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.
Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
- Thread starter Slapper
- Start date
JosephPSchmoe
I'll say it if you won't
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Because losing sucks?
Because losing sucks?
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Mark Johnson was asked this question this week, and his response was on the order of that it helps that the league is so competitive, so the team or teams that emerge have been well tested and have improved over the course of the season. I think that is true now, but I doubt it was more true of the WCHA than other leagues 10 years ago.
Mark Johnson was asked this question this week, and his response was on the order of that it helps that the league is so competitive, so the team or teams that emerge have been well tested and have improved over the course of the season. I think that is true now, but I doubt it was more true of the WCHA than other leagues 10 years ago.
northhockey
New member
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Because are conference is top to bottom better than any other conference and with the low priority nccaa puts women's hockey at, still finds a way to get it done every year even when seeding is sometimes quite awful
Because are conference is top to bottom better than any other conference and with the low priority nccaa puts women's hockey at, still finds a way to get it done every year even when seeding is sometimes quite awful
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
At this point, I'd have to say that the top WCHA teams are simply better. The interesting question is why that is the case. My hypothesis is that the top WCHA teams entered women's hockey by spending a lot more money on their programs. That makes it a lot easier to recruit top talent. It's also why I think Hockey East is in the process of supplanting the ECAC as the top eastern conference.
It's also interesting to think about whether girls hockey being an increasingly important sport at the high school level, rather than the sort of traveling teams and prep schools that dominate in the east, has an effect on this. I have no data on this and no opinion one way or the other. I just wonder whether or not it makes a difference.
At this point, I'd have to say that the top WCHA teams are simply better. The interesting question is why that is the case. My hypothesis is that the top WCHA teams entered women's hockey by spending a lot more money on their programs. That makes it a lot easier to recruit top talent. It's also why I think Hockey East is in the process of supplanting the ECAC as the top eastern conference.
It's also interesting to think about whether girls hockey being an increasingly important sport at the high school level, rather than the sort of traveling teams and prep schools that dominate in the east, has an effect on this. I have no data on this and no opinion one way or the other. I just wonder whether or not it makes a difference.
puckskillz
New member
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I would agree. Even the Gophers top players are transplants from non HS programs. Kessel, Schoullis, Davis, Terry, West, Raty,... 6 of the top 7 point getters.. Bemidji, OSU not relying on HS players alone.. I would agree that the schedule just dictates that you cannot take a night off. The bottom half of the WCHA is always trying to steal a game from the top three or four teams. I also believe the WCHA plays a more creative style of hockey and depends less on disciplined systems and allows their players to create.
I would agree. Even the Gophers top players are transplants from non HS programs. Kessel, Schoullis, Davis, Terry, West, Raty,... 6 of the top 7 point getters.. Bemidji, OSU not relying on HS players alone.. I would agree that the schedule just dictates that you cannot take a night off. The bottom half of the WCHA is always trying to steal a game from the top three or four teams. I also believe the WCHA plays a more creative style of hockey and depends less on disciplined systems and allows their players to create.
AggiesHockey
New member
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Having Johnson coaching Wisconsin certainly helps their cause. Great school, great campus, and probably one of the best D1 college hockey coaches in Wisconsin.
Having Miller coach UMD helps their cause. She taps into her pipeline of Canadian Olympians.
Having U of M at the epicenter of Minnesota High School hockey certainly helps their cause. Lot of suburban Minneapolis / St Paul girls grow up dreaming of playing for the Gophers. They don't have to recruit much.
Then you got yer Ralph Englestad Arena at UND. The Taj Mahal of hockey arenas.
Having Johnson coaching Wisconsin certainly helps their cause. Great school, great campus, and probably one of the best D1 college hockey coaches in Wisconsin.
Having Miller coach UMD helps their cause. She taps into her pipeline of Canadian Olympians.
Having U of M at the epicenter of Minnesota High School hockey certainly helps their cause. Lot of suburban Minneapolis / St Paul girls grow up dreaming of playing for the Gophers. They don't have to recruit much.
Then you got yer Ralph Englestad Arena at UND. The Taj Mahal of hockey arenas.
