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 Tournament Selection and Seeding

FredsDeadFriend said:
.....................

So...

If BC, UMD & Providence ALL lost their last game in their conf tourney's, by a combined 13 goal margin, how is it that they are "good", but UMn's not?
Click to expand...

Because like it or not, that is what the committee decided when it came to deciding who should be in the NC$$ Tourney.
Not sure many (any) agree with the committee but we did not get a vote. I certainly did not agree with the choice of teams but have moved on.
 
From what you all have said about this season and these teams and this bracket it sounds as if this tourney is going to resemble the three-minute entertainments played by local Mites squads during D1 intermissions.

What have we got for live coverage?
 
FredsDeadFriend said:
You realize UMn outscored #3 ranked OSU in their 6 games, including a 4-0 pummeling and a 7-4 stomping, with 3 of their 4 losses being just 1 goal losses. And they swept #5 UMD in their 2 games.
Click to expand...
I watched the "4-0 pummeling" to start the season and came away impressed -- by OSU. IMO, they were a step faster than UM throughout the weekend and looked very consistent for a team coming off such a long layoff. A huge factor in those early weekends was Bench was playing very, very well. If she had been able to maintain that level in 2021, then we aren't having this conversation.

When I watched the selection show and UMD popped up at #5, was I surprised? Yes. In spite of Minnesota's struggles starting with their trip to Madison, the general opinion of people who follow the sport was that it was still among the top 5 or 6 teams in the country. The logic of Minnesota being behind PC, BC, and UMD wasn't what I agreed with, but I recognized that it was possible to look at the results in such a way that some of these teams were ahead of the Gophers. Okay, maybe not Providence, but it was at least a conversation that could be had. Had it come down to the final choice being UM or PSU, and the committee went with the latter, IMO, it would be hard for anyone to fault it. Particularly this season, when SOS is something that teams typically could control less than usual. And SOS is always a game of chance. You play a team with a franchise goalie early, she steals a game from you, and then gets hurt and her team falls off a cliff. It's a double whammy, as both win/loss and SOS take a hit.

I started this season, as I often do, thinking that the Gophers were right there with Wisconsin, at the same level. I expected that they would be better than an OSU squad that lost Jincy Dunne. It's hard to predict how things will play out. Maybe if Potomak is healthy and has a big season, Cherkowski is available all year, Skaja doesn't get hurt at a bad time, our veterans on the blue line play better, Eden doesn't transfer to UW, OSU doesn't work so hard ... Things happened the way they did. In life, you control what you can control. The only control a team has over an NCAA selection committee is achieved by posting a lot of wins. Otherwise, it winds up in a situation where its fans are left to debate how badly it was wronged.
 
When I watched the selection show and UMD popped up at #5, was I surprised? Yes. In spite of Minnesota's struggles starting with their trip to Madison, the general opinion of people who follow the sport was that it was still among the top 5 or 6 teams in the country. The logic of Minnesota being behind PC, BC, and UMD wasn't what I agreed with, but I recognized that it was possible to look at the results in such a way that some of these teams were ahead of the Gophers. Okay, maybe not Providence, but it was at least a conversation that could be had. Had it come down to the final choice being UM or PSU, and the committee went with the latter, IMO, it would be hard for anyone to fault it. Particularly this season, when SOS is something that teams typically could control less than usual. And SOS is always a game of chance. You play a team with a franchise goalie early, she steals a game from you, and then gets hurt and her team falls off a cliff. It's a double whammy, as both win/loss and SOS take a hit.

I started this season, as I often do, thinking that the Gophers were right there with Wisconsin, at the same level. I expected that they would be better than an OSU squad that lost Jincy Dunne. It's hard to predict how things will play out. Maybe if Potomak is healthy and has a big season, Cherkowski is available all year, Skaja doesn't get hurt at a bad time, our veterans on the blue line play better, Eden doesn't transfer to UW, OSU doesn't work so hard ... Things happened the way they did. In life, you control what you can control. The only control a team has over an NCAA selection committee is achieved by posting a lot of wins. Otherwise, it winds up in a situation where its fans are left to debate how badly it was wronged.
[/QUOTE]

Completely feel for you. There is not an educated hockey person on the planet that thinks Minnesota was not worthy of a tournament berth, regardless of the individual bias individuals have towards their team. It's completely unfortunate what happened to Brad Frost & Crew. The only mistake they made was not controlling their own destiny by winning. As we saw the consequences of leaving it out of their control this year during the selection show. Other unfortunate news for Minnesota and some other teams is your list of players will not all be returning to Minnesota and other respective clubs. A few new adventures are on the horizon for a select few.
 
