The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

[Fishman'81]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

I think pool C's will be handed out in this order if the teams lose.

Trinity
Adrian
Amherst
Oswego
Norwich
UW-SP
UMass-Boston
Hobart
Plattsburgh
St Norbert

Interesting post, thanks.

I agree that neither Platty nor OSU seems likely to get a Pool C if either loses, but of course one of them will win the AQ anyway. It's hard to fathom leaving Trinity or Amherst out, but stranger things have happened. I'd predict Hobart getting a C-bid if they beat Neumann, and being well off the table if they lose.

Very close call this year, considering all the possibilities. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Hobart and Oswego to seal the deals there, and Trinity and AC to back-in, but Adrian is in that mix as well. I don't predict that Norwich will garner a bid unless they win out.

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Yes. That was the nature of my exercise. I personally feel that the two polls are a more accurate reflection of the true rankings than the NCAA "criteria" polls.

That's great, of course you would. If you understood the process in the slightest bit you might get it a little better... let me slow it down one more time....Polls...Don't ... Matter..... Criteria....Does....

An example of how frivolous the NCAA rankings are were on display today. Trinity loses to a bad Tufts squad and drops one spot.

A loss to a Non-Ranked team is better criteria wise...been this way for years....

UMass-Boston loses to a very good Babson team and drops two spots.

See above. Babson was a ranked team....losing to a rank team (especially if they are a common opponent with others) can really hurt....has been this way for years still....

Babson beats a team ranked ahead of them (who they are 2-1 against with the one loss going to OT) and doesn't move and still sits behind UMB.

Because
A. It was 1 game, not the season B. Plattsburgh still beats Babson on criteria but not UMB (which I am not sure how) C. Head to Head is just 1 criteria (again).

I simply do not respect the "criteria". Does anyone think that Belisle would rank his own team above Babson? Human element!

No offense here but we could care less if you respect it or not. The committee could care less if you respect it or not. Guess what, they use the criteria to select the teams. Until you decide to get over it and accept the fact they use criteria and not a poll in which most coaches don't even look into things, you will still be a lost soul on a dark dirt road in the middle of West Virginia....

I don't respect the fact they have tennis, baseball, and women's basketball coaches on a hockey championship committee which are selecting just a few teams to make the dance, but guess what...they don't care either....Like I said, you want human element...so if the tennis coach likes Oswego more because they look like tennis balls, or the basketball coach likes Amherst because he had lunch with their basketball coach...or what if the baseball coach thinks "icing" is still something you put on a cake. I highly doubt these people understand the full game of hockey. I will say it again, do you want a group of people who have probably only scene a couple games all season deciding your teams fate? Could everyone of them spout off DIII hockey stats and history? With so few Pool C bids I want the most knowledgeable hockey minds crunching numbers, watching tape, listening to your polls/rankings (okay maybe not), but we don't have that.

[Sir Nubs]

That's great, of course you would. If you understood the process in the slightest bit you might get it a little better... let me slow it down one more time....Polls...Don't ... Matter..... Criteria....Does....



A loss to a Non-Ranked team is better criteria wise...been this way for years....



See above. Babson was a ranked team....losing to a rank team (especially if they are a common opponent with others) can really hurt....has been this way for years still....



Because
A. It was 1 game, not the season B. Plattsburgh still beats Babson on criteria but not UMB (which I am not sure how) C. Head to Head is just 1 criteria (again).



No offense here but we could care less if you respect it or not. The committee could care less if you respect it or not. Guess what, they use the criteria to select the teams. Until you decide to get over it and accept the fact they use criteria and not a poll in which most coaches don't even look into things, you will still be a lost soul on a dark dirt road in the middle of West Virginia....

