NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

[JDUBBS1280]

ah, but if you cannot measure something, how can you tell whether it really exists? it might merely be an artifact of your imagination....

or is this now an Aquinas vs Sartre throwdown??

Did Team USA's win over the Soviets mean more to this country because we only used amateur players to defeat them? Not measurable, but it has meaning.

[HumRsky]

if you really want to go there...Middlebury kicks BSU's ***.

13>8 This is only a ranking of D1 accomplishments.

[FreshFish]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Did Team USA's win over the Soviets mean more to this country because we only used amateur players to defeat them? Not measurable, but it has meaning.

you contradict yourself...how can you tell that the USA players were amateurs? why, it is something that can be defined and measured, no?

Just as in another context I had offered up several metrics by which one might evaluate "tradition." even certain things that cannot be directly measured can be approximated by indirect means. Just about every program has its traditions. Look at the story UAH can tell, for example....dropped and left for dead, yet somehow revived and playing on. that's a great story for them: a measure of alumni dedication indicates that the UAH program has "tradition" even if they never did compete in an AAU tournament in the 1930s!

You say you are "curious" and "asking questions" yet when you get a reasonable answer you discard it. Do I believe your words or your actions more?

In our family it is "traditional" to weigh a person's actions more than their words. I'm sure Marge Gunderson would agree.

[KnowItAll]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Did Team USA's win over the Soviets mean more to this country because we only used amateur players to defeat them? Not measurable, but it has meaning.

I just looked up Eruzione on hockeydb.com and it does not look like he was an amateur.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Team USA's players were amatuers because they were never paid to play. But to simplify if further, they were a bunch of college aged kids who took on a much more experienced team that had been playing together for a decade.

That win in 1980 will mean far more than any we win with professionals to most people in this country that follow hockey.

And yes, you are right. Every program has it's own traditions. That was probably a poor choice of words on my part. There, I listened to and acknowledged a point you made.

Here is my point. Hopefully you will show me the same courtesy.

Should it count for nothing that Minnesota was able to do 4 times what only 1 other team was able to do once (win with only Americans)? Or 3 times what no other school has ever been able to do? Win with just in-state kids.

I know you're going to say that no one else cares, and that it doesn't matter who you use to win. Again, I partially concede that point. I don't want to diminish the accomlishments of other programs. That isn't my intention.

But aren't those things special? Should they not also be considered when discussing the greatest programs of all time?

Also, shouldn't it be considered that 4 of the Gophers best players were winning Gold for their country instead of defending their title? The Gophers women's team (should they win it all this year) will be in the same position by the way.

Personally, I think these things matter a lot. Just my view.

[KnowItAll]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Team USA's players were amatuers because they were never paid to play. Just my view.

the team captain:

1973-74 Boston University ECAC 31 21 19 40 14
1974-75 Boston University ECAC 32 27 29 56 20
1975-76 Boston University ECAC 30 21 27 48 18
1976-77 Boston University ECAC 34 23 41 64 18
1977-78 Toledo Goaldiggers IHL 76 30 56 86 43 17 8 13 21 12
1978-79 Toledo Goaldiggers IHL 74 27 45 72 28 3 1 2 3 2
1978-79 Philadelphia Firebirds AHL 6 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --
1979-80 U.S. Olympic Team Intl 50 21 25 46 22

While I cannot say that the IHL paid their players, I know that he Firebirds did.

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

the team captain:

1973-74 Boston University ECAC 31 21 19 40 14
1974-75 Boston University ECAC 32 27 29 56 20
1975-76 Boston University ECAC 30 21 27 48 18
1976-77 Boston University ECAC 34 23 41 64 18
1977-78 Toledo Goaldiggers IHL 76 30 56 86 43 17 8 13 21 12
1978-79 Toledo Goaldiggers IHL 74 27 45 72 28 3 1 2 3 2
1978-79 Philadelphia Firebirds AHL 6 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --
1979-80 U.S. Olympic Team Intl 50 21 25 46 22

While I cannot say that the IHL paid their players, I know that he Firebirds did.

By Olympic Rules he would of been ineligible if he was paid for playing hockey. That is why all Soviet teams we military men who "just happened to play hockey".

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Here is my point. Hopefully you will show me the same courtesy.

Should it count for nothing that Minnesota was able to do 4 times what only 1 other team was able to do once (win with only Americans)? Or 3 times what no other school has ever been able to do? Win with just in-state kids.

Every time you've posted this the same thought has occurred to me. You pose these questions like Minnesota won with some sort of handicap. "Hey, isn't it great everybody. We won with a bunch of special needs kids."

