Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 424

Thread: Regional Rankings

  1. #141
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    5,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post

    For example, let's say Plymouth is undefeated, as they nearly were a year or two back...

    In the current system, they beat every other team in win %, but lose nearly every other comparison, because there's so little comparative data in terms of H2H, Co-Op, and they haven't played anyone who was arbitrarily "RNK". In this system, an undefeated team could be completely left out of the tournament. That's wrong; one can never assume that a perfect record vs. a weak schedule can be discounted out of hand.
    Plymouth would be in if undefeated, regardless of any other metric.

  2. #142

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
    In this system, an undefeated team could be completely left out of the tournament. That's wrong; one can never assume that a perfect record vs. a weak schedule can be discounted out of hand.
    It's happened before. Just ask Adrian.

  3. #143
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Plattsburgh, NY
    Posts
    2,731

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    It's happened before. Just ask Adrian.
    Yes that was without their conference yet having an autobid. MASCAC has one, so if Plymouth State was undefeated, they would be in the tourney


    "FEAR THE BIRD!"

  4. #144

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Birdwatcher View Post
    Yes that was without their conference yet having an autobid. MASCAC has one, so if Plymouth State was undefeated, they would be in the tourney
    So if Utica went undefeated......

  5. #145
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Plattsburgh, NY
    Posts
    2,731

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    So if Utica went undefeated......
    Its Utica......who knows.....BUT if its 2020 they will


    "FEAR THE BIRD!"

  6. #146
    UC's original USCHO poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Utica, NY
    Posts
    4,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Birdwatcher View Post
    Its Utica......who knows.....BUT if its 2020 they will
    I won't believe it till 2021.

  7. #147
    Black Bear since D-2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Central New York
    Posts
    3,757

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrynu26 View Post
    Plymouth would be in if undefeated, regardless of any other metric.
    No doubt, and that fact theoretically supports my point, albeit in a tangential way.

    Plymouth (or any number of other teams with a poor SOS numbers) could be undefeated, but, without an available AQ, it could lose enough "primary criteria" comparisons to be out of the NCAA's just the same. (Yes, they'd certainly get-in anyway, relying on the committee to employ the fungible "secondary criteria", which basically illustrates that both sets of criteria are smoke-screens, and the committee can do exactly as it pleases... Ergo, we all are invited to smile and nod in blind accordance, a la The Emperor's New Clothes.

    I know I rant far too often about on this topic. I bore myself more often than I do any of you in that respect, believe you me. But it's truly silly to endorse a "system" that owes no one any accountability... I'm not a "smile and nod" type of guy.

    There's just so many better ways to select the field, and I'm convinced that it could happen without D-3 being required to move any serious mountains.
    Last edited by Fishman'81; 02-21-2018 at 06:23 PM.

  8. #148
    Smoking in the selection room. XYZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Spiez, Switzerland
    Posts
    9,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Birdwatcher View Post
    Yes that was without their conference yet having an autobid. MASCAC has one, so if Plymouth State was undefeated, they would be in the tourney
    No, it happened because certain committee members had “no interest in doing anything to help Adrian.” Could have been 80-0-1 (for the record they were 27-1-1, not undefeated) and it wouldn’t have mattered. Their own words. Don’t like it, take it up with them. I’m sure they have plenty of time to talk now since all their seasons will be over in February. As usual.
    Last edited by XYZ; 02-22-2018 at 02:48 AM.

  9. #149
    Rocking 'The Stone'
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Retired in De Pere
    Posts
    3,498

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Matt Webb's Bracketology Second Edition::


    http://d3hockey.com/bracketology/men/2018/feb-20
    SNC Men:
    Five Time National Champions: 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014. 2018....
    NCHA Champions: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017. 2018...
    SNC Women:
    O'Brien Cup Champions: 2013.

  10. #150

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    35,439

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Have the Prezidential Three (Elmira, Oswego, Norwich) all missed the NCAAs in the same year?

  11. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Rochester, NY USA
    Posts
    5,110

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Have the Prezidential Three (Elmira, Oswego, Norwich) all missed the NCAAs in the same year?
    Unless there is a massive amount of upsets in the AQ slots, Oswego is in. And may even be in with a lot of upsets.

    But to your point, I hate the Prez for that very reason...
    Russell Jaslow
    [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
    U.S. College Hockey Online

  12. #152
    Hockey Knight in Boston
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,005

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Geneseo needs to win the AQ to make the tournament. I'm skeptical they will get a Pool C due to their winning percentage against ranked teams.

    This Saturday in the SUNYAC semifinal will be the third time they've played Buff State this year and they are 1-0-1 against them this season. Buff State is the #10 ranked and last team ranked in the East, and there is a good chance a loss will make them unranked in the next rankings. A team is only considered ranked if they are ranked in either of the two final rankings.

