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...

We'll know soon enough. But Ferris in Cincy would probably compel me to go. They may not be super consistent, but no one ever underestimates Ferris twice.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

purpleinnebraska said:
If UND wanted to stay close to home, they should have won the conference tournament. SCSU has earned the shorter trip to the X.

And, congrats to Ferris, and best of luck in the tournament
Click to expand...

Follow the dollar. Your answers are there.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I hope the Bulldogs find a way to clean up their game a little before next weekend. They got the one check from behind call against the Mavs, but there were four boarding calls on the weekend that could easily have been called as majors. St. Cloud will be very difficult to contain with a power play that clicks around 29% if there's a lot of penalty time to kill.

Any word on the status of Chad MacDonald?
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Time to make everyone think on a Monday...

I'm trying to figure out when was the last time the WCHA regular season champion(s) did not make the NCAA tourney field. As a Tech fan of course Colorado College 1993-94 comes to mind for me since we were pretty much the root cause of them missing out. However has it happened since (other than 2015-16)?

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

JohnsonsJerseys said:
Time to make everyone think on a Monday...

I'm trying to figure out when was the last time the WCHA regular season champion(s) did not make the NCAA tourney field. As a Tech fan of course Colorado College 1993-94 comes to mind for me since we were pretty much the root cause of them missing out. However has it happened since (other than 2015-16)?

Ryan J
Click to expand...
like co-champions or #1 seeds?
either way the answer is 1994, Colorado College Rule was instituted until the field expanded to 16 and until this year, ever champion/co-champion has made the NCAA tournament.
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

John J. MacInnes said:
I hope the Bulldogs find a way to clean up their game a little before next weekend. They got the one check from behind call against the Mavs, but there were four boarding calls on the weekend that could easily have been called as majors. St. Cloud will be very difficult to contain with a power play that clicks around 29% if there's a lot of penalty time to kill.
Click to expand...

They made it to the Tourney, why would they change? If they bring in other type of talent OK but otherwise why?
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

John J. MacInnes said:
I hope the Bulldogs find a way to clean up their game a little before next weekend. They got the one check from behind call against the Mavs, but there were four boarding calls on the weekend that could easily have been called as majors. St. Cloud will be very difficult to contain with a power play that clicks around 29% if there's a lot of penalty time to kill.

Any word on the status of Chad MacDonald?
Click to expand...
FSU averages 20 seconds/game more penalty time than MTU in conference play.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Tech was a top-16 bubble team, but I really don't have an issue with the tourney field other than UMD and maybe BU. UMD barely had a winning record and clearly got a ton of benefit from the circular logic of the NCHC teams playing with themselves all season and boosting each others QWB. I think that value either needs to be capped or can only be earned for non-conference games. As for Hockey East, five is a little much when your 5th team is the conference tourney champ.
Ryan J
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

JohnsonsJerseys said:
Tech was a top-16 bubble team, but I really don't have an issue with the tourney field other than UMD and maybe BU. UMD barely had a winning record and clearly got a ton of benefit from the circular logic of the NCHC teams playing with themselves all season and boosting each others QWB. I think that value either needs to be capped or can only be earned for non-conference games. As for Hockey East, five is a little much when your 5th team is the conference tourney champ.
Ryan J
Click to expand...
Well it is what it is. The operant question ought to be, are those 4 other teams deserving, and I would say they were. Same for Duluth, were they deserving, and based on the second half yes.
It's hard to justify Tech being in with three losses to the number 30 team and two to the number 50.
 
JohnsonsJerseys said:
Tech was a top-16 bubble team, but I really don't have an issue with the tourney field other than UMD and maybe BU. UMD barely had a winning record and clearly got a ton of benefit from the circular logic of the NCHC teams playing with themselves all season and boosting each others QWB. I think that value either needs to be capped or can only be earned for non-conference games. As for Hockey East, five is a little much when your 5th team is the conference tourney champ.
Ryan J
Click to expand...

I feel your pain. I really do. Had big plans on seeing Tech play this weekend (wherever they wound up).

Across the board, the NCHC had a better NC record and that's what matters. If we want more than one team to qualify next year, the answer is pretty simple... Win more NC games, especially against the tougher conferences. We can claim that our conference is just as good (and in any given game we can win), but night in, night out, across the season, they were the stronger conference this year. I have no issue with UMD making it because they did play that tougher schedule.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Superfly100 said:
I feel your pain. I really do. Had big plans on seeing Tech play this weekend (wherever they wound up).

Across the board, the NCHC had a better NC record and that's what matters. If we want more than one team to qualify next year, the answer is pretty simple... Win more NC games, especially against the tougher conferences. We can claim that our conference is just as good (and in any given game we can win), but night in, night out, across the season, they were the stronger conference this year. I have no issue with UMD making it because they did play that tougher schedule.
Click to expand...

But PWR and the like fail because schedules are so insular. If the WCHA wants more teams in the postseason, we need to drop to 24 league games.

GFM
 
gfmorris said:
But PWR and the like fail because schedules are so insular. If the WCHA wants more teams in the postseason, we need to drop to 24 league games.

GFM
Click to expand...
Some schools are already having trouble booking the additional dates created by going to Alaska twice. An additional four open dates could leave WCHA schools playing themselves as NC opponents. The WCHA schools don't have the warchest available to throw money at Eastern schools for one-and-dones. And I can't think of any WCHA schools who could demand 2-for-1's from ECAC/HE/AHA schools.



I posted a wild idea in the MTU thread: for the NCHC and WCHA to both reduce their conference schedule to 20 games. BUT, eight of the remaining 14 non-conference games (before Alaska Exemptions) must be scheduled against NCHC or B1G opponents. Those eight games count towards your conference standings.

The remaining six games (at least) are the traditional free for all, book whoever you want.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

gfmorris said:
But PWR and the like fail because schedules are so insular. If the WCHA wants more teams in the postseason, we need to drop to 24 league games.

GFM
Click to expand...
if you went to 12 teams and played 24 conference games, everyone could play everyone 2x and rival 4x to get to 24?
That would alleviate a lot of the travel issues if you never had to go to both Alaska schools...
 
Just curious but what would happen to the pair wise if the WCHA just refused to play non-conference games? I know there are great math minds here who might be able to answer me. Thanks😊

We have enough teams to play a full schedule with everyone.
 
gfmorris said:
But PWR and the like fail because schedules are so insular. If the WCHA wants more teams in the postseason, we need to drop to 24 league games.

GFM
Click to expand...

Agree 100% that additional NC games will give us a better chance to improve SoS and get a QWB. But, doesn't matter if it's 24 or 28 game league schedule. Still need to win those NC games.
 
true2BSU said:
Just curious but what would happen to the pair wise if the WCHA just refused to play non-conference games? I know there are great math minds here who might be able to answer me. Thanks😊

We have enough teams to play a full schedule with everyone.
Click to expand...

The RPI/PWR would be fine in that it would still be able to rank all the teams. KRACH would blow up because you'd have two separate independent data sets. That would require Tech to not play in the GLI, and BSU and MSUM to not play UMN or in the MN Tournament.

The thing to remember is that conference games are zero sum net in that overall the conference always has a 0.500 record in those.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top