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.
