College Hockey Historical Archive says 12. I'm not saying their right, just putting it out there.DU's Media Guide says 13 MacNaughtons. Page 75. http://www.denverpioneers.com/fls/18600/pdf/2010-11_HKY_Media_Guide.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=18600 I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to make a motion that the entire thread be invalidated until this controversy is resolved.
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.
The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
- Thread starter Fighting Sioux 23
- Start date
- Status
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
What years?
According to the WCHA Denver won the title in:
1957-1958
1959-1960
1960-1961
1962-1963
1967-1968
1971-1972
1972-1973
1977-1978
1985-1986
2001-2002
2004-2005
2009-2010
That's 12. The DU Media Guide is full of lies
EDIT: 13 MacNaughton's is right. 12 WCHA Titles is right. How is this so? The MacNaughton was awarded to the Playoff Champion from 1962-1965. DU won the Playoff title twice ('63 and '64) while winning the WCHA Title once. That's why we are getting conflicting reports. Since the formula doesn't care what trophy was awarded, the 12 Conference Titles stands, and DU's points are left as is.
DU's Media Guide says 13 MacNaughtons. Page 75.
http://www.denverpioneers.com/fls/18600/pdf/2010-11_HKY_Media_Guide.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=18600
I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to make a motion that the entire thread be invalidated until this controversy is resolved.
What years?
According to the WCHA Denver won the title in:
1957-1958
1959-1960
1960-1961
1962-1963
1967-1968
1971-1972
1972-1973
1977-1978
1985-1986
2001-2002
2004-2005
2009-2010
That's 12. The DU Media Guide is full of lies
EDIT: 13 MacNaughton's is right. 12 WCHA Titles is right. How is this so? The MacNaughton was awarded to the Playoff Champion from 1962-1965. DU won the Playoff title twice ('63 and '64) while winning the WCHA Title once. That's why we are getting conflicting reports. Since the formula doesn't care what trophy was awarded, the 12 Conference Titles stands, and DU's points are left as is.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
You know, I can't disagree with any of that. I thought I would come in and read a "greatest ever" thread started by a Sioux and wind up p*ssed off an ignore it. Well done.
Minnesota comes in at #3. The Gophers hold several different records for their program. They have won more NCAA Tournament Wins (50) than any other school, have the most wins of any college hockey team, and have the best Winning Percentage against NCAA Champions. Where the Gophers fall short, is that they only have 5 National Titles. If the Gophers can rebound for the little rut they are in right now, and win a few more titles, they could very easily jump up the rankings. As of right now, they sit at #3.
North Dakota comes in at #2. The Fighting Sioux have arguably been the most consistent team in college hockey history. They have had dry spells like any other school, but they have also played in at least one NCAA Title game in every decade since the 1940s. They have also done very well when they make the NCAA Tournament. They have the highest winning percentage of any team in NCAA Tournament games. If the Sioux would have been able to convert one of their recent Frozen Fours into a title or two, they could be #1. For now, North Dakota sits at #2.
Michigan comes in on top. The Wolverines have the most Titles, NCAA Tournament Appearances, Frozen Fours, Frozen Four Wins, rank 2nd in Program Wins, and are in the top 10 of nearly any meaningful category. That being said, the Wolverines had a dry spell that nearly cost the school their hockey program. Red Berenson was able to get things back on track, and Michigan is currently on a 20 year streak of making the NCAA Tournament. If they continue that, they will continue to cement their status as the top program in college hockey history.
You know, I can't disagree with any of that. I thought I would come in and read a "greatest ever" thread started by a Sioux and wind up p*ssed off an ignore it. Well done.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
Woo Hoo! I guess its sometimes better to be lucky than good!
Thansk for all the work on this FS23... this was a good read.
Woo Hoo! I guess its sometimes better to be lucky than good!
Thansk for all the work on this FS23... this was a good read.
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
They might have to make up more lies after their performance tonight.
That's 12. The DU Media Guide is full of lies
They might have to make up more lies after their performance tonight.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
Well, I'm glad most of you enjoyed my research. As promised, I will discuss what criteria I used to determine these rankings and why. I'll also try to answer any questions in a relatively timely manner.
