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?
- Thread starter spwood
- Start date
polarbear2
Veteran
Re: NCAA Rankings?
from another poster...though we have confirmation this am, as it now shows up on collegehockeystats.net...Bowdoin vs Trinity on Monday 7 pm at Brooks School in North Andover, MA
from another poster...though we have confirmation this am, as it now shows up on collegehockeystats.net...Bowdoin vs Trinity on Monday 7 pm at Brooks School in North Andover, MA
Re: NCAA Rankings?
I prefer league playoffs.
Unfortunately (and this is hopefully becoming a smaller problem each year) similarly to the way some times will play "overly aggressively"" when they fall behind so far they have no chance of winning, some teams might be prone tot he same thing if you went strictly by the regular season standings.
I prefer league playoffs.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: NCAA Rankings?
As any statistician will tell you: the bigger the sample-size, the more accurate the analysis of the same tends to be...
Ergo, a single-elimination, tacked-on conference tournament should not carry much of any weight, when compared to the much larger amount of data that a RS provides. The only opportunity that this ridiculous situation provides is giving under-performing teams a chance at an unwarranted do-over... And that's a completely ludicrous way to award an AQ.
This gimmick was dreamed-up by the NCAA as a way to generate more bucks via basketball. As disingenuous as it is in that context, it's far sillier when employed in D-3 hockey, where no real money is on the table.
If we have to deal with AQs, clearly the RS champions should get the nod.
As any statistician will tell you: the bigger the sample-size, the more accurate the analysis of the same tends to be...
Ergo, a single-elimination, tacked-on conference tournament should not carry much of any weight, when compared to the much larger amount of data that a RS provides. The only opportunity that this ridiculous situation provides is giving under-performing teams a chance at an unwarranted do-over... And that's a completely ludicrous way to award an AQ.
This gimmick was dreamed-up by the NCAA as a way to generate more bucks via basketball. As disingenuous as it is in that context, it's far sillier when employed in D-3 hockey, where no real money is on the table.
If we have to deal with AQs, clearly the RS champions should get the nod.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings?
As I posted before, the NCAA gives the conferences the option of who to give the auto bid. The conferences are the ones concerned with adding glitz (the auto-bid) to their conference tournaments. Don't blame the NCAA for that one...
As I posted before, the NCAA gives the conferences the option of who to give the auto bid. The conferences are the ones concerned with adding glitz (the auto-bid) to their conference tournaments. Don't blame the NCAA for that one...
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
You cant reason with some people Steve.....you should know that by now...
Re: NCAA Rankings?
D-I, when there were 12 teams making the NCAA tourney, would give an auto-bid to both the tourney champ and regular season champ. If you were both the tourney champ and regular season champ, you got a bye into the second round. I believe this was when they only had 4 conferences though.
D-I, when there were 12 teams making the NCAA tourney, would give an auto-bid to both the tourney champ and regular season champ. If you were both the tourney champ and regular season champ, you got a bye into the second round. I believe this was when they only had 4 conferences though.
Re: NCAA Rankings?
That was correct. Then they added these expansion conferences like "Atlantic" Hockey and the late, not so lamented CHA, and the numbers didn't work any longer. That seemed like a good scheme to me.
That was correct. Then they added these expansion conferences like "Atlantic" Hockey and the late, not so lamented CHA, and the numbers didn't work any longer. That seemed like a good scheme to me.
Re: NCAA Rankings?
That was the (in)famous Clarkson Rule. It never worked for us. Only twice in the history of the single game knockout tournament (1992 on) has Clarkson won an NCAA tournament game (vs. Western Michigan and St. Cloud State). The rest -- PFFT!
Re: NCAA Rankings?
Air Force is on the eastern side of the continental divide, allowing it to be in "Atlantic" Hockey.
Air Force is on the eastern side of the continental divide, allowing it to be in "Atlantic" Hockey.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: NCAA Rankings?
