>> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

I don't know that there were any opportunities for RIT to miss. A whole lot of changes took place in the D-I hockey landscape last off-season, but no actual changes directly involved RIT at all. There were multiple potential and rumored changes that could have prestented opportunities to RIT, but none of those have materialized to this point and appear less and less likely to as time goes on. I think any opportunities they had were in theory only.

RIT was approached by the group trying to keep part of the CCHA together -- the group that met with four other western pod AHA teams and University at Buffalo -- just as Air Force was approached both by that CCHA group and the WCHA. Both schools politely decided not to participate in the discussions.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

RIT was approached by the group trying to keep part of the CCHA together -- the group that met with four other western pod AHA teams and University at Buffalo -- just as Air Force was approached both by that CCHA group and the WCHA. Both schools politely decided not to participate in the discussions.

That was the one event in particular I was clumsily referencing. It was an "opportunity" for RIT that they declined, but in the end it never happened anyhow.

 

[komey1]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

That was the one event in particular I was clumsily referencing. It was an "opportunity" for RIT that they declined, but in the end it never happened anyhow.

I think having RIT would have increased the odds of that actually happening. However, consider at the time, BGSU was still on some shaky ground I believe and UB would still need to start a team. I think Ferris was in that CCHA group, and possibly Alaska as well.

 

[MattS]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, though your statement probably summarizes the view I was confused about. And I'm still a bit confused. Are you saying that we'd be more successful in the ECAC than in Atlantic Hockey because fewer ECAC teams offer scholarships?


Powers &8^]

Sorry to be confusing. I don't mean to be. What I mean is this:

To seriously compete for a NCAA championship without scholies is almost impossible. Sure it can happen from time to time, but not with any type of regularity. Reference my post about the last non-scholie winning the NCAA's and the low amount of teams making the FF.

However, if one measures "success" as being a top notch team inside of their conference one doesn't necessarily need to have scholies as long as said team competes in the AHA or the ECAC as both of those conference have teams without scholies, limited scholies, or just plain don't care about hockey. So it is much easier to compete in those conferences.

The ECAC is a better conference overall than the AHA. So, should RIT ever move to the ECAC and be able to compete with the top teams on a regular basis then I believe they would be better for it. And thus have greater "success". I believe the RIT could compete in the ECAC given some time. How much, I am not sure, but I am positive it would be a shorter time than it took Qpac or even Union to gain "success". Because I believe the RIT's commitment to hockey is greater, have a much better fanbase, and a better history. All which would serve RIT in recruiting better players.

I hope that helps.

 

[StimulisRK]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

20th? Did you guys see this? Don't get me wrong, I love RIT, but I think 20th is a little generous, what do you guys think?
http://insidecollegehockey.com/5Polls/1112/polls_1028.htm

 

[lmg6841]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

20th? Did you guys see this? Don't get me wrong, I love RIT, but I think 20th is a little generous, what do you guys think?
http://insidecollegehockey.com/5Polls/1112/polls_1028.htm

Very generous. Maybe they tried to have equal representation from each of the conferences.

 

[RITProf]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

20th? Did you guys see this? Don't get me wrong, I love RIT, but I think 20th is a little generous, what do you guys think?
http://insidecollegehockey.com/5Polls/1112/polls_1028.htm

Not as crazy as AFA at 13th!!! Maybe 18th and 20th would make sense ... or 20th and unranked.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

I don't think it's that far out. RIT was playing pretty good hockey toward the end of the season -- not great, but pretty good. And Air Force was playing amazing hockey; they gave BC a fight and probably could have beaten a number of other teams in the tournament.


Powers &8^]

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Very generous. Maybe they tried to have equal representation from each of the conferences.

I don't even think that criteria should have gotten RIT such a ranking. I don't even think the Tigers were in the top two in the AHA, let alone top 20 in the nation. Except for one game, Niagara had the better season. Not to mention that MU, HC, RMU, and UConn were very nearly as good as RIT, if not just as good. I guess those two wins in Vermont weighed heavily in the minds of those that know very little about the AHA.
I also agree with RITProf. AFA should be closer to # 20 as a token for winning both championships in AHA. # 13 is a stretch for any AHA team.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

As far as the transition to D-I for all athletics the way you say you'd like to see, it would be interesting, but the process they've put in place for schools to move up is lengthy, expensive, and onerous. If I understood correctly, it will take 10 years before they can be eligible for anything of meaning (except for the hockey teams, of course). It would be big for the hockey teams, but the rest of the sports will be in limbo for a long, long time.

