What's new
By:
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.

WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

by my count, four WCHA recruits are represented on the U.S. Junior Select Team roster this year. The 2015 World Junior A Challenge tournament goes from Dec. 11-18. Last year Team USA beat Team Denmark in the final, 3-2 (OT).

F Colin Peters (Sioux Falls Stampede / Northern Michigan)
D Keegan Ford (Dubuque Fighting Saints / Michigan Tech University)
D Mitch Reinke (Cedar Rapids RoughRiders / Michigan Tech University)
G Ryan Bednard (Youngstown Phantoms / Bowling Green State University)

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/985290-world-junior-a-challenge
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

blackswampboy said:
by my count, four WCHA recruits are represented on the U.S. Junior Select Team roster this year. The 2015 World Junior A Challenge tournament goes from Dec. 11-18. Last year Team USA beat Team Denmark in the final, 3-2 (OT).

F Colin Peters (Sioux Falls Stampede / Northern Michigan)
D Keegan Ford (Dubuque Fighting Saints / Michigan Tech University)
D Mitch Reinke (Cedar Rapids RoughRiders / Michigan Tech University)
G Ryan Bednard (Youngstown Phantoms / Bowling Green State University)

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/985290-world-junior-a-challenge
Click to expand...

nice didn't know Ford made the team too
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

we knew this, but it still sucks.
so yeah, that's two MAC votes in April against the B1G's enrollment age thing.

Teams With No Representation On the NCAA Council:
Minnesota State, Michigan Tech, Ferris State, Northern Michigan, Alaska, Alaska-Anchorage, Bemidji State, Alabama-Huntsville, Lake Superior State
(Total, teams with no representation make up 36.7% of college hockey.)

Conferences With Two Votes on the NCAA Council:
MAC

Conferences With Four Votes each on the NCAA Council:
B1Gs
PAC 12
HEA

http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2...the-power-structure-of-the-ncaa-council-vote/
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Happy Thanksgiving, WCHA brethren. That even includes you heinous Seawolf gobblers.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Well looks to me that the league as a whole will get only 1 or at most 2 teams into the tourney. Absent someone else winning the final 5, which I don't see, I think it's between MSU and BG. Overall it seems like a lot of parity in college hockey, so maybe things will change, but there are an awful lot of good teams in the top 20, and breaking into that crowd from here on is going to be hard.

Tech has most of it's non con schedule to go and Mankato has the northstar cup games. Plus BG has to take care of WMU or they will be hurting.We all kind of said it would be a closer finish this year and that's turning out to be true.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

The only way that I accept zero ties is 3-2-1-0. I'm okay with a league point going to a team that kept it tied for 60:00, whether they lose 5x5, 4x4, 3x3, or via shootout.

GFM
 
gfmorris said:
The only way that I accept zero ties is 3-2-1-0. I'm okay with a league point going to a team that kept it tied for 60:00, whether they lose 5x5, 4x4, 3x3, or via shootout.

GFM
Click to expand...

I'm on the other end. If we're so hell-bent on seeing a winner and a loser, then no points or reward for a win. The standings show wins and losses. That's it.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Hammer said:
I'm on the other end. If we're so hell-bent on seeing a winner and a loser, then no points or reward for a win. The standings show wins and losses. That's it.
Click to expand...

Those are the only 2 options for me and if we go your way, OT must be 5v5.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Hammer said:
I'm on the other end. If we're so hell-bent on seeing a winner and a loser, then no points or reward for a win. The standings show wins and losses. That's it.
Click to expand...

My preference over 3-2-1-0, too, although that would have to be something implemented NCAA wide. I'm not sure all six conferences would agree to that at once.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Shirtless Guy said:
Those are the only 2 options for me and if we go your way, OT must be 5v5.
Click to expand...

Does that mean no shoot out? You play till someone wins? Personally, though shoot outs are exciting it is NOT hockey. Always thought of hockey as the ultimate TEAM sport and should be treated as such.

That being said I have no issue with ties.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I have no issue with ties, either.

5x5, 4x4, or 3x3 for OT are all fine with me, but make OT 10 minutes. At least then it's a reasonable semblance of hockey instead of the skills competition used to settle NHL games now. You're going to solve the tie issue far more often than not if OT is 10 minutes.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Hammer said:
I'm on the other end. If we're so hell-bent on seeing a winner and a loser, then no points or reward for a win. The standings show wins and losses. That's it.
Click to expand...

The argument from the shootout wankers is that it's exciting and the crowd loves it and wants to see shootouts. Well, have it before the game. As it is, a shootout is fairly rare (in half a season I think there's been TWO in the NCHC). Have the circus shootout before every game. Then if the game ends in a tie you have already decided who gets the standings tie-breaker point (I refuse to call it a "win"). This satisfies the argument that the crowd wants shootouts ... they get to see one every time they go to the arena. If you're a shootout wanker then you cannot argue against this proposed method. And if you're argument is that players will be doing it at the next level .... then give them some practice at it instead of maybe getting your number called in the two or three times a year your game ends in a tie.

None of that will happen because shootout wankers aren't about doing this to break ties in the standings. They think that winning a shootout means you won the game. It doesn't. This is about a sports culture that believes there something wrong about a tie in a sporting event. There isn't.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

uaafanblog said:
None of that will happen because shootout wankers aren't about doing this to break ties in the standings. They think that winning a shootout means you won the game. It doesn't. This is about a sports culture that believes there something wrong about a tie in a sporting event. There isn't.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. This is all about a culture.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Ties don't bother me. Shootouts seem to create an instant "hero" for the night. The rest of the team who were grinding it out shift after shift and the goalie who kept them in the game fade too quickly as the "hero" gets the number 1 star regardless of the "team" who put him in that position. Rather see a tie, gives the impression that both sides ground it out and everyone was involved.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I'm ok with a tie and I agree but I'd like to see OT be 4 x 4. or 3 x3. and not 5 x5.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

There's good ties and bad ties, which tend to balance out for any team over the course of a season. Let's stick with that.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

true2BSU said:
Ties don't bother me. Shootouts seem to create an instant "hero" for the night. The rest of the team who were grinding it out shift after shift and the goalie who kept them in the game fade too quickly as the "hero" gets the number 1 star regardless of the "team" who put him in that position. Rather see a tie, gives the impression that both sides ground it out and everyone was involved.
Click to expand...

I think Chris Dilks hit the nail on the head on this issue yesterday on Twitter. I don't think ties are the real issue here. I think it's the lack of scoring, which in turn has led to so many ties. As he noted, the WCHA is averaging less than 5 goals a game in conference play. The NHL is worried about lack of offense, and they're averaging about 5.4/game. We have so many games ending in ties because it's hard for anyone to get 3 or 4 goals. Of the 12 WCHA conference ties this year, 1 was 0-0, 5 were 1-1, 4 were 2-2, and 2 were 3-3. None have been 4-4 or higher. There have been a few more goals in games that got decided in overtime (2 by 3-2, 1 by 4-3, and 2 by 5-4), but that perhaps shows that we'd have a lot fewer ties if the game were amenable to more scoring. Call interference and reduce the goalie pad sizes, and you'll see more goals and fewer ties.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I wonder what's the problem with the WCHA in this particular season. Did we just graduate all the good shooters? Man, UAH's scoring is up and it's still sluggish league-wide.

GFM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top