    Geneseo's current winning percentage against ranked teams (from D3 Hockey Bracketology): .400 (1-2-2)

    Hypotheticals:
    RNK if Geneseo wins and Buff State becomes unranked: .000 (0-2-1)
    RNK if Geneseo wins and Buff State stays ranked: .500 (2-2-2)
    RNK if Geneseo loses and Buff State stays ranked: .333 (1-3-2)

    Obviously Geneseo must win Saturday because the AQ is the only sure way to get in, but their case without Buff State being ranked is really really slim. I guess a best case for Geneseo getting a Pool C is Buff State loses Saturday but manages to stay ranked due to higher ranked teams losing as well. Then Geneseo could possibly absorb another ranked loss to Oswego and get in, but only if the conference tournaments are chalk.

    So basically, win the AQ and make all of this moot
    #OneKnight

  13. #153
    Proud supporter of Osmirwich hockey
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northfield, VT
    Posts
    16,110
    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Have the Prezidential Three (Elmira, Oswego, Norwich) all missed the NCAAs in the same year?
    Everyone has short term memories. 2015-16 all three missed.

  14. #154
    Black Bear since D-2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Central New York
    Posts
    3,757

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by pete99race View Post
    Matt Webb's Bracketology Second Edition::


    http://d3hockey.com/bracketology/men/2018/feb-20
    Thanks for the link. I don't seek this out myself (because Matt attempts to logically analyze the unfathomable), but it's a fun read just the same. As a Utica fan, of course I'm most interested on his take on its chances...

    He cites UC's lousy SOS as a reason it's on the bubble -as well he should- but the irony of that situation is inescapable.

    The "old" ECAC-W was generally the strongest conference in D-3 from top to bottom in recent years. But, in order to garner an AQ, it added (arguably) warm bodies in Chatham and King's, which went an astoundingly dismal 2-45 this year, combined... And even worse, perennial-power Hobart defected, apparently as a result of the increased travel issues the dubious "additions" imposed.

    So what we have now is a far-flung conference that's waaaay weaker, yet somehow now worthy of an Auto-Bid (next year) without any logical basis to support that mandate..?

    Go figger, but it's another example of why AQ's possess no intrinsic validity at all.
    Last edited by Fishman'81; 02-23-2018 at 04:34 PM.

  15. #155
    Proud supporter of Osmirwich hockey
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Northfield, VT
    Posts
    16,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
    Thanks for the link. I don't seek this out myself (because Matt attempts to logically analyze the unfathomable), but it's a fun read just the same. As a Utica fan, of course I'm most interested on his take on its chances...

    He cites UC's lousy SOS as a reason it's on the bubble -as well he should- but the irony of that situation is inescapable.

    The "old" ECAC-W was generally the strongest conference in D-3 from top to bottom in recent years. But, in order to garner an AQ, it added (arguably) warm bodies in Chatham and King's, which went an astoundingly dismal 2-45 this year, combined... And even worse, perennial-power Hobart defected, apparently as a result of the increased travel issues the dubious "additions" imposed.

    So what we have now is a far-flung conference that's waaaay weaker, yet somehow now worthy of an Auto-Bid (next year) without any logical basis to support that mandate..?

    Go figger, but it's another example of why AQ's make no sense at all.
    I would imagine stability in the AQ probably influenced that decision as well.

  16. #156
    elbojpb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Elmira, NY Hudson, Fl
    Posts
    1,924

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
    Thanks for the link. I don't seek this out myself (because Matt attempts to logically analyze the unfathomable), but it's a fun read just the same. As a Utica fan, of course I'm most interested on his take on its chances...

    He cites UC's lousy SOS as a reason it's on the bubble -as well he should- but the irony of that situation is inescapable.

    The "old" ECAC-W was generally the strongest conference in D-3 from top to bottom in recent years. But, in order to garner an AQ, it added (arguably) warm bodies in Chatham and King's, which went an astoundingly dismal 2-45 this year, combined... And even worse, perennial-power Hobart defected, apparently as a result of the increased travel issues the dubious "additions" imposed.

    So what we have now is a far-flung conference that's waaaay weaker, yet somehow now worthy of an Auto-Bid (next year) without any logical basis to support that mandate..?

    Go figger, but it's another example of why AQ's possess no intrinsic validity at all.
    Fish - The most telling clause from Matt's analysis ... "the overall weakness of the UCHC is a complete anchor" which (ironically) was historically its strength.

    BTW - Your insistent and incessant obsessing on the AQ debacle has me a bit worried;<) Hope to meet you in Placid if you decide to make the (short) trip.

