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.
USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
- Thread starter TonyTheTiger20
- Start date
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Meryhurst, not Cornell, but it doesn't matter. You're looking at it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't think his team is the best team and is trying to figure out a way that they can be the champion anyway. I have yet to see it work that way. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of knowing what team ultimately wins and going back and looking at the path it took there. The team that wins has to go through decent teams; they don't win because they drew Sacred Heart and Holy Cross for opponents. Last year, we had to beat UND, BC, and BU. Could the path have been tougher? Maybe Cornell would have proved harder than BU, but I doubt it, because the Big Red weren't playing their best hockey in the postseason.
If you're good enough, you find a way through the field. If you're not, an easier draw such as what BU wound up with last year, can't make you the champ. I understand the math. I also think that there is more at work here than just stats.
Over the last couple of years... Idk about other teams, but Clarkson in particular tends to actually have a real issue with playing against the "easier" teams. They have a tendency to play to the level of the team they are playing against, so they will do well against good teams and then falter against the lesser teams. They've certainly done a better job of fixing that this year compared to last, but the ties against Brown at the beginning of the season and against Quinnipiac and Princenton at the end of the season almost killed the Regular season title that was their's to lose.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
I know Minnesota is the best team, but that doesn't make them the champion. I want my team to win the championship, and they have an improved chance of doing so if they do not have to play Minnesota.
In men's hockey, it's the same thing but from a different perspective. I do indeed think my team is the best team. But given that single elimination tournaments are fleeting and random, I want to minimize that random effect by having them play teams where random chance plays less of a factor. That would mean weaker teams.
Just because a lower seed winning the women's NCAA tournament hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. And I'm sure you would agree. But any rational person would also agree that there is a better chance of that happening with a favorable draw.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that my team is weaker, because the same thing is true in men's hockey. If I think my team is the best, then I want as little random chance to factor into the result as possible.
But what you're telling me here is that if BU had won the title game over BC last year, that you wouldn't acknowledge the fact that they didn't have to play against Minnesota was a factor in that championship?
People who like stats don't think that stats play the games. Stats can only be used as a predictor for those games. And just because the expected outcome doesn't occur doesn't mean that the stat was wrong. If (who the hell plays for the Twins these days?) Joe Mauer comes up to bat with a .400 on base percentage and hits a single, it doesn't mean his OBP wasn't a good predictor because he statistically was more likely to not reach base.
No, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of "they don't crown the best team the champion, they crown the winner of three single elimination games the champion."
I know Minnesota is the best team, but that doesn't make them the champion. I want my team to win the championship, and they have an improved chance of doing so if they do not have to play Minnesota.
In men's hockey, it's the same thing but from a different perspective. I do indeed think my team is the best team. But given that single elimination tournaments are fleeting and random, I want to minimize that random effect by having them play teams where random chance plays less of a factor. That would mean weaker teams.
Just because a lower seed winning the women's NCAA tournament hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. And I'm sure you would agree. But any rational person would also agree that there is a better chance of that happening with a favorable draw.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that my team is weaker, because the same thing is true in men's hockey. If I think my team is the best, then I want as little random chance to factor into the result as possible.
That's the problem. You're looking at it from a perspective of "BU could not possibly have been the champion last year because they did not win the championship." Well, no kidding. But it doesn't work that way. BU *could* have won the championship. I'm sure you would acknowledge this.
But what you're telling me here is that if BU had won the title game over BC last year, that you wouldn't acknowledge the fact that they didn't have to play against Minnesota was a factor in that championship?
God, this complaint against sports statistics just drives me nuts.
People who like stats don't think that stats play the games. Stats can only be used as a predictor for those games. And just because the expected outcome doesn't occur doesn't mean that the stat was wrong. If (who the hell plays for the Twins these days?) Joe Mauer comes up to bat with a .400 on base percentage and hits a single, it doesn't mean his OBP wasn't a good predictor because he statistically was more likely to not reach base.