I noticed in the manual under selection criteria it says: "When comparing two teams, the committee reserves the right to weight criteria differently based on relative team performance." Maybe that came into play.
 
FredsDeadFriend said:
UMD was rewarded. Providence was rewarded. BOTH lost in their conf tourneys. And neither did much during the regular season to prove they were good teams. Providence had 4 chances to get a win vs Northeastern and didn't come close, ALL 4 of their losses were by at least 3 goal margins. UMn on the other hand got 2 big wins vs OSU, and 3 of their 4 losses were 1 goal games, UMn even outscored OSU in their 6 games combined, and won both games vs UMD comfortably. And even their last 3 games vs their #1 rival UW were a tie, a 1 & a 2 goal loss. No blowouts.



So what you are saying is that Connecticut should NOT have been rewarded with a chance to beat Northeastern in their conf tourney in order to have a chance at getting into the NCAA tourney? I mean, they had to beat Boston College first to even get that chance, and they had lost FIVE STRAIGHT to BC so far this season. So why on earth were they allowed a 6th chance to beat BC when they had done nothing to earn that chance? Honestly, NO ONE should be allowed into the tourney as every single team has lost to someone, and you claim good teams find a way to win, so there are actually, NO GOOD teams in women's college hockey this year. In fact the only good team EVER in women's college hockey history has been the 2012-13 Gophers, eh? 2015-16 BC came close, but yeah, they got beat by who? The Gophers in the Title game. But how could that have even happened? UMn LOST to Wisconsin in the conf tourney, that means they were NOT a "good" team, and should have been left out of the tourney, right? I mean, they didn't "find a way to win", right??? Oh, that's not what you meant?

What are you meaning, then? Because according to YOUR definition, UMD is not a good team. They didn't beat OSU, the last team they played, they lost and it wasn't even close. They didn't beat Minnesota either, despite having 2 tries to do it, they lost both games. They only won 11 games all season, and only 2 of the 7 they played against Top 10 opponents. So how are they a "good" team and Minnesota isn't? And what is BC's story, they LOST their last game as well, and it wasn't even close, they lost by a 4 goal margin to lowly UConn.


So...

If BC, UMD & Providence ALL lost their last game in their conf tourney's, by a combined 13 goal margin, how is it that they are "good", but UMn's not?
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I am unable to apologize. Posters on this forum know hockey, to differing extents, from the mites to the NHL. I hate to besmirch the really excellent Gopher Women's team with a word about the Gopher men but here goes.
As a Minnesotan I was able to watch the WCHA mens playoffs for many years running. I remember Doug Woog telling his team that the WCHA playoffs were meaningless. They didn't need to win there. They were going to get to the NCAA playoffs anyway.
So they didn't win in the WCHA playoffs, and they took that losing streak into their next game, the NCAA playoffs, one and done. Anytime you lose that fighting spirit, and decide that you can coast on the past to get where you hope to be going, you cannot expect that next gate to be open for you.
The Gophers had their chances against Wisconsin. The way that game ended was unfortunate but really seemed to sum up the second half of the Gophers season. If they had managed to tie and get to overtime, would the committee choose differently? Who knows? UMD almost won the conference. Minnesota was number 4 in the WCHA. They needed a win to cement a claim to Erie and they didn't get it. End of story!
 
Steamboat said:
Forgive me if I am unable to apologize. Posters on this forum know hockey, to differing extents, from the mites to the NHL. I hate to besmirch the really excellent Gopher Women's team with a word about the Gopher men but here goes.
As a Minnesotan I was able to watch the WCHA mens playoffs for many years running. I remember Doug Woog telling his team that the WCHA playoffs were meaningless. They didn't need to win there. They were going to get to the NCAA playoffs anyway.
So they didn't win in the WCHA playoffs, and they took that losing streak into their next game, the NCAA playoffs, one and done. Anytime you lose that fighting spirit, and decide that you can coast on the past to get where you hope to be going, you cannot expect that next gate to be open for you.
The Gophers had their chances against Wisconsin. The way that game ended was unfortunate but really seemed to sum up the second half of the Gophers season. If they had managed to tie and get to overtime, would the committee choose differently? Who knows? UMD almost won the conference. Minnesota was number 4 in the WCHA. They needed a win to cement a claim to Erie and they didn't get it. End of story!
Click to expand...