I don't respect the fact they have tennis, baseball, and women's basketball coaches on a hockey championship committee which are selecting just a few teams to make the dance, but guess what...they don't care either....Like I said, you want human element...so if the tennis coach likes Oswego more because they look like tennis balls, or the basketball coach likes Amherst because he had lunch with their basketball coach...or what if the baseball coach thinks "icing" is still something you put on a cake. I highly doubt these people understand the full game of hockey. I will say it again, do you want a group of people who have probably only scene a couple games all season deciding your teams fate? Could everyone of them spout off DIII hockey stats and history? With so few Pool C bids I want the most knowledgeable hockey minds crunching numbers, watching tape, listening to your polls/rankings (okay maybe not), but we don't have that.

You had me and then you lost me. You could have a committee full of national coach of the year winners and they wouldn't be watching tape on teams, because the "eyeball test" is not one of the criteria!

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

You had me and then you lost me. You could have a committee full of national coach of the year winners and they wouldn't be watching tape on teams, because the "eyeball test" is not one of the criteria!

While the "eyeball test" is not "part of the criteria", the committee can "weight" criteria differently. Of which I want "hockey minds" weighting criteria, not basketball coaches, tennis coaches, baseball coaches. Make sense now? The criteria could be tweaked, but putting such a small number of at large bids solely in the hands of a hodge-podge committee based on the "eyeball test" (like some people want) is absurd. I, as well as others, would be further satisfied if A. All rankings are public and B. The Committee must publish a complete synopsis of how they came to their decision. Never happen.

[snc11]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

No offense here but we could care less if you respect it or not.

I may not sleep tonight!

[joecct]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

While the "eyeball test" is not "part of the criteria", the committee can "weight" criteria differently. Of which I want "hockey minds" weighting criteria, not basketball coaches, tennis coaches, baseball coaches. Make sense now? The criteria could be tweaked, but putting such a small number of at large bids solely in the hands of a hodge-podge committee based on the "eyeball test" (like some people want) is absurd. I, as well as others, would be further satisfied if A. All rankings are public and B. The Committee must publish a complete synopsis of how they came to their decision. Never happen.

Based on the rankings and the numbers, I would think the East guys are doing their jobs and ranking based on numbers, not eyeballs. This is a welcome change.

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

I may not sleep tonight!

With your lack on basic concepts it's not surprising....

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Based on the rankings and the numbers, I would think the East guys are doing their jobs and ranking based on numbers, not eyeballs. This is a welcome change.

Agree. I don't have as much of an issue as we have seen in years past and maybe I am selling those non-hockey minds short. One thing people forget is that things can change with one game (especially if its a loss/win to the right person). I still would like to see "hockey" minds only on the committee, but then again too many hockey minds and they would get away from the criteria more and more possibly. I just don't see the reason why they can't sit down and go team by team as to why they were selected and publish all rankings. There should be no hiding and an explanation, and no "Coach McShane told us to do it this way" is NOT one of them like some believe....

[snc11]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

With your lack on basic concepts it's not surprising....

Dude! Can you read? Have I not acknowledged REPEATEDLY that I UNDERSTAND the "basic concepts" of the selection process? Do you not get that, despite my UNDERSTANDING of that process, I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. It is flawed. That is all I'm trying to say. Sorry that my opinion upsets you. But, in case you werent aware, "FAN FORUMS" are intended for guys like you and me to share OPINIONS…hopefully without being belittled for our opinions. If you do AGREE with the selection process, great! If you believe that losing to bad teams holds less weight than losing to good teams, great!. If you believe that OOWP matters, great!. If you agree that a team's win-loss record, despite having no control over who their opponents will be, in their last 25% of the season holds more weight than the other 75%, great!

I apologize for interfering with "your" fan forum and for having an opinion about the "selection process". I will take my pillow and leave now. Thanks for entertaining me for a few minutes.

[PSUChamps2001]

Dude! Can you read? Have I not acknowledged REPEATEDLY that I UNDERSTAND the "basic concepts" of the selection process? Do you not get that, despite my UNDERSTANDING of that process, I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. It is flawed. That is all I'm trying to say. Sorry that my opinion upsets you. But, in case you werent aware, "FAN FORUMS" are intended for guys like you and me to share OPINIONS…hopefully without being belittled for our opinions. If you do AGREE with the selection process, great! If you believe that losing to bad teams holds less weight than losing to good teams, great!. If you believe that OOWP matters, great!. If you agree that a team's win-loss record, despite having no control over who their opponents will be, in their last 25% of the season holds more weight than the other 75%, great!

