The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

[Happy]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

If I may borrow an analogy from US professional football, it seems to me more like the question as to which was the greatest ever Super Bowl team, the 1972 Dolphins or the 1985 Bears. People point to the Dolphins 17 - 0 record and say they "have to be" # 1 since they are the only post-merger team ever to post an undefeated season.

The 1985 Bears were probably the most dominant post-merger team ever *, and it took a miracle game by Dan Marino in Miami to beat the Bears that year. They were undefeated in their division and in their conference, and they completely obliterated their playoff opponents.

While I personally would choose the Bears, I cannot argue with those who chose the Dolphins, since we are giving different weight to the same criteria.

Since it's your formula, we'll see how you chose to weight these factors when the top five are announced.


* I myself would give the Bears bonus points for releasing The Super Bowl Shuffle rap video in the middle of the season and then following up the talk with the walk so to speak. It takes a certain combination of swagger, confidence, and ability to say you are going to win it all that early in the season, and then actually do it!

It's the Bears by a long shot, because the dolphins racked up their undefeated season playing one of the weakest NFL schedules ever.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

I agree, most should be winners, but there are others that are also deserving. FS23 can control that by how much he counts the championship.

The vast majority of the teams in the top 25 are national champions. I'm sure when we get to some of the non-winners in the list there will be some interesting discussion.

FWIW, I've submitted everything for #19 and #18, but I wouldn't count on anything being posted today. My guess is that #19 will be put up sometime this weekend, and perhaps #18 sometime mid-week. I'm not entirely sure though. When I see that they are up, I'll post the link here.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

The vast majority of the teams in the top 25 are national champions. I'm sure when we get to some of the non-winners in the list there will be some interesting discussion.

FWIW, I've submitted everything for #19 and #18, but I wouldn't count on anything being posted today. My guess is that #19 will be put up sometime this weekend, and perhaps #18 sometime mid-week. I'm not entirely sure though. When I see that they are up, I'll post the link here.

I have to guess that Michigan Tech has at least one team...1961-62, won RS, LT and NCAAs and only lost 3 times...I kinda doubt 1964-65 or 1974-75 make it since neither won RS or LT. Minnesota/Michigan Tech from 1973-1976 has to be one of the greatest stretches ever.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I have to guess that Michigan Tech has at least one team...1961-62, won RS, LT and NCAAs and only lost 3 times...I kinda doubt 1964-65 or 1974-75 make it since neither won RS or LT. Minnesota/Michigan Tech from 1973-1976 has to be one of the greatest stretches ever.

Thing is, arguably Tech's greatest team during that period was their '74 team, and Minnesota beat them in the championship. And arguably Minnesota's best team in that period was their '75 team and Tech returned the favor.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

Thing is, arguably Tech's greatest team during that period was their '74 team, and Minnesota beat them in the championship. And arguably Minnesota's best team in that period was their '75 team and Tech returned the favor.

I just mean that those 3 seasons were simply crazy with Michigan Tech & Minnesota winning the regular season title, each having a share of the league title (there wasn't a conference tournament), and the regular season runner up winning it all. From my perspective its frustrating that Herb Brooks cost MTU the chance at 2 more titles but it was an amazing run. I still love watching highlights from the 1975 title game:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hSnskKftCsY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I just mean that those 3 seasons were simply crazy with Michigan Tech & Minnesota winning the regular season title, each having a share of the league title (there wasn't a conference tournament), and the regular season runner up winning it all. From my perspective its frustrating that Herb Brooks cost MTU the chance at 2 more titles but it was an amazing run. I still love watching highlights from the 1975 title game:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hSnskKftCsY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Indeed. Minnesota and Tech absolutely dominated college hockey during that stretch.

 

[vizoroo]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

I wouldn't go that far. Since the NCAA tournament is 1-and-done, teams are going to lose when they shouldn't. It doesn't mean they weren't a great team.

I would agree that the vast majority should be the winners.

Two teams that didn't win the championship come to my biased mind. DU's 2001 2002 that was sent to Yost to play Michigan in the regionals even though they were a #1 seed. And the "77-'78 team that wasn't allowed to compete in the NCAA's.** According to du78 that team still was ranked #1 at the end of the season.

**Don't remember the details, but DU would challenge the NCAA decision that players recruited within the rules. at that time, should later be called ineligible.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

I'm sure when we get to some of the non-winners in the list there will be some interesting discussion.

I hope that "interesting" is indeed the appropriate adjective!

....and since you raised the question yourself, I was actually a bit curious about the 2010 - 2011 Fighting Sioux....I am assuming that your formula resulted in them being ranked so high on the all-time list because of the number of tournament teams that they beat overall during the season.