Last edited:
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I'd agree with what MJ said. Most weekends in the WCHA are an absolute war where they are playing against some the best talent in the world and in the country. If you look at Cornell's roster, they have just as much talent as Minny, if not more. National players and All-Americans left and right but in that game, it just didn't really seem like they would beat Minny. Minny seemed so experienced and played with a ton of poise. Cornell competed but the fact that Minny had been in so many similar situations probably gave them the confidence and the edge to win that game. This was said last year as well but Eastern teams need to make sure they strengthen their OOC schedules.
I'd agree with what MJ said. Most weekends in the WCHA are an absolute war where they are playing against some the best talent in the world and in the country. If you look at Cornell's roster, they have just as much talent as Minny, if not more. National players and All-Americans left and right but in that game, it just didn't really seem like they would beat Minny. Minny seemed so experienced and played with a ton of poise. Cornell competed but the fact that Minny had been in so many similar situations probably gave them the confidence and the edge to win that game. This was said last year as well but Eastern teams need to make sure they strengthen their OOC schedules.
This is not a new debate here. I believe the common thread through time here is that the WCHA teams play a larger share of their schedule against other top 4 teams, and that's the no.1 reason. I'll comment on other explanations.
(1) the NCAA champion from WCHA is simply deeper & more talented - this may be true, but I don't see a huge talent difference between Cornell and the finalists. Same goes for most other years. I think the teams are close enough talentwise that you'd have the east pick up a few titles along the way, unless thee
(1) the NCAA champion from WCHA is simply deeper & more talented - this may be true, but I don't see a huge talent difference between Cornell and the finalists. Same goes for most other years. I think the teams are close enough talentwise that you'd have the east pick up a few titles along the way, unless thee
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Actually eastern teams (Harvard in particular) did fine through 2005. Harvard made the NCAA tournament championship game three years in a row ('03-'05) which is something of a feat given we were competing against teams who could offer scholarships.
The disparity and concentration of championships that lie with Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD says more about their programs including recruiting efforts, coaching, schedules and an overall physical and mental toughness come March that the eastern schools just can't seem to match. At this point, I think a Hockey East team has probably the best chance to unseat one of the above. I don't see the ECAC being competitive in the tournament despite Cornell's success the past three seasons in reaching the Frozen Four.
Actually eastern teams (Harvard in particular) did fine through 2005. Harvard made the NCAA tournament championship game three years in a row ('03-'05) which is something of a feat given we were competing against teams who could offer scholarships.
The disparity and concentration of championships that lie with Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD says more about their programs including recruiting efforts, coaching, schedules and an overall physical and mental toughness come March that the eastern schools just can't seem to match. At this point, I think a Hockey East team has probably the best chance to unseat one of the above. I don't see the ECAC being competitive in the tournament despite Cornell's success the past three seasons in reaching the Frozen Four.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Congrats to MN.
Not sure why, but one obvious advantage is that "the three" have hosted half of the NCAA championships which is convenient to all three. MN gets the FF again in 2013. No one in the east must want to host. If the ECAC or HE host in 2014, that will be five years. The NCAA must prefer a location half way between HE and the PAC12.
Next year will be interesting. MN and WI are going to be hurt by graduation. If my bookie would place the bet, I would definitely lay money on "the field" over "the three" in 2013.
Congrats to MN.
Not sure why, but one obvious advantage is that "the three" have hosted half of the NCAA championships which is convenient to all three. MN gets the FF again in 2013. No one in the east must want to host. If the ECAC or HE host in 2014, that will be five years. The NCAA must prefer a location half way between HE and the PAC12.
Next year will be interesting. MN and WI are going to be hurt by graduation. If my bookie would place the bet, I would definitely lay money on "the field" over "the three" in 2013.
mnpokecheck
Drinking the Koolaid
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
So you're saying 1/2 have been in East and 1/2 in the West.....Stop the Presses.......
So you're saying 1/2 have been in East and 1/2 in the West.....Stop the Presses.......
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
EastFan1's point about hosting mattering isn't crazy. You can make a good case that the East has been extremely unlucky in terms of Frozen Four's being hosted in the west in years it was relatively stronger.
Ask the following questions (1) In the two years where the East came closest to winning, who hosted the Frozen Four? (2) In the years in which Eastern teams were the No. 1 seed, who hosted the Frozen Four?
