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.

NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

The seeding is anyone's guess, but it seems to me like we have a pretty good picture of what each result this weekend would generate for Pool C bids. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my take based on the current NCAA rankings:

-The NCHA loser and Utica have locked up Pool C bids.
-The MCHA is most likely a one bid conference.
-If the favorites pick up Pool A bids, depending on when the Beavers lose, its a coin flip between Hobart and Babson for the last Pool C bid
-If Norwich loses in the ECAC E tourney, they get the last Pool C bid.
-If Norwich earns Pool A and Oswego and Bowdoin do not, Edge to Oswego for the last Pool C bid.
-If Nowich wins and only one of Oswego and Bowdoin follows suit, the team that does not, has the inside track for the last Pool C but Babson and Hobart are in play, again depending on how the Beavers finish.

It will be an exciting weekend for sure!
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

NUProf said:
I agree - if they don't beat Plattsburgh they can make a tee time at the local Par-T golf simulator facility
Click to expand...

Well, now there are two reasons for Oswego to beat Plattsburgh. There is no such thing as that there simulator thing here... I don't even know what one is
 
NUProf said:
I agree - if they don't beat Plattsburgh they can make a tee time at the local Par-T golf simulator facility
Click to expand...

If the favorites win out, with the exception of Oswego, who do you think deserves the last Pool C (assuming the West gets 4 and Utica is a lock). All the teams that are left have their warts.

Oswego - very average SOS, terrible record vs ranked teams
Hobart - probably the best resume of all the Pool C, but if it comes down to them vs Oswego, they lose the comparison punctuated in a head to head loss
Babson - 7 losses and 5 ties, some of which came against unranked teams
UMass Boston - couple losses to unranked teams, including a really bad one to Southerm Maine, didn't make their conference finals
Neumann - assuming they win ECAC West, bad loss to Elmira, bad ties with Cortland and Morrisville
Stevens Point - 11 losses

Nobody else has a realistic shot at Pool C as they all will have another loss if the favorites win and won't jump that high.

Point is, all these teams should be very worried. If Oswego loses and gets in, you won't hear me apologize. At the same time, if they lose and don't get in you won't hear me whining either.

For the record, if I were a member of the committee, I would go with Hobart. For those who would argue that the committee is bound by the criteria, all you need to do is look at the current regional rankings and see that is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

93GreatLaker said:
If the favorites win out, with the exception of Oswego, who do you think deserves the last Pool C (assuming the West gets 4 and Utica is a lock). All the teams that are left have their warts.

Oswego - very average SOS, terrible record vs ranked teams
Hobart - probably the best resume of all the Pool C, but if it comes down to them vs Oswego, they lose the comparison punctuated in a head to head loss
Babson - 7 losses and 5 ties, some of which came against unranked teams
UMass Boston - couple losses to unranked teams, including a really bad one to Southerm Maine, didn't make their conference finals
Neumann - assuming they win ECAC West, bad loss to Elmira, bad ties with Cortland and Morrisville
Stevens Point - 11 losses

Nobody else has a realistic shot at Pool C as they all will have another loss if the favorites win and won't jump that high.

Point is, all these teams should be very worried. If Oswego loses and gets in, you won't hear me apologize. At the same time, if they lose and don't get in you won't hear me whining either.

For the record, if I were a member of the committee, I would go with Hobart. For those who would argue that the committee is bound by the criteria, all you need to do is look at the current regional rankings and see that is not the case.
Click to expand...

I think Babson is looking pretty good. Don't forget that two of their losses were to St. Anselm - those don't count. Losses to unranked teams are less harmful to your resume than losses to ranked teams. I think (and I haven't gotten into all the numbers (yet)), that it would come down to Hobart and Babson. If Babson wins tomorrow, the final spot will go to Norwich and we will have Utica, Norwich, and the NCHA loser.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

NUProf said:
I think Babson is looking pretty good. Don't forget that two of their losses were to St. Anselm - those don't count. Losses to unranked teams are less harmful to your resume than losses to ranked teams. I think (and I haven't gotten into all the numbers (yet)), that it would come down to Hobart and Babson. If Babson wins tomorrow, the final spot will go to Norwich and we will have Utica, Norwich, and the NCHA loser.
Click to expand...

