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.

Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

I like the 3 point system. What would the standings have looked like with that in place?
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

I give PC credit for sweeping UNH. After all, shootouts or not, if UNH had taken just one game from the Friars they would be regular season champs.

However, are you honestly arguing that shootouts are an indication that one TEAM had a better season than another?

THAT is why I have such an issue with shootouts. Two TEAMS played to a TIE for 65 minutes.

Then one team is given the equivalent of a legitimate WIN because an arbitrary, individual skills exhibition.

If the shootouts are to stay, I think the pt system needs to be reworked. Shootouts should NEVER be weighted the same as a legitimate win. For example, 3 pts for a win, 2 pts for a shootout win, and 1 pt for a shootout loss.


This is what I posted on January 21st in the UNH thread so I am not arguing that shootouts are an indication that one team is better.

I don't know if it is the sheer number of ties in HE this year or the logic in Freak's aurgument :eek: , but I am beginning to agree with this point of view. Of the 50 games played in HE this year, 12 of them have ended in ties. That is almost 1/4 of the games, equating to 12 additional points. This could significantly impact the ratings, as I foresee (many) more ties before the season is over.

I personally am not excited by the prospect of watching the shootout, but realize others may be. That being said, if it is for "entertainment's sake", then the winner should get points in a statistical column that is used for tie-breaker purposes, rather than actual win points.

I would support a 3 point game, it would make much more sense.
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

If I did the math correctly that would have given both UNH and PC 41 points, with the Friars still getting the top seed.

Sean

Actually PC would have come out ahead outright.

PC 11-5-5-3 : (11*3)+(3*2)+5 = 44
UNH 13-6-2-0 : (13*3)+(0*2)+2 = 41

In fact, if I did my math correctly, none of the seedings would have changed.

However, I think people are just assuming that I'm bitter because UNH didn't win the regular season.

For me, it's the principle of the shootouts. They are NOT wins. They should NOT be weighted the same as a legitimate win. JMO.
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

In fact, if I did my math correctly, none of the seedings would have changed.
I don't think you did. One point for a tie; another point for a SO win. Not two points for a SO win plus another point for a tie.
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Actually PC would have come out ahead outright.

PC 11-5-5-3 : (11*3)+(3*2)+5 = 44
UNH 13-6-2-0 : (13*3)+(0*2)+2 = 41

In fact, if I did my math correctly, none of the seedings would have changed.

However, I think people are just assuming that I'm bitter because UNH didn't win the regular season.

For me, it's the principle of the shootouts. They are NOT wins. They should NOT be weighted the same as a legitimate win. JMO.

Didn't you assign two points to each of the shootout wins (3) and 5 more for the ties? There should only be 5 points for the ties, and three more points for three shoot out wins. Correct me if I'm wrong~
PC 11-5-5-3 : (11*3)+(5)+3 = 41

UNH is easier to calculate 'cause we don't win shootouts:o
UNH 13-6-2-0 : (13*3)+(2) = 41

I find the whole discussion ironic, because the shootouts seem to be casuing the very logjam they were supposed to prevent:eek:
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

I was just trying to prove the inaccuracy of that statement

Really?

Cavbim is right! And because I took the slanted statistics as a curse on our chances :eek: , I did go out and align the columns. What it shows you is that every year except one, the Season Champion did win the tournament, regardless of where it was held.

Naturally, this year the field is much, much tighter, but statistically speaking....

I'm not making this stuff up.

He didn't mention anything about the regular season. You refuted his home ice theory by noting that in every year except one, the season champ won the tourney champ.

Or, in other words, "I'll see your only one host has ever won the tourney and raise you a the season champ usually wins the tourney.

Your note about the field being much tighter is a throwaway comment, as you follow it immediately by noting the statistical correlation between regular season and tourney champs.

But yeah, I'll buy that you were simply trying to prove the inaccuracy of his statement by not even addressing the inaccuracy of his statement. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

I don't think you did. One point for a tie; another point for a SO win. Not two points for a SO win plus another point for a tie.

Oops, good call.

I was treating SOWs as a separate category from Ties/SOLs.

Also, thanks to DC.

In any case, then, not to sidetrack the tourney thread but...

PC - 41
UNH - 41
BU - 38
NU - 37
UC - 37
BC - 29
VT - 16
ME - 13

So, again, no change in the standings or seedings. But there is no 3-way tie anymore, and while I'd prefer no shootouts, it cures the problem of them being weighted the same as a legit win.
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

I like the 3 point system. What would the standings have looked like with that in place?
Here are the actual points (AP), 3-point system (x3) and for what its worth, the old 5-point system used in mid-nineties for the men.

Using the 3-point system the only changes would be UNH tying PC, but losing the H2H and NU tying UConn and not BU. NU would still be the 4th seed as they won the H2H.