Answers:
(1) 2003, UMD over Harvard in 2 OT, @ UMD
2010, UMD over Cornell in 3 OT, @ Minnesota
(2) 2001, No. 1 Dartmouth, @Minnesota (won by UMD)
2006, No. 1 UNH, @Minnesota (won by Wisconsin)
2008, No. 1 Harvard, @UMD (won by UMD)
So while I have no doubt that the WCHA has been stronger (after all top WCHA teams have had no trouble winning at Eastern host sites), it's indisputable that some luck in hosting has played a role in the extent of the WCHA's dominance. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that at least 1 on those 5 Frozen Fours mentioned might have flipped on an Eastern host site.
--------
My last post in this thread got cut off. The question I was asking was whether the WCHA's strength from "top-to-bottom" is important to it's success, as opposed to merely its strength from the top 3 or 4. It makes a lot more sense to me that the 10-to-14 game the top 4 WCHA contenders get against each other is far more important than Bemidji being stronger than Princeton, or Mankato/St. Cloud being stronger than teams like Vermont or the Brown/Yale pairing. One reason I believe that is that the bottom half of the WCHA has not historically had a huge edge over the bottom half of the East, though the strength of the 4th-to-6th place teams in the WCHA is clearly at an all time high this year.
EastFan1's point about hosting mattering isn't crazy. You can make a good case that the East has been extremely unlucky in terms of Frozen Four's being hosted in the west in years it was relatively stronger.
Ask the following questions (1) In the two years where the East came closest to winning, who hosted the Frozen Four? (2) In the years in which Eastern teams were the No. 1 seed, who hosted the Frozen Four?
Answers:
(1) 2003, UMD over Harvard in 2 OT, @ UMD
2010, UMD over Cornell in 3 OT, @ Minnesota
(2) 2001, No. 1 Dartmouth, @Minnesota (won by UMD)
2006, No. 1 UNH, @Minnesota (won by Wisconsin)
2008, No. 1 Harvard, @UMD (won by UMD)
So while I have no doubt that the WCHA has been stronger (after all top WCHA teams have had no trouble winning at Eastern host sites), it's indisputable that some luck in hosting has played a role in the extent of the WCHA's dominance. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that at least 1 on those 5 Frozen Fours mentioned might have flipped on an Eastern host site.
--------
My last post in this thread got cut off. The question I was asking was whether the WCHA's strength from "top-to-bottom" is important to it's success, as opposed to merely its strength from the top 3 or 4. It makes a lot more sense to me that the 10-to-14 game the top 4 WCHA contenders get against each other is far more important than Bemidji being stronger than Princeton, or Mankato/St. Cloud being stronger than teams like Vermont or the Brown/Yale pairing. One reason I believe that is that the bottom half of the WCHA has not historically had a huge edge over the bottom half of the East, though the strength of the 4th-to-6th place teams in the WCHA is clearly at an all time high this year.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
When you average it all out there is no question that the top teams in the WCHA played a much more difficult schedule than the top teams in the East. According to KRACH the difference in the Strength of Schedules (SOS) is substantial: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/krach/d-i-women/
And the WCHA teams have the top 8 SOS Ranks according to RPI: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-women/
So apparently the harder schedule does lead to the WCHA teams showing more improvement over the course of an entire season - not as many easy games where a top team can relax and coast a bit and still expect to win.
When you average it all out there is no question that the top teams in the WCHA played a much more difficult schedule than the top teams in the East. According to KRACH the difference in the Strength of Schedules (SOS) is substantial: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/krach/d-i-women/
And the WCHA teams have the top 8 SOS Ranks according to RPI: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-women/
So apparently the harder schedule does lead to the WCHA teams showing more improvement over the course of an entire season - not as many easy games where a top team can relax and coast a bit and still expect to win.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I'm not saying there has been half in the east and half in west. I'm saying half of the NCAA championships have been held in the home city of the same three teams that have always won it. Next year it will go to "over half." Huge advantage. BSU, UND, SCSU, MSU and OSU have never hosted and have never won.
I'm not sure if the ECAC has ever hosted. Maybe once if New Hampshire was in the ECAC at the end of 2002.
One CHA team has hosted.
HE last hosted in 2009.
On the "top to bottom" question, I think the WCHA graduated a special class. I'm not sure those few players get replaced at MN, WI or OSU.