Assuming Norwich and Oz win, I think Hobart gets in over Babson. Hobart has the more impressive body of work over the season. I know technically the St. A's losses don't count but I would hope the selection committee thinks a little more outside the box than strictly the numbers.

Also will this be 2 consecutive years the ECAC-W tourney champs gets left in the dust? Regardless of the outcome I dont think either Neumann or M-ville have the numbers to make a strong case. Manhattanville has been terrible against ranked teams and just overall uneven season. Neumann is a more interesting case. They have 2 wins over Hobart, win over Utica and Norwich but have some questionable losses and ties. And according to USCHO's Pairwise in all 5 criteria, Hobart has them 3-1 in the criteria. Based off of last year with Hobart I got to assume the NCAA will be consistent and keep them out since we have established twice now that winning the ECAC-W tournament does not help you but then again if there's one thing thats consistent with the NCAA is that they are inconsistent.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

NUProf said:
I think Babson is looking pretty good. Losses to unranked teams are less harmful to your resume than losses to ranked teams.
Click to expand...

Where on Earth is the logic in that, though..? Losing to an arbitrarily-designated NCAA "ranked" team ought to be more forgivable than being downed by an even more lowly team, as far as the selections goes, shouldn't it..? In my world, a bad loss carries more weight than a "good" one.

I'm very curious as to how that flies. Please explain, if you have a minute. (Absolutely no sarcasm is intended , BTW... Nothing will surprise me anymore about the D-3 selection fiasco.)

In the meantime, I'll say it again: Hobart has it all over Babson in both win % and SOS, and unless Norwich takes tomorrow night off just to spite me :D the NCAA will have no reasonable argument whatsoever for being ranked them above HC.

None.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Hockeyfan2113 said:
Assuming Norwich and Oz win, I think Hobart gets in over Babson. Hobart has the more impressive body of work over the season. I know technically the St. A's losses don't count but I would hope the selection committee thinks a little more outside the box than strictly the numbers.

Also will this be 2 consecutive years the ECAC-W tourney champs gets left in the dust? Regardless of the outcome I dont think either Neumann or M-ville have the numbers to make a strong case. Manhattanville has been terrible against ranked teams and just overall uneven season. Neumann is a more interesting case. They have 2 wins over Hobart, win over Utica and Norwich but have some questionable losses and ties. And according to USCHO's Pairwise in all 5 criteria, Hobart has them 3-1 in the criteria. Based off of last year with Hobart I got to assume the NCAA will be consistent and keep them out since we have established twice now that winning the ECAC-W tournament does not help you but then again if there's one thing thats consistent with the NCAA is that they are inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything you wrote. I would place Hobart above NU even if the latter wins the W tourney, because one game does not a season make in the W. (Too bad every conference doesn't work that way.)

Still, should NU win tomorrow (tonight) I might have them as my first-team-out in the East. They have a much more tangible body of work than a couple of teams that are likely to finish ahead of them in the NCAA rankings, IMO.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Ok here goes: (and this isn't saying the logic is correct or incorrect - it's just the logic).

Think of the criteria: WIN % doesn't care who you win or lose to, your percentage is your percentage. But how about RNK, record against ranked teams? That criteria carries equal weight to WIN%. Lose to Norwich or Utica, your RNK is worse. Lose to Cortland or Morrisville instead, your RNK is unchanged and your WIN% is the same either way.

In a real life scenario, in the recent past, Plattsburgh was a .500 team in SUNY. Finished either fourth or fifth in the regular season. Out of conference (which included wins over Norwich (x2), Neumann, Curry (who all made the NCAA tourney that year), Middlebury, and a tie with Elmira), Plattsburgh was undefeated and was very much in Pool C play. They won the SUNY tourney that year and got a pool a bid, but they were, if I remeber right, almost a Pool C lock because all of their 7 or so losses were to unranked teams.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Fishman'81 said:
Where on Earth is the logic in that, though..? Losing to an arbitrarily-designated NCAA "ranked" team ought to be more forgivable than being downed by an even more lowly team, as far as the selections goes, shouldn't it..? In my world, a bad loss carries more weight than a "good" one.

I'm very curious as to how that flies. Please explain, if you have a minute. (Absolutely no sarcasm is intended , BTW... Nothing will surprise me anymore about the D-3 selection fiasco.)