Interesting, maybe, but I really don't see the necessity. A D-I athletic program is very expensive; there's nothing wrong with being D-III, especially when we have our marquee sports at D-I. The only advantage I see to moving all sports to D-I is the tiny chance of making the Big Dance in basketball and getting our name on ESPN's ticker (and being able to offer hockey scholies, true). It just doesn't seem worth the trouble, expense, time, and massive sea change in basic philosophy. Will we really attract more top STEM students by having a few top-level squeakballers on campus?


Powers &8^]

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

I don't think it's that far out. RIT was playing pretty good hockey toward the end of the season -- not great, but pretty good. And Air Force was playing amazing hockey; they gave BC a fight and probably could have beaten a number of other teams in the tournament.


Powers &8^]

Without Torf, they lose by much more than 2 to BC. Yes, the goalie is part of the team, but to imply that they had very many extended periods of territorial advantage in that game is a reach. BC didn't outright dominate, but they did clearly outplay the Falcons. Torf kept it close, as he usually does.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

I don't think it's that far out. RIT was playing pretty good hockey toward the end of the season -- not great, but pretty good. And Air Force was playing amazing hockey; they gave BC a fight and probably could have beaten a number of other teams in the tournament.


Powers &8^]

RIT closed the regular season at a 2-3-4 clip. Throw in the post season and it was a stellar 5-5-4 record, all against AHA teams. Not exactly national ranking type numbers in my book.

 

[Tom Naeger]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

I can assure you that everyone at RIT involved with the program knows what it takes to get to the next level. Scholarships are part, but nowhere near the whole picture. The league office also knows what's needed, but they are restricted to what the athletic directors of the 12 schools will approve.

I hear you Ed and pretty much agree. This may be from the time in D-III I just worry there is part of thinking out there who looks at Scholarships like some used to look frown on the idea of going D-I. Echo that Scholarships are not the whole picture, but I think they are a big tool. I just don't want to see this program handicapped in any way, Players and Coaches work to hard...

RIT was approached by the group trying to keep part of the CCHA together -- the group that met with four other western pod AHA teams and University at Buffalo -- just as Air Force was approached both by that CCHA group and the WCHA. Both schools politely decided not to participate in the discussions.

That is what I was talking about being a possible mistake, It just seems to me that all eggs where put in the ECAC basket... We will never know, but would have have liked them to at least have the conversation...

I don't even think that criteria should have gotten RIT such a ranking. I don't even think the Tigers were in the top two in the AHA, let alone top 20 in the nation. Except for one game, Niagara had the better season.

WAIT A SECOND!!! Niagara was one point better in the regular season and if you count the playoff game against Niagara, RIT was 1-1-2 against NU this year. RIT also inclulded wins against 2 ranked teams. NU did beat Colgate....

The bar has been set high at RIT, think we all need to take a break for the summer...

 

[lmg6841]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Interesting article I found here in another thread. I wouldn't have guessed that MC makes higher revenue than RIT.

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205

 

[mar7967]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Interesting article I found here in another thread. I wouldn't have guessed that MC makes higher revenue than RIT.

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205

I am skeptical of those numbers - I find it hard to believe that UConn loses so much, while AIC actually makes money. I have to believe we make more of a profit than what that shows.

 

[RIT Winters]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

How could AIC possibly make a profit when they get maybe 100 people at a game?

 

[Chris Lerch]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

INCH is always complaining about the PairWise and other more objective measures, so they have a habit of being more "creative" in their rankings, which are done by 2-3 people as opposed to 50 in the poll and the tons of data that make up the pairwise. The PWR has Air Force at 22 and RIT tied for 30th, which I think is a more accurate estimate.

 

[Chris Lerch]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

A guess - AIC spends less on coaching and recruiting.

 

[MattS]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

INCH is always complaining about the PairWise and other more objective measures, so they have a habit of being more "creative" in their rankings, which are done by 2-3 people as opposed to 50 in the poll and the tons of data that make up the pairwise. The PWR has Air Force at 22 and RIT tied for 30th, which I think is a more accurate estimate.

While I think that INCH's rankings are skeptical to say the least, it doesn't make their complaint about pairwise less valid. PairWise is a not a good way to compare teams. KRACH is a much better comparison system.

 

[JRZ DVLS]

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

Re: >> RIT Tigers 2011-12 Part II: Making Some Noise at the House that Roars <<

I am skeptical of those numbers - I find it hard to believe that UConn loses so much, while AIC actually makes money. I have to believe we make more of a profit than what that shows.

Doesn't Uconn have to rent ice time Off Campus? Or am i imagining?