Last edited:
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
If they don't play Minnesota, they're going to play someone else good enough to reach that championship. They aren't going to face some team that came up with a miracle game out of nowhere and then just collapsed. I have yet to see such a season in the NCAA era. You may want a cupcake championship; I can assure you that your team does not. Your team wants to compete, because that's why they invest all the blood, sweat and tears. They could care less about the hardware if it doesn't symbolize deeper meaning. They want to be the best, not the luckiest.
Rational? Where in the heck do you think you are? We're on the USCHO forum, for crying out loud, and you expect rational???
No. There's a 100 percent chance that BU did not win the championship. That's all I have to prove, because I'm starting with the team that won, and working backward. You're the one wanting to play "what if" games that defy the math, and then you want me to conclude something based on an event that did not happen. So no, I'm not going there.
What complaint? I'm not making any complaint. I'm just saying that Yale won last year not because they got some magical break through the brackets, but because they played the best hockey in the tournament. I think even when you think it is all about shortcuts, you still have to go out there and beat a good team that has the same goals and ambitions that you do. Math is great, but it is based upon having data. In a three game tournament, there isn't much data, so the most important math is the addition that takes place on the scoreboard. I believe in math, I believe in science, and I believe that neither can explain everything, because they are limited by our own lack of understanding. I know enough to realize that there is even more that I don't begin to fathom.
who cares? Neither of us is going to change the other's view one iota based on any baseball analogy.
Been fun debating -- I'd best do what I'm supposed to be doing.
joegrav
New member
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
You're missing the point. There's always going to be randomness in a single elimination game. Because there's a lot less parity, there's a lot less randomness in women's hockey compared to men's. But there's still some randomness. After all, only one team has ever gone undefeated for the entire season. And that team needed OT to win the semifinal. Bleep happens. Also, there's such a thing as a good or a bad matchup for a team, which impacts who you would want to get in a draw. Obviously what happens happens and you have to beat who you get.
So yes, BU did 100% lose to Minnesota last year in the one game they played, but if they played 50,000 times the same result wouldn't happen over and over again. You know that.
It's pretty simple to mathematically explain what he's trying to say:
Say BC plays Clarkson in the first round and has on a given night, say, a 40% chance of beating them.
Then they play Cornell and have a 45% chance of winning, then they play BU and have a 60% chance of winning. The overall chance of them winning the tournament is .40*.45*.60, so 10.8%.
They play those two teams, then play Minnesota who they have more like a 5% chance of beating and that means they have a 0.9% chance of winning the whole thing.
What the players would want or think is pretty irrelevant in this case. First of all, I'm hoping that players don't concern themselves with who they're playing one way or the other, and just prepare to go out and play their best regardless of who they play. I don't have to do anything on Saturday but watch, so I can think about these things. Secondly, if they win the NCAA championship, I don't think they're going to care who they played.
If they don't play Minnesota, they're going to play someone else good enough to reach that championship. They aren't going to face some team that came up with a miracle game out of nowhere and then just collapsed. I have yet to see such a season in the NCAA era. You may want a cupcake championship; I can assure you that your team does not. Your team wants to compete, because that's why they invest all the blood, sweat and tears. They could care less about the hardware if it doesn't symbolize deeper meaning. They want to be the best, not the luckiest.
Rational? Where in the heck do you think you are? We're on the USCHO forum, for crying out loud, and you expect rational???
No. There's a 100 percent chance that BU did not win the championship. That's all I have to prove, because I'm starting with the team that won, and working backward. You're the one wanting to play "what if" games that defy the math, and then you want me to conclude something based on an event that did not happen. So no, I'm not going there.
What complaint? I'm not making any complaint. I'm just saying that Yale won last year not because they got some magical break through the brackets, but because they played the best hockey in the tournament. I think even when you think it is all about shortcuts, you still have to go out there and beat a good team that has the same goals and ambitions that you do. Math is great, but it is based upon having data. In a three game tournament, there isn't much data, so the most important math is the addition that takes place on the scoreboard. I believe in math, I believe in science, and I believe that neither can explain everything, because they are limited by our own lack of understanding. I know enough to realize that there is even more that I don't began to fathom.
who cares? Neither of us is going to change the other's view one iota based on any baseball analogy.