In the meantime, I'll say it again: Hobart has it all over Babson in both win % and SOS, and unless Norwich takes tomorrow night off just to spite me :D the NCAA will have no reasonable argument whatsoever for being ranked them above HC.

None.
Click to expand...

Let me supply you with an example to show why it works that way. It is an illogical side effect of the selection criteria. Lets take two mythical teams that somehow have played identical schedules, played each other 4 times during the season and split with each other. They each have records of 20-4-0. They will have identical WIN, OWP, OOWP, COP and H2H records. The only place where they would differ is in RNK. Suppose that team A's other two losses were against ranked teams and team B's other two losses were against unranked teams. If 4 of their games in their identical schedules were against ranked teams then Team A's RNK would turn out to be 0.500 while team B's RNK would be 1.000. Team B wins that criterion and according to the NCAA scheme is a better candidate for post season play than Team A. The moral is that if you are going to lose games, lose them to unranked teams. I agree it is stupid, but that is how it works.

There are lots of things about this process that don't make sense, but what is even worse is the fact that it is the same process that the NCAA uses in all Division 3 sports, and individual sports do not have the option to use different criteria.

The other thing is that according to the NCAA calculation formula Babson is ahead of Hobart in SOS and record vs. ranked teams. The difference in Win percentage is less than you think because the losses against St. Anselm don't count in the primary criteria.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Fishman'81 said:
In my world, a bad loss carries more weight than a "good" one.
Click to expand...


NUProf said:
.
.
.
.
.
The moral is that if you are going to lose games, lose them to unranked teams. I agree it is stupid, but that is how it works. Sorry, but the NCAA does not care about "your world." :p

There are lots of things about this process that don't make sense, but what is even worse is the fact that it is the same process that the NCAA uses in all Division 3 sports, and individual sports do not have the option to use different criteria.
Click to expand...

Embellished your post. :D
 
Last edited:
NUProf said:
. I agree it is stupid, but that is how it works.
Click to expand...

I know we think this as it has been said time and time again over the years, but every year (almost) somebody gets in (or left out) that does not win (or lose) the criteria battles with other teams. The arbitrary element of some criteria may be weighted more than others makes it a total guessing game on our part when it comes down to the last spot. With all we (the posters) know about the selection process we still get the teams wrong quite often. As of today, it looks as though the committee must be considering COP very heavily, as there is no other reason to have Oswego #3 in the East.

I submit to all out there the committee does not follow the criteria as we have laid it out for years, if they did you would not even need a committee, just a travel agent to decide which match ups fall within the 500 mile rule (a computer program could easily calculate the field if the criteria was really utilized). If Oswego gets in this year, having lost in the SUNY Championship, that will be all the proof I need that the process has a lot bigger subjective element than we all think.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

In play against ranked opponents nobody except Norwich, Utica, Trinity Bowdoin & Babson need apply.

The team most misused by the rankings this year is Plattsburgh, not Hobart, because of the bizarre disparity between Plattsburgh and Oswego. If it wasn't against my own rooting interests I'd be pulling for Plattsburgh to bury Oswego tonight. But......I have no scruples and need to keep Oswego out of pool-C. If my guys get their AQ, I'd be very happy to see Plattsburgh win the Sunyac. Sorry Laker people.....
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

petrietodonovan said:
In play against ranked opponents nobody except Norwich, Utica, Trinity Bowdoin & Babson need apply.

The team most misused by the rankings this year is Plattsburgh, not Hobart, because of the bizarre disparity between Plattsburgh and Oswego. If it wasn't against my own rooting interests I'd be pulling for Plattsburgh to bury Oswego tonight. But......I have no scruples and need to keep Oswego out of pool-C. If my guys get their AQ, I'd be very happy to see Plattsburgh win the Sunyac. Sorry Laker people.....
Click to expand...

The ranking of Plattsburgh is a true curiosity and it does present some evidence that there is a lot of smoke in "them thar hills"
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Fishman'81 said:
Agree with everything you wrote. I would place Hobart above NU even if the latter wins the W tourney, because one game does not a season make in the W. (Too bad every conference doesn't work that way.)