That did raise a technical question in my mind as to the divisor you might use to equalize for the different number of teams that make the tournament in different eras....16 teams out of 52 or nearly 31% of all teams made the tournament that year....when 8 teams made the tournament (if there were fewer teams then) perhaps 17% of all teams made the tournament. Those teams just did not have the opportunity to play as many tournament teams during the season relative to more recent teams, and it must be tricky to choose the "appropriate" weighting factor to adjust for it (especially if it turns out when all 25 are revealed that the 2010 - 2011 FS have the lowest winning percentage of the top 25.....).

Not a criticism at all, merely a curiosity....

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

I hope that "interesting" is indeed the appropriate adjective!

....and since you raised the question yourself, I was actually a bit curious about the 2010 - 2011 Fighting Sioux....I am assuming that your formula resulted in them being ranked so high on the all-time list because of the number of tournament teams that they beat overall during the season.

That did raise a technical question in my mind as to the divisor you might use to equalize for the different number of teams that make the tournament in different eras....16 teams out of 52 or nearly 31% of all teams made the tournament that year....when 8 teams made the tournament (if there were fewer teams then) perhaps 17% of all teams made the tournament. Those teams just did not have the opportunity to play as many tournament teams during the season relative to more recent teams, and it must be tricky to choose the "appropriate" weighting factor to adjust for it (especially if it turns out when all 25 are revealed that the 2010 - 2011 FS have the lowest winning percentage of the top 25.....).

Not a criticism at all, merely a curiosity....

Beating tournament teams is definitely a part of the formula, and if you win more games against tournament teams, then yes, you will get more points than if you didn't. However, last year's North Dakota squad didn't put up a overwhelming win% against tournament teams (.639).

As to the 52 teams in the NCAA last year, there were 58, so that slightly changes the percentage (from just under 31 to about 27.5%). As to older teams, it is important to note that realistically only a couple dozen teams had a legitimate shot at the NCAA Tournament. So, while only 4 made the tournament, perhaps only 20-24 had a legit chance, so the percentages aren't really that different. The main differences come from games played against tournament teams, and games played overall.

As for winning percentage, this is one of the areas where current teams are at a disadvantage to some of the older teams. Back in the day, it was common for a team or two to win 80-90% of its games. Today, it hardly ever happens. In fact, over the past decade, only a handful of teams have won over 80% of their games. Of the teams I ranked, only four teams since 2000 have won 80% or more of their games. Of those four, only one won the title.

FWIW, the 2010-2011 North Dakota team does not have the lowest winning percentage of teams in the top 25. You have to keep in mind as well that North Dakota dominated a conference that was by far the best in college hockey that year (placing 2 teams in the Frozen Four, the national champion, 4 Regional Finalists, and 5 teams in the Tournament).

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

As to older teams, it is important to note that realistically only a couple dozen teams had a legitimate shot at the NCAA Tournament. So, while only 4 made the tournament, perhaps only 20-24 had a legit chance.

Now I am even more confused....using your numbers, are you saying that in 'the old days' 17% to 20% of the teams back then had a 'legit' chance' to make the tournament?

Now, 27.5% of the teams have a 'legit chance'? (or maybe more....how many of the 58 teams have a 'legit chance'? if it is fewer than 58, then the percentage of teams that have a legit chance goes up, no?)

If more teams now have a 'legit chance' than before, doesn't that mean that teams today have a greater opportunity to earn points under your formula by playing tournament teams during the season than teams from 'the old days'?

Obviously, in an 8-team tournament you never would see one conference placing five teams into it!

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

Now I am even more confused....using your numbers, are you saying that in 'the old days' 17% to 20% of the teams back then had a 'legit' chance' to make the tournament?

Now, 27.5% of the teams have a 'legit chance'? (or maybe more....how many of the 58 teams have a 'legit chance'? if it is fewer than 58, then the percentage of teams that have a legit chance goes up, no?)

If more teams now have a 'legit chance' than before, doesn't that mean that teams today have a greater opportunity to earn points under your formula by playing tournament teams during the season than teams from 'the old days'?

Obviously, in an 8-team tournament you never would see one conference placing five teams into it!

Back in the day, two "west" teams (which were always a part of the WIHL/WCHA) and two "east" teams (which varied, but starting in '62 almost always were part of the ECAC) made the tournament. 6-7 teams were in the WCHA, and while there were significantly more teams in the ECAC, most years only 15-17 had any chance whatsoever to make the tournament. If you were independent you didn't have a chance. That's 21-24 teams for the most part, and I think you could argue that it was even fewer than that. That is where I was getting my numbers. You can't look at every team that was D-1 to get a legit number of teams that could make the tournament. Not even every team in the ECAC had a legit chance. Colby won the ECAC in '62 and did not get an invite. Harvard won the ECAC Regular Season AND Tournament title in 1963 but did not get an invite. Clearly there was a bias as to who should be selected to the NCAA Tournament. It is difficult to say how many teams had a "legit" chance to make the tournament back then, but it was definitely far smaller than the total number of teams that played D-1.

