Re: The Top 25 College Hockey Teams of the NCAA Era
Although I tend to appreciate Gopher hockey from the perspectives that mariucci and happy hold, tradition is not my issue with this thread. FS23 is doing this for fun and, I think, is trying to get folks involved in some actual hockey discussion, rather than the tedious, neanderthal-like flame wars that typify this forum. For that, I congratulate he and the others who support this thread.
That said, I don't see tradition as the issue with this ranking. In my mind, tradition is a qualitative measure that simply doesn't work with a quantitatively derived ranking process, such as FS23 used, which is both its strength and its weakness. To me, a more fundamental flaw of the ranking is the time span. It doesn't make sense to me to compare championship teams from the 50's and 60's with those of the past few decades just because they took place under the auspices of the NCAA, anymore than it makes sense to compare an AAU championship with an NCAA championship.
Of course, the UofMI, MTU and DU, for instance, will hotly dispute my point for obvious reasons. But think about it...the game was far different in the 50's and 60's than it was over the last 20. I know, I played during the 60's. Back then, there were far fewer elite level players and they played fewer games with inferior equipment and facilities. The average level of coaching was also inferior at the college level, considering experience, tactics and motivational skills. The game changed radically after the Soviets began to dominate international play and a number of college coaches had the foresight to adopt Soviet tactics, while the NHL lagged behind holding desperately onto "old-time hockey." Since then, cycling, puck control and transition attack have become nearly standard practices at all levels. Consequently, it takes a team with considerably deeper talent and expert coaching to win a championship today than was the case in the earlier decades of the NCAA. That's not to say the earlier championships don't count, or that they should be downgraded somehow.
One could sort of normalize for this issue by constricting the time spans into decades or two each. But that would defeat the purpose of the ranking, which I believe is basically about bragging rights, so why bother? I'm simply saying there are too many unmeasurable variables, each with unintended consequences, for this type of ranking to have credibility for anything other than bragging rights on the quantitative success of a program.
Although I tend to appreciate Gopher hockey from the perspectives that mariucci and happy hold, tradition is not my issue with this thread. FS23 is doing this for fun and, I think, is trying to get folks involved in some actual hockey discussion, rather than the tedious, neanderthal-like flame wars that typify this forum. For that, I congratulate he and the others who support this thread.
That said, I don't see tradition as the issue with this ranking. In my mind, tradition is a qualitative measure that simply doesn't work with a quantitatively derived ranking process, such as FS23 used, which is both its strength and its weakness. To me, a more fundamental flaw of the ranking is the time span. It doesn't make sense to me to compare championship teams from the 50's and 60's with those of the past few decades just because they took place under the auspices of the NCAA, anymore than it makes sense to compare an AAU championship with an NCAA championship.
Of course, the UofMI, MTU and DU, for instance, will hotly dispute my point for obvious reasons. But think about it...the game was far different in the 50's and 60's than it was over the last 20. I know, I played during the 60's. Back then, there were far fewer elite level players and they played fewer games with inferior equipment and facilities. The average level of coaching was also inferior at the college level, considering experience, tactics and motivational skills. The game changed radically after the Soviets began to dominate international play and a number of college coaches had the foresight to adopt Soviet tactics, while the NHL lagged behind holding desperately onto "old-time hockey." Since then, cycling, puck control and transition attack have become nearly standard practices at all levels. Consequently, it takes a team with considerably deeper talent and expert coaching to win a championship today than was the case in the earlier decades of the NCAA. That's not to say the earlier championships don't count, or that they should be downgraded somehow.
One could sort of normalize for this issue by constricting the time spans into decades or two each. But that would defeat the purpose of the ranking, which I believe is basically about bragging rights, so why bother? I'm simply saying there are too many unmeasurable variables, each with unintended consequences, for this type of ranking to have credibility for anything other than bragging rights on the quantitative success of a program.
Comment