First lets discuss the criteria used. There were a ton of options that I had when picking out what would be used:
National Championships - This was the easiest and most obvious piece of criteria to use. While many of us would agree that the National Champion isn't necessarily the best team that season, it shows two very important things within any one season. First, it shows that team was good throughout the year. Outside the AQs, you can't be good for only a few weekends to make the tournament, you have to be good all year long. Second, the National Champion has to win 2-4 games against other very good teams in order hoist a national trophy. Finally, it's the most pressure packed stage in our game. Given those three things, it was a no brainer that National Championships would be used, and would have some significant weight behind it.
Conference Titles (Regular Season/Tournament) - This was a tricky one. If Conference Titles were to be used, what title would be weighted more heavily, or should they be weighted the same. The Regular Season Conference Title is obviously more difficult to win. It requires strong, consistent play throughout an entire regular season. Saying that, it doesn't have the pressure of the Tournament Title. Also, in conferences that are not as strong as the CCHA, Hockey East, WCHA and ECAC, usually only the Tournament champion advances to the NCAA Tournament. There is also sectional differences here. In the East, the Tournament title is generally seen as more important, while in the West, especially the WCHA, the Regular Season title is seen as the top dog. So, two questions came out of this, 1) Do we count Conference Titles, and 2) How do we weigh Conference Titles. I ultimately decided to count Conference Titles. They are an important piece of a program's history, and honestly, we spend far more time playing for Conference Titles than anything else. As for how to weigh Conference Titles, this was actually aided by my formula strategy (which I will discuss later). In the end, Conference Titles were weighed relatively similar, with Regular Season Conference Titles having a slight edge.
Tournament Appearances - This was an obvious choice as well. Making the NCAA Tournament is a goal for every program at the beginning of each and every season. This criteria also theoretically adds to the weighting of a Conference Tournament Title (at least if you subscribe to the theory that a Tournament Title is more important because it gets you into the NCAA Tournament). Realistically, most teams that win their Conference are going to make the NCAA Tournament, but not always. So, if you were upset that I weighed Regular Season titles slightly over Tournament titles, this criteria basically makes up for that difference.
Tournament Record (W-L-T) - This particular criteria I debated about for awhile. At the end of the day, I felt it was important to include how well a program does in the most pressure packed situations. Once I decided it was in, I debated about whether points should be awarded for Losses in the NCAA Tournament. This was a difficult decision. On one hand, we are already awarding teams for making the tournament, why should they be rewarded for losing in the tournament. On the other hand, playing in the NCAA Tournament is the most pressure packed stage and even playing, and losing, is still very prestigious for most programs. It also further adds weight to making the NCAA Tournament. Ultimately, I decided that losses would get a very small amount of points.
Tournament Winning % - I decided to include this as well. I felt that if I'm going to include points for ties or losses that it should be countered by a winning percentage factor. It also shows which teams did the best in their trips to the NCAA Tournament, along with how well they do when they are in the most pressure packed stage that we have in our game.
Frozen Four Appearances - This was another no doubter.
Frozen Four Record (W-L-T) - See Tournament Record.
Frozen Four Winning % - See Tournament Winning %.
Program Record (W-L-T) - I ultimately decided not to included raw points for Program wins.
Program Winning % - I definitely debated about whether or not to include winning %. There is the obvious con to using this, in that teams play very different schedules. It's not very fair to compare Minnesota's SOS to say Bentley's. Saying that, I felt that winning games is the base of what every program tries to do on a regular basis. At the end of the day, I felt I had to include Program Winning %. I also felt that I needed another criteria that would best account for SOS. After looking through a variety of different ways (including trying to come up with some sort of all-time RPI) I decided I would include Winning Percentage vs NCAA Champions. After all, if you were able to consistently beat the best, that speaks volumes for the difficulty of a program's schedule. If you've never played an NCAA Champion...that also shows what kind of schedule you typically have.
The last set of criteria I looked at was indivdual excellence. I debated for awhile whether I should include this at all, but I ultimately felt that having top notch individuals on your team/program helps show how quality that program is. There were several criteria here:
All-Americans - This was the most obvious choice to use. All-Americans have been awarded since 1954, it is done by a consistent body (AHCA) and it looks at all of the programs. It also shows which players were "the best" that particular year across the nation.
All-Conference - This was a difficult decision, but ultimately I decided against using All-Conference selections. The reasoning behind that, was that if you had a very good team in a very terrible conference, it would skew the results.