Yes, the AQ is an NCAA construct... But it affording the conferences the leeway to award them as a result of post-season tournaments was another bad idea on the NCAA's part, IMO.
Yes, the AQ is an NCAA construct... But it affording the conferences the leeway to award them as a result of post-season tournaments was another bad idea on the NCAA's part, IMO.
Last edited:
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: NCAA Rankings?
I remember those days. It was an awful format.
There's still an AQ issue in D-1, but it rarely gifts more than 2 of the 16 qualifiers with unwarranted berths. (Though, in a perfect storm, there could be several more than that.)
I remember those days. It was an awful format.
There's still an AQ issue in D-1, but it rarely gifts more than 2 of the 16 qualifiers with unwarranted berths. (Though, in a perfect storm, there could be several more than that.)
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: NCAA Rankings?
No need for you all to wait for the NCAA to get around to updating its rankings; here are mine.
My extremely scientific metric punishes teams both for losing and for playing weak teams; thus the lower numbers translate to a better ranking. (Fewer whacks of the paddle, if you will.)
1.Utica (2.5)
2.Hobart (3.5)
3.Norwich (4.0)
4.Neumann/Oswego (7.5)
6.Babson (9.5)
7.Amherst (10.5)
8.Williams/Plattsburgh (11.0)
10.Manhattanville (12.0)
11.Bowdoin (12.5)
12. Middlebury/UMass Boston (13.5)
No need for you all to wait for the NCAA to get around to updating its rankings; here are mine.
My extremely scientific metric punishes teams both for losing and for playing weak teams; thus the lower numbers translate to a better ranking. (Fewer whacks of the paddle, if you will.)
1.Utica (2.5)
2.Hobart (3.5)
3.Norwich (4.0)
4.Neumann/Oswego (7.5)
6.Babson (9.5)
7.Amherst (10.5)
8.Williams/Plattsburgh (11.0)
10.Manhattanville (12.0)
11.Bowdoin (12.5)
12. Middlebury/UMass Boston (13.5)
Last edited:
polarbear2
Veteran
Re: NCAA Rankings?
Seems kind of unfair that there is no No. 5 or No. 9.
No need for you all to wait for the NCAA to get around to updating its rankings; here are mine.
My extremely scientific metric punishes teams both for losing and for playing weak teams; thus the lower numbers translate to a better ranking. (Fewer whacks of the paddle, if you will.)
1.Utica (2.5)
2.Hobart (3.5)
3.Norwich (4.0)
4.Neumann/Oswego (7.5)
6.Babson (9.5)
7.Amherst (10.5)
8.Williams/Plattsburgh (11.0)
10.Manhattanville (12.0)
11.Bowdoin (12.5)
12. Middlebury/UMass Boston (13.5)
Seems kind of unfair that there is no No. 5 or No. 9.
polarbearfan
Registered User
Re: NCAA Rankings?
yawn... not sure what you are trying to accomplish or what point you are trying to make with shtick
No need for you all to wait for the NCAA to get around to updating its rankings; here are mine.
My extremely scientific metric punishes teams both for losing and for playing weak teams; thus the lower numbers translate to a better ranking. (Fewer whacks of the paddle, if you will.)
1.Utica (2.5)
2.Hobart (3.5)
3.Norwich (4.0)
4.Neumann/Oswego (7.5)
6.Babson (9.5)
7.Amherst (10.5)
8.Williams/Plattsburgh (11.0)
10.Manhattanville (12.0)
11.Bowdoin (12.5)
12. Middlebury/UMass Boston (13.5)
yawn... not sure what you are trying to accomplish or what point you are trying to make with shtick
polarbear2
Veteran
Re: NCAA Rankings?
See, you throw out the bait on a hook and see what latches onto it...so far, it appears to be two Bowdoin fans!
See, you throw out the bait on a hook and see what latches onto it...so far, it appears to be two Bowdoin fans!