Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

[binnyrus]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

One thought:

About the competition up and down the WCHA . . . I mostly agree with Dave's point about the competitivenss among the top 4 is probably the main driver in prepping for the NCAAs. However, because of that the top 4 teams cannot lose many, if any, to the lower teams and win the conference or not have it really negatively effect PWR (okay stats people, beat me upover that!). And it's that "can't lose" way of life at the top of the WCHA that, I think, contributes a great deal to "hardening" those teams for post season play. That mental toughness it takes to win in the last 3 games of the year. In that sense it doesn't really matter how good the 8th team is. In addition UMD, WI and MN understand what "it takes" to win it all. In that regard they're one-up in terms of mental preparation. (I think we saw some of that with UND this post-season - it's one thing to show well in the WCHA it a totally different thing to show well in the NCAAs.) (Of course, the Gophers were also just the superior team!!)

One question: Don't schools have to put in bids to host??? If WCHA teams are bidding to host . . . and others are not . . . ?? And, with Bucky getting their new arena soon I'd guess they'll soon be throwing their name in the pot as well!

 

[brookyone]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

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.

This is true. Only versed in Minnesota recruits. They're a good bunch...but likely aren't going to jump in and replace the graduating senior class impact. Luckily Minnesota has a fair amount of talent returning.

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.

It's actually very true.

Was it my imagination, or did I actually read Bemidji will be hosting a FF in the next few years? Maybe it was for a WCHA tournament...can't recall.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Sure, I'm not saying hosting is a significant factor in the WCHA's dominance. I'm saying that if eastern schools had better luck with hosting, you might have 1 or 2 eastern titles. What are the chances that all overtime East-West finals or all top-seeded eastern teams happened in years that Minnesota or UMDs hosted?

I believe that's right that the WCHA tournament is getting around the league, but I don't know Frozen Four venues beyond next year.

 

[EastFan1]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

By my count, eastern teams have been within a reasonable bus ride in three title games. NCAA is not doing the ECAC and HE any favors with the current five or more year hiatus.

But like everything it is much cheaper for women's hockey to host in Minnesota then anywhere out east. FF will likely see exotic St. Cloud before NYC. I'm also guessing Tampa is out of the question.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

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.

Add BSU to the list of those trying to replace a key class. You are correct that neither WI or MN will be in able to replace their players overnight. Wisconsin loses an Olympian, Minnesota two 5th-year seniors. Plus, look at the points that are being lost off of these rosters. But both Wisconsin and Minnesota are bringing in very strong recruiting classes. For example, the Gophers won't be as good next season, but they may be even more talented. The question will be how much can they improve during the year. Given Cornell is the team closest to the top, and the Big Red get hit hard as well, I wouldn't rule out the WCHA, because the same factors will be in place.

And "every week is a battle in the WCHA" is a much simpler soundbyte.

One thing that adds to the "every week is a battle" is that you beat a team on Friday, and then you have to try to beat them again the next day. The underdogs want to prove that they are better than displayed in game one. I think this is where a lot of the improvement of WCHA teams originates, because they play two-game series with the same opponent almost every week, while the Eastern teams often play two different teams in one week. One would think that should help them come tournament time when teams have to face opponents with little preparation, but it seems so many teams out of the East instead speak the "we focus on what we do" mantra, which doesn't work so well when you run into a team that is as good or better than you are.

That's why it is so valuable to play a team like Bemidji State. The Beavers are good enough to take away whatever it is that you would like to do. In order to beat them, you have to be able to do something with which you're not as comfortable.

As for the hosting advantage -- sure, there is some benefit, but I think Dave may have taken it one step too far. Dartmouth wasn't at any disadvantage to SLU when the Big Green flopped in Minneapolis in 2001. The WCHA teams had some advantage this weekend, but Dartmouth had the same edge in Durham in 2005, and didn't do much with it. UMD is really the only western team that has seemed to get a big home-ice advantage. Yes, Minnesota beat UNH in 2006, but it wasn't on their home ice, and it wasn't that well-attended (not like in 2003 or 2008 for UMD).