Using the old 5-point system UNH would be 1st, PC 2nd, BU and UConn tied for 3rd with UConn winning the H2H to be the 3rd seed and BU the 4th seed, with NU the 5th seed.
Code:
2009-10 Standings                AP  x3  x5
Providence         21  11-5-5-3  30  41  68
New Hampshire      21  13-6-2-0  28  41  69
Boston University  21  10-6-5-3  28  38  63
Northeastern       21   9-6-6-4  28  37  61
Connecticut        21  10-5-6-1  27  37  63
Boston College     21  7-10-4-4  22  29  47
Vermont            21  5-15-1-0  11  16  27
Maine              21  3-15-3-1  10  13  22

Sean
 
Last edited:
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Speaking of missing the point, you need to go back a few posts... The whole reason that I even brought up the fact about Season champs being tournament champs was in response to UNHKazooMonkey's comment that I did quote in my original response.


I was just trying to prove the inaccuracy of that statement since it was only last year that Hockey East went to the home ice for top seed, so yeah, there was only one host team that has every won the hockey east tournament. Prior to that, the host team was usually not the season champ.

His. And there was no inaccuracy of my statement. I never mentioned that the host school were the regular season champs. In fact, the only two teams that have been regular season champions have been PC and UNH. The fact remains that only one host school has been tournament champions. PC is probably the best PC team I have seen ever in hockey east. can they win? Yes they can. I was just pointing out that home ice has not really mattered in hockey east playoffs.
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

If you mean the same host has been the only host to ever win you are correct. If you mean it individually Didn't UNH host in '07 and '09 and didn't they win the tourney each year.

That is also misleading. They kept it in Boston the first 4 years and coincidently 2 of the 3 years NU hosted they did not even make the tourney. The other year in Boston was given to BU when they as a still fledgling team they failed to make the tourney.

my apologies, two host teams have won. (and yes i'm aware both are UNH)
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

The other year in Boston was given to BU when they as a still fledgling team they failed to make the tourney.
BU hosted the tournament in 2005, the season before they started varsity play (2005-06).

Sean
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Time to move the college thread back up. Playoffs start tomorrow at Matthews Arena. Who's headed to the game?

I for one, can't wait. And with no electricity forecast in my neck of the words for the next two or three days, at least I don't have to watch the clock!
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

So sad that the USA gold medal final is at the same time as Sunday's BC-BU playoff game... BU timing fail. :(
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Looks like we need to start a thread; Women's Hockey East: A History eh? :eek:

Speaking of history, does anyone know why Hockey East chose to do the 1 and done format for quarterfinals vs the 2 out of three that is used by WCHA and ECAC?
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Because Hockey East didn't feel before this season they had 8 teams yet the coaches feel would be suitable for a best-of-three quarterfinal series. It's been incremental for all the leagues.

ECAC was single-elimination up until 2002 (the year the Hockey East teams were first split into the ECAC East and then started Hockey East a year later). It might have been premature to do an 8-team best-of-three playoff at that point, but now everyone else is following suit. The format was pretty rough back when they had 8 teams+Vermont, but it's gotten a lot better over the past 5 years.

WCHA was single-elimination 5-team playoff up until 2003-04. Then in 04-05 they did single-elimination 8-team playoff. Then they went to their current format.

Hockey East was a 6-team league up for its first 3 seasons, so it made sense to have only a 4-team single elimination playoff. They didn't expand playoffs to six teams until last season. BC was a .500 team that year, a year removed from the Frozen Four, and didn't make the Hockey East postseason, and I think the league coaches felt the league had advanced to the point where a 6-team playoff was beneficial.

I think eventually you'll see an 8-team best-of-three quarterfinal Hockey East playoff, but it won't be until Maine and Vermont become good on a consistent basis. I don't think we're too far off from that, since Vermont had single wins over the leagues top 3 teams in the standings and was the only Hockey East team that beat Clarkson.

As for why they don't do best-of-three quarterfinal in the current format, I don't know, it's kind of weird to have a six team tournament with byes for a best-of-three round. I've never seen that before. The quarterfinals are more of a "play-in" round. I think it makes sense with a six-team format. It's probably seen as giving too much lopsided # of games for the teams without the bye.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

Also, I'm sure the Hockey East coaches are as surprised as the rest of us that the 4-5 quarterfinal pairing (between UConn and Northeastern) ended up being between teams No. 7 and No. 8 in the NCAA standings (though Quinnipiac has since passed Northeastern). I expect the coaches in retrospect would have preferred a best-of-three series between Northeastern and UConn. I wouldn't be surprised to see the playoffs expanded in the near future.
 
Re: Hockey East Tourney Thread - 2010

I wouldn't want to see the tournament expanded unless the league grows to 9 or 10 teams.
 
Back
Top