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.

Frozen Four 2023: Three Blue Bloods and and Upstart

J.D. said:
Hits him in the shoulder so let's go down like someone hit you in the head with a brick
Click to expand...

Smart play with NCHC Refs. Nearly got his team a 5-minute PP 21 seconds into the game.

QU looks extremely nervous. Here's to them getting their legs underneath them and taking a deep breath, or this could get ugly quick.
 
Sean Pickett said:
Fighting Sioux 23 has ranked every DI team all-time. While they have never posted the formula they used, they did post the criteria used to rank the teams:

First lets discuss the criteria used. There were a ton of options that I had when picking out what would be used:

National Championships - This was the easiest and most obvious piece of criteria to use. While many of us would agree that the National Champion isn't necessarily the best team that season, it shows two very important things within any one season. First, it shows that team was good throughout the year. Outside the AQs, you can't be good for only a few weekends to make the tournament, you have to be good all year long. Second, the National Champion has to win 2-4 games against other very good teams in order hoist a national trophy. Finally, it's the most pressure packed stage in our game. Given those three things, it was a no brainer that National Championships would be used, and would have some significant weight behind it.

Conference Titles (Regular Season/Tournament) - This was a tricky one. If Conference Titles were to be used, what title would be weighted more heavily, or should they be weighted the same. The Regular Season Conference Title is obviously more difficult to win. It requires strong, consistent play throughout an entire regular season. Saying that, it doesn't have the pressure of the Tournament Title. Also, in conferences that are not as strong as the CCHA, Hockey East, WCHA and ECAC, usually only the Tournament champion advances to the NCAA Tournament. There is also sectional differences here. In the East, the Tournament title is generally seen as more important, while in the West, especially the WCHA, the Regular Season title is seen as the top dog. So, two questions came out of this, 1) Do we count Conference Titles, and 2) How do we weigh Conference Titles. I ultimately decided to count Conference Titles. They are an important piece of a program's history, and honestly, we spend far more time playing for Conference Titles than anything else. As for how to weigh Conference Titles, this was actually aided by my formula strategy (which I will discuss later). In the end, Conference Titles were weighed relatively similar, with Regular Season Conference Titles having a slight edge.

Tournament Appearances - This was an obvious choice as well. Making the NCAA Tournament is a goal for every program at the beginning of each and every season. This criteria also theoretically adds to the weighting of a Conference Tournament Title (at least if you subscribe to the theory that a Tournament Title is more important because it gets you into the NCAA Tournament). Realistically, most teams that win their Conference are going to make the NCAA Tournament, but not always. So, if you were upset that I weighed Regular Season titles slightly over Tournament titles, this criteria basically makes up for that difference.

Tournament Record (W-L-T) - This particular criteria I debated about for awhile. At the end of the day, I felt it was important to include how well a program does in the most pressure packed situations. Once I decided it was in, I debated about whether points should be awarded for Losses in the NCAA Tournament. This was a difficult decision. On one hand, we are already awarding teams for making the tournament, why should they be rewarded for losing in the tournament. On the other hand, playing in the NCAA Tournament is the most pressure packed stage and even playing, and losing, is still very prestigious for most programs. It also further adds weight to making the NCAA Tournament. Ultimately, I decided that losses would get a very small amount of points.

Tournament Winning % - I decided to include this as well. I felt that if I'm going to include points for ties or losses that it should be countered by a winning percentage factor. It also shows which teams did the best in their trips to the NCAA Tournament, along with how well they do when they are in the most pressure packed stage that we have in our game.

Frozen Four Appearances - This was another no doubter.
Frozen Four Record (W-L-T) - See Tournament Record.
Frozen Four Winning % - See Tournament Winning %.

Program Winning % - I definitely debated about whether or not to include winning %. There is the obvious con to using this, in that teams play very different schedules. It's not very fair to compare Minnesota's SOS to say Bentley's. Saying that, I felt that winning games is the base of what every program tries to do on a regular basis. At the end of the day, I felt I had to include Program Winning %. I also felt that I needed another criteria that would best account for SOS. After looking through a variety of different ways (including trying to come up with some sort of all-time RPI) I decided I would include Winning Percentage vs NCAA Champions. After all, if you were able to consistently beat the best, that speaks volumes for the difficulty of a program's schedule. If you've never played an NCAA Champion...that also shows what kind of schedule you typically have.

