Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

[CrazyDave]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I'm going to pull out the old cliche book for this one: defense wins championships. We saw it with Jessie Vetter at Wisconsin, and this year's Gopher squad gave up the fewest goals-per-game in the nation.

I'm not saying that it's the only factor, but it certainly is a contributing factor.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

There is no draft system in place, therefore it becomes easy to be popular.

 

[CTR]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

There are times when Harvard players have to miss practice for a make-up exam or paper and you wouldn't find that at BU, BC, Minnesota or Wisconsin.

What alternate universe are you living in if you actually think this is true? You aren't talking JuCos here, these are academically rigorous institutions who also require that players be students first.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I find the whole argument that Harvard isn't good enough because school is harder to be laughable.

Would not be so quick to dismiss those comments. It does take extra commitments it takes to succeed at an Ivy school. In addition, the admission standards are high and there is only FA based Aid, making it hard to complete for top talent that can go for free to the big schools. I'm convinced these are all factors that play a big role. The Ivy league scholls used to be dominant at times before the days the sport became NCAA championship material. Me thinks it is NOT a coincidence that other schools took over that mantle soon after the change of the sport to NCAA championship status.

 

[mnpokecheck]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Would not be so quick to dismiss those comments. It does take extra commitments it takes to succeed at an Ivy school. In addition, the admission standards are high and there is only FA based Aid, making it hard to complete for top talent that can go for free to the big schools. I'm convinced these are all factors that play a big role. <B>The Ivy league scholls used to be dominant at times before the days the sport became NCAA championship material.</B> Me thinks it is NOT a coincidence that other schools took over that mantle soon after the change of the sport to NCAA championship status.

Isn't that like saying - we were good when we were the only league playing.

 

[pakidnyc]

Would not be so quick to dismiss those comments. It does take extra commitments it takes to succeed at an Ivy school. In addition, the admission standards are high and there is only FA based Aid, making it hard to complete for top talent that can go for free to the big schools. I'm convinced these are all factors that play a big role. The Ivy league scholls used to be dominant at times before the days the sport became NCAA championship material. Me thinks it is NOT a coincidence that other schools took over that mantle soon after the change of the sport to NCAA championship status.

Agreed. We all know girls who wanted to go Ivy and schools were recruiting them and they couldn't get accepted. That's not an excuse, but a relevant point under this discussion.

Just take an unbiased 3rd party published report, US News and World Report which is widely accepted as THE voice on ranking colleges and Universities in the world. On the large university scale (so this eliminates some Eastern schools as they are listed under small colleges where most Eastern D3 schools are listed)....but, there are 11 Eastern schools listed (BC, BU and UConn are 1st non-Ivy's listed) before OSU comes in at #55 and then there's a few more Eastern schools and U MInn comes in at #58.

With regard to the change of NCAAs, Eastern schools have invested in women's hockey for a while. But, when it became an NCAA Championships, some WCHA schools began investing in women's hockey. Some didnt even have D1 women's hockey before then. I would say they spend much more than what Ivy's and some smaller Eastern schools can afford. Again, not an excuse, just a reality that is relevant under this discussion.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

With regard to the change of NCAAs, Eastern schools have invested in women's hockey for a while. But, when it became an NCAA Championships, some WCHA schools began investing in women's hockey. Some didnt even have D1 women's hockey before then.

I'd say that you have your chicken and egg reversed on this point. Schools like Minnesota, Minnesota-Duluth, and Wisconsin added women's hockey, and then the NCAA started sanctioning a tournament.

Both UMD and UM were in the final four in the last year of the AWCHA hosted championship. So while it was true that the Ivies were a bigger force in the early days of the expansion of the sport beyond the East than they are now, it isn't accurate to say that they dominated. The most surprising piece of the WCHA's national championship streak is that the league was able to produce a national championship in its very first year of competition, when it was far from established and most of its members were competing in their first varsity seasons.

