Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

[taz91]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Ok, can I just summarize what everyone is saying on here? It looks like everyone out East thinks the WCHA schools are hockey factories along the lines of the SEC in football. Am I on the right track here? We can argue about numbers all we want, but you can make a number lie to fit your argument. Have there been schools that have gotten screw setting the tournament bracket...obviously. If you want to be a strong team, you need strong competition. If you look at strength of schedule numbers, here I go using numbers, Mankato and St Cloud are 4 and five and they finished 7 and 8 in the WCHA. They aren't exactly programs like Harvard and Cornell last time I checked. BU and BC were 9 and 10

 

[puckskillz]

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. 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.

I do not believe the Ivies are heavily disadvantaged by the admissions standards. There are plenty of players in the US/CA that have an academic index to qualify for admissions and can get more than adequate financial aid. What I am witnessing is that these players are becoming very thorough and astute as to their college choice. There was a time where the thinking was if you can access an Ivy then you go for it, but there have been enough hockey alum now where potential players can discuss with and assess whether that's the right college experience for them. The stress level at an Ivie over that 4yr hockey program is likely higher than other institutions and based on what careers they will pursue may not make sense for them. At the end of the day, most of the D-I programs are good to great schools and ultimately it comes down to how well the players applied themselves. If they did, they can access the best Grad schools and still have extensive networks to leverage. I believe this factor narrows the Ivies pool somewhat and then maybe an even larger factor is that many players are committing during their Jr. yrs and are not wanting to wait for a formal Ivy admission decision. At the end of the day however, they are still getting strong recruiting classes and are very competitive.

As far as mid-western players going east, that appears to be rising but at the end of the day, the championship teams have been built around multi-regional players so the MN/other proximity to the WCHA is a contributing but not deciding factor. This yr MN had a Finnish Goalie and top 6 scorers (2-CA, IL, PA, CO,MN). WIS last yr (2-CA, NJ, MA, ID,WIS)

Back to the fundamental question of why the WCHA? I still believe it's simply that the WCHA has provided a more battle tested grind throughout the season. Each weekend is consistent in schedule, focus, and routine. They play fewer teams in the year and play each team at least four times so they focus on little adjustments game to game. By the end of the season, they have learned to adjust on the fly, shut down key players, and play multiple styles all of which are crucial in a 3 game tourney. The Eastern teams for the most part have a lesser strength of schedule and have less of a set routine with home/home and weekday games. Over the course of a season, this may not allow for the type of focus the WCHA teams employ.

 

[AggiesHockey]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Well stated on every level, puckskillz.

I'll throw in another factor: Luck. There have been 4 NCAA championships where WCHA beat an east coast team by 1 goal. One of those 1-goal victories was a 2-OT game, and another a 3-OT game.

For WCHA to take all 4 1-goal games, and both multiple-OT games, they gotta be good and lucky.

The NCAA-level format has only been around 12 years, so it's easy, statistically speaking, for a lucky streak to develop. I'd be surprised if someone asks "why is WCHA always winning NCAA" in another 5 or 10 years. Sooner or later, some of that Red Sox luck will rub off on the northeastern teams.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Back to the fundamental question of why the WCHA? I still believe it's simply that the WCHA has provided a more battle tested grind throughout the season. Each weekend is consistent in schedule, focus, and routine. They play fewer teams in the year and play each team at least four times so they focus on little adjustments game to game. By the end of the season, they have learned to adjust on the fly, shut down key players, and play multiple styles all of which are crucial in a 3 game tourney. The Eastern teams for the most part have a lesser strength of schedule and have less of a set routine with home/home and weekday games. Over the course of a season, this may not allow for the type of focus the WCHA teams employ.

I agree with that, but I just think that it's mainly the weekend series between the big 3 are what have given the WCHA it's biggest advantage.

I believe it's a third order factor that the WCHA gains some advantage from its top teams playing a series against St. Cloud & Mankato as opposed to a home-and-home, or that they're playing those teams four times instead two.

 

[CTR]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Well stated on every level, puckskillz.

I'll throw in another factor: Luck. There have been 4 NCAA championships where WCHA beat an east coast team by 1 goal. One of those 1-goal victories was a 2-OT game, and another a 3-OT game.

For WCHA to take all 4 1-goal games, and both multiple-OT games, they gotta be good and lucky.

The NCAA-level format has only been around 12 years, so it's easy, statistically speaking, for a lucky streak to develop. I'd be surprised if someone asks "why is WCHA always winning NCAA" in another 5 or 10 years. Sooner or later, some of that Red Sox luck will rub off on the northeastern teams.

I agree that the streak won't continue indefinitely, but no one in the WCHA wants to be "that team," the one that loses to the east. This fear factor may give the WCHA teams a little extra incentive.