The last set of criteria I looked at was individual excellence. I debated for awhile whether I should include this at all, but I ultimately felt that having top notch individuals on your team/program helps show how quality that program is. There were several criteria here:

All-Americans - This was the most obvious choice to use. All-Americans have been awarded since 1954, it is done by a consistent body (AHCA) and it looks at all of the programs. It also shows which players were "the best" that particular year across the nation.

Hobey Baker Finalists - At first I thought this was a no brainer if I was going to include All-Americans, but after debating about it, the main thing that was drawing me away from it was that it only applies to 1981-present. Ultimately I decided to include it. It is a more exclusive group than All-Americans (10 chosen compared to 24 All-Americans) and the winner of the award brings a tremendous amount of attention to the program. That is why I also included Hobey Baker winners as a piece of criteria.

Also, IIRC, the criteria is weighted so more recent events are worth more points than older events. I think the list does an excellent job of showing what teams are the bluebloods. The question is at what point do you have the cutoff? For me it is between #7 Wisconsin and #8 Michigan State, as there is a 120 point gap between those two teams. So, based on that, I consider these 6 teams the college hockey bluebloods:

1. North Dakota
2. Michigan
3. Denver
4. Minnesota
5. Boston College
6. Boston University
7. Wisconsin

Based on this season it will be interesting to see by how much MSU will close the gap on Wisconsin. You can see the top 20 through last season or you can read the the thread from the start.

Sean
Click to expand...

And I disagree with whatever value system ranks programs like Michigan and Denver so high. I'm a huge cfb fan, and obviously the creator of this ranking system is not. Because NONE of the cfb fans I talk to would EVER let me get away with using Natl Titles from lifetimes ago to bolster the all-time ranking of the Gopher football program up into the Top 10, like it would if those titles were looked at on equal standing as modern titles.

I've accepted the fact that Minnesota doesn't deserve to be listed among the Top Ten Cfb programs of all time, because titles won before most of us were born, well, they count, but they can't equal modern titles straight up.


But that is what all of you people who love to prop up Michigan and Denver do, you expect us to consider titles from the 40s and 50s and 60s to be considered equivalent to titles won during most of our lifetimes.


And is there a single NCAA Div 1 College Hockey team not located in America?

So why is it considered such a good thing when programs rely on older Canadian players to win titles? Traitorous much?

I'm not saying the occasional Canadian and/or European isn't ok, but loading up your team with foreign talent? I'll never respect this, EVER.
 
Numbers said:
Among eastern teams, the only ones listed here as Blue Bloods in any way are:
BU
BC
Harvard

Really? Hmm......That's interesting for sure. I wonder how everyone feels about Cornell?
Click to expand...

Harvard is not a blue blood. I would say Cornell used to be. Can you lose your blue blood status? Two titles but only one FF in how many years?
 
Dutchman said:
In the semi's the media was all over our coach, asking him how he could possibly expect to play in the same rink as BC and stop the great BC top line. (I think this was the "Johnny Gaudreau" line)
Click to expand...

Wonder whatever happened to him
 
J.D. said:
Harvard is not a blue blood. I would say Cornell used to be. Can you lose your blue blood status? Two titles but only one FF in how many years?
Click to expand...

Agreed on Harvard. You present a good question about whether a program can lose its blue blood status. It probably depends on how you define a blue blood.
 
J.D. said:
You could have stopped here. This is why people hate Minnesota. There is no argument for the Gophers.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA, you are so funny. I love people like you, you just give me every excuse I need to post.

There are a dozen arguments for the Gophers.

I'll wait til after the game to list them all.
 
I am also enjoying that Justen Close turns 25 next month. Imagine if he played for Minnesota State, SCSU etc
 
They just showed a Gopher family where one of the kids was a doppleganger for Ralphie from Christmas Story.
 
FredsDeadFriend said:
But that is what all of you people who love to prop up Michigan and Denver do, you expect us to consider titles from the 40s and 50s and 60s to be considered equivalent to titles won during most of our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

If I’m not mistaken, Denver has won four titles since Minnesota’s last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top