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.

Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

The Final Five games this weekend will be televized on Fox College Sports Atlantic (FCSA) according to my guide for Friday and Saturday. I subscribe to a sports package to get it.

I see it is also live on Fox Sports Detroit Plus, if you can't make it to the games.
 
Last edited:
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

Anyone out there record the last game against NMU? The archive on wcha.tv is corrupted. I thought that game was on TV in the UP.

Speaking of that, is there anyway to get a file of the Alaska games? I swore the wcha.tv package I bought for the second half of the season included playoffs, but maybe I didn't read something right.

I'd appreciate any help.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

Wishing you Huskies the best in Grand Rapids.
Huskies vs Bulldogs--pun alert- should be a real dog fight.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

mtu_huskies said:
Odd feeling this week to win the MacNaughton cup and be ranked 12th in the country but still know that we have to keep winning just to make the NCAAs.
Click to expand...
Largely because the field is going to end up with teams like Notre Dame (10 losses), BU (12 losses), Northeastern (13 losses) and maybe even Duluth (14 losses) squeaks in like SCSU last year with a barely 0.500 record.

I'm sorry but unless you are a AQ team, if you're even close to 0.500, you have no business being in the tourney. Hockey East with SIX teams, and three of them with double digit losses... that's a joke.

Ryan J
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

Crowdedbrain said:
Michigan Tech Athletics Reveals New Visual Identity

http://www.michigantechhuskies.com/general/2015-16/releases/20160314gbrh8h

I like it.
Click to expand...
It's pretty good. I guess I'll get used to it.

I ran a few scenarios as I'm sure many of us have. I can get us in losing in the championship game if Northeastern loses to BC. Otherwise if NU wins and then loses in the finals, I have us the first team out unless we win the final.
Assuming Michigan and Qpac win and Duluth splits. I don't know if Duluth can beat UND or not. Same for the Northeastern game. Normally I'd pick them, but a lot of factors to consider. To me it's a toss up.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

I have to say I like the new logo and getting rid of the Piano dog was long overdue.

For the scenarios I've ran, a lot rides on the Northeastern game. At the end of the day, this team is playing well and we need to win two more games.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

JohnsonsJerseys said:
Largely because the field is going to end up with teams like Notre Dame (10 losses), BU (12 losses), Northeastern (13 losses) and maybe even Duluth (14 losses) squeaks in like SCSU last year with a barely 0.500 record.

I'm sorry but unless you are a AQ team, if you're even close to 0.500, you have no business being in the tourney. Hockey East with SIX teams, and three of them with double digit losses... that's a joke.

Ryan J
Click to expand...
Well, if Mankato and BGSU could show up against a Nacho team it would be a different story.
 
I thought Piano Husky was okay; I think this one is okay too. It looks like a less goofy version of Northern Illinois' husky. UConn still has the best one by far. Too bad I'm not a "key stakeholder. "

The secondary logo with the Huskies script on top of a U.P. outline is fantastic. Anyone else notice the university is finally sanctioning the use of the phrase "Michigan Tech University"? That was a no-no until today.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

OK, then I'll ignore that UMD is just 3 games over .500 with a 4-4-2 non-conference record, including 2 losses to Bemidji and one to NMU. And somehow, they sit at #13 in the PairWise?

The system is flawed. The NCAA and the committee both know it. But they aren't willing to stick their necks out and use any kind of human judgment, because of decisions made more than 20 years ago by a committee that made a bad choice.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

bose301s said:
Agreed, I think we should blame ourselves for our current predicament, not others.
Click to expand...

Not really. The reason we have 23 wins, and we're behind teams from other conferences that are barely over .500 is not because of a game or 2 in-conference for Tech. It is because of a complete failure AS A CONFERENCE to perform in non-conference. Its math, it really can't be disputed.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

John J. MacInnes said:
OK, then I'll ignore that UMD is just 3 games over .500 with a 4-4-2 non-conference record, including 2 losses to Bemidji and one to NMU. And somehow, they sit at #13 in the PairWise?

The system is flawed. The NCAA and the committee both know it. But they aren't willing to stick their necks out and use any kind of human judgment, because of decisions made more than 20 years ago by a committee that made a bad choice.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's flawed to hell and back, but our current situation comes down to poor play against UAA, win those and it doesn't matter.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

bigblue_dl said:
Not really. The reason we have 23 wins, and we're behind teams from other conferences that are barely over .500 is not because of a game or 2 in-conference for Tech. It is because of a complete failure AS A CONFERENCE to perform in non-conference. Its math, it really can't be disputed.
Click to expand...
Michigan Tech would likely be in if they had won 1 more game this year against anyone and beat Ferris State on Friday, but yes...in the grander scheme, MTU's path would be a whole lot easier if they had played more than 2 games against "quality opponents." The biggest problem I see with the pairwise is how to fairly judge a team like MTU, that had a good non-conference season (3-1-2) but only played 2 "good" teams in the bunch and loss to Michigan, tied Yale. The fact that MSU and BGSU stunk in non-conference really hurts because it means those 2 aren't in the top 20 and MTU gets no quality win bonuses for all the success they had against them this season. Many factors get us here, but what is MTU suppose to do? No one dominates all season, they all have hiccups. Where should Michigan Tech fit in when they have the lowest quality win bonus, but they also only played 2 games vs top 20 teams. You have to go all the way down to Holy Cross to find a team with a lower QWB. But all these teams clustered around MTU have played a bunch more games against quality opponents to give them an advantage of better strength of schedule in the system plus give them the quality win bonus opportunities.

I'm not sure how MTU would fair in an NCHC season but I think they'd do as well or better than UMD. It's just sad that the biggest issue is lack of intraconference matchups...I'm amazed that WCHA is looking so bad in PWR when you consider how well they've done against everyone but the NCHC, but that record against the NCHC is just horrid.
 
Re: Season 95, Vol 2: Michigan Tech '15-'16

bose301s said:
I agree that it's flawed to hell and back, but our current situation comes down to poor play against UAA, win those and it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No doubt - Flipping only that series to a MTU sweep on CHN puts us at #9, which I find surprising considering earlier in the year flipping just the one only seemed to swing the needle a position or two.

.5407 to .5577. I kind of have my doubts on that calculation at the moment... seems high...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top