Hobey Baker Finalists - At first I thought this was a no brainer if I was going to include All-Americans, but after debating about it, the main thing that was drawing me away from it was that it only applies to 1981-present. Ultimately I decided to include it. It is a more exclusive group than All-Americans (10 chosen compared to 24 All-Americans) and the winner of the award brings a tremendous amount of attention to the program. That is why I also included Hobey Baker winners as a piece of criteria.
Players in the Pros - This was another difficult decision. The biggest stage for hockey is the NHL, and what better way to promote a program than by having a top notch player in the NHL. However, as many of us know, some of the best players in college, do not translate to the pros. Think of all the Hobey Baker Winners that have never played a game in the NHL. Therefore, I decided to not include this.
These were the criteria that I mainly debated about.
Well, I'm glad most of you enjoyed my research. As promised, I will discuss what criteria I used to determine these rankings and why. I'll also try to answer any questions in a relatively timely manner.
First lets discuss the criteria used. There were a ton of options that I had when picking out what would be used:
National Championships - This was the easiest and most obvious piece of criteria to use. While many of us would agree that the National Champion isn't necessarily the best team that season, it shows two very important things within any one season. First, it shows that team was good throughout the year. Outside the AQs, you can't be good for only a few weekends to make the tournament, you have to be good all year long. Second, the National Champion has to win 2-4 games against other very good teams in order hoist a national trophy. Finally, it's the most pressure packed stage in our game. Given those three things, it was a no brainer that National Championships would be used, and would have some significant weight behind it.
Conference Titles (Regular Season/Tournament) - This was a tricky one. If Conference Titles were to be used, what title would be weighted more heavily, or should they be weighted the same. The Regular Season Conference Title is obviously more difficult to win. It requires strong, consistent play throughout an entire regular season. Saying that, it doesn't have the pressure of the Tournament Title. Also, in conferences that are not as strong as the CCHA, Hockey East, WCHA and ECAC, usually only the Tournament champion advances to the NCAA Tournament. There is also sectional differences here. In the East, the Tournament title is generally seen as more important, while in the West, especially the WCHA, the Regular Season title is seen as the top dog. So, two questions came out of this, 1) Do we count Conference Titles, and 2) How do we weigh Conference Titles. I ultimately decided to count Conference Titles. They are an important piece of a program's history, and honestly, we spend far more time playing for Conference Titles than anything else. As for how to weigh Conference Titles, this was actually aided by my formula strategy (which I will discuss later). In the end, Conference Titles were weighed relatively similar, with Regular Season Conference Titles having a slight edge.
Tournament Appearances - This was an obvious choice as well. Making the NCAA Tournament is a goal for every program at the beginning of each and every season. This criteria also theoretically adds to the weighting of a Conference Tournament Title (at least if you subscribe to the theory that a Tournament Title is more important because it gets you into the NCAA Tournament). Realistically, most teams that win their Conference are going to make the NCAA Tournament, but not always. So, if you were upset that I weighed Regular Season titles slightly over Tournament titles, this criteria basically makes up for that difference.
Tournament Record (W-L-T) - This particular criteria I debated about for awhile. At the end of the day, I felt it was important to include how well a program does in the most pressure packed situations. Once I decided it was in, I debated about whether points should be awarded for Losses in the NCAA Tournament. This was a difficult decision. On one hand, we are already awarding teams for making the tournament, why should they be rewarded for losing in the tournament. On the other hand, playing in the NCAA Tournament is the most pressure packed stage and even playing, and losing, is still very prestigious for most programs. It also further adds weight to making the NCAA Tournament. Ultimately, I decided that losses would get a very small amount of points.
Tournament Winning % - I decided to include this as well. I felt that if I'm going to include points for ties or losses that it should be countered by a winning percentage factor. It also shows which teams did the best in their trips to the NCAA Tournament, along with how well they do when they are in the most pressure packed stage that we have in our game.
Frozen Four Appearances - This was another no doubter.
Frozen Four Record (W-L-T) - See Tournament Record.
Frozen Four Winning % - See Tournament Winning %.
Program Record (W-L-T) - I ultimately decided not to included raw points for Program wins.
