2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

[UAFHockeyFan314]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Why is USCHO calling Kendall a tournament? It says on front page UAF claimed the classic.

It's a tournament without actual tournament seeding. Winners don't play each other, as the NCAA won't allow the visiting teams the exemption in their schedule if they play a team that isn't from Alaska--despite travelling here--which is the reason they are actually coming. So the tournament winner is often decided by tie breaking procedures, the first of which is goal differential.

[Hal9K]

UAF Ice Angel is like going to McDonalds and ordering oatmeal.

It just doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for her, being a troll in real life doesn't mean you're a good one on the web...lol

[Hal9K]

Seriously? This is laughable. The dude had the puck, and Cameron came around the back of the net going Mach 3. What was he supposed to do? Let the guy keep the puck? Avoid the guy and run into the net?

Unfortunate? Yes. Vengeful? LOL.

That Badger D man was getting freight trained no matter. Unfortunate he was turning low with his head down when the collision happened. Cameron didn't use his shoulder or elbow to the head, it was just a big hit. Ejected? The usual over reaction, called from 100' away by the ref with the worst view from the other corner.

[Jimjamesak]

That Badger D man was getting freight trained no matter. Unfortunate he was turning low with his head down when the collision happened. Cameron didn't use his shoulder or elbow to the head, it was just a big hit. Ejected? The usual over reaction, called from 100' away by the ref with the worst view from the other corner.

And then a no balls even up on the Badger that goes after Cameron. It's something that bugs me about hockey referees in general, tending to go light on players just because their teammate is on the ice.

[uaafanblog]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Keeping the (lack of) classiness consistent from last night to today Seapup fans. Good job!

Complaining about "Classlessness" with regard to Hockey fans is ludicrous. Especially when UA_ fans have historically had many moments of which to be ashamed themselves. The actions of one or a few are not representative of an entire fanbase anyway and applying judgement to the whole based on such a thing is completely against reason.

[Seawolf Fan]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Angel, you did pretty good at the Pick-Em. If you had got your Seawolf bias under control you would be tied for best picker.
I was pleased you and a bunch of other folks from _airbanks made the trip.
Had a good time bantering with some of them.
Even ran into a couple of guys checking out the Alaska Airlines Center. They weren't aware the Seawolves ladies were about to spank the nooks in volleyball. And take em to the woodshed they did. 3 straight sets. By big margins in the last two sets.
But I digress sports hate is fine however try to forget it when you pick-em.

[Bonin21]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Thanks, Alaskan friends, for beating the badgers.

[Alaska Hockey]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Thanks, Alaskan friends, for beating the badgers.

Thanks you for the kind words but ..... we did it for their fans who said they were "over rated" and are now cliff diving to their true spot in the standings.

[mmf]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Even ran into a couple of guys checking out the Alaska Airlines Center. They weren't aware the Seawolves ladies were about to spank the nooks in volleyball. And take em to the woodshed they did. 3 straight sets. By big margins in the last two sets.

Congratulations Seawolves. I hear the winning team from that afternoon matchup got free tickets to go watch the Nanooks win the Kendall Classic. Sweeet.

[Seawolf Fan]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

Congratulations Seawolves. I hear the winning team from that afternoon matchup got free tickets to go watch the Nanooks win the Kendall Classic. Sweeet.

Still butt hurt over the Seawolfs ending your season I see.

[UAFIceAngel]

Angel, you did pretty good at the Pick-Em. If you had got your Seawolf bias under control you would be tied for best picker.
I was pleased you and a bunch of other folks from _airbanks made the trip.
Had a good time bantering with some of them.
Even ran into a couple of guys checking out the Alaska Airlines Center. They weren't aware the Seawolves ladies were about to spank the nooks in volleyball. And take em to the woodshed they did. 3 straight sets. By big margins in the last two sets.
But I digress sports hate is fine however try to forget it when you pick-em.

Maybe...that's all I can promise is MAYBE. But just an FYI I'll be picking Penn State over UAA next week. Heck im still stuck on if I'll choose them over my own team. But Gadowsky was a huge influence in my life so it's hard to go against him.

[uaafanblog]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

But Gadowsky was a huge influence in my life so it's hard to go against him.

Does that mean you might emulate him and go to New Jersey for a while then to Pennsylvania?

[camilo]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

UAA scored 7 goals and had 3 against, while UA_ scored 6 and were scored on twice. That give them both the same differential of 4, correct? It seems like the second tie breaker would be goals scored, not goals allowed. Strange format. In my mind the difference is the empty net goal the Nanooks were able to get.

I think the rationale is this: Goal differential as the first tie breaker - I doubt very many people think that's too weird. Seems to make sense to me.

Second vs third tie breaker is the question and there are two choices: goals for or goals against. My guess is that if you talk to coaches as well as players, and say choose one over the other, they see more pride as a team in limiting goals than scoring goals. That's really what wins games in the end, no? So my guess is that if you had coaches and even players vote, they'd choose goals against. There would be differences of opinion sure, but that's my take on it.