  17. #157
    Black Bear since D-2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Central New York
    Posts
    3,757

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by elbojpb View Post
    Fish - The most telling clause from Matt's analysis ... "the overall weakness of the UCHC is a complete anchor" which (ironically) was historically its strength.

    BTW - Your insistent and incessant obsessing on the AQ debacle has me a bit worried;<) Hope to meet you in Placid if you decide to make the (short) trip.
    Elbo, you used the "debacle" word -might be a bit of an overstatement- but not too far off the mark. The D-3 field is just too small to have nearly 70% of it automatically rewarded, don't you think? And I explicitly cited UC's ghastly SOS... Not sure we have an argument here.

    Anyway, Placid is about 3 1/2 hours on rural roads from Utica, but we'll be there should UC find a way... And there's a good local craft for you -on me- if such a thing happens.
    Last edited by Fishman'81; 02-23-2018 at 07:13 PM.

  18. #158
    elbojpb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Elmira, NY Hudson, Fl
    Posts
    1,924

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
    The D-3 field is just too small to have nearly 70% of it automatically rewarded, don't you think?
    I've pounded on the AQ since last century, specifically those awarded to the ECAC/NE and MASCAC. On play-in night on this board, I've nearly lost my mind a couple of times, fortunately, the board upgrade erased all those posts.

    But, the NCAA doesn't want the best teams in the nation, they want to spread around the recognition and host a tournament of champions. It's their game and their call, but I'd personally prefer the 12 best teams.

  19. #159
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by elbojpb View Post
    I've pounded on the AQ since last century, specifically those awarded to the ECAC/NE and MASCAC. On play-in night on this board, I've nearly lost my mind a couple of times, fortunately, the board upgrade erased all those posts.

    But, the NCAA doesn't want the best teams in the nation, they want to spread around the recognition and host a tournament of champions. It's their game and their call, but I'd personally prefer the 12 best teams.
    Best is so subjective. It's what I hate about the current College Football Playoff. The most deserving should be rewarded. For most teams (Non-Pool B, DIII hockey is a bit unique in that regard) the shot at the NCAA tournament js clear: win your tourney. It's fair for everyone. And if the SUNYAC champ is really so much better than the MASCAC champ (for example) then they get rewarded by playing an inferior opponent at home in the first round.

  20. #160
    Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Southern New York
    Posts
    8,563

    Re: Regional Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by elbojpb View Post
    I've pounded on the AQ since last century, specifically those awarded to the ECAC/NE and MASCAC. On play-in night on this board, I've nearly lost my mind a couple of times, fortunately, the board upgrade erased all those posts.

    But, the NCAA doesn't want the best teams in the nation, they want to spread around the recognition and host a tournament of champions. It's their game and their call, but I'd personally prefer the 12 best teams.
    And as I've said since the days of time, you will NEVER get the "12 best teams" with a restriction on games able to be played. Especially cross region. No KRACH system can fix that. Not with so many teams in DIII. On top of that we should probably go back to a best of 3 game series for the Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals. I mean hey, if we want the "best" teams in, we better make sure the "best" team wins.

    Secondly, while I semi agree that the ECAC NE was an "unworthy" conference to receive a bid, let's play devils advocate here. If I told you 10-15 years ago Lebanon Valley would finish tied for 2nd in the defunct ECAC West, UNE would be a top 5 Team in the NATION, Endicott is playing hockey, and Salve Regina is more than just a funny name to say, you would have laughed yourself to the ground. Those same ECAC NE teams/Conferences that you carried on about 10-15 years ago are now some of the best teams in DIII. If you don't think having that auto bid was a MAJOR factor in that,.......

    Now before some get all upset and in an uproar, it takes MORE than having an auto bid to make a competitive team. The school has to WANT to do it. So no, the auto bid isn't the ONLY reason these teams went from the laughing stock to a competitive contender, but it has a major roll IMO. I was actually right there with you years ago as I fell DIII doesn't have the numbers to support so many weak AQ's. If every conference was like our "Power 5's" then yes. DIII has too many "weak sisters" who just putting a team on ice is an accomplishment.

    The fact of the matter is, complaining on a message board and thinking your opinion matters to the NCAA gets you no where (not you in particular elbojpb). The NCAA will not change their rules for sports because hockey is "different". I'd love to see a 16 team field, AQ's and Pool C bids, 40 game seasons, 3 game series, and more cross over games. But I've come to the reality you will not change the NCAA. The coaches don't care/want it. The AD's don't care/want it. So why should we think just because we want it, we will get it? The process, while not perfect, is nearly predictable these days. There is a reason why people like Webb and Ray pretty much nail the teams every year lately. When you understand the process, accept the process, and live with the process, its not hard to see. Instead, some people would rather ***** and complain and cause more confusion when it's pretty simple to see who is in, why, and who is out, and why.

    Sorry, end of rant. Cheers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •