Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Ha, that SLU-DAR series is kind of irrelevant of RPI wins. But I expect SLU to advance. They've seemed to have played better late in the year... SLU 6-2 in their last 8 (including a win over Dartmouth). Dartmouth has only won twice in late January.

 

[sshablak]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

There will be at least one playoff series upset, we all know that !

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

FWIW - Schott said on 980 AM today he thinks it's Union-RPI next weekend too.

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Methinks someone missed the point of my joke. Check your team-by-team records for this year. Look at all those points you got against Brown this year.

Methinks that someone didn't give me enough credit....Look at your team by team records and see how many points RPI picked up against Clarkson. Hence, the logic for the comparison is the same....

Besides, as someone so eloquently put it on the RPI thread, the regular season is over. We all have a clean slate. It's a new season. So, let's play the games, regardless of match-ups and see who survives...

Good luck this weekend.

Keith. .

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

FWIW - Schott said on 980 AM today he thinks it's Union-RPI next weekend too.

The Ides of March are upon us......

This "possible" series could be similar to last year where Colgate beat Union....

I would obviously prefer a series win against whoever comes to Messa and the chance to win the ECAC Tourney...

However, should we fail, RPI is not a TUC and that would probably keep us in the top 14 in the PWR like it did last year.......

Besides, I think Schott has been drinking the Kool-Aid recently and has secretly been "turned to the dark side" by the RPI faithful...

Keith.

 

[sk8tronthepond]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

FWIW - Schott said on 980 AM today he thinks it's Union-RPI next weekend too.

My dog's knowledge of College Hockey supersedes that of Ken Schott's.......any day!!!!!!

 

[sshablak]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Is it Jim Jones kool aid or the kool aid from Haight Ashbury ??? (SP?)

 

[vicb]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Less than 2 hours to get your picks in for round one of the ECAC PICK THE PLAYOFFS

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Great start to the playoffs.....

Hat's off to RPI with a decisive 5-1 win. They delivered a knockout punch with those 3 PP goals and a 4-1 1st period lead....

Furthermore, Brown with an inspired game to win 4-1 and not looking like a 12th seed......

I mention these two teams since if one of these winning teams from tonight go on to close out the series, The Garnet will see one of them for the QF round......

I saw on the Brown thread where FD and a sidekick were politely asking for a Brown victory in the series......

This result would bring the Bears to Messa to face Union, whom they took care of both times this season.....

Also, that result would put the two Red teams together for a QF showdown.....

I know there are RPI folks lurking about...What is your take on these possible scenarios??????

I do understand that you want to be careful in your comments to prevent any possible jinxing, but I am curious about the plea for a Brown series victory.....

Keith.

 

[hockeymascot]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

My dog's knowledge of College Hockey supersedes that of Ken Schott's.......any day!!!!!!

It might be time to get a cat!!!!

 

[aweise]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Great start to the playoffs.....

I do understand that you want to be careful in your comments to prevent any possible jinxing, but I am curious about the plea for a Brown series victory.....

Keith.

They were probably RPI faithful looking to have the only team that beat Union twice face them in the playoffs.

Even so, I don't think it matters who we (or our rivals) root for. The ECAC is - by far - the most competitive league in the country, IMO. Any team can beat any other on any given weekend. "Upsets" in these playoffs are pretty common every year, so there's no sense in wishing for one team to win a series just because that will make them face someone in particular.

NFL fans will always say that you can't beat a good team three times in one year...at minimum, it's extremely difficult. I think the same thing holds true in the ECAC. Should Brown come to Schenectady next weekend, I think coach Bennett will remind the boys of what took place in those two losses, as well as what happened in last year's playoffs. No matter what team Union plays, I would think they'll be ready and have plenty of motivation.

 

[GRussinko]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

I know there are RPI folks lurking about...What is your take on these possible scenarios??????

I do understand that you want to be careful in your comments to prevent any possible jinxing, but I am curious about the plea for a Brown series victory.....

I have less than zero interest in having RPI go to Lynah for another playoff series. I'd rather go to Messa (where even if the odds are just as bad or worse, it's less than a half hour from home), or even better Harvard (although this is pretty unlikely). I don't think I would ever purposefully root for something that would cause us to have to go to Cornell.

 

[Wholin1]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Having every team qualify for the postseason was the only way Union got into the playoffs in many instances until fairly recently, but the results last night get me thinking again about whether it makes sense or is even fair to have every team qualify for the postseason. I know there are arguments on both sides of the issue and this is not directed toward any of this year's lower seeds. But since the ECAC is such a balanced league, should more emphasis be placed upon rewarding regular season success or is that being overly protective of higher seeds? Scratching my head on this but throwing it out there for discussion.

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Having every team qualify for the postseason was the only way Union got into the playoffs in many instances until fairly recently, but the results last night get me thinking again about whether it makes sense or is even fair to have every team qualify for the postseason. I know there are arguments on both sides of the issue and this is not directed toward any of this year's lower seeds. But since the ECAC is such a balanced league, should more emphasis be placed upon rewarding regular season success or is that being overly protective of higher seeds? Scratching my head on this but throwing it out there for discussion.

I'm OK with everyone making the tourney, however if there was a contraction in the future, I would be OK with that too....

What I want to address is the so-called "Union" rule.....

In 2003, the ECAC expanded the playoffs from 10 seeds to 12 seeds. This is often informally referred to as the "Union Rule". Previous to 2003, the Garnet had qualified to play in the postseason 5 times (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001) out of a possible 11 tries since their inception in 1992...The notion that Union didn't qualify at all for the playoffs during the initial period is laughable....5/11 is not quite half, but it is certainly not 0/11, 1/11 or 2/11 as the "lore" of this rule has grown to infer.

Regardless, many folks who dislike Union for any number of other reasons bandy this rule about whenever a low seed upset occurs in the playoffs.....I agree that performing poorly during the regular season shouldn't automatically be rewarded with a clean slate and a chance to get hot and mow everyone down, i.e. Colgate 2011....However, this argument is valid for ALL teams, not just Union......

However, SINCE the format was changed to allow ALL teams to be in the playoffs starting with the 2003 tourney, an interesting fact arose. If the rule change was implemented to exclusively help Union qualify for postseason play, then we should see the Dutchmen be in either the 11th or 12th seed until just recently. The reality is that since 2003, Union has only been the 11th or 12th seed ONCE during this stretch. (2007, 12th seed)

What I found most interesting during my digging was seeing if there were any ECAC teams that had qualified for either the 11th or 12th seed during this time period. My thought was that if there were any other teams that had been in one of these two seeds more than ONCE in this period, then the "Union Rule" would be benefiting these teams more than it would be benefiting Union......

My results?

2003 - 12/Princeton 11/RPI
2004 - 12/Princeton 11/Vermont
2005 - 12/Yale 11/RPI
2006 - 12/Brown 11/Yale
2007 - 12/Union 11/Brown
2008 - 12/Dartmouth 11/Brown
2009 - 12/Brown 11/RPI
2010 - 12/Clarkson 11/Brown
2011 - 12/Colgate 11/SLU
2012 - 12/Brown 11/Princeton

So, we have Brown leading with 5 occurrences, RPI and Princeton tied with 3 apiece, Yale with 2 and Vermont, Dartmouth, Clarkson, Union and Colgate all tied with 1.

RPI came within a weekend of ending up in this position a fourth time, which would have been good for sole possession of 2nd place.

Therefore, I nominate that this format change in 2003 be renamed the "Brown Rule", informally of course......

Furthermore, I calculated the average seed for Union and that of our rivals down Route 7 for the period of 2003-2012.

Results? Union average seeding = 5.7 RPI average seeding = 8.7

Since seeding is directly related to regular season success, I would surmise than a higher average seed over this period would suggest a better team......

This would contradict the constant barrage of "little brother" and other assorted insults that come our way...

Just my 2 cents..... Flame away

Keith.

EDIT: PS: Good luck to RPI again tonight......

 

[burgie12]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Therefore, I nominate that this format change in 2003 be renamed the "Brown Rule", informally of course.

The Brown Rule already exists, or don't you read Brian Sullivan's weekly picks?

Returning to the original point, in the 11 years between when Union joined the league and the rule change was made, both Dartmouth and Union finished out of the playoffs 6 times. Six! And, five of those six times, Dartmouth finished in 11th while Union only finished in 11th twice. Gee, I wonder why it was called the Union Rule.

But, maybe you're right. Maybe the fans in 2002 should have realized that this rule was going to benefit Brown the most in the upcoming nine seasons (I mean, they had been left out of the playoffs 3 of the past 11 seasons, so clearly, they should've seen it coming!) and called it the Brown Rule.

 

[Wholin1]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

I was much more casually involved as a fan back when the "Union Brown" rule was implemented and didn't pay much attention to it, but if it was in fact intended to address Union's concerns that would mean that Union carried enough weight to get it instituted. I find that difficult to believe. BTW, if any league called out for a "Union Rule" what about ECACH Women? Union has never come close to making the playoffs there and doesn't seem likely to do so anytime soon. My guess is that it had to be the member ADs who saw a benefit, financial or otherwise for implementing the format. I guess if it was a one and done scenario I'd really be against the eveyone in the pool format, but even though a best of 3 format is better than single elimination, it's still a crapshoot.

