Polls 2021-2022

[ARM]

Some teams hadn't played in 2 years.

That is an interesting factor for this season. One would think that would be a huge disadvantage, but the teams finishing first and second were two of those teams. We could look at the other end of the standings and say the bottom five didn't play last year either, but the bottom four aren't really a surprise.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

They played the games when they did and of course the spin can only go one way that Clarkson was struggling to find itself. Bemidji, of course, was in mid-season form as they didn't have to deal with losing a top player to transfer. Oh wait...They did have that similar scenario.

LOL, no they didn't. They did not have their all time points and assists leader, who led the team to like a 4-2 record in games where ONLY SHE SCORED two seasons ago leave. Yes everyone loses players to graduation and transfers, but those losses are not the same or even similar team to team, year to year.

And I didn't really excuse the loss, I still called it "disappointing". I think it was a bad series, especially with Clarkson getting outshot in the first game and I thought well crap if they're drawing SU and drawing and losing to Bemidji and not even pummeling them in shots and falling victim to BSU's style of play, this might not be a great season. But teams change over the course of the year and Clarkson had good wins over Harvard, Yale, and Colgate, and a number of others where they outplayed the opposition everywhere but the scoresheet. So yeah, I think Clarkson now would pummel Bemidji. I think they were both bad to mediocre teams then and one isn't now.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

Again, I don't envy your job as a poll voter. It's tough to find meaningful ways to compare East & West with so few head-to-head games. But "Too Many Games Against Bottom Teams" really is just spin.

Here's another way to spin it. When a pair of closely matched teams play a 2 game series, there's a tendency to split games. If your mission is to take down Harvard, what a nice luxury to only have to do it once, then finish the weekend against a bottom team. The ECAC: Too Many Single Games Against The Top Teams. Therefore you must discount the performance of ECAC teams across the board.

See what I mean? Both spins are pretty unpersuasive. There's a grain of truth to each. But IMHO, neither one provides a basis for penalizing teams in the rankings.

I think you're wrong, I think both points have merit and they can factor in, even though you'll probably never find a clear answer, or the answer may change year to year, player to player. Trying to dig deeper into the whys of wins and losses instead of taking at face value that winner is better than loser isn't spin though. Claiming the WCHA is the best conference and getting mad every time someone points out the sheer number of games against bottom teams kinda is though.

I think: "Is it easier to play a schedule that has fewer very good or very bad teams than one that oscillates between very good and very bad?" is a pertinent question. I don't think the answer is always the same either. Some teams may do better with one and not the other and vice versa.

I also think "is the WCHA (or NEWHA) playing enough out of conference games to make RPI rankings valid?" is a good question. We know from last year with, what, one out of conference series that there is a point of insularity where such rankings are useless. So what is the point where they become useful? What is the minimum number of OOC games to be confident in a team's place?

As per Five Hole Frenzy, suggesting that Bemidji is a bottom team is a non-starter. Especially when the two most relevant game results cut the other way, and the "excuse" doesn't cut it.

Also, the pandemic has been a difficult challenge for everyone. Not in identical ways across the board, but a major disruption for all. Suggesting that certain losses must be forgiven because one team's pandemic experience was somehow worse than another's doesn't pass the smell test. Poll points should be gained or lost on the ice.

The WCHA has bad teams in it. Live with it. We all got 'em, you're not special.
Not all teams had an identical pandemic experience but also one team's wasn't worse than another's? What? Come ON, there are absolutely teams that had a worse time, because they lost more players to Covid protocols, or because they lost more key players, or because Covid was worse in their state or community or campus or they didn't cope as well, etc. etc. etc.

I had WCHA teams as 3 or 4 of my top 5 much of the year. The DONTEST THOU DARETH SPEAK ILL OF ANY WCHA TEAM schtick is getting old.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

That is an interesting factor for this season. One would think that would be a huge disadvantage, but the teams finishing first and second were two of those teams. We could look at the other end of the standings and say the bottom five didn't play last year either, but the bottom four aren't really a surprise.

Right??? Usually I catch teams on the rise, but Yale has been stunning.

I do think that Brown and RPI's improvements are pleasant surprises, even if neither made, or really got near the ECAC tournament. Union got better too, IMO, just everyone else got MORE BETTER (lol) and their goaltending was pretty bad.

Princeton is a bit of a sleeping tiger (lol). Edit One Fillier, which is one less than Full Fillier, but they had a TON of covid losses and regular injuries and had a lot of players start to come back towards the end. A little surprised they beat Harvard because I just felt like their poor luck was going to continue, but not that surprised.