 

[taz91]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

From a strength of schedule standpoint, you almost have to look at the WCHA as 1 to 6 now with SCSU and MSU on the outside. If not for a couple losses to Ohio State and one to Bemidji, UMD could've easily been a fourth team in the tournament. With the graduating classes at the top 4 schools the WCHA may tighten up even more for the top teams. To ARM's point of playing the same team two nights in a row, you want to prove that game one was the wrong result. If you play team A Friday and B Saturday, new team, new result, nothing to prove.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

By my count, eastern teams have been within a reasonable bus ride in three title games. NCAA is not doing the ECAC and HE any favors with the current five or more year hiatus.

But like everything it is much cheaper for women's hockey to host in Minnesota then anywhere out east. FF will likely see exotic St. Cloud before NYC. I'm also guessing Tampa is out of the question.

Isn't the Mens FF in Floriday this year ?

P.S....The weather here today actually feels Floridian.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

As for the hosting advantage -- sure, there is some benefit, but I think Dave may have taken it one step too far. Dartmouth wasn't at any disadvantage to SLU when the Big Green flopped in Minneapolis in 2001. The WCHA teams had some advantage this weekend, but Dartmouth had the same edge in Durham in 2005, and didn't do much with it. UMD is really the only western team that has seemed to get a big home-ice advantage. Yes, Minnesota beat UNH in 2006, but it wasn't on their home ice, and it wasn't that well-attended (not like in 2003 or 2008 for UMD).

I think there is a lot to be said of Dave's analysis. IMHO the "Home Court" advantage for a team is mostly around a close to home venue (Travel Time /Time Zone) and familiarity with the rink/town, as opposed to the crowd in the stands. All WHCA teams are familiar with the UMD/UM venue. Most Eastern teams are not.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Also agree with Dave on the "Top 4" competitiveness factor. Two years in a row now, Cornell has not looked "Battle Ready" when it really counted. Same can be said for Mercyhurst. Both teams in the final yesterday, were clearly Battle Ready, and while I'm from the East, I'll be the first to admit that in reality, both games Friday were not all that close in terms of level of play.

 

[mattj711]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Also agree with Dave on the "Top 4" competitiveness factor. Two years in a row now, Cornell has not looked "Battle Ready" when it really counted. Same can be said for Mercyhurst. Both teams in the final yesterday, were clearly Battle Ready, and while I'm from the East, I'll be the first to admit that in reality, both games Friday were not all that close in terms of level of play.

I agree that the primary reason for the West's advantage is likely due to being tested more throughout the season. First period of the Cornell/Minnesota game was clearly dominated by Minnesota. I did think Cornell gave Minnesota a good game in the second and third 3rd periods. Outside the first period, it was clearly a better Cornell team then showed up against BU in the quarter final last year.

The bottom line is the only way to play at your best is to have to be at your best. Based on my observations, there is a ton of talent heading to eastern schools next season, and I think we'll see improved competition throughout the season.

The west has clearly been dominate in some past frozen fours, but there have been others where the eastern schools were right on par just didn't pull it out in the end.

 

[mnpokecheck]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Finding it difficult to accept the local rinks argument, since these same teams have won on the road.....if a team only wins the years its on local ice then you've made your point....but, clearly these teams have shown they can win championships on the road.

Maybe a different question to ask is why did Minnesota (1st season 1997-98), Wisconsin and UMD (1st seasons 1999-2000) so quickly and successfully move to the main stage in Women's hockey. What are they doing... or.... what are others not doing to stay at the top? At this point these teams <u>expect to compete for and win</U> the championship. An aura has been created.....

 

[brookyone]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Reverting to my usual blunt self, so the WCHA stranglehold on the NCAA title thus far is due to NCAA tournament game and FF locations to a considerable extent? Nope...don't think so.

It's how you play, not where you play. In NCAA games won by WCHA teams those WCHA teams played well enough to give themselves a good chance to win...and won. Some lucky bounces IMO...with a nod to the old cliche that you make your own luck.

