NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

[spwood]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I believe the rankings were done Monday before the Bowdoin - Trinity game. The results are announced on Tuesday.

Trinity's record reflected the Monday loss... but it's still only their third loss and I don't think the NCAA considers margin of victory (or defeat)...then again, we really don't know what the NCAA considers, do we?

 

[jcase]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Plattsburgh State is the Al Gore of the NCAA polls ! Using the 5 main criteria, the Cards are tied with Neumann, Castleton, Trinity, Mass-Boston and BEAT Williams, Amherst and Oswego.

In some cases, the Cards have better W/L, SOS and RNK !!! Oh well, they may be one of the hottest teams in the country (9 out of last 10) and are using this for extra fuel. Imagine beating a team twice, having a tougher SOS and a better record against ranked....and being 8 spots behind them in the polls ?????

Hasn't this been discussed ad nauseam?!?!? Oh wait! this isn't *Utica* and Oswego. Carry on...

 

[joecct]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

bowdoin's record reflected the monday loss... But it's still only their third loss and i don't think the ncaa considers margin of victory (or defeat)...then again, we really don't know what the ncaa considers, do we?

fyp

 

[norm1909]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Plattsburgh State is the Al Gore of the NCAA polls ! Using the 5 main criteria, the Cards are tied with Neumann, Castleton, Trinity, Mass-Boston and BEAT Williams, Amherst and Oswego.

In some cases, the Cards have better W/L, SOS and RNK !!! Oh well, they may be one of the hottest teams in the country (9 out of last 10) and are using this for extra fuel. Imagine beating a team twice, having a tougher SOS and a better record against ranked....and being 8 spots behind them in the polls ?????

They Card's are always looking to support a good cause, and if it is helping to reduce global warming, then so be it.

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Are they supposed to go undefeated?? Every team has a loss here and there that they shouldn't have.

You're right... plattsburgh just has a few more than some of the others.

There's no shame losing 1-goal games to Norwich, Amherst and even Midd and Geneseo.

...but there is something to be said about losing 1-goal games to ALL of them.

OK, a loss to Fredonia and a tie to Cortland weren't good.

...and that didn't help either.


Look, realistically it doesn't matter, and it's not worth worrying about. We always harp on how these NCAA rankings are the only ones that mean anything, but the reality is that it only means something if you're in the top 4-5. Looking at today's ranking, everyone from Oswego down might as well be ranked "t-5", because they're all there to serve no purpose other than contributing to the record vs. ranked teams of the top 4. And there's no way Plattsburgh deserves to be in the top 4 right now. So I'm not going to argue whether Plattsburgh should be ranked 5th or 13th, because... Well... It's not worth my time.


And seriously, chill out. It's already being pointed out that you're making the EXACT same arguments that were made by Utica fans all season, causing lots of drama and hostility. Some posters constantly complain about the Utica posters... Do you really want them to start complaining about the plattsburgh posters, too? No thank you!


All of that said... GO CARDS! I plan on attending the game this saturday, for certain.

 

[bakdraft21]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Are they supposed to go undefeated?? Every team has a loss here and there that they shouldn't have. There's no shame losing 1-goal games to Norwich, Amherst and even Midd and Geneseo. OK, a loss to Fredonia and a tie to Cortland weren't good. I just don't understand the logic behind some of this (if any).

I am fully aware of how the system works. And if I thought we were ranked where we should be, I wouldn't have wasted my time posting. But thanks anyway.

its all a crap shoot,they can put up all these fancy #'s and stats and comparisons and who did what to who when,bottom line is , most of these teams are a goal apart and beat beat each other on any given night,lets see what happens in a few weeks,ya never know who can do what to who and what will happen in that smokeeeeee room,dont count anyone out anywhere not matter what.

 

[admiral0417]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

You're right... plattsburgh just has a few more than some of the others.

...but there is something to be said about losing 1-goal games to ALL of them.

...and that didn't help either.


Look, realistically it doesn't matter, and it's not worth worrying about. We always harp on how these NCAA rankings are the only ones that mean anything, but the reality is that it only means something if you're in the top 4-5. Looking at today's ranking, everyone from Oswego down might as well be ranked "t-5", because they're all there to serve no purpose other than contributing to the record vs. ranked teams of the top 4. And there's no way Plattsburgh deserves to be in the top 4 right now. So I'm not going to argue whether Plattsburgh should be ranked 5th or 13th, because... Well... It's not worth my time.


And seriously, chill out. It's already being pointed out that you're making the EXACT same arguments that were made by Utica fans all season, causing lots of drama and hostility. Some posters constantly complain about the Utica posters... Do you really want them to start complaining about the plattsburgh posters, too? No thank you!


All of that said... GO CARDS! I plan on attending the game this saturday, for certain.

Thank you young man for the advice. I'll take it under advisement !

 

[polarbear2]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I'm happy where my teams ranked!

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Thank you young man for the advice. I'll take it under advisement !

Ha, any time

I might not always agree with your opinions, but it's always night to see more Plattsburgh fans on these forums. I'll be in town for the SUNYAC semifinal this weekend, if you're going to be there I'd love to be able to put a face to the username. I don't have a season ticket, so my spot is never guaranteed, but I usually end up on the rails around B or C, with a grey Cardinals hoodie and a red Cardinal Hockey cap (totally unique and distinguishable... not!). If you see me over there, feel free to say hi!

 

[peddler]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I'm happy where my teams ranked!

+1

 

[NUProf]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

The Poll only takes on meaning for teams with a shot at Pool C.
St Thomas can and will be in Toournament discussion if they are MIAC champions.