 

[robertearle]

With a little luck - and with no limits on travel, right??? - we could end up with as many as three, or even four, WCHA vs ECAC matchups in the tournament.

As they say, drop the puck!

 

[TitleIXHockey]

With a little luck - and with no limits on travel, right??? - we could end up with as many as three, or even four, WCHA vs ECAC matchups in the tournament.

As they say, drop the puck!

Will be nice to get an idea of the conferences' relative quality, even if the ECAC gets annihilated. Harvard got crushed by UMD and Clarkson by Bemidji (lol, tears), but Quinnipiac looked okay but not as good against Wisconsin and Colgate went 1-2 against Minnesota. And Penn State beat UMD?

 

[pgb-ohio]

I think you're wrong, I think both points have merit and they can factor in, even though you'll probably never find a clear answer, or the answer may change year to year, player to player. Trying to dig deeper into the whys of wins and losses instead of taking at face value that winner is better than loser isn't spin though. Claiming the WCHA is the best conference and getting mad every time someone points out the sheer number of games against bottom teams kinda is though.

I've gotten mad on this board a few times. This isn't one of those times. Disagreeing isn't getting mad.

I think: "Is it easier to play a schedule that has fewer very good or very bad teams than one that oscillates between very good and very bad?" is a pertinent question. I don't think the answer is always the same either. Some teams may do better with one and not the other and vice versa.

That's reasonable enough. In other words, parity in a conference vs. lack of parity. But after everybody's played their full regular season schedule, I believe this becomes a very minor factor. Everybody's schedule is going to have some favorable stretches and some rough stretches. Most of the time this will balance out in the end. But perhaps not always. In my last post I conceded that that there could be a "grain of truth" to this line of thinking. I'll stand by that.

I also think "is the WCHA (or NEWHA) playing enough out of conference games to make RPI rankings valid?" is a good question. We know from last year with, what, one out of conference series that there is a point of insularity where such rankings are useless. So what is the point where they become useful? What is the minimum number of OOC games to be confident in a team's place?

Which is a point I made. I specifically said that there are too few head-to-head games for either conference to claim superiority. It would nice if you'd stick to what I actually posted, instead of trying to knock over the proverbial straw man.

The WCHA has bad teams in it. Live with it. We all got 'em, you're not special.

I said right up front that we have an expansion team in our ranks this year. They'd be expected to struggle, and they have. St. Cloud has also had a tough go of it this year. I'm "living with" both of those things just fine.

Obviously we completely disagree on how to evaluate Bemidji & Mankato this year. You say bottom, I say middle. At the end of the day, reasonable people can disagree about how to evaluate two teams among the many.

Not all teams had an identical pandemic experience but also one team's wasn't worse than another's? What? Come ON, there are absolutely teams that had a worse time, because they lost more players to Covid protocols, or because they lost more key players, or because Covid was worse in their state or community or campus or they didn't cope as well, etc. etc. etc.

Of course. But what does that have to with ranking the on-ice performance of this year's teams? If you want to say that School X under-achieved because they had an especially tough time with the pandemic, that's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with having a fuller understanding of a team's situation. Heck, maybe that's why St. Cloud struggled this year. They've postponed/cancelled more games than other WCHA members.

And to be sure, if you're evaluating a coach's or a player's individual performance for internal purposes, you'd definitely want that information. But when comparing teams against each other in the polls, schools should be ranked on their on-ice productivity, or lack thereof. "Sympathy Points" shouldn't be part of the equation.

I had WCHA teams as 3 or 4 of my top 5 much of the year. The DONTEST THOU DARETH SPEAK ILL OF ANY WCHA TEAM schtick is getting old.

Me thinks thou doth protest too strongly. At least against the arguments I posted.

 

[Still Eeyore]

A few things, namely, even if you include all 4 ECAC non playoff teams, that's still only 8 games. And when you play Dartmouth, you have to play Harvard the same weekend. Ditto for Brown / Yale as opposed to getting the last-place team twice in a weekend. Only the RPI - Union pairing is a full weekend of bottoms teams, unlike the WCHA where you could go four weekends without playing a top four team in the conference.

The only thing consistent about your analysis is that it is bad. You are, after all, the same person who made the claim that it was a big advantage for WCHA teams to have played a weak opponent prior to playing a non-conference series against an ECAC team (ignoring the fact that Colgate played an even weaker team the week before playing Minnesota, and that Wisconsin and Quninnipiac had played the exact same opponent, namely no one, the week before their series). If you're going to make that argument, then you would have to agree that getting to play a weak opponent during the same weekend you play a strong one would have to provide an advantage.