It's obvious that you feel strongly about American hockey players in general, and Minnesota kids in particular. I've just never understood why you always ask us to acknowledge the "special" accomplishment of winning with these players, who are so great.

If you feel that strongly about the caliber of American/Minnesota hockey players (a legitimate belief, imho), shouldn't your posts more be along the line of it really wasn't anything special that Minnesota won titles using only U.S. or Minnesota born players. It should have been expected, given the quality.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Wisconsin is entitled to a better position having accomplished nearly as much as higher ranked teams in only half the time.

Otherwise, excellent work, HumRsky.

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Every time you've posted this the same thought has occurred to me. You pose these questions like Minnesota won with some sort of handicap. "Hey, isn't it great everybody. We won with a bunch of special needs kids."

It's obvious that you feel strongly about American hockey players in general, and Minnesota kids in particular. I've just never understood why you always ask us to acknowledge the "special" accomplishment of winning with these players, who are so great.

If you feel that strongly about the caliber of American/Minnesota hockey players (a legitimate belief, imho), shouldn't your posts more be along the line of it really wasn't anything special that Minnesota won titles using only U.S. or Minnesota born players. It should have been expected, given the quality.

I would have to say it is/was a handy cap to limit our recruiting to ONLY Americans or ONLY MN Kids.... But, at least we had the decency and respect for the game to not use 26 YO Canadian "freshmen" to win our Championships (No Dak, Michigan Tech, Denver, and other assorted "champs").

[Gurtholfin]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

I would have to say it is/was a handy cap to limit our recruiting to ONLY Americans or ONLY MN Kids.... But, at least we had the decency and respect for the game to not use 26 YO Canadian "freshmen" to win our Championships (No Dak, Michigan Tech, Denver, and other assorted "champs").

Handy cap?

I hate the spelling police, but "handicap."

Was the rest of that a direct Dubbie quote or did you put it in your own words?

[Gurtholfin]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

But aren't those things special?

I'd say those things are SUPER-special. Just like you.

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Handy cap?

I hate the spelling police, but "handicap."

Was the rest of it a direct Dubbie quote or did you put it in your own words?

It is my words and hush so I am handicapable when it comes to not checking for spelling errors. My brain runs faster than my typing abilities.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

It is my words and hush so I am handicapable when it comes to not checking for spelling errors. My brain runs faster than my typing abilities.

Ha! I forgot about handi-CAPABLE.

[JDUBBS1280]

Every time you've posted this the same thought has occurred to me. You pose these questions like Minnesota won with some sort of handicap. "Hey, isn't it great everybody. We won with a bunch of special needs kids."

It's obvious that you feel strongly about American hockey players in general, and Minnesota kids in particular. I've just never understood why you always ask us to acknowledge the "special" accomplishment of winning with these players, who are so great.

If you feel that strongly about the caliber of American/Minnesota hockey players (a legitimate belief, imho), shouldn't your posts more be along the line of it really wasn't anything special that Minnesota won titles using only U.S. or Minnesota born players. It should have been expected, given the quality.

Again, I said I partially conceded the point above. I wasn't implying that using the players we did was a handicap, and I am not intending to diminish the accomplishments of teams who won championships with all variety of players. The championships themselves should count the same.

What I am saying is, these accomplishments are unique to college hockey, and were important to USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey. An NHL commissioner (forget whom) called Minnesota's championship in 1974 at the time "arguably the most important thing to happen to USA Hockey".

These things showed American kids it wasn't just Canada's game. That US kids could compete with and beat teams with rosters heavy on Canadians.

Sincerely, I'm not trying to toot Minnesota's horn here. I know people here hate provincialism and I know I have a tendancy to be very provincial. I just don't know how else to explain what really are truths.

By recruiting primarily Minnesotans at the University of Minnesota, John Mariucci gave more opportunities to play at the next level to Minnesota kids.

During Mariucci's tenure, high school hockey programs in Minnesota grew ten fold. Thus more and more Minnesotans began to play the game.

Minnesotans comprised over half the 1960 and 1980 US Olympic Hockey rosters. These Gold Medal teams gave inspiration to play to many other kids around the country.

It's why John Mariucci is not just in the US Hockey Hall of Fame, but in THE Hockey Hall of Fame as a builder. How many other college hockey coaches are in both Halls as a builder?

The impact of Minnesota's recruiting practices WERE significant to the growth of hockey in this country. All I'm saying is that would be a factor of mine when determining Minnesota's "greatness" as a program.