Wisconsin Familiar with Tullio, Agganis, Herb Brooks? UMD familiar with Wittemore? Minnesota more familiar with Dunkin' Donuts, Wittemore? Too many exceptions directly contrary to the theory to suffice as a viable explanation of the streak IMO. A streak of longevity almost freakish in magnitude. Almost. It will certainly end some day.

For a significant number of games in question I don't know how anyone who watched could claim a disadvantage under the existing circumstances for the eventual loser.

 

[mattj711]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Reverting to my usual blunt self, so the WCHA stranglehold on the NCAA title thus far is due to NCAA tournament game and FF locations to a considerable extent? Nope...don't think so.

It's how you play, not where you play. In NCAA games won by WCHA teams those WCHA teams played well enough to give themselves a good chance to win...and won. Some lucky bounces IMO...with a nod to the old cliche that you make your own luck.

Wisconsin Familiar with Tullio, Agganis, Herb Brooks? UMD familiar with Wittemore? Minnesota more familiar with Dunkin' Donuts, Wittemore? Too many exceptions directly contrary to the theory to suffice as a viable explanation of the streak IMO. A streak of longevity almost freakish in magnitude. Almost. It will certainly end some day.

For a significant number of games in question I don't know how anyone who watched could claim a disadvantage under the existing circumstances for the eventual loser.

I would agree. I think if eastern schools start focusing on the venue as the reason why they haven't yet won a national championship the West will go on winning for quite a while.

 

[dave1381]

I would agree. I think if eastern schools start focusing on the venue as the reason why they haven't yet won a national championship the West will go on winning for quite a while.

Of course, and no one's saying home ice should be a focus. But fact remains WCHA schools had good luck in this regard. Other years, like this one, and any year the wcha won in the east, the difference was too large for home ice to matter, but home ice can matter.

 

[EastFan1]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I can remember MN fans last year complaining about BC's home ice advantage. 2013 seniors will complete their collegiate careers without a chance to play in a FF east of Ohio. Two schools within a couple hours of each other host 7 of the first 13 title games, in a national league with over 30 schools, and no home field advantage?

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

But fact remains WCHA schools had good luck in this regard.

Or maybe it isn't so much luck as another manifestation of the willingness of some of the team's in the WCHA to invest in their programs. UMD and Minnesota host Frozen Fours and Wisconsin sets attendance records for the same reason that their teams have won to date -- they have spent money to do so. The trend seems to be that it is getting better at some Eastern schools. Certainly, BC and BU are much farther down that road than they were 10 years ago. If you give a good program a head start, and they spend as much or more, then it takes a while to catch them.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I would agree. I think if eastern schools start focusing on the venue as the reason why they haven't yet won a national championship the West will go on winning for quite a while.

Cornell and UMD at Ridder is one game I had in mind specifically. Cornell had a great tournament there with two outstanding games played IMO. The championship game was one of the best games I've seen and I just don't think the outcome was due to an advantage for UMD via Ridder Arena...or that Cornell was at a disadvantage at all. They didn't play as though they were.

Another game I'm thinking of is the Harvard / UMD final in Duluth. UMD is one example I would concede a potential advantage per venue, but in that game I also don't believe that was the basis for their win. Another great game with Harvard at no apparent disadvantage due to unfriendly confines or unfamiliar venue.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I can remember MN fans last year complaining about BC's home ice advantage. 2013 seniors will complete their collegiate careers without a chance to play in a FF east of Ohio. Two schools within a couple hours of each other host 7 of the first 13 title games, in a national league with over 30 schools, and no home field advantage?

You'll never hear me claim Minnesota lost that game due to venue. That wasn't the reason for that outcome.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I can remember MN fans last year complaining about BC's home ice advantage. 2013 seniors will complete their collegiate careers without a chance to play in a FF east of Ohio. Two schools within a couple hours of each other host 7 of the first 13 title games, in a national league with over 30 schools, and no home field advantage?

The whining has officially begun.

 

[Nowheresville]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

2013 seniors will complete their collegiate careers without a chance to play in a FF east of Ohio.

When did Pennsylvania move to the west of Ohio?