 

[Shotblocker]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I agree, and at the top echelon of play not only are they recruited by top schools there are a lot of scholarships that the Ivy's and other don't have. I also know that when you are used to winning "as a player" you don't want that to end so I see most of the top players going to winning programs. I wish there was some kind of draft, I think it would make for a more balanced and exciting season.

Agreed. We all know girls who wanted to go Ivy and schools were recruiting them and they couldn't get accepted. That's not an excuse, but a relevant point under this discussion.

Just take an unbiased 3rd party published report, US News and World Report which is widely accepted as THE voice on ranking colleges and Universities in the world. On the large university scale (so this eliminates some Eastern schools as they are listed under small colleges where most Eastern D3 schools are listed)....but, there are 11 Eastern schools listed (BC, BU and UConn are 1st non-Ivy's listed) before OSU comes in at #55 and then there's a few more Eastern schools and U MInn comes in at #58.

With regard to the change of NCAAs, Eastern schools have invested in women's hockey for a while. But, when it became an NCAA Championships, some WCHA schools began investing in women's hockey. Some didnt even have D1 women's hockey before then. I would say they spend much more than what Ivy's and some smaller Eastern schools can afford. Again, not an excuse, just a reality that is relevant under this discussion.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I don't think Ivy schools were ever "dominant" in any sense. They were always very good and contending for titles. But Providence & UNH were dominant when it was them and the Ivies. And in the past decade we've always had Ivy teams in the mix and come very close but never win it. Probably the peak of Ivy success was the first year of the WCHA in 2000 when Harvard/Brown/Dartmouth were three of the nation's top five teams along with Minnesota & UMD. And they probably had 3 of the top 6 teams in 2001.

I don't think academics mean that Ivies will do less with the same level of talent. I do think there isolated points in the season where Ivies are at a particular disadvantage -- the first weekend of the season when they start a month after everyone else. When Harvard/Princeton both had finals in January and were the only school to do so they typically struggled and typically played each other first. I also believe that Dartmouth being on a quarter system where they have finals in March is one reason why the program's postseason success has generally been disappointing.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

The most surprising piece of the WCHA's national championship streak is that the league was able to produce a national championship in its very first year of competition, when it was far from established and most of its members were competing in their first varsity seasons.

Sure, but it also helped that the tournament left out (Dartmouth knocked out) the defending national champions who were 2-0-1 against the 2000 finalists, including an 8-3 win over the 2000 champions.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I wish there was some kind of draft, I think it would make for a more balanced and exciting season.

They are student athletes -- student comes first. To tell a young lady that wants to go to School A to pursue some course of study that she has to instead attend School B, that doesn't even offer courses in that field let alone a degree program, would be hopelessly misguided.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

The thing about Ivies is, all of their scholarship restrictions, entrance requirements, late start to the season, etc. are self imposed barriers. So while it may adversely affect them when it comes to competing for championships, I don't really feel that bad for them.

It's admirable that they prefer to be academic instead of athletic. Since a lot of the time it's the other way around.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

The thing about Ivies is, all of their scholarship restrictions, entrance requirements, late start to the season, etc. are self imposed barriers. So while it may adversely affect them when it comes to competing for championships, I don't really feel that bad for them. It's admirable that they prefer to be academic instead of athletic. Since a lot of the time it's the other way around.

Exactly. The league even deliberately shoots itself in the foot sometimes. For example, the league just raised the minimum academic qualifications.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Sure, but it also helped that the tournament left out (Dartmouth knocked out) the defending national champions who were 2-0-1 against the 2000 finalists, including an 8-3 win over the 2000 champions.

Yes, Harvard did defeat Minnesota during the 1999 portion of the schedule, when the Gophers started 10-5 before finishing at a 22-1-1 pace. Minnesota did face the ECAC's champion enroute to the title.

 

[pakidnyc]

The thing about Ivies is, all of their scholarship restrictions, entrance requirements, late start to the season, etc. are self imposed barriers. So while it may adversely affect them when it comes to competing for championships, I don't really feel that bad for them.