Been fun debating -- I'd best do what I'm supposed to be doing.
You're missing the point. There's always going to be randomness in a single elimination game. Because there's a lot less parity, there's a lot less randomness in women's hockey compared to men's. But there's still some randomness. After all, only one team has ever gone undefeated for the entire season. And that team needed OT to win the semifinal. Bleep happens. Also, there's such a thing as a good or a bad matchup for a team, which impacts who you would want to get in a draw. Obviously what happens happens and you have to beat who you get.
So yes, BU did 100% lose to Minnesota last year in the one game they played, but if they played 50,000 times the same result wouldn't happen over and over again. You know that.
It's pretty simple to mathematically explain what he's trying to say:
Say BC plays Clarkson in the first round and has on a given night, say, a 40% chance of beating them.
Then they play Cornell and have a 45% chance of winning, then they play BU and have a 60% chance of winning. The overall chance of them winning the tournament is .40*.45*.60, so 10.8%.
They play those two teams, then play Minnesota who they have more like a 5% chance of beating and that means they have a 0.9% chance of winning the whole thing.
What the players would want or think is pretty irrelevant in this case. First of all, I'm hoping that players don't concern themselves with who they're playing one way or the other, and just prepare to go out and play their best regardless of who they play. I don't have to do anything on Saturday but watch, so I can think about these things. Secondly, if they win the NCAA championship, I don't think they're going to care who they played.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
It pretty much doesn't matter...in any currency cheap is cheap!
"Cheap is small and not too steep
But best of all cheap is cheap"
Ray Davies
It pretty much doesn't matter...in any currency cheap is cheap!
"Cheap is small and not too steep
But best of all cheap is cheap"
Ray Davies
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Joe -- he wants to win a championship by playing Sacred Heart and Holy Cross and I forget who else. Why should I care one bit about what he's try to say beyond that? So, I'm not missing his point, it just flies in the face of what I love about the game. I've talked to BC players. They are excited to play Minnesota. They really want to prove they are the best. That matters to me far more than what Grant is demonstrating that Joe Mauer has less of a chance of injuring his big toe if he takes the first five pitches every at bat. Oh wait! He already does that and still gets injured.
They would if it was Sacred Heart and Holy Cross and Joe Mauer. If it is three legit teams, they won't worry much about who they may not have played. True competitors want to be champions, not simply be named champions.
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
I don't know about the women but I can absolutely give you an example of it from the men's side: North Dakota 1997
The dominant team that year was Michigan. BU came out for the semis jacked to the moon and managed to eak out a win over the Wolverines, who played a bit flat though not particularly badly. And the UND won the final in a walk because BU couldn't come close to reaching that level for a second time. North Dakota might have won the final anyway; they were pretty good. But they clearly benefited from having someone else take out Goliath for them.
I don't know about the women but I can absolutely give you an example of it from the men's side: North Dakota 1997
The dominant team that year was Michigan. BU came out for the semis jacked to the moon and managed to eak out a win over the Wolverines, who played a bit flat though not particularly badly. And the UND won the final in a walk because BU couldn't come close to reaching that level for a second time. North Dakota might have won the final anyway; they were pretty good. But they clearly benefited from having someone else take out Goliath for them.
joegrav
New member
I certainly hope the BC players think they can and will beat anyone. If you don't have that attitude you have no chance of winning.
Again, not the same issue. Also, since there is zero chance of BC playing Sacred Heart, Holy Cross and St. Anselm to win the title, it's not really relevant. You don't think it would be meaningful to BC to beat BU for the national championship?
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
If it would not be meaningful to BC to beat BU in a pickup volleyball game at a summer picnic, then I'm misunderstanding the rivalry. If BU makes it to the championship game, I'm sure it will be most meaningful to the Eagles if they can celebrate while the Terriers watch. Did Grant already pose that question to me, but I missed it buried under his other examples? (please don't tell me I have to go back and read his posts again
)
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
But since you're going to lose, wouldn't you rather do it to Minnesota?
But since you're going to lose, wouldn't you rather do it to Minnesota?