Program Winning % - I definitely debated about whether or not to include winning %. There is the obvious con to using this, in that teams play very different schedules. It's not very fair to compare Minnesota's SOS to say Bentley's. Saying that, I felt that winning games is the base of what every program tries to do on a regular basis. At the end of the day, I felt I had to include Program Winning %. I also felt that I needed another criteria that would best account for SOS. After looking through a variety of different ways (including trying to come up with some sort of all-time RPI) I decided I would include Winning Percentage vs NCAA Champions. After all, if you were able to consistently beat the best, that speaks volumes for the difficulty of a program's schedule. If you've never played an NCAA Champion...that also shows what kind of schedule you typically have.
The last set of criteria I looked at was indivdual excellence. I debated for awhile whether I should include this at all, but I ultimately felt that having top notch individuals on your team/program helps show how quality that program is. There were several criteria here:
All-Americans - This was the most obvious choice to use. All-Americans have been awarded since 1954, it is done by a consistent body (AHCA) and it looks at all of the programs. It also shows which players were "the best" that particular year across the nation.
All-Conference - This was a difficult decision, but ultimately I decided against using All-Conference selections. The reasoning behind that, was that if you had a very good team in a very terrible conference, it would skew the results.
Hobey Baker Finalists - At first I thought this was a no brainer if I was going to include All-Americans, but after debating about it, the main thing that was drawing me away from it was that it only applies to 1981-present. Ultimately I decided to include it. It is a more exclusive group than All-Americans (10 chosen compared to 24 All-Americans) and the winner of the award brings a tremendous amount of attention to the program. That is why I also included Hobey Baker winners as a piece of criteria.
Players in the Pros - This was another difficult decision. The biggest stage for hockey is the NHL, and what better way to promote a program than by having a top notch player in the NHL. However, as many of us know, some of the best players in college, do not translate to the pros. Think of all the Hobey Baker Winners that have never played a game in the NHL. Therefore, I decided to not include this.
These were the criteria that I mainly debated about.
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
Great analysis. What you wrote was hard, but IMHO, the easy part compared to the research and application.
Also, it's interesting that you DID include a lot of items that were questioned by others- most noteably the players in the NHL- IIRC AA really pushed lake state over Tech via that. Yet it was part the whole time.
I would love to see some of the points details- to explain how the worst team was <0.01, and the best was +450- that's a big spread. And how there were some pretty sizeable jumps in the middle of the rankings. And it would answer your "question"- percentage or numerical jump being more important.
Great analysis. What you wrote was hard, but IMHO, the easy part compared to the research and application.
Also, it's interesting that you DID include a lot of items that were questioned by others- most noteably the players in the NHL- IIRC AA really pushed lake state over Tech via that. Yet it was part the whole time.
I would love to see some of the points details- to explain how the worst team was <0.01, and the best was +450- that's a big spread. And how there were some pretty sizeable jumps in the middle of the rankings. And it would answer your "question"- percentage or numerical jump being more important.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
Well, I didn't include NHL Players.
As for the "formula" I actually used 6, and then averaged those out. The basic strategy was to add up the points, and then multiply by the percentages. The usage of 6 formulas allowed me to put different weights on different items and not have any one dominate. What was interesting, was that the rankings were typically the same regardless of which formula was looked at, although with minor (+/- 1-3) shifts depending on which singular formula was being used.
Well, I didn't include NHL Players.
As for the "formula" I actually used 6, and then averaged those out. The basic strategy was to add up the points, and then multiply by the percentages. The usage of 6 formulas allowed me to put different weights on different items and not have any one dominate. What was interesting, was that the rankings were typically the same regardless of which formula was looked at, although with minor (+/- 1-3) shifts depending on which singular formula was being used.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
This was something I really debated about. One thought process was that for WCHA Regular season Champions I awarded a full conference title for both schools that tied, so a full tournament title could be awarded to both schools. The problem though, was that for the WCHA Playoffs, they only got down to two teams and then didn't even play for one champion. Therefore, I decided to award a half tournament title for years where they only played down to two teams. If I had awarded a full to both teams, it would give the WCHA an advantage over every other conference. If this was solely a "Greatest WCHA Programs", I would have leaned toward granting a full title to both teams, as the playing field would be level. It wasn't in a national sense, so a half title was awarded.