 

[aweise]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

To Wholin1's original question (does it make sense or is it fair to allow all 12 teams in the playoffs?), I think it's a tough one to answer, but I think the current format should continue.

Since everyone makes the playoffs, then everyone has a chance to win the tournament, which makes things more interesting and exciting on the last weekend of the regular season. It would also normally imply emphasis on finishing in the top 4, but as we've seen a number of times since 2003, that doesn't necessarily give anyone an advantage...in this league, especially.

I believe it's best to see the "best" teams duke it out for the title. IMO, there's nothing better than watching #1 and #2 fight it out on the ice. Yes, last year's Colgate run irked me - not only because they took out Union, but they eliminated the #5 and #1 seeds along the way. Were they really one of the best teams in the league? Certainly not according to the standings, but watching this league for about 25 years, I guess I shouldn't expect things to go according to form. This argument would want me to say that we should go back to the pre-2003 format (7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9 play-in games, then the QFs being best-of-3).

However, this is the ECAC. Year in and year out, this league has proven to be the most competitive in the country. There is rarely the disparity from top to bottom that you usually see in the HEA, CCHA, and WCHA, so if you finish at the top of the standings, you should be able to win 2 out of 3 games against a team that didn't fare as well.

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

Every team is too many. When every team makes the playoffs, it takes a lot of meaning away from the regular season. There are incentives to having a good year (home ice, a bye) though it's debatable if a bye is much of an incentive. Some coaches prefer not to have the time off. A postseason berth should be earned, not something automatically given to every team. True, some low seeds have provided upsets in recent years, but should they have even been in the playoffs to begin with? Probably not. I'd cut it to an 8 team field (like the womens side does).

 

[vicb]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

The ECAC should have the 1st round of playoffs a best of 5 series, with games 1 and 2 being the results of the regular season between the 2 teams . Or, if you want to penalize the lower seeds even more, make it a best of three with the higher seeding automatically getting a 1-0 series lead.

PS, it probably would not have helped Clarkson last year and based on last night, probably would not help this year either .

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2011-2012 Season Thread "We Can See Cleary Now"

I want to thank everyone so far for weighing in on this topic. I really like good discussions from many points of view. I have been a hockey fan since I was a tot. My father was a die-hard NY Ranger fan and rooting for the Rangers was a way for us to bond. I used to listen to the Ranger games with him on 660 AM from NYC since we only had a roof antenna for the TV way back in the mid to late 1970's. He had a decent multi-band radio, but since we lived deep in the Catskills, the reception would go in and out constantly. It always seemed like the reception would die right during a scrum in front of the net!

I chose Union for its education, small size and its hockey program. I also went to Union since D-3 was easier to compete in track & field than a D-1 school. I was a freshman in 1988-1989 so my first Union home game was the annual non-league game against RPI. We had lost the previous year's game 13-0, so I was wary of how much I was going to enjoy it. However, that was the big come from behind game where we tied it 3-3 with the goalie pulled and won it in OT with a breakaway goal from Tim Cregan. That got me hooked on Union hockey and I've been a big fan ever since. It was my senior year when Union went D-1 and I knew most of the guys on the team. I also had season tickets for those first five years of D-1 play.

So, given my back-story, I really love Union hockey and I appreciate the folks that take the time to post on this board. I am looking forward to next weekend regardless of opponent. I will be in my easy chair watching the feed in the den.

Keep the home fires burning mates!

Keith.

PS: The discussion about the playoff format change in 2003 is one of quality and merit. It is also an adult one. I don't see anyone whining about the format change. I see opinions being expressed. Those who disagree are entitled to theirs. Furthermore, to those who read this forum and then post elsewhere with their thoughts, let me say this: No, I do not have a short memory. The first 11 years were tough and Union stunk up the place a lot. However, Union did not miss the playoffs every year and the ratio is awfully close to 1:1. I just subscribe to the "What have you done for me lately?" and "You are only as good as your last game." schools of thought. This is similar to most of the fan realm not stuck in the glory days of the past. You know who you are. (coughUNDcough)

As I check the scoreboard, it looks like RPI is close to moving on, but QU is looking good to tie up theirs series and Princeton is looking to tie up theirs. It might be Sunday before we know where RPI is going and who is coming to Messa.