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
Couldn't agree more.
Which was the exact point that I was making about the empty netter that hit the post in the Gold Medal Game regardless of which team stood to gain on the scoreboard by it. It would have been a travesty to that team because in their hearts they would know that their win, regardless of how well they had played, in the end was ultimately decided by dumb luck. All the months of sacrifice, dedication, persistence, pain and single mindedness was all for naught...wiped out by a few seconds of dumb luck...what a hollow "victory".
No different here.
Like I said previously, thanks, but no thanks.
Couldn't agree more.
Which was the exact point that I was making about the empty netter that hit the post in the Gold Medal Game regardless of which team stood to gain on the scoreboard by it. It would have been a travesty to that team because in their hearts they would know that their win, regardless of how well they had played, in the end was ultimately decided by dumb luck. All the months of sacrifice, dedication, persistence, pain and single mindedness was all for naught...wiped out by a few seconds of dumb luck...what a hollow "victory".
No different here.
Like I said previously, thanks, but no thanks.
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
Your specific point is way off. It depends upon ex post knowledge of what happened next, namely that Canada tied up the game. If that puck goes in, we have an entirely different scenario and there's a pretty good chance the game ends 3-1 and whatever controversy there is is kind of muted.
Beyond that, I think you badly misunderstand how athletes feel in those kinds of situations. Winning athletes are really, really good at rationalizing that they deserve the outcome that they got. Errors by the officials don't change that. The 1985 Kansas City Royals never let Don Denkinger keep them from feeling like they were the world champions in any sense; they celebrated like every other team that has won the Series and will be more than happy to tell you how proud they are of it. The 1972 Soviet basketball team never offered to give their gold medals back. I can provide many more examples if you want.
Your specific point is way off. It depends upon ex post knowledge of what happened next, namely that Canada tied up the game. If that puck goes in, we have an entirely different scenario and there's a pretty good chance the game ends 3-1 and whatever controversy there is is kind of muted.
Beyond that, I think you badly misunderstand how athletes feel in those kinds of situations. Winning athletes are really, really good at rationalizing that they deserve the outcome that they got. Errors by the officials don't change that. The 1985 Kansas City Royals never let Don Denkinger keep them from feeling like they were the world champions in any sense; they celebrated like every other team that has won the Series and will be more than happy to tell you how proud they are of it. The 1972 Soviet basketball team never offered to give their gold medals back. I can provide many more examples if you want.
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
That is all fair enough. But the sight of that official skating backwards and slowly into that Canadian defenseman at the blue line was particularly egregious. That looked incompetent to me rather than just an error in judgement in the heat of the moment. I, also, was glad that goal didn't go in.
That is all fair enough. But the sight of that official skating backwards and slowly into that Canadian defenseman at the blue line was particularly egregious. That looked incompetent to me rather than just an error in judgement in the heat of the moment. I, also, was glad that goal didn't go in.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
I agree with Eeyore on that point. Breaks are part of the game, and successful teams are often those that take full advantage. If the empty netter goes in, well the US had Canada in a position where they had to risk pulling the goalie, and Murphy's Law dictates that there are about a million things that can go wrong once your goalie is out. Would it have been a fortuitous victory? Yes. Hollow? Not in the least.
I agree with Eeyore on that point. Breaks are part of the game, and successful teams are often those that take full advantage. If the empty netter goes in, well the US had Canada in a position where they had to risk pulling the goalie, and Murphy's Law dictates that there are about a million things that can go wrong once your goalie is out. Would it have been a fortuitous victory? Yes. Hollow? Not in the least.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
May not have happened yet in the NCAA tourney, but there are plenty of examples at various levels of hockey, including the NHL, of a lesser team pulling an upset, and then be so gassed, or so euphoric that they have nothing left for the next game/final.
May not have happened yet in the NCAA tourney, but there are plenty of examples at various levels of hockey, including the NHL, of a lesser team pulling an upset, and then be so gassed, or so euphoric that they have nothing left for the next game/final.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
Re: USCHO Women's Hockey Posters Poll
I was definitely not expecting a Kinks reference on this hockey board.