You are either lying or insanely misinformed? How the hell did your mind come up with such a fantasy? I don't believe that Woog ever said what you are claiming he said, also, Woog's winning THREE Conf TOURNEY titles proves you are wrong. Woog won those 3 tourney titles in years the team did NOT win regular season titles of which he won 4.

Woog made it to 6 Frozen Fours in his first 12 seasons and not one of those FF seasons did he win a Conf Tourney Title. All 3 of the years he won Conf Tourney Titles his teams got beat in the SECOND round by either the eventual champs or the runner up.

Woog made 12 straight NCAA tourneys, making the Frozen Four half of those seasons, only 2 of those 6 seasons did his team win any kind of a Conf Title, either reg ssn or a conf tourney. If you want to compare Woog to the GOAT Herb Brooks, Herbie didn't win a Conf title even once in his 7 seasons at the helm, yet he won 3 Natl Titles. I don't remember if they had conf tourneys in the 70s or not, but the point is, winning conf titles has never been a requirement to do well in the NCAA tourney. Don Lucia won 4 Conf tourney Titles and only made the Frozen Four one of those 4 years. He won his first Natl Title without the benefit of winning either a Reg Ssn or Conf Tourney title, and got to his 3rd Frozen Four the same way. His 4th and 5th Frozen Four seasons he won Reg Ssn titles but not the conf tourney.

Btw, back to Woog, in those 12 straight tourney appearances, your claim of going one and done only happened ONCE. Once in 12 seasons. Woog's first 6 appearances he got to 4 straight Frozen Fours and then won in the first round in 90 & 91. His only one and done came in 1992, the first season the NCAA tourney went to single game elimination in the 1st and 2nd rounds. His next 5 seasons he started out with 2 Conf Tourney wins, 1st round NCAA tourney wins, but getting beat by the eventual champ and the runner up in the 2nd rounds. In 95 there was no Conf title yet he got them to the Frozen Four. In 96 he won the Conf Tourney title, got the 1st round NCAA tourney win but then lost AGAIN to an eventual Champion in the 2nd round. In 97 he didn't win any conf titles, won his 1st round game and then lost to a #1 seed.

So the scenario you described only happened ONCE in Woog's 14 seasons, not even close to a trend, in fact, it's probably a feat never before accomplished by any other coach in NCAA hockey history?!

So in 12 ssns, the Gophers lost 6 times to the eventual Champion, 3 times to the Runner Up, and the other 3 times, we were a #4 seed and lost to a #1 seed, hardly us being upset.



So... are you propping up 1992 as indicative of Woog's history at UMn? LOL Only a total loser or a very ill informed moron, or maybe a UMD or SCSU fan who is just hating on the Gophers would do that.

What I see when I look at Woog's legacy, is his making 6 FFs & 6 Elite 8s in his first 12 years as the UMn coach. He only lost to a lower ceded team like twice in 28 matchups, both were #2 seeds beating a #3 seeded Gopher squad and both opponents made it to the Title Game. Meanwhile underdog Gopher teams SEVEN times beat a better seeded team, including 4 times beating a #1 seed and twice beating a #2 seed.

That includes going 8-1 in Round of 12 games, 11-9 in the round of 8 games
 
Steamboat said:
The Gophers had their chances against Wisconsin. The way that game ended was unfortunate but really seemed to sum up the second half of the Gophers season. If they had managed to tie and get to overtime, would the committee choose differently? Who knows? UMD almost won the conference. Minnesota was number 4 in the WCHA. They needed a win to cement a claim to Erie and they didn't get it. End of story!
Click to expand...

