NCAA Selection Show

[FireKnight]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

I don't recall the physical play being an issue but they stifling forecheck sure was. I remember eeyore pointing out at the time also that CU moved the puck up ice quickly which denied MN the chance to counter attack.

I agree with the forecheck but a lot of the Gopher fans especially made many comments to the effect of "you wouldn't get away with that in the WCHA". I really thought Clarkson played a different style than the two big dogs in 2014, but in 2017 I thought the teams had very similar styles of play.

[EastFan1]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

I believe Muzzerall holds the records for most goals scored & she played for a coach who would not allow her team to outscore an opponent by more than 10 goals so her toal is probably half what it could be. The great players would now be facing much stiffer competition. Still great but not astronomically better than average.

Blackbeard is talking about college players from 8 to 10 years ago - kids born in the 1990s. Muzerall was born in the 1970s.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

What's the TV/streaming options for the quarterfinals? I know the Big Ten Network has the Frozen Four. Is NCAA Productions going to be doing the quarterfinal games?

[ne7minder]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

Blackbeard is talking about college players from 8 to 10 years ago - kids born in the 1990s. Muzerall was born in the 1970s.

Same thing. In fact you can see over time how the bottom has risen more than the top.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

What's the TV/streaming options for the quarterfinals? I know the Big Ten Network has the Frozen Four. Is NCAA Productions going to be doing the quarterfinal games?

I'm not positive but I am almost certain whatever it is will be free. I know for sure BC's will be but I think it's a quarterfinals requirement.

[Still Eeyore]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

I agree with the forecheck but a lot of the Gopher fans especially made many comments to the effect of "you wouldn't get away with that in the WCHA".

I don't remember a single Gopher fan saying that. What a lot of them said is that Clarkson was a bigger, stronger team than that particular edition of Minnesota, and that it helped them win battles along the boards and in front of the net. The main comment that any of us made about the officiating was the way the refs ignored the very blatant goaltender interference on the second Clarkson goal. I suppose that that could be taken as a complaint that Clarkson wouldn't have gotten away with their physical play in the WCHA, but it's a pretty narrow complaint.

As ne7minder said, I'm strongly of the opinion that none of that was the big difference maker in that game. What was so striking was the way that, when Clarkson gained control of the puck, they didn't screw around getting it into the offensive zone. There was pretty much no lateral movement in the neutral zone, just moving the puck forwards as quickly as possible. It negated the most fundamental identity that Minnesota had: their relentless backcheck that allowed them to play offense with a set of very fast forwards that lived very deep in the offensive zone when the Gophers had the puck. It was some brilliant coaching by Clarkson's staff. While that game ended up being so close that you could point to any number of things as being "the difference" between victory and defeat, that's the one that really stood out to me.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

I'm not positive but I am almost certain whatever it is will be free. I know for sure BC's will be but I think it's a quarterfinals requirement.

Well, I hope so. I want to watch the Clarkson game (nothing on their website yet) before driving to Hobart for the D3 men's playoff game.

[Golden Tuuk]

Perhaps some day, we'll have a real national tournament, where Minnesota would go to Colgate, and Northeastern would travel to Madison. I doubt I'll see that again in my lifetime. But we're women's hockey fans, so we'll take what we're given and be content with it. Nah...

Aren't there matchups in the first round that the NCAA should have avoided? Is this not possible?

So we have:

1 Team Canada
2 Popcorn Skunk
3 Colgate
4 BC
5 OSU
6 NE
7 UM
8 Mercyhurst

Are some implying the seeding isn't true?

[ARM]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

I agree with the forecheck but a lot of the Gopher fans especially made many comments to the effect of "you wouldn't get away with that in the WCHA". I really thought Clarkson played a different style than the two big dogs in 2014, but in 2017 I thought the teams had very similar styles of play.

IMO, it was the speed/aggressiveness of the Clarkson forecheck, more so than physicality, that caused UM problems and turned the game.

