipe. Be creative!

I also considered, but rejected, the idea of letting BU and UNH assemble two all-star squads from among themselves, Providence, UConn and Northeastern, on the argument that all five HE teams deserve to be in the tournament this year.

SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIVES

("Objectives" sounds better than "goals" in this context)

If there must (unfortunately for parity) be an ultimate NCAA tournament winner, the tournament should at least in a pair-wise manner smooth out all previous individual distinctions this year along the way. For example:

1. Redress direct grudges. For example, Minn should defeat UMD when they meet in the tournament in order to redress UMD's one-goal win in the WCHA tournament, preferably by an identical one-goal margin.

2. Redress indirect grudges, including those of a woulda/shoulda nature. For example, BU, as the only Beanpot school not to play Harvard this year ('cause Northeastern eliminated BU in (naturally this year) OT) should eliminate Harvard in the NCAAs (by a single goal since Harvard won the Beanpot by (naturally this year) a single goal), both in order to even things out between HE and Harvard in general and also specifically to give BU some equivocal bragging rights about how they woulda/shoulda have won the Beanpot too, if given the chance.

3. Create Moebius strips and other endless loops. For example, Harvard should eliminate Cornell in the NCAAs (ideally, in OT) since Cornell eliminated Clarkson in the ECAC finals (naturally this year, in OT) while Clarkson eliminated Harvard in the ECAC semi-final (by one goal, but not in OT as those trigger-happy Engineers jumped the gun and scored in the third period). Clarkson and Cornell should NOT meet in the NCAAs as that would spoil the symmetry of the foregoing endless loop.

GOOD LUCK TO EVERYBODY, AND REMEMBER IT'S JUST A GAME

With eight strong teams in the tournament and several more that missed it by a whisker, it's been an exciting season, despite the disappointments that inevitably come to everybody with so many close games.

These kids deserve our praise, and support. If it's been nailbiting for us fans, consider how these teenagers have been tested by adversity along the way.

Although it's inevitable that only one team will win the whole thing, I'm hoping that the outcome will recall Sparky Anderson's quote in October 1975: "let's see....five of the seven games decided by a single run, four of them decided in the ninth inning or later; what has this World Series proved? I guess that this year, my Cincinnati Redlegs are the best team in baseball: though not by much."
 
Back
Top