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I believe it's a third order factor that the WCHA gains some advantage from its top teams playing a series against St. Cloud & Mankato as opposed to a home-and-home, or that they're playing those teams four times instead two.

I'll grant that eight games vs SCSU and MSU this season were no better than any eight random games for any contender from the East. But I do think there was a lot of value in playing two series apiece against UND, BSU, and OSU this year, more so than Eastern contenders were likely to get from a set of 12 games. There is benefit in having to figure out how to beat somebody that knows your weaknesses so well, because they find holes, exploit them, and force an adjustment.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Sure, I agree that the recent improvement in the WCHA's depth down to the sixth place team has been a factor in why the east has not come close to winning the title in the last two seasons. The 6th place team in the current WCHA is much better than the 4th-place WCHA team was in most years.

 

[northhockey]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I'll grant that eight games vs SCSU and MSU this season were no better than any eight random games for any contender from the East. But I do think there was a lot of value in playing two series apiece against UND, BSU, and OSU this year, more so than Eastern contenders were likely to get from a set of 12 games. There is benefit in having to figure out how to beat somebody that knows your weaknesses so well, because they find holes, exploit them, and force an adjustment.

best post i have yet to read on here!

 

[Skate79]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

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.

This is true because i have it from the players and the parents. And I attended Harvard and participated in sports and had to take make-ups and miss practices because of hard deadlines. BU and BC are hockey factories and are far more lenient with their athletes. Bottom line: they care more about making and winning NCAA tournaments than Harvard.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Right, but that is the same at most schools. A shortened schedule, even by a few weeks, reduces the number of academic/athletic conflicts, particularly for freshmen trying to adjust. Everything varies from school to school. Some teams are faced with more grueling travel schedules than others. Even if athletics gets priority over academics, and I would say that you are incorrect to assume that is always the case outside of Harvard, the same amount of work still has to be performed at some point. Academic challenges may be rigorous at Ivy League schools, but they are not unique to the Ivies.

Valid points across the board and I don't mean to come across as slamming other schools' academic programs. I just think it is comparing apples to oranges if you say that Minnesota and Wisconsin athletes have the same rigorous academic requirements as Ivy institutions. That simply isn't the case. What is certain is that the above mentioned schools along with Hockey East and some ECAC institutions begin their season in early October just about the time Harvard hits the ice for pre-season practice. So yes, their travel and practice schedules are longer and more arduous. That holds true for Mercyhurst as well. If Harvard's schedule included more games against the WCHA in addition to HE, that might help them come March. But that won't happen any time soon.

I do interviewing for Harvard and in the past, some recruiting as well. I can tell you first hand that the question that comes up most often from student athletes looking at Harvard is how to handle the balance between academics and athletics. They want to excel at both and are confident but still wary of what lies ahead.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

One more thought. The Union men last night qualified for the Frozen Four by beating UMass Lowell, a state school in MA. Union is a private institution known for its academics. The fact that they are going to Tampa speaks to their ability to balance academics with excellence on the ice. Harvard as well as the rest of the Ivies have the same opportunity.

I never said the reason Harvard wasn't good was because the school was hard. There is nothing funny about balancing academics with a D-1 athletic program be it hockey or softball and I don't care if we're talking Ivy or state schools. Harvard has a terrific women's hockey program that year in and year out is competitive within their conference. They have in recent seasons had trouble competing outside of the conference and have not fared well in the NCAAs when they have made it. The discussion has focused on reasons why this is so, not the quality of the program or specific academic challenges.

 

[CTR]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

This is true because i have it from the players and the parents. And I attended Harvard and participated in sports and had to take make-ups and miss practices because of hard deadlines. BU and BC are hockey factories and are far more lenient with their athletes. Bottom line: they care more about making and winning NCAA tournaments than Harvard.

I can't speak to BU and BC (and I doubt you can say categorically that players there never have to miss practices and take make-ups), but you also said this was true of Minnesota and Wisconsin. I can tell you that players do miss practices for academics. Your statement was definitely overly broad.

 

[zoofer]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

In catching up with the last 2 pages of responses, for me we've gone in circles...in the quote that dave1381 spoke of, puckskilz makes a valid point,,,,that plus everyone who talks about the WCHA in-house competition...look at the women's basketball Elite 8 games...how many are new schools to the dance? Tennessee, Maryland, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Stanford, UConn...are there every year....my guess is that they play the hard schedules and are used to playing the big games....which has been said of every weekend the WCHA plays....seems to have some simitry

 

[ARM]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I just think it is comparing apples to oranges if you say that Minnesota and Wisconsin athletes have the same rigorous academic requirements as Ivy institutions.

