PDA

View Full Version : NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

HumRsky
04-13-2012, 11:58 PM
This is a ranking I put together of every current D1 hockey team based only on what they have accomplished; winning %, NCAA win % and other metrics were not considered. This is not intended to be better than FS23's in any way. This represents about 4-5 hours of research and math, not years and I do believe that the metrics FS23 used are very valid for comparing programs, this is just another way of ranking the teams.

The scoring system I used is as follows:
National Title (NT) - 10pts
Championship Game Appearance (ChG) - 5pts
Frozen Four Appearance (FF) - 4pts
Major Conference Regular Season title (RS) - 4pts
Major Conference Playoff Title (Pl) - 4pts
NCAA Appearances (App) - 2 pts
Minor Conference Regular Season title (RS) - 2pts
Minor Conference Playoff Title (Pl) - 2pts
NCAA Wins (Wins) - 1 pt

Further explanation:
Minor Conference Titles are designated with a lowercase "m," so if a team has one minor conference title it would be designated 1m in that column. Similarly, for the seasons in which there were two WCHA playoff "winners" I gave those teams half credit, or 2 points and those titles are designated with a lowercase "h," so if a team was a playoff co-winner 7 times, it will be designated 7h in that column. I gave full credit to all regular season champions, even co-Champions, because I didn't feel like going back and sorting through all that.
The Tri-State League and the Ivy League are considered major conference champions from 1948-49 until the formation of the ECAC in 1961-62. This gave teams in those league perhaps an unfair advantage, Harvard and St. Lawrence were helped particularly by this inclusion and people will probably bemoan how high they are ranked. The champions of those leagues after the formation of the ECAC were not included. I considered the first season of the Midwest Collegiate Hockey League in 1951-52 as the first season of the WCHA. I considered all CCHA championships as major although a strong argument could be made that it was not a major conference until the late '70s. The minor conference I used are MAAC/Atlantic Hockey, College Hockey America, and the Great West.

Note that points are cumulative. For example, another way of looking at the points is that a National Title is worth 25 points (1 NCAA Appearance, 4 NCAA wins, 1 Frozen Four Appearance, 1 Championship game appearance, 1 National Title) and a runner up is worth 14 points (1 NCAA Appearance, 3 NCAA wins, 1 Frozen Four Appearance, 1 Championship game appearance) and so on... People will probably also gripe that, particularly in the minor conferences, the playoff title should be worth more because of the auto-bid, but don't forget the auto-bid means an NCAA appearance and an automatic 2 additional points that are not guaranteed to the Regular Season Champion.

I will list all of the numbers and total points, so if you really don't like my point system, come up with your own and plug it into the numbers given.
The rankings will be in the next post...discuss.

SCSU Euro
04-14-2012, 12:09 AM
Minnesota's ranked too high... Or do I have to wait until the rankings are posted?

HumRsky
04-14-2012, 12:18 AM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/579021_10101901393189740_13966976_76945111_1152170 546_n.jpg

Biddco
04-14-2012, 12:32 AM
Minnesota's ranked too high... Or do I have to wait until the rankings are posted?You do.

And here I thought the Gophers were the greatest team in the history of sport.

SCSU Euro
04-14-2012, 12:45 AM
Union should be ranked 9 spots higher

ScoobyDoo
04-14-2012, 08:30 AM
You do.

And here I thought the Gophers were the greatest team in the history of sport.

With the tradition modifier Minnesota is #1.

willythekid
04-14-2012, 08:37 AM
How on earth do you rank teams without taking into consideration percentage of in-state athletes that are on said team?

Ralph Baer
04-14-2012, 08:44 AM
Since you gave teams half credit for shared league tourney championships, perhaps teams should also have received half credit for NCAA ties, e.g. RPI and Lake State tied a game in 1985.

burd
04-14-2012, 09:12 AM
With the tradition modifier Minnesota is #1.

:) With the tradition modifier Minnesota is the only contestant.

HumRsky
04-14-2012, 09:51 AM
Since you