Today, every team has a legit chance to make the tournament based on the Pairwise system. Added to that, each conference gets an auto-bid into the tournament. If Harvard wins the ECAC regular season title and tournament title, they will make the tournament. It's hard to argue that every team (with perhaps UAH as an exception) doesn't have a legit chance to make the tournament. Even UAH can make the tournament despite not being in a conference. It is far more difficult for them, but if they win the right games, they can make the tournament.

As to your point about today's teams having the opportunity to earn more points, I have never suggested otherwise. That is why I had to tweak my formula to account for such an advantage. I believe I mentioned that in my very first post.

At the end of the day, there are parts of the formula which reward older teams, and parts that reward recent teams. I felt that the formula overall skewed towards favoring recent teams, that is why I tweaked the formula to put the older teams on more level ground.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

#19 Has been released. Here is the link...

http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/Greatest-Teams.html

 

[AlDeFlorio]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

Anyone ranking the 1970-1971 Boston University team that low does not have a clue about college hockey, I regret to say.

 

[AlDeFlorio]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

While an impressive team, they finished just outside the top 25, at #30. Had they won their conference tournament they would have been in the top 20. When the entire list is published, I'll post the top 50 or so here with point values.

This, along with the ranking of 1970-1971 BU, makes it very clear FS23 is utterly clueless. Shame to waste so much time on something so worthless.

 

[stuckinwi]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

I just mean that those 3 seasons were simply crazy with Michigan Tech & Minnesota winning the regular season title, each having a share of the league title (there wasn't a conference tournament), and the regular season runner up winning it all. From my perspective its frustrating that Herb Brooks cost MTU the chance at 2 more titles but it was an amazing run. I still love watching highlights from the 1975 title game:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hSnskKftCsY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The coolest thing about this (besides it's a Tech win for the title) is hearing the pep band play.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

This, along with the ranking of 1970-1971 BU, makes it very clear FS23 is utterly clueless. Shame to waste so much time on something so worthless.

FWIW, it is my formula that you think is clueless. I did not rank the teams and build a formula around my preconceived notions. Instead, I built a formula and then plugged in all the numbers, and let the rankings fall where they may. If you would like, you can build your own formula, send it to me and I will plug in all the numbers (so long as it is reasonable).

I think most people here, and in real life, would not call me utterly clueless. If it makes you feel better to do so because teams you think should have been higher rated, I understand. It really isn't necessary though.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

FWIW, it is my formula that you think is clueless. I did not rank the teams and build a formula around my preconceived notions. Instead, I built a formula and then plugged in all the numbers, and let the rankings fall where they may.

It seemed to me that the second poster was being sarcastic in response to the first, at least I hope so.....

I do appreciate the subtleties that go into this....I have built my own spreadsheet as alluded to before...I hope you take it as a compliment that someone really is paying attention when I mention that for # 20 I get 79.07% which rounds to 79.1%.....just as I was wondering before how you implemented a divisor (not that you did it, which I did understand from your first post, but how you went about doing it).

I am still curious as to whether your adjustment for teams between eras was based on something like (1-available tournament slots /teams who might make tournament) and you responded by citing "teams that had a 'legitimate chance of making the tournament in your answer, which helped clarify things somewhat....so now my question would evolve to "did you use something like (1 - available tournament slots / teams who had a 'legitimate chance' of making the tournament) as a divisor as your method of equalizing?", or something like that but not quite, or something not like that at all....

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

It seemed to me that the second poster was being sarcastic in response to the first, at least I hope so.....

I do appreciate the subtleties that go into this....I have built my own spreadsheet as alluded to before...I hope you take it as a compliment that someone really is paying attention when I mention that for # 20 I get 79.07% which rounds to 79.1%.....just as I was wondering before how you implemented a divisor (not that you did it, which I did understand from your first post, but how you went about doing it).

I am still curious as to whether your adjustment for teams between eras was based on something like (1-available tournament slots /teams who might make tournament) and you responded by citing "teams that had a 'legitimate chance of making the tournament in your answer, which helped clarify things somewhat....so now my question would evolve to "did you use something like (1 - available tournament slots / teams who had a 'legitimate chance' of making the tournament) as a divisor as your method of equalizing?", or something like that but not quite, or something not like that at all....

It really wasn't like either of those options, as it wasn't completely based off of tournament teams. However, it would be more akin to the second option that you had. Plus, it was a multiplier, and not a divisor...I like points

 

[darker98]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

It really wasn't like either of those options, as it wasn't completely based off of tournament teams. However, it would be more akin to the second option that you had. Plus, it was a multiplier, and not a divisor...I like points

The discussion between you and FreshFish is making my brain hurt. Not that it takes much.

 

[Driftryder]

Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

This, along with the ranking of 1970-1971 BU, makes it very clear FS23 is utterly clueless. Shame to waste so much time on something so worthless.