I agree that it is not the same. It is all apples to oranges, even within a single institution. How does one compare majors like mathematics, biochemisty, business, music, or education? Every one is different, but each one brings challenges.

 

[D2D]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I agree that it is not the same. It is all apples to oranges, even within a single institution. How does one compare majors like mathematics, biochemisty, business, music, or education? Every one is different, but each one brings challenges.

Absolutely true. Another indication is graduation rates, which can vary widely by institution and the chosen course of study. At some Ivies, for example, the overall graduation rate is very high - just getting accepted can be the most difficult part. While it may be harder to achieve a "straight A" GPA, it can be a lot easier to stay eligible and receive a diploma as compared to many public universities...again depending on the relative difficulty and study requirements of the major.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

I agree that it is not the same. It is all apples to oranges, even within a single institution. How does one compare majors like mathematics, biochemisty, business, music, or education? Every one is different, but each one brings challenges.

Agreed. Minnesota has a graduate program in child psychology that is one of the tops in the nation and admits only a few students each year. Competition for spots is fierce (I know this because my niece applied and was rejected even though she had top grades, great recommendations and practical experience). So yes, each school does have its fields of expertise and there is no question that art history at Harvard is a whole lot different than biochem in terms of demands on time and academic rigor. I'm sure the same holds true for Minnesota, Wisconsin, UMD, etc.. .

I'll still go back to recruiting and coaching though. I think it was brookyone who made the point that playing for Mark Johnson at Wisconsin is attractive to a number of women looking for a quality program. Not to say that playing for Katey Stone or Jeff Kampersal is a poor alternative but there is something to be said for what a coach brings to the table and what a recruit thinks about in terms of playing for that coach.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

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.

Widely accepted, but that doesn't change the fact that they're a joke. When you dig into the components of the USN&WR rankings, you find that they heavily weight things that have nothing to do with providing a quality education. In fact, most of the ranking is based upon the quality of the student they get, not the amount of learning they do once they're on campus. It's well known that one way to improve your ranking is by finding a way to get more applications so that you can reject more of them; admissions percentage is a key element of the system and the higher your rejection rate, the better your ranking. The SAT scores of incoming students is another important component, and, again, that says zero about how good a school is. What ought to be important is how much education the students get while they're there. The reason no one does this is because is notoriously hard to figure out.

However, there is a fair amount of evidence that, once you control for the quality of the incoming students, a number of the Ivies aren't all that good, and that a lot of the standout universities in the country are state schools that take all comers.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

The only question that occurred to me; Why not?

 

[gojackets]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

Widely accepted, but that doesn't change the fact that they're a joke. When you dig into the components of the USN&WR rankings, you find that they heavily weight things that have nothing to do with providing a quality education. In fact, most of the ranking is based upon the quality of the student they get, not the amount of learning they do once they're on campus. It's well known that one way to improve your ranking is by finding a way to get more applications so that you can reject more of them; admissions percentage is a key element of the system and the higher your rejection rate, the better your ranking. The SAT scores of incoming students is another important component, and, again, that says zero about how good a school is. What ought to be important is how much education the students get while they're there. The reason no one does this is because is notoriously hard to figure out.

This is a great statement. I also see this type of stuff at the high school level.

My high school likes to tout that we send 90% of our graduating seniors to college. They don't break that down into 50% going to the local community college. 20% going to a tech school, and 20% going to a 4 year University. (i made up those percentages..idk off hand)

I would also think a much more important statistic is how many of that 90% make it to the 2nd year of college. If 90% of our kids go to college, but 50% drop out after the first year, then we obviously aren't do a good job of preparing them for college. (Which I dont' think most high schools do nowadays--largely because of parenting--"you give too much homework, you can expect my kid to spend 20 minutes evey night doing science")

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.

This is a great statement. I also see this type of stuff at the high school level.

My high school likes to tout that we send 90% of our graduating seniors to college. They don't break that down into 50% going to the local community college. 20% going to a tech school, and 20% going to a 4 year University. (i made up those percentages..idk off hand)

I would also think a much more important statistic is how many of that 90% make it to the 2nd year of college. If 90% of our kids go to college, but 50% drop out after the first year, then we obviously aren't do a good job of preparing them for college. (Which I dont' think most high schools do nowadays--largely because of parenting--"you give too much homework, you can expect my kid to spend 20 minutes evey night doing science")

Reminds me of my college course "How to Lie with Statistics". Just in the last few years I've been reading lots of stories of how there is no discernible difference in the success of kids that go to Ivies versus good State schools and one writer made the point that State school kids in Honors programs do better than kids with Ivy programs. Regardless, IMO the only thing that matters is that a student is successful and is not saddled with too much debt. I think good students and successful people will do well no matter where they go to school.