This was something I really debated about. One thought process was that for WCHA Regular season Champions I awarded a full conference title for both schools that tied, so a full tournament title could be awarded to both schools. The problem though, was that for the WCHA Playoffs, they only got down to two teams and then didn't even play for one champion. Therefore, I decided to award a half tournament title for years where they only played down to two teams. If I had awarded a full to both teams, it would give the WCHA an advantage over every other conference. If this was solely a "Greatest WCHA Programs", I would have leaned toward granting a full title to both teams, as the playing field would be level. It wasn't in a national sense, so a half title was awarded.
Sean Pickett
2009 NCAA Champions
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
If you compare the list on the old thread I linked to previously with your list, 15 of the top 16 are the same, with St. Lawrence the only outlier (21st on your list and tied for 15th on the old list). Some of the teams move up and down 1-3 positions, but the two all-time lists are remarkably similar.
-- #1 Michigan - 475.5292 Points
+2 #2 North Dakota - 414.1636 Points
-1 #3 Minnesota – 397.684 Points
-1 #4 Boston University - 345.005 Points
+2 #5 Wisconsin - 334.9305 Points
-1 #6 Denver - 333.3811 Points
-2 #7 Boston College - 309.7875 Points
-- #8 Michigan State - 231.4669 Points
+2 #9 Maine - 179.0149 Points
-2 #10 Colorado College - 173.6922 Points
-1 #11 Michigan Tech - 156.0076 Points
+3 #12 Lake Superior State - 153.5872 Points
-- #13 Cornell - 152.4499 Points
-- #14 Clarkson - 124.5689 Points
-3 #15 Harvard - 118.8879 Points
Sean
If you compare the list on the old thread I linked to previously with your list, 15 of the top 16 are the same, with St. Lawrence the only outlier (21st on your list and tied for 15th on the old list). Some of the teams move up and down 1-3 positions, but the two all-time lists are remarkably similar.
-- #1 Michigan - 475.5292 Points
+2 #2 North Dakota - 414.1636 Points
-1 #3 Minnesota – 397.684 Points
-1 #4 Boston University - 345.005 Points
+2 #5 Wisconsin - 334.9305 Points
-1 #6 Denver - 333.3811 Points
-2 #7 Boston College - 309.7875 Points
-- #8 Michigan State - 231.4669 Points
+2 #9 Maine - 179.0149 Points
-2 #10 Colorado College - 173.6922 Points
-1 #11 Michigan Tech - 156.0076 Points
+3 #12 Lake Superior State - 153.5872 Points
-- #13 Cornell - 152.4499 Points
-- #14 Clarkson - 124.5689 Points
-3 #15 Harvard - 118.8879 Points
Sean
Farce Poobah
Registered User
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
Once in a great while, hard work and talent converge with great timing.
Excellent work.
Once in a great while, hard work and talent converge with great timing.
Excellent work.
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
23 years isn't that long. Did their ranking in the teams of the decade make you laugh, cuz I think they were 13?well done sir. Well done.
St. Cloud's ranking made me laugh.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
#1 Michigan - 475.5292 Points
#2 North Dakota - 414.1636 Points
#3 Minnesota – 397.684 Points
#4 Boston University - 345.005 Points
#5 Wisconsin - 334.9305 Points
#6 Denver - 333.3811 Points
#7 Boston College - 309.7875 Points
#8 Michigan State - 231.4669 Points
#9 Maine - 179.0149 Points
#10 Colorado College - 173.6922 Points
#11 Michigan Tech - 156.0076 Points
#12 Lake Superior State - 153.5872 Points
#13 Cornell - 152.4499 Points
#14 Clarkson - 124.5689 Points
#15 Harvard - 118.8879 Points
#16 Rensselaer - 98.2167 Points
#17 Bowling Green - 79.7674 Points
#18 Northern Michigan - 79.3272 Points
#19 New Hampshire - 77.4096 Points
#20 Minnesota Duluth - 66.5522 Points
#21 St. Lawrence - 64.6435 Points
#22 Providence - 37.9103 Points
