The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era

[Fighting Sioux 23]

So, as we saw yesterday, the #25 Greatest Team of the NCAA Era was released.

For those of you who missed it, it was the 1994-1995 Boston University Terriers. They finished less than a point ahead of the 2004-2005 Colorado College Tigers, 1959-1960 Denver Pioneers and the 1996-1997 North Dakota Fighting Sioux, so it was a very close contest to see who would crack the top 25.

I have submitted the information for the #24 team of all-time, and it should be up shortly. I will post the link when I see that it is up.

[buoldtimer]

So, as we saw yesterday, the #25 Greatest Team of the NCAA Era was released.

For those of you who missed it, it was the 1994-1995 Boston University Terriers. They finished less than a point ahead of the 2004-2005 Colorado College Tigers, 1959-1960 Denver Pioneers and the 1996-1997 North Dakota Fighting Sioux, so it was a very close contest to see who would crack the top 25.

I have submitted the information for the #24 team of all-time, and it should be up shortly. I will post the link when I see that it is up.

This is great stuff.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

This is great stuff.

Thank you. I'm glad most people are enjoying it thus far.

Here is the link again, with #24 now online...

http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/greatest-teams.html

[burgie12]

"The streak ran to the semifinals of the *ECAC Tournament* where the 25-1-1 Terriers..."

But, great writing and it's really enjoyable reading (again) about the old teams that I never got a chance to see.

[JF_Gophers]

Eastern Bias.

So Maine pretty much has this wrapped up, eh?

[Fighting Sioux 23]

"The streak ran to the semifinals of the *ECAC Tournament* where the 25-1-1 Terriers..."

But, great writing and it's really enjoyable reading (again) about the old teams that I never got a chance to see.

I just figured the Beanpot was all that BU cared about, that they called every tourney the Beanpot

I'll send in a note and that should corrected shortly. Thanks for spotting that.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Eastern Bias.

So Maine pretty much has this wrapped up, eh?

As I stated before, there were 10 teams in the top 25 that had 2 losses or less, and 10 teams that had a winning percentage over .900. Also of note, only 1 team failed to at least win a share of its Regular Season conference title. There are definitely a lot of interesting facts.

[FreshFish]

As I stated before, there were 10 teams in the top 25 that had 2 losses or less, and 10 teams that had a winning percentage over .900. Also of note, only 1 team failed to at least win a share of its Regular Season conference title. There are definitely a lot of interesting facts.

Yes, I know of at least one team that went undefeated....and another that went 35-2-1 (is that a 93.4% winning percentage? I'm not sure how ties are calculated....), including 20-1 in its conference.

It looks like the wild card, so to speak, will be those other scoring elements in your ranking formula, like All Americans and such.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Yes, I know of at least one team that went undefeated....and another that went 35-2-1 (is that a 93.4% winning percentage? I'm not sure how ties are calculated....), including 20-1 in its conference.

It looks like the wild card, so to speak, will be those other scoring elements in your ranking formula, like All Americans and such.

You have the percentage right. Think of points, and it makes it easy to calculate (i.e. 2 points for win, 1 for tie and add those up and divide by points possible).

Keep in mind that winning percentage isn't everything. Who you play has a lot to do with it as well. For example, beating a tournament team by 1 is better than beating a nobody by 6.

[burgie12]

Yes, I know of at least one team that went undefeated....

There are three, actually.

Clarkson, 1956, 23-0-0
Iona, 1967, 16-0-0
Cornell, 1970, 29-0-0

Only one won the national championship. I, like Interested, would not be surprised to find them at #1 when this is all said and done.

NCAA Division I Record Book (pdf) (pages 13 and 17)

FS23, I'm curious where Iona's 1967 team would rank in your list of 250. It may difficult to compile enough relevant information.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

There are three, actually.

Clarkson, 1956, 23-0-0
Iona, 1967, 16-0-0
Cornell, 1970, 29-0-0

Only one won the national championship. I, like Interested, would not be surprised to find them at #1 when this is all said and done.

NCAA Division I Record Book (pdf) (pages 13 and 17)

FS23, I'm curious where Iona's 1967 team would rank in your list of 250. It may difficult to compile enough relevant information.

If you have their schedule along with scores of games I could pop it in and tell you.

[Ralph Baer]

I just checked the 1968 NCAA Ice Hockey Guide and Iona isn't listed. I don't see them on anyone else's schedule either. They must have been playing a club schedule.

Edit: The first year they show up is 1972 playing a collection of NYC schools, eastern JVs, and community colleges.

[FreshFish]

Keep in mind that winning percentage isn't everything. Who you play has a lot to do with it as well. For example, beating a tournament team by 1 is better than beating a nobody by 6.

Do you mean beating a tournament team in your out-of-conference schedule (or in conference, I suppose....)?

Otherwise I'm guessing you have to make some adjustments based on the number of teams who played in the tournament to equalize for the chaning number of tournament games over time.

I can appreciate how tricky this is, for a person can say being undefeated means you beat everyone you played, while another could argue that 29-0 should not be as impressive as 35-1.....how do you "mark down" the first team relative to the second when the number of teams they are allowed to schedule is beyond their control?