In this particular case, the fact that the Alaska team shut out the Wisconsin team ultimately paid off for the tournament rankings. And really, isn't a shutout a really good thing - if you had to "score" a win, wouldn't you score a 1-0 shutout a little "better" than a 2-1 win? Note - I said if you had to choose, and "a little better".

Even if that's not true, using "goals for" would give more incentive to run up a score. It's already somewhat of an incentive in the goal differential tie breaker so it would double the incentive. But limiting goals is also a big incentive for the first tie breaker. Sure, teams should play hard until the end and sometimes running up the score happens. But I don't think many coaches would be in favor of increasing incentive to run up a score. Working as hard as possible to limit goals is a natural, normal, never disputed part of the game and sportsmanship. Scoring more goals just to score more goals is not.

And I don't disagree that the empty net goal was the factor that made it go to second tie breaker. It's kind of not a real goal, but when a team is in that position, it is very important to score that empty net goal if it can possibly be done. It is not something that you'd ever, ever coach a team not to do out of sympathy for the opponent or any other reason. It's a valid goal, a very important goal. Maybe not in this particular case, but in general.... plus it was not Alaska's decision to pull the goalie, they were in no way trying to run up the score in that scenario. They probably would have been happy if Maine had not pulled the goalie, as far as normal winning game strategy goes.. hope that makes sense.

Kind of convoluted, I know, and really not the best way to decide a champion. But given the tournament type, I think it makes sense.

When I played and coached (the little I did), we really emphasized that it was team D that won games and it was the first and most important thing to coach a team to do. Not the only thing, mind you, but when choices are made, put team D first.

I think this is an interesting discussion and I'd be interested in how other similar type of tournaments are run?

[Suze]

Re: 2014 Kendall Classic: UAA, UAF, Wisconsin, Maine.

I think the rationale is this: Goal differential as the first tie breaker - I doubt very many people think that's too weird. Seems to make sense to me.

Second vs third tie breaker is the question and there are two choices: goals for or goals against. My guess is that if you talk to coaches as well as players, and say choose one over the other, they see more pride as a team in limiting goals than scoring goals. That's really what wins games in the end, no? So my guess is that if you had coaches and even players vote, they'd choose goals against. There would be differences of opinion sure, but that's my take on it.

In this particular case, the fact that the Alaska team shut out the Wisconsin team ultimately paid off for the tournament rankings. And really, isn't a shutout a really good thing - if you had to "score" a win, wouldn't you score a 1-0 shutout a little "better" than a 2-1 win? Note - I said if you had to choose, and "a little better".

Even if that's not true, using "goals for" would give more incentive to run up a score. It's already somewhat of an incentive in the goal differential tie breaker so it would double the incentive. But limiting goals is also a big incentive for the first tie breaker. Sure, teams should play hard until the end and sometimes running up the score happens. But I don't think many coaches would be in favor of increasing incentive to run up a score. Working as hard as possible to limit goals is a natural, normal, never disputed part of the game and sportsmanship. Scoring more goals just to score more goals is not.

And I don't disagree that the empty net goal was the factor that made it go to second tie breaker. It's kind of not a real goal, but when a team is in that position, it is very important to score that empty net goal if it can possibly be done. It is not something that you'd ever, ever coach a team not to do out of sympathy for the opponent or any other reason. It's a valid goal, a very important goal. Maybe not in this particular case, but in general.... plus it was not Alaska's decision to pull the goalie, they were in no way trying to run up the score in that scenario. They probably would have been happy if Maine had not pulled the goalie, as far as normal winning game strategy goes.. hope that makes sense.

Kind of convoluted, I know, and really not the best way to decide a champion. But given the tournament type, I think it makes sense.

When I played and coached (the little I did), we really emphasized that it was team D that won games and it was the first and most important thing to coach a team to do. Not the only thing, mind you, but when choices are made, put team D first.

I think this is an interesting discussion and I'd be interested in how other similar type of tournaments are run?

Thanks for a well thought out argument for the goal differential. Maybe you can tell me how UA_ managed to win their tourney last year, because it seems like Western Michigan should have won it. Western beat UAA 6-2 and UA_ beat DU 3-2 Then Western and UA_ tied 3-3. Western scored a total of 9 goals and had 5 goals against. UA_ scored 6 goals and had 5 goals against. I distinctly recall Bruce being totally confused when UA_ won the tourney. He said on the air that they were told beforehand how the winners would be decided, but that is not how it all came down. Can you explain this?

[UAFHockeyFan314]

Thanks for a well thought out argument for the goal differential. Maybe you can tell me how UA_ managed to win their tourney last year, because it seems like Western Michigan should have won it. Western beat UAA 6-2 and UA_ beat DU 3-2 Then Western and UA_ tied 3-3. Western scored a total of 9 goals and had 5 goals against. UA_ scored 6 goals and had 5 goals against. I distinctly recall Bruce being totally confused when UA_ won the tourney. He said on the air that they were told beforehand how the winners would be decided, but that is not how it all came down. Can you explain this?

The goal rush is based on the old CCHA rules, thus no ties. So western and Alaska ran a shootout for the championship. Bruce not knowing is his fault. Same situation in 2008 with Alaska and RPI.