UMD almost won the conf? lol How do you figure, because they played the LEAST # of games vs UW, OSU & MN? They only played 6 games total vs those 3 teams, only winning 2 games, none vs the Gophers, btw, while only being able to muster 1 goal in 2 games vs lowly BSU. UMn scored 15. Minnesota played 12 games vs UW, OSU & UMD, that is TWICE as many games.


4.5 > 2. UMn got 4 wins and a tie vs Top 6 ranked teams, while UMD got just 2.
 
FredsDeadFriend said:
UMD almost won the conf? lol How do you figure,
Click to expand...


It isn't how "he" figured; it was how the WCHA decided to figure.

Had Wisconsin not scored their 'extra attacker' goal with 1:30 to play in the last regular season game, the WCHA would have declared Duluth the regular season champs. This is a know fact. Had Wisconsin not gotten the third standings point by winning in OT, the WCHA would have declared Wisconsin and Duluth to have been co-champions. This is a known fact.

Duluth came with a minute-thirty of winning the WCHA regular season championship.
 
FredsDeadFriend said:
Herbie didn't win a Conf title even once in his 7 seasons at the helm, yet he won 3 Natl Titles. I don't remember if they had conf tourneys in the 70s or not, but the point is, winning conf titles has never been a requirement to do well in the NCAA tourney.
Click to expand...
There were conference playoffs in the 1970's, but they didn't determine a single WCHA champion. WCHA teams were competing for two berths to the "Hockey Final Four." (The Term "Frozen Four" was coined later.) The ECAC provided the other two teams. Once the four entrants were determined, the post-season continued with the national semifinals. Both of those were East/West match-ups.

In case you're wondering why the 1979 National Champs had to play Bowling Green in the NCAA Tournament, that was the first year the CCHA got a bid. It expanded the NCAA tournament to five teams. WCHA #2 had to play the CCHA Champ in what amounted to a Play-In Game. IIRC, that format lasted only two years. Assuming that's correct, WCHA Conference Playoff champs were crowned starting in 1981.
 
TonyTheTiger20 said:
You need to light up a doobie or something my guy
Click to expand...

This may be true but I am also giggling at the Minnesota men’s hockey history lessons splashed all over this page. Woog, Lucia.... the GOAT Herb Brooks. I accidentally clicked on a thread in the men’s forum yesterday and even found some women’s hockey talk over there. Worlds collide. Love the passion.
 
robertearle said:
It isn't how "he" figured; it was how the WCHA decided to figure.

Had Wisconsin not scored their 'extra attacker' goal with 1:30 to play in the last regular season game, the WCHA would have declared Duluth the regular season champs. This is a know fact. Had Wisconsin not gotten the third standings point by winning in OT, the WCHA would have declared Wisconsin and Duluth to have been co-champions. This is a known fact.

Duluth came with a minute-thirty of winning the WCHA regular season championship.
Click to expand...

If If ands and buts were candy and nuts, everyday would be X-Mas, lol. Give me a break you LOSER. I couldn't care less if UMD and the WCHA conspired to figure out a way to manipulate things so that UMD won the Regular Season Conf title or not!!! How is that significant? When has "almost" winning a regular season Conf title been significant? UMn LEGITIMATELY won the Regular Season Title and were the defending Natl Champs but still got snubbed and left out of the NCAA tourney in 2001. So how on earth is "almost" winning a Conf title by playing only the weakest teams in the conference some how some sort of accomplishment???

UMD played lowly MSU and SCSU a total of 8 times while UMn only played those 2 teams 5 times. UMn also played OSU and UW TEN times while UMD only played them 4 times??? How is UMD's "almost" winning a conference title when the deck was so totally stacked in their favor, supposed to be some kind of an accomplishment?
 
ThreadsDeadEnd ???

(BTW Lindsay, did you notice the brilliant assist from the opposition on Coyne’s goal? When in doubt, clear to your own crease! That’s entertainment.)
 
thirdtime's . . . said:
ThreadsDeadEnd ???

(BTW Lindsay, did you notice the brilliant assist from the opposition on Coyne’s goal? When in doubt, clear to your own crease! That’s entertainment.)
Click to expand...

Lol. I did. I also noticed how when everyone chased the puck in the corner as we expect mytes to do, Coyne stayed in front of the net waiting for the puck to come back to her. Good hockey players just get it. I would have definitely been chasing in the corner, hahah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top