[burgie12]

I just checked the 1968 NCAA Ice Hockey Guide and Iona isn't listed. I don't see them on anyone else's schedule either. They must have been playing a club schedule.

Edit: The first year they show up is 1972 playing a collection of NYC schools, eastern JVs, and community colleges.

The PDF does say that all pre-1995-96 data was all submitted by individual teams and could include exhibitions / games against Canadian teams. I guess they forgot to also say club team games, too.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Do you mean beating a tournament team in your out-of-conference schedule (or in conference, I suppose....)?

Beating a tournament team at all really. It doesn't matter if it is out-of-conference, in-conference, or even in the NCAA Tournament. Obviously, if there were several tournament teams in your conference, it lends credence that you played in a really difficult conference that year (also, with the advent of the Pairwise, it generally shows that your conference was very good out of conference as well).

Otherwise I'm guessing you have to make some adjustments based on the number of teams who played in the tournament to equalize for the chaning number of tournament games over time.

This is where the "tweak" came in. It wasn't fair to a team from an era where only four teams made the tournament, compared to today where sixteen make it.

I can appreciate how tricky this is, for a person can say being undefeated means you beat everyone you played, while another could argue that 29-0 should not be as impressive as 35-1.....how do you "mark down" the first team relative to the second when the number of teams they are allowed to schedule is beyond their control?

It is very tricky. 29-0 is impressive, as is 35-1. If the 29-0 team feasted on cupcakes the entire year, and didn't play a tournament team until the NCAA Tournament and managed to win both, is that better than a team that went 35-1, went 14-1 against tournament teams and won it all? Does it make a difference if the 29-0 team barely wins their big games while the 35-1 squad blew everyone out? I tried to answer those questions in my formula. It's basically the Boise State problem that college football is facing. There are very good arguments either way.

[FreshFish]

Beating a tournament team at all really. It doesn't matter if it is out-of-conference, in-conference, or even in the NCAA Tournament. Obviously, if there were several tournament teams in your conference, it lends credence that you played in a really difficult conference that year (also, with the advent of the Pairwise, it generally shows that your conference was very good out of conference as well).

This is where the "tweak" came in. It wasn't fair to a team from an era where only four teams made the tournament, compared to today where sixteen make it.

It is very tricky. 29-0 is impressive, as is 35-1. If the 29-0 team feasted on cupcakes the entire year, and didn't play a tournament team until the NCAA Tournament and managed to win both, is that better than a team that went 35-1, went 14-1 against tournament teams and won it all? Does it make a difference if the 29-0 team barely wins their big games while the 35-1 squad blew everyone out? I tried to answer those questions in my formula. It's basically the Boise State problem that college football is facing. There are very good arguments either way.

Well thank you very much for thinking this through so clearly and putting in all the work compiling and crunching the data.

It looks like that 35-2-1 team that I want to see do really well in your rankings will actually do better than I had at first expected, since they went 6-0-1 against tournament teams that year (in a year in which 8 teams made the tournament; it looks like the quarterfinals were best cumulative score over two games, since they advanced to the semi-finals with a win and a tie, so that they were 3-0-1 in the tournament itself). I had pegged them initially as between 6 and 15 inclusive, now I may have to bump them up a few spots. I think the All - American points other programs will get will wind up costing this team a few fractional points at the end, so that they won't be as high as their record alone might indicate relative to other teams. As you've said, it will be fun to see how it all unfolds.

Once all said and done, might you be able to post the list along with the scores? I think it might be fun [for me to] to then adjust it so that anyone within a certain range is tied, so that the adjusted result looks more like golf tournament finishes as I noted in an earlier post (1,2,3,3,3,6,6,8,8,8,8,11 etc).

I wish I new more about the history to be able to guess more about the order. It is interesting to notice how the game has evolved over time. I still get a chuckle when I think about a motivational ploy used in Colorado Springs, for example...

[LynahFan]

You definitely have to be very careful in the treatment of record vs. tournament teams. Until 1976, only 2 eastern and 2 western teams made the tournament, and there was very little east-west crossover for regular season games. So out of all the teams in your region, there would be only one other tournament team that you would even have a chance to play. Throw in the fact that the ECAC was a 17-team league with a massively unbalanced schedule (and I assume the West was similar prior to the formation of the CCHA in 1973), and it's not too surprising that there would be very, very few meetings between tournament teams until the actual tournament.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

You definitely have to be very careful in the treatment of record vs. tournament teams. Until 1976, only 2 eastern and 2 western teams made the tournament, and there was very little east-west crossover for regular season games. So out of all the teams in your region, there would be only one other tournament team that you would even have a chance to play. Throw in the fact that the ECAC was a 17-team league with a massively unbalanced schedule (and I assume the West was similar prior to the formation of the CCHA in 1973), and it's not too surprising that there would be very, very few meetings between tournament teams until the actual tournament.

Exactly. This was somewhat of a flaw in the first ranking that I did, and that is why I initially ranked teams within their "era". I wanted to have just one list this time, and that's why I came up with a tweak to the formula to put teams from the 50's, 60's and 70's (generalization) on par with teams from the last 30 years.

[Bigus Paulus]

So which BU team will be 23??

[ScoobyDoo]

So which BU team will be 23??

This.