But you don't. And, apparently, don't seem to recognize the inconsistency.

 

[Timothy A]

the only thing consistent about your analysis is that it is bad..

lol.

 

[Offsides Guy]

So yeah, I think Clarkson now would pummel Bemidji.

WI might disagree with you…

 

[ARM]

So yeah, I think Clarkson now would pummel Bemidji. I think they were both bad to mediocre teams then and one isn't now.

This is an oversimplification of Bemidji. BSU can be bad, at times, but they are the bottom half team in the WCHA that none of the contenders wanted to play. The Beavers' faults? They don't score much and are not built to come from behind. After Mowat graduated, the goaltending has been inconsistent. When it's off, they can look bad. When it's on, you don't want to be the "good" team that has to play them. BSU is a team that can skate with skating teams, they'll grind all game with you, they'll block shots all over the ice, and mostly, just make it hard to play against them. The perception is that this is a team you "should" be beating, but now the third period is getting late, and they're still there.

I was chatting with Mike Sisti a few years back, after the Agosta years, but while Mercyhurst was still an NCAA Tournament team. He said something along the lines of, "Bemidji is a lot like us." A lunch pail team. Hard to play against. BSU has never had the offensive talent of the Lakers, but they've always managed to hang losses on teams that didn't want them all the same. Look back at their nonconference results over the years. Clarkson wasn't the first and won't be the last. And they do that to WCHA teams all the time, and then everyone says, "What a bad loss!"

Every league has a team like that. I'm not sure that people outside of the ECAC fully appreciate SLU. A different style team, more skill and less grind, but always dangerous. UConn seems like a team that plays better in the postseason than they do for much of the year (I imagine I just jinxed the Huskies vs BU today).

Overall, I think that the distance between good teams and bad teams is getting smaller. The ECAC's best could play with the best of the WCHA; I realize that. I've known writers from the East who believed that one of the WCHA's advantages in the postseason was that they were accustomed to playing two-game series against contenders. That would seem to be counterintuitive, given the NCAA Tournament doesn't require this. However, they've kicked the hornets nest in the first game on a Friday, and then had to play that same team on Saturday -- "They're mad now!" You learn quickly where the weak spots are in your game. Something might work if you always play with a lead; it's not as effective if you're down two goals before the fans settle into their seats. Clarkson proved that either schedule model can produce championships, but it is at least something to think about.

 

[Offsides Guy]

The WCHA has bad teams in it. Live with it. We all got 'em, you're not special.

IMO, if Mankato and Bemidji were plopped into the ECAC they would consistently finish in the middle of the pack. If Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio state, and UMD were plopped into the ECAC, year in and year out three of those four would be the top three teams in the conference at the end of the season.

 

[pgb-ohio]

IMO, if Mankato and Bemidji were plopped into the ECAC they would consistently finish in the middle of the pack. If Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio state, and UMD were plopped into the ECAC, year in and year out three of those four would be the top three teams in the conference at the end of the season.

This is what I think too.

Not that it's provable. Or disprovable. But guys like us stand accused of thinking the Women's WCHA is special. You know what? We're guilty. And proud of it!

EDIT: OK, I better come clean. In this section I was being a bit mischievous. Don't get me wrong. I do believe in our league, and genuinely think that our teams would do very well in any other league. But maybe not this well. The thought being that if I'm going to be accused of being hyper-partisan no matter what I post, why not embrace the partisan position?

With a little luck - and with no limits on travel, right??? - we could end up with as many as three, or even four, WCHA vs ECAC matchups in the tournament.

As they say, drop the puck!

Amen!

This conversation has been interesting and all. But what happens on the ice is infinitely more important. Bring on those head-to-head match-ups.

EDIT: But in this section I meant every word. Schedule the WCHA/ECAC games & let the chips fall where they may!

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

LOL, no they didn't. They did not have their all time points and assists leader, who led the team to like a 4-2 record in games where ONLY SHE SCORED two seasons ago leave. Yes everyone loses players to graduation and transfers, but those losses are not the same or even similar team to team, year to year.

And I didn't really excuse the loss, I still called it "disappointing". I think it was a bad series, especially with Clarkson getting outshot in the first game and I thought well crap if they're drawing SU and drawing and losing to Bemidji and not even pummeling them in shots and falling victim to BSU's style of play, this might not be a great season. But teams change over the course of the year and Clarkson had good wins over Harvard, Yale, and Colgate, and a number of others where they outplayed the opposition everywhere but the scoresheet. So yeah, I think Clarkson now would pummel Bemidji. I think they were both bad to mediocre teams then and one isn't now.