It also takes on meaning for teams that make the field, because their ranking (or lack thereof) will determine their regional seeding.

 

[LakerFan99]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I haven't been following the NCAA's rankings for as long as many others here have. Is it strange that they aren't posting the pdf with the numbers used to calculate the primary criteria? Last week they had something up from 2011. This week there's nothing.

 

[spwood]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Interesting discussion last night. Bob Emery was on the local ESPN station last night. He was asked the question about how the Cards can be #9 in the country nationally, but only #13 in the NCAA Eastern rankings. Shockingly, Bob stated that he had seen the rankings and couldn't figure out how Plattsburgh was ranked that low. He did also say that he didn't think his team should be anywhere near in contention for a Pool C bid, but that in looking at the numbers, he couldn't understand Plattsburgh's ranking. He also mentioned that he was in favor of a larger tournament because there weren't enough at-large bids (actually, that there were too many auto-bids).

Matthew Webb was also on the show, but I wasn't in the car when he was on, so I'm not sure what he said.

You can probably find the discussion on 1013espn.com's website.

 

[Hockeyfan2113]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Interesting discussion last night. Bob Emery was on the local ESPN station last night. He was asked the question about how the Cards can be #9 in the country nationally, but only #13 in the NCAA Eastern rankings. Shockingly, Bob stated that he had seen the rankings and couldn't figure out how Plattsburgh was ranked that low. He did also say that he didn't think his team should be anywhere near in contention for a Pool C bid, but that in looking at the numbers, he couldn't understand Plattsburgh's ranking. He also mentioned that he was in favor of a larger tournament because there weren't enough at-large bids (actually, that there were too many auto-bids).

Matthew Webb was also on the show, but I wasn't in the car when he was on, so I'm not sure what he said.

You can probably find the discussion on 1013espn.com's website.

I agree with Emery there needs to be a larger tournament solely because there are too many conference auto bids. Is there any other sport where there is as few at large bids and as many conference bids? 8/3 has to be the largest and you are routinely leaving out deserving teams from the ECAC-W, SUNYAC, etc because you have conferences like this http://www.uscho.com/standings/miac/ getting auto bids.

 

[jerrynu26]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I agree with Emery there needs to be a larger tournament solely because there are too many conference auto bids. Is there any other sport where there is as few at large bids and as many conference bids? 8/3 has to be the largest and you are routinely leaving out deserving teams from the ECAC-W, SUNYAC, etc because you have conferences like this http://www.uscho.com/standings/miac/ getting auto bids.

Interesting. Those standings look very similar to this.

 

[LakerEagleLover]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I agree with Emery there needs to be a larger tournament solely because there are too many conference auto bids. Is there any other sport where there is as few at large bids and as many conference bids? 8/3 has to be the largest and you are routinely leaving out deserving teams from the ECAC-W, SUNYAC, etc because you have conferences like this http://www.uscho.com/standings/miac/ getting auto bids.

That was the motivation of the NCAA with the men's D1 basketball tournament expansion...That and the money.

 

[Dyce]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I agree with Emery there needs to be a larger tournament solely because there are too many conference auto bids. Is there any other sport where there is as few at large bids and as many conference bids? 8/3 has to be the largest and you are routinely leaving out deserving teams from the ECAC-W, SUNYAC, etc because you have conferences like this http://www.uscho.com/standings/miac/ getting auto bids.

DIII baseball has almost exactly the same ratio of non-at-large to at-large: 40 Pool A+B, 16 Pool C. The stronger conferences aren't happy about it there, either.

 

[llama]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Interesting. Those standings look very similar to this.

I can see your point as it relates to in-conference parity....but there isn't much else similar between these two conferences this year. The HUGE difference is their teams' overall records (i.e. the ECAC-W OOC win % is .733…MIAC OOC win % is .340. 67% of the teams in the ECAC-W finished the regular season with a winning record....vs. 44% of the teams in the MIAC.)

 

[jerrynu26]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I can see your point as it relates to in-conference parity....but there isn't much else similar between these two conferences this year. The HUGE difference is their teams' overall records (i.e. the ECAC-W OOC win % is .733…MIAC OOC win % is .340. 67% of the teams in the ECAC-W finished the regular season with a winning record....vs. 44% of the teams in the MIAC.)

For THIS year. But the ECAC-W is pumped up by a down SUNYAC this year where less than half of the teams have a winning record, and another quarter of the OOC games against the ECAC NE.

 

[llama]

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

For THIS year. But the ECAC-W is pumped up by a down SUNYAC this year where less than half of the teams have a winning record, and another quarter of the OOC games against the ECAC NE.

The ECAC-W OOC record is not unique to this year. I think you'd find that their OOC record is amongst the top-3 in the country in most (if not all) of the past five years. Point taken about the ECAC-NE games...I'd love to see that trend change...but I would note that trend has not hurt the SOS for teams in the league.

Regardless, I am having a hard time believing you really think that over the past five years the ECAC-W and the MIAC are similar in terms of conference strength?

EDIT:
Now knowing where the data is, I went back over the past seven seasons. The OOC record for the ECAC-W has been #1 or #2 in the country every one of these past seven seasons with one exception (2009-2010 - they were fourth). In this time span, the MIAC has not once had an OOC record above .500.

Also worth noting is the ECAC-W has won the conference head-to-head with the SUNYAC every one of these seven seasons...most of them by a clear margin. (I'm putting my helmet on now bracing for the impending onslaught from Platty and OSU fans)...