Still, should NU win tomorrow (tonight) I might have them as my first-team-out in the East. They have a much more tangible body of work than a couple of teams that are likely to finish ahead of them in the NCAA rankings, IMO.
Click to expand...

In my world, regular season championships gets you the bid then the conference tournaments can either help you secure a higher seed if you were #1 or if you were #2, 3, 4 (nothing lower) than you can help your candidacy for a Pool C.

I hate it that tournament champions for everyone except ECAC-W can get you a bid while a team who won the conference after 25 games overall and 15 which is a lot more than 2 or 3 (I think, havent taken math in a few years here) gets a nice fruit basket and thanks for playing card and has to ride hope and pray on Sunday. There seems to be a lot head scratching that Oz is #3 with the losses to UC and Platty but at the same time they managed to beat out Platty and Genny for the conference title because they could win in-conference while those 2 had some tough losses in their conference. And does platty really deserve to be ranked higher than they are right now? no. Who else would deserve to be that high? Bowdoin? I think we can all agree no. Babson? no. Hobart? Maybe but they lost last weekend so hard to justify they shouldn't move while Oz wins and is in the championship.

Reason #2 I know it is high unlikely and correct me if I am wrong but Salve Regina (10-13-3 overall) is playing in the ECAC-NE championship. If they win, they get a bid correct? This is a team Hobart beat 10-0 and Utica beat them 6-2 granted they were both home games for those respective teams but still. That is embarrassing for the conference and the NCAA if Salve can continue their run and knock off Wentworth and get in.

Now maybe it's because I am on the other side of the fence this year in regards to where my team is but NCAA needs to do what is right and keep it consistent as Neumann is exactly where Hobart was last year with the only exception that there are two ECACW teams in front of them instead of just one with better numbers and by beating Manhattanville should not be enough justification to get them in given the criteria is stacked higher against them than Hobart's was last year.
 
Hockeyfan2113 said:
In my world, regular season championships gets you the bid then the conference tournaments can either help you secure a higher seed if you were #1 or if you were #2, 3, 4 (nothing lower) than you can help your candidacy for a Pool C.

I hate it that tournament champions for everyone except ECAC-W can get you a bid while a team who won the conference after 25 games overall and 15 which is a lot more than 2 or 3 (I think, havent taken math in a few years here) gets a nice fruit basket and thanks for playing card and has to ride hope and pray on Sunday. There seems to be a lot head scratching that Oz is #3 with the losses to UC and Platty but at the same time they managed to beat out Platty and Genny for the conference title because they could win in-conference while those 2 had some tough losses in their conference. And does platty really deserve to be ranked higher than they are right now? no. Who else would deserve to be that high? Bowdoin? I think we can all agree no. Babson? no. Hobart? Maybe but they lost last weekend so hard to justify they shouldn't move while Oz wins and is in the championship.

Reason #2 I know it is high unlikely and correct me if I am wrong but Salve Regina (10-13-3 overall) is playing in the ECAC-NE championship. If they win, they get a bid correct? This is a team Hobart beat 10-0 and Utica beat them 6-2 granted they were both home games for those respective teams but still. That is embarrassing for the conference and the NCAA if Salve can continue their run and knock off Wentworth and get in.

Now maybe it's because I am on the other side of the fence this year in regards to where my team is but NCAA needs to do what is right and keep it consistent as Neumann is exactly where Hobart was last year with the only exception that there are two ECACW teams in front of them instead of just one with better numbers and by beating Manhattanville should not be enough justification to get them in given the criteria is stacked higher against them than Hobart's was last year.
Click to expand...

Team A finishes 12-0-2
Team B finishes 12-0-2
Both teams tied each other

Same conf wins...same goal differential...same everything...

Team A wins the "coin flip" to win the regular season title and gets the NCAA bid....team B goes home....

No thanks.....

If anything we should be advocating to expand...I'd be all for a 16 team tournament. Regular Season Champ AND Tournament Champion. If RS wins Tournament then a Pool C bid opens up.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

yea I think this whole process has a lot to do more with what people think than all these formulas that have been posted here.....fair, who knows, correct, who knows,teams get left out that MAYBE should have been in,who knows,win and your in,we all know...great night for hockey tonight and tomorrow all the $%#@ will hit the fan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top