[zoofer]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

In reading the comments about players talent vs. game changing, and what the refs call.......as I watched the games this weekend, I tried to imagine anyone of the teams playing Team USA or Team Canada......am I wrong in thinking that both National teams would win 4 out of 5 if they played anyone of the 8 playoff teams? Obviously it could be argued pro vs amateur but we're not at that level yet......all 8 programs have strict on and off ice routines just like the National teams, so what creates the separation in play? Then can you imagine if any of the upcoming games had the same amount of physical play that USA vs. Canada did? Probably 4 on 4 all game.....IMHO, talent level and style of play in the NCAA is about the same level as OAR vs Switzerland.....good hockey and talented players.......am I way off base here?

[Still Eeyore]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

am I way off base here?

Yes. Not in your assessment of whether any college team would win against the U.S. or Canadian Olympic teams; if anything, your estimate of 1 time in 5 is high. It's your analysis of why that's true that's very, very wrong.

It has nothing to do with declining talent in the game. It's that there are two of those teams who select the best players from among 35 Division 1 teams, with no arbitrary limit of how many years each of those players can remain on the team. The national teams are much better, because they are selecting vastly fewer players from a much larger pool of talent. That's true whether or not any of the leagues they play in can really be considered professional. Minnesota would be a much better team if Lee Stecklein and Dani Cameranesi hadn't run out of eligibility.

There aren't as many current NCAA players on the national team rosters as there used to be, but that's not really surprising. The human body doesn't fully mature until your mid-20s, so athletes are improving physically even after they've left college, as well as gaining more experience. Even after one's physical peak, the decline starts slowly and experienced is still gained. The mix varies from one sport to the next, but a hockey player's peak ability is somewhere in the mid-to-late 20s. (It's probably a bit earlier for women relative to men, and it's a bit later for defensemen relative to forwards.) As the talent pool of women's hockey players has expanded, there are more national team caliber players in this older age group, and fewer current NCAA players that can compete with them right now, but that will as they age towards their peak.

[shelfit]

Yes. Not in your assessment of whether any college team would win against the U.S. or Canadian Olympic teams; if anything, your estimate of 1 time in 5 is high. It's your analysis of why that's true that's very, very wrong.

It has nothing to do with declining talent in the game. It's that there are two of those teams who select the best players from among 35 Division 1 teams, with no arbitrary limit of how many years each of those players can remain on the team. The national teams are much better, because they are selecting vastly fewer players from a much larger pool of talent. That's true whether or not any of the leagues they play in can really be considered professional. Minnesota would be a much better team if Lee Stecklein and Dani Cameranesi hadn't run out of eligibility.

There aren't as many current NCAA players on the national team rosters as there used to be, but that's not really surprising. The human body doesn't fully mature until your mid-20s, so athletes are improving physically even after they've left college, as well as gaining more experience. Even after one's physical peak, the decline starts slowly and experienced is still gained. The mix varies from one sport to the next, but a hockey player's peak ability is somewhere in the mid-to-late 20s. (It's probably a bit earlier for women relative to men, and it's a bit later for defensemen relative to forwards.) As the talent pool of women's hockey players has expanded, there are more national team caliber players in this older age group, and fewer current NCAA players that can compete with them right now, but that will as they age towards their peak.

My body is still "maturing," just not in a good way anymore.

[zoofer]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

Real good point Still Eeyore on being able to select 35 primo from an already subgroup of quality players.....and then the time extension allowed. I think I'm just jonsing for the women to be able to offer that quality of competition should the average Joe happen upon a game......

[Leather helmet]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

Minnesota would be a much better team if Lee Stecklein and Dani Cameranesi hadn't run out of eligibility.

But, we will always have Amanda Kessel.

[ne7minder]

Re: NCAA Selection Show

Aren't there matchups in the first round that the NCAA should have avoided? Is this not possible?

So we have:

1 Team Canada
2 Popcorn Skunk
3 Colgate
4 BC
5 OSU
6 NE
7 UM
8 Mercyhurst

Are some implying the seeding isn't true?

If the NCAA were going to seed based on PWR
1 Clarkson / 8 St. Lawrence
2 Wisconsin / 7 cornell
3 Colgate / 6 Ohio State
4 Boston College / 5 Minnesota

But then if you toss in the tourney winners You would punish SLU but send Mercyhurst to Clarkson