#23 Miami - 36.9575 Points
#24 Dartmouth - 35.143 Points
#25 Notre Dame - 33.5788 Points
#26 Yale - 29.1241 Points
#27 Colgate - 27.7915 Points
#28 Northeastern - 24.5696 Points
#29 Brown - 18.3317 Points
#30 Ohio State - 17.0403 Points
#31 Vermont - 15.8285 Points
#32 St. Cloud State - 12.4129 Points
#33 Bemidji State - 11.4454 Points
#34 RIT - 8.1655 Points
#35 Ferris State - 7.8912 Points
#36 UMass Lowell - 7.1081 Points
#37 Niagara - 6.4381 Points
#38 Western Michigan - 5.3974 Points
#39 Princeton - 5.1729 Points
#40 Holy Cross - 4.8647 Points
#41 Alaska-Anchorage - 4.8361 Points
#42 Air Force - 4.1704 Points
#43 Quinnipiac - 3.8994 Points
#44 Mercyhurst - 3.468 Points
#45 Merrimack - 3.1402 Points
#46 Massachusetts - 3.0035 Points
#47 Alaska - 2.9892 Points
#48 Nebraska Omaha - 2.9092 Points
#49 Minnesota State - 2.3131 Points
#50 Alabama Huntsville - 1.9469 Points
#51 Army - 1.3604 Points
#52 Union - 0.6174 Points
#53 UConn - 0.1921 Points
#54 Sacred Heart - 0.1703 Points
#55 Bentley - .0279 Points
#56 Robert Morris - .0245 Points
#57 Canisius - .0205 Points
#58 American International - .0061 Points
#1 Michigan - 475.5292 Points
#2 North Dakota - 414.1636 Points
#3 Minnesota – 397.684 Points
#4 Boston University - 345.005 Points
#5 Wisconsin - 334.9305 Points
#6 Denver - 333.3811 Points
#7 Boston College - 309.7875 Points
#8 Michigan State - 231.4669 Points
#9 Maine - 179.0149 Points
#10 Colorado College - 173.6922 Points
#11 Michigan Tech - 156.0076 Points
#12 Lake Superior State - 153.5872 Points
#13 Cornell - 152.4499 Points
#14 Clarkson - 124.5689 Points
#15 Harvard - 118.8879 Points
#16 Rensselaer - 98.2167 Points
#17 Bowling Green - 79.7674 Points
#18 Northern Michigan - 79.3272 Points
#19 New Hampshire - 77.4096 Points
#20 Minnesota Duluth - 66.5522 Points
#21 St. Lawrence - 64.6435 Points
#22 Providence - 37.9103 Points
#23 Miami - 36.9575 Points
#24 Dartmouth - 35.143 Points
#25 Notre Dame - 33.5788 Points
#26 Yale - 29.1241 Points
#27 Colgate - 27.7915 Points
#28 Northeastern - 24.5696 Points
#29 Brown - 18.3317 Points
#30 Ohio State - 17.0403 Points
#31 Vermont - 15.8285 Points
#32 St. Cloud State - 12.4129 Points
#33 Bemidji State - 11.4454 Points
#34 RIT - 8.1655 Points
#35 Ferris State - 7.8912 Points
#36 UMass Lowell - 7.1081 Points
#37 Niagara - 6.4381 Points
#38 Western Michigan - 5.3974 Points
#39 Princeton - 5.1729 Points
#40 Holy Cross - 4.8647 Points
#41 Alaska-Anchorage - 4.8361 Points
#42 Air Force - 4.1704 Points
#43 Quinnipiac - 3.8994 Points
#44 Mercyhurst - 3.468 Points
#45 Merrimack - 3.1402 Points
#46 Massachusetts - 3.0035 Points
#47 Alaska - 2.9892 Points
#48 Nebraska Omaha - 2.9092 Points
#49 Minnesota State - 2.3131 Points
#50 Alabama Huntsville - 1.9469 Points
#51 Army - 1.3604 Points
#52 Union - 0.6174 Points
#53 UConn - 0.1921 Points
#54 Sacred Heart - 0.1703 Points
#55 Bentley - .0279 Points
#56 Robert Morris - .0245 Points
#57 Canisius - .0205 Points
#58 American International - .0061 Points
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
There were no points specifically for longevity, but if you were a program longer it allowed you to tally up more wins against NCAA Champions, more opportunities to make NCAA Tournaments, more chances to get All-Americans and pile up more wins in general. Also, programs that competed in about the first 30 or so NCAA Tournaments made the Frozen Four, and only had to win 2 games to win the title.
There were no points specifically for longevity, but if you were a program longer it allowed you to tally up more wins against NCAA Champions, more opportunities to make NCAA Tournaments, more chances to get All-Americans and pile up more wins in general. Also, programs that competed in about the first 30 or so NCAA Tournaments made the Frozen Four, and only had to win 2 games to win the title.
- Status