It's admirable that they prefer to be academic instead of athletic. Since a lot of the time it's the other way around.

I don't feel sorry for them either. But, this discussion is about why WCHA is always winning NCAA and it's relevant to the discussion. It is true that some kids can't get into Harvard or Princeton but those same kids have no problem getting Into any WCHA school. That's NOT to say the schools aren't good, many of them are excellent institutions, but some girls will admit they don't want an extremely stressful academic school while playing hockey in college. There are girls, misguided or not, who DO choose the school based on the hockey, and there are some girls, we all kow, who weren't exactly stellar students in high school, so some schools just aren't able to recruit them.

Plus, the point someone made about the # of good players available in Minnesota. Those girls, or a good many of them, want to stay close to home, either in Minnesota or in a WCHA school which they grew up watching. That's just normal on hockey and in life.

Obviously there are Minn girls on East Caost school rosters, but comparatively I would say its not close. Some Eastern schools have no Minnesota girls on their rosters.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Yes, Harvard did defeat Minnesota during the 1999 portion of the schedule, when the Gophers started 10-5 before finishing at a 22-1-1 pace. Minnesota did face the ECAC's champion enroute to the title.

Sure, there's nothing illegitimate about the championship, but leaving Harvard out made things easier for the WCHA to win that title. Also guaranteeing the East-West final made it easier. If there really was an East-West gap, say that Brown or Harvard would beat Minnesota/UMD 70% of the time, then guaranteeing the East-West final cut the West's chances of a title from 30% to 20% roughly.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I don't feel sorry for them either. But, this discussion is about why WCHA is always winning NCAA and it's relevant to the discussion.

Sure, but let's not talk about the Ivy Schools as if they're the Little Sisters of the Poor either. You've had Ivy schools a third period goal away from NCAA titles in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2010. Women's hockey is probably the sport where the Ivies have the BEST history of success in competing against Big 10 schools like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Probably lacrosse and crew are the only sports where the Ivies have had more success against such schools in my lifetime.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

If there really was an East-West gap, say that Brown or Harvard would beat Minnesota/UMD 70% of the time, then guaranteeing the East-West final cut the West's chances of a title from 30% to 20% roughly.

Once we start talking about the bracket for the tournament field, I don't think that Harvard really belongs in the discussion any longer. Maybe the Crimson should have been in the field, and had they been able to produce better results against Dartmouth, they would have been. But if we are discussing a more difficult path going through two Eastern teams, then that should be Brown and Dartmouth, and historical results don't suggest that they were a 70% favorite over UMD and UM.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I'm saying both the field & the bracket were an issue. The best two Eastern teams were Brown & Harvard and the best two Western teams were Minnesota & UMD. If we had the men's NCAA system in place in 2000, it would've been Brown & Harvard in the tournament, Brown seeded above Harvard, and interconference matchups. I'm not sure if Minnesota or UMD would be higher (I know UMD was 2 in the actual bracket), I don't remember. But Harvard was ahead of Dartmouth in every selection criteria except head-to-head. Dartmouth lost twice as many games than Harvard against a weaker schedule.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Hard saying what any individual committee will do, but when it came down to Dartmouth or Clarkson for the final spot in 2009 (?), the committee said that Dartmouth's 1-0-1 edge H2H was the biggest factor. A 0-3 H2H record does leave a door open more than just a crack. So anyway, with the field that WAS picked, I'm not seeing where Dartmouth should have been seeded higher than fourth, putting it on the same side of the bracket as No. 1 Brown. But none of that changes the fact that Minnesota did upset Brown, after playing a conference schedule against six other teams, most of which were in their first season of varsity competition. Even that was a step up, because in previous years, the Gophers had to schedule D-III and club teams plus exhibitions down the wire in an attempt to prepare for the national tournament. My point isn't that I think Minnesota was the best team, Brown clearly was, but that even a weak WCHA schedule allowed more improvement than the absence of one.