I apologize for interfering with "your" fan forum and for having an opinion about the "selection process". I will take my pillow and leave now. Thanks for entertaining me for a few minutes.

No you make frivolous statements on whats going to happen based on "your" logic. When we try to tell you the process you abandon all hope. I don't care if you think its flawed, we all do...but guess what it's the way things are. Until you come to the reality that this is the process and all your polls mean squat, you will continue to not sleep well at night. I am all for opinions that use the aplicable criteria (of which doesn't matter if you think its flawed or not) and not cry about all this "human aspect".

I told you that you are free to have your opinions, it would help if you actually made them based on the facts, process, and the way things are run then to make up your own. We could all make up our own poll/ranking using our biased knowledge of the teams and some unbiased and if that's what you want to do then fine, but don't get your panties in a bunch when you get laughed at and annoy those who are making predictions using the criteria and the selection process used by the selection committee. With some of your rants I still doubt you fully understand how this is done. Once again you don't have to like it, you don't have to think its fair. For those of us who have followed college hockey for decades and not just a few seasons while their son plays, those are the ones trying to explain the process. Again you don't have to like it, agree with it, or even want it....but this is how it is. And yes, it's a lot more fair then having 20 people with 20 different views pick 4 teams. You keep bringing up the whole "The West has dominated"....yet years prior when the East dominated I didn't see too many Westerners agreeing with an 8-3 automatic split. What about women's hockey? Should we even have Western representation?

[Cards81]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Don't count the SUNYAC loser out of the Pool C just yet. I believe both Stevens Point AND Hobart are playing for the Pool B and that's it. One gets it, the other goes home. I DO NOT believe Mass-Boston is a legitimate Pool C candidate given their pathetic SOS. I think they are there to build up the credentials of Babson and Norwich and will be dismissed during the last meeting without question. I also believe Trinity deserves a Pool C and should get one. In the event that anyone not named Amherst wins the NESCAC tourney, Amherst could be out because it's unlikely that the other two 2 Pool C's would come from NESCAC. NCAA will NOT pick 3 teams from same conference unless it's undeniable.

I think Norwich is in pretty good shape for at least a Pool C. Plattsburgh needs more help than Oswego. Should Norwich, Amherst & Adrian win the Cardinal chances are decent. In that case the Pool C's would be Trinity, Plattsburgh and either St. Norbert or Stevens Point. Oswego wouldn't need things to work out quite as well for them to get in. I think they'll be fine as long as TWO of those aforementioned teams comes away with their tourneys.

[LakerEagleLover]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Somebody needs ________________

[peddler]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Agree. I don't have as much of an issue as we have seen in years past and maybe I am selling those non-hockey minds short. One thing people forget is that things can change with one game (especially if its a loss/win to the right person). I still would like to see "hockey" minds only on the committee, but then again too many hockey minds and they would get away from the criteria more and more possibly. I just don't see the reason why they can't sit down and go team by team as to why they were selected and publish all rankings. There should be no hiding and an explanation, and no "Coach McShane told us to do it this way" is NOT one of them like some believe....

3 non-hockeys, 2 of them AD's, and one Asst AD.

[PSUChamps2001]

3 non-hockeys, 2 of them AD's, and one Asst AD.

Correct and as I said maybe I'm not judging them fairly enough, but if you've ever talked to a non hockey sports fan and tried to explain the game, let alone the selection process you normally get blank stairs. Just my opinion but because you are a suit and tie administration doesn't mean you understand the game enough.

[peddler]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Correct and as I said maybe I'm not judging them fairly enough, but if you've ever talked to a non hockey sports fan and tried to explain the game, let alone the selection process you normally get blank stairs. Just my opinion but because you are a suit and tie administration doesn't mean you understand the game enough.

And here I am a lightweight hs football/track jock, who was always relegated to pond hockey goalie when we were kids cause I couldn't skate to save my life