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.

Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

osualum86 said:
Brooky, check out the PairWise for the most glaring omission I've ever seen (no Minnesota?!?).
Click to expand...

They seem to have been having software problems with the Pairwise calculations. Minnesota and Harvard have dropped in and out of the PWR for weeks now.
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

brookyone said:
Certainly a slightly unusual appearing poll from the WCHA point of view.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the justification for BC to be 5th and UMD to get no votes at all. I suppose if you squint just right and don't think too hard, 4-3-1 looks enough better than 3-6-1 that you might arrive at it, but it requires a fair amount of willful avoidance of asking who the two teams have actually played. The performance of New Hampshire against various opponents of the two squads as well as BC itself suggests that they are a lot closer to each other than the voters think. KRACH agrees, having BC at 13 and UMD at 15.
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

Eeyore said:
I suppose if you squint just right and don't think too hard, 4-3-1 looks enough better than 3-6-1.
Click to expand...

You are kidding right. Without looking at opponents, 4-3-1 is a much better record than 3-6-1.
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

Can't believe I'm going to say this...But the team I feel should be complaining is Wisconsin. Should be higher. If they were a East team they would be top 5 ;);):D
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

Eeyore said:
They seem to have been having software problems with the Pairwise calculations. Minnesota and Harvard have dropped in and out of the PWR for weeks now.
Click to expand...

What I want to know is does someone have a plan to fix the software? And how will anyone know if all the glitches really are fixed?
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

D2D said:
What I want to know is does someone have a plan to fix the software? And how will anyone know if all the glitches really are fixed?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be *** awesome if it never got fixed, and even the NCAA missed it? A field of 8 at the of the season with NO WCHA teams!!! Nirvana!!!!

:)
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

IceIsNice said:
Wouldn't it be *** awesome if it never got fixed, and even the NCAA missed it? A field of 8 at the of the season with NO WCHA teams!!! Nirvana!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe an Eastern team would finally win one! :p
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

IceIsNice said:
Wouldn't it be *** awesome if it never got fixed, and even the NCAA missed it? A field of 8 at the of the season with NO WCHA teams!!!
Click to expand...
Understandably, the CHA fan has forgotten all about automatic bids. :p

Anyway, Ed Trefzger fixed the USCHO PWR computation.
 
Last edited:
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

IceIsNice said:
Wouldn't it be *** awesome if it never got fixed, and even the NCAA missed it? A field of 8 at the of the season with NO WCHA teams!!! Nirvana!!!!

:)
Click to expand...

Coming from the person who has to travel 500 miles West to see his "Eastern" based home team. :D
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

ARM said:
Understandably, the CHA fan has forgotten all about automatic bids. :p.
Click to expand...

When does the CHA get into Auto Bid territory ?. (Know the number is six, but IIRC, there was a timeline issue, where not all six teams currently in the CHA are eligible yet for the tourney ).
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

OnMAA said:
When does the CHA get into Auto Bid territory ?. (Know the number is six, but IIRC, there was a timeline issue, where not all six teams currently in the CHA are eligible yet for the tourney ).
Click to expand...

There are two different thinkgs being raised here; 1) CHA Autobid eligibility and 2) individual team eligibility.

The league has to remain with the six teams intact for 2 years before the autobid kicks in. Therefore the winner of the 2014-2015 season will receive an auto-bid assuming that there aren't any more drop-outs before then.

The other question you raised refers to number of years at the D1 level before being eligible to compete at the tourney and that is, as well, two years. That means that RIT and Penn State are not eligible to participate until the 2014-2015 season while Lindenwood is eligible next year.
 
Last edited:
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

Cali said:
There are two different thinkgs being raised here; 1) CHA Autobid eligibility and 2) individual team eligibility.

The league has to remain with the six teams intact for 2 years before the autobid kicks in. Therefore the winner of the 2014-2015 season will receive an auto-bid assuming that there aren't any more drop-outs before then...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is correct. The rule states that a league must have a minimum of six eligible teams compete together for two years before it can apply for an auto bid. Because Lindenwood was not an NCAA institution, instead competing under NAIA and club affiliations, the Lions had to go through a two-year probationary period. Based on the announcements that I've seen, I think Lindenwood is currently in that second year. Given that there are three teams that are "new", I'm not entirely sure which is the rate determining step. My best guess -- and it is truly a guess only -- is that the CHA could apply for an autobid after the completion of the 2014-15 season. You may be right that the autobid is a year ahead of that schedule, but that's not how I interpreted the NCAA guidelines.
 
Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

ARM said:
I'm not sure that is correct. The rule states that a league must have a minimum of six eligible teams compete together for two years before it can apply for an auto bid. Because Lindenwood was not an NCAA institution, instead competing under NAIA and club affiliations, the Lions had to go through a two-year probationary period. Based on the announcements that I've seen, I think Lindenwood is currently in that second year. Given that there are three teams that are "new", I'm not entirely sure which is the rate determining step. My best guess -- and it is truly a guess only -- is that the CHA could apply for an autobid after the completion of the 2014-15 season. You may be right that the autobid is a year ahead of that schedule, but that's not how I interpreted the NCAA guidelines.
Click to expand...

I was referencing the most reliable of sources, Wikipedia, which says the following...

NCAA Postseason Women's Hockey History
The CHA Champion does not currently have an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. However according to ncaa.org, should the six teams proposed for the 2012-13 season compete against one another for two full seasons; then the CHA champion will receive an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament (Elite 8).

As I couldn't find a reference, I am not sure if it is accurate. I will keep looking.

Also, PSU is eligible for the NCAA tournament this year, as per an article on the PSU site because, apparently, they are not transferring to D1 but are just adding the program to their existing D1 repertoire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top