You absolutely did go to the excuse card for Clarkson no matter how much spin you put on it that you "really" didn't.

BTW, how much pummeling will the fighting nurses have left to do this season?

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Clarkson had good wins . . . and a number of others where they outplayed the opposition everywhere but the scoresheet.

Just win baby.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

This is an oversimplification of Bemidji. BSU can be bad, at times, but they are the bottom half team in the WCHA that none of the contenders wanted to play. The Beavers' faults? They don't score much and are not built to come from behind. After Mowat graduated, the goaltending has been inconsistent. When it's off, they can look bad. When it's on, you don't want to be the "good" team that has to play them. BSU is a team that can skate with skating teams, they'll grind all game with you, they'll block shots all over the ice, and mostly, just make it hard to play against them. The perception is that this is a team you "should" be beating, but now the third period is getting late, and they're still there.

I was chatting with Mike Sisti a few years back, after the Agosta years, but while Mercyhurst was still an NCAA Tournament team. He said something along the lines of, "Bemidji is a lot like us." A lunch pail team. Hard to play against. BSU has never had the offensive talent of the Lakers, but they've always managed to hang losses on teams that didn't want them all the same. Look back at their nonconference results over the years. Clarkson wasn't the first and won't be the last. And they do that to WCHA teams all the time, and then everyone says, "What a bad loss!"

Every league has a team like that. I'm not sure that people outside of the ECAC fully appreciate SLU. A different style team, more skill and less grind, but always dangerous. UConn seems like a team that plays better in the postseason than they do for much of the year (I imagine I just jinxed the Huskies vs BU today).

Overall, I think that the distance between good teams and bad teams is getting smaller. The ECAC's best could play with the best of the WCHA; I realize that. I've known writers from the East who believed that one of the WCHA's advantages in the postseason was that they were accustomed to playing two-game series against contenders. That would seem to be counterintuitive, given the NCAA Tournament doesn't require this. However, they've kicked the hornets nest in the first game on a Friday, and then had to play that same team on Saturday -- "They're mad now!" You learn quickly where the weak spots are in your game. Something might work if you always play with a lead; it's not as effective if you're down two goals before the fans settle into their seats. Clarkson proved that either schedule model can produce championships, but it is at least something to think about.

That's fair. It's easy to go both ways on Bemidji as a bad team, but also one with enough good players and a style of play that lends itself to making life difficult for the teams above them in the standings. I did coin the phrase "Sometimes you just lose to Bemidji" meaning that sometimes a team that can hold the score down just gets you.

The Mercyhurst comparison, I admit I don't really get. I would compare Bemidji to St. Lawrence, like you said, and Dartmouth. Teams that make their success on shot suppression, shot blocking, and / or goaltending. I don't think it's necessarily scoring talent that differentiates them from Mercyhurst, but more Mercyhurst wanting to be the team that has the puck, and being less comfortable when that doesn't happen.

That's an interesting point I really hadn't considered. I wonder if an analysis of Hockey East, who does both, would shed some light on this or not.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

You absolutely did go to the excuse card for Clarkson no matter how much spin you put on it that you "really" didn't.

BTW, how much pummeling will the fighting nurses have left to do this season?

I can never tell who you're talking about.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

Obviously we completely disagree on how to evaluate Bemidji & Mankato this year. You say bottom, I say middle. At the end of the day, reasonable people can disagree about how to evaluate two teams among the many.

I'd call Mankato a middle team for sure. Thought they'd be better than they finished, but I guess they were saving it for the conference tournament. I think MSU is notably above BSU but I guess the middle tends to be big.

 

[ARM]

I'd call Mankato a middle team for sure. Thought they'd be better than they finished, but I guess they were saving it for the conference tournament. I think MSU is notably above BSU but I guess the middle tends to be big.

MSU is better offensively, but due to the injury situation, goaltending for the Mavericks was all over the place this year.

As a whole, I'd say goaltending was more volatile across the WCHA than in most seasons.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

MSU is better offensively, but due to the injury situation, goaltending for the Mavericks was all over the place this year.

As a whole, I'd say goaltending was more volatile across the WCHA than in most seasons.

Yeah I imagine there was quite a bit of volatility game to game.

Overall:
BSU: .911
Min: .923
UMD: .921
MSU: .895
OSU: .932
SCS: .912
STT: .902
WIS: .932

(I discount ENG and keep this all by hand. I perform regular checks but there may be some errors.)

NCAA average was .918 and median .922 I think. So as a whole the conference had pretty strong goaltending. Tops was Northeastern at .959 and worst Union at .880 for some reference.