I'm not saying there has been half in the east and half in west. I'm saying half of the NCAA championships have been held in the home city of the same three teams that have always won it. Next year it will go to "over half." Huge advantage. BSU, UND, SCSU, MSU and OSU have never hosted and have never won.
I'm not sure if the ECAC has ever hosted. Maybe once if New Hampshire was in the ECAC at the end of 2002.
One CHA team has hosted.
HE last hosted in 2009.
On the "top to bottom" question, I think the WCHA graduated a special class. I'm not sure those few players get replaced at MN, WI or OSU.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Sure, if you look at this year alone, you can't really tell much about whether the WCHA's strength top-to-bottom was more relevant than it's strength top-to-middle, because the WCHA is clearly much stronger across the board. You can't tell much about whether "no weeks off" was more relevant than "more games against high-quality competition."
But my point was it hasn't generally been true over the last 12 years the WCHA's 4th-to-8th place teams were significantly stronger than the similar teams from the East. If OSU/MSU/BSU/SCSU want to claim some credit for the league's success over time, then that's fine, not denying that, but I'd strongly disagree that the bottom half of the league provider stronger competition is as important as the top half providing stronger competition. Having the stronger top half is where the WCHA has clearly had the edge over the last 12 years, and it makes much more sense to me that this kind of preparation is what's most important for championship success, rather than having your last-place team be slightly better.
Of course, the league office or coaches are never going to agree with what I just wrote, because it's in their interest to promote the lower tier teams of their league. And "every week is a battle in the WCHA" is a much simpler soundbyte.
Sure, if you look at this year alone, you can't really tell much about whether the WCHA's strength top-to-bottom was more relevant than it's strength top-to-middle, because the WCHA is clearly much stronger across the board. You can't tell much about whether "no weeks off" was more relevant than "more games against high-quality competition."
But my point was it hasn't generally been true over the last 12 years the WCHA's 4th-to-8th place teams were significantly stronger than the similar teams from the East. If OSU/MSU/BSU/SCSU want to claim some credit for the league's success over time, then that's fine, not denying that, but I'd strongly disagree that the bottom half of the league provider stronger competition is as important as the top half providing stronger competition. Having the stronger top half is where the WCHA has clearly had the edge over the last 12 years, and it makes much more sense to me that this kind of preparation is what's most important for championship success, rather than having your last-place team be slightly better.
Of course, the league office or coaches are never going to agree with what I just wrote, because it's in their interest to promote the lower tier teams of their league. And "every week is a battle in the WCHA" is a much simpler soundbyte.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Disagree -- none of these teams have been close to winning. Moreover, UMD in 03 and 08 is the only program to ever win on their home ice, and Wisconsin has never hosted. But I would agree hosting matters in that bad luck in terms of the East not hosting in its relatively strong years has played a role in the WCHA's perfect record of titles, as I detailed earlier in this thread.
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Anyway, I think the observations of MJ, Skate79 and D2D and others regarding the competition within the WCHA are a bigger factor and a more sound theory towards explaining the streak. Myself I think it's both that and some lucky bounces at opportune moments more than location. I also think the post game comments of Mark Johnson regarding reasons his team didn't win would strongly apply to many previous ECAC and HE team NCAA tournament results. More so than host locations.
I think there are too many non compliant results per the theory to suggest that location of hosts explains the WCHA streak. Though explaining the streak in it's entirety may not have been the point of EastFan1...and there has been some good fortune on WCHA teams behalf for sure with many q'finals, semis and finals that easily could have gone against WCHA teams. Advantage due to location? Maybe on a couple occasions, but enough of those games have been so close and could have easily had different outcomes the location doesn't strike me as the advantage to explain the streak. WCHA teams have gotten it done when playing the FF in Providence, Durham etc. There were strong non WCHA contenders in those championship rounds which should have enjoyed a similar advantage if we're promoting such a theory. I don't think UW has hosted a FF, has a mitt full of titles and I'm skeptical that a non Kohl yet West host was an advantage for them over an ECAC or HE participant at same location.
Anyway, I think the observations of MJ, Skate79 and D2D and others regarding the competition within the WCHA are a bigger factor and a more sound theory towards explaining the streak. Myself I think it's both that and some lucky bounces at opportune moments more than location. I also think the post game comments of Mark Johnson regarding reasons his team didn't win would strongly apply to many previous ECAC and HE team NCAA tournament results. More so than host locations.