The joke will be on them when the 2018 Pre-Champs Manual is released and the NCAA actually addresses the problem because I brought it up.
Short answer: Yes, I expect at least one Alliance team to be in the top 8 of the PWR. Because they are almost exclusively playing each other, the RPI would be able to detect much of a difference between the alliance teams and the rest of the regular D1 programs, relative to strength of schedule (it can't tell that these teams are "bad" relative to the others if they only play them a couple times). 5-6 losses will easily get a team from the scheduling alliance in.
St. A's is the team you have to worry about. They were 7-0 or something against the other alliance teams and the games weren't particularly close. But from what I understand, there will be a bit of a tweak to the criteria to address this (you're welcome).
1. Clarkson (Tiley, duh!)
2. Minny (b/c the WCHA poll told me so)
3. Wisco (I guess? ARD gone though, we'll see, and see #2)
4. BC (ugh, gross )
5. St. Lawrence (they did okay last season)
6. Quinnipiac (b/c they just won't go away)
7. Robert Morris (b/c you guys seem to think so - again, I know nothing)
8. BU (because why not? - don't answer that question!)
9. Red headed step children (Northeastern, losing Coyne)
10. North Dakota! (Kidding, Mercyhurst - they've had a couple of down seasons, they should be making a comeback right?)
The joke will be on them when the 2018 Pre-Champs Manual is released and the NCAA actually addresses the problem because I brought it up.
Short answer: Yes, I expect at least one Alliance team to be in the top 8 of the PWR. Because they are almost exclusively playing each other, the RPI would be able to detect much of a difference between the alliance teams and the rest of the regular D1 programs, relative to strength of schedule (it can't tell that these teams are "bad" relative to the others if they only play them a couple times). 5-6 losses will easily get a team from the scheduling alliance in.
St. A's is the team you have to worry about. They were 7-0 or something against the other alliance teams and the games weren't particularly close. But from what I understand, there will be a bit of a tweak to the criteria to address this (you're welcome).
I remember it. You and I seemed to be the only ones who saw the potential problem. Glad the NCAA addressed it.
1-Not Clarkson. They won last year but everyone here will concede that that was an upset, right? As an upset winner do they deserve the obligatory first place vote in this season's pre-season? My pre-season vote for this season goes to the team that at the end of last season nearly everyone thought was the best. Wisconsin.
2-Clarkson
3-Minnesota
4-Boston College
5-Colgate, I guess
6-Cornell, I guess
7-Not UMD, maybe Robert Morris
8-Not UMD, Quinnipiac
9-Ohio State
10-Not the nurses, maybe Saint Lawrence?
1-Not Clarkson. They won last year but everyone here will concede that that was an upset, right? As an upset winner do they deserve the obligatory first place vote in this season's pre-season? My pre-season vote for this season goes to the team that at the end of last season nearly everyone thought was the best. Wisconsin.
2-Clarkson
3-Minnesota
4-Boston College
5-Colgate, I guess
6-Cornell, I guess
7-Not UMD, maybe Robert Morris
8-Not UMD, Quinnipiac
9-Ohio State
10-Not the nurses, maybe Saint Lawrence?
I think you're a bit tough on St Lawrence. They have only lost three seniors and gained a junior from Mercyhurst. The defence will be one year stronger.
1-Not Clarkson. They won last year but everyone here will concede that that was an upset, right? As an upset winner do they deserve the obligatory first place vote in this season's pre-season?
I completely agree with you here -- it always baffles me when people rank the previous year's champion #1 regardless of offseason changes. But in this case I think Clarkson has a claim to #1. Wisconsin and Minnesota both lost an absolute ton of scoring, and Wisconsin also loses ARD (although I'm under no illusions that they won't be able to slot in another 'tender who will suddenly prove to be All-World yet again). Clarkson wasn't unbitten by the graduation bug, but they lost far less and don't have any Olympic worries. So despite the fact that they leapfrogged some higher ranked teams to win the natty last year... I think they also leapfrogged them in the offseason.
I think you're a bit tough on St Lawrence. They have only lost three seniors and gained a junior from Mercyhurst. The defence will be one year stronger.
The only caveat I have for SLU is that they came from absolutely nowhere to being ridiculous basically overnight last season. They went from basically .500 to undefeated for like the first 1/3 of the year. That kind of thing isn't usually sustainable although they did obviously stay up there for essentially the whole year.
Now, they did cool way, way off in the 2nd half to just being "very good," so given how much parity I think there'll be this year you could probably make an argument to put SLU anywhere from like 5th to 10th.
Is anyone willing to expand their choices to 20 or 25?
No
1) Boston College - sure they are missing two D to Team USA, but eeyore convinced me defense is not important to win a natty
2) Clarkson
3) St Lawrence
4) Boston University
5) Quinnipiac
6) Princeton
7) Colgate
8) Minnesota - can't score
9) Wisconsin - can't score when it counts
10) Robert Morse
New season, new players, new attitude. They will play loose and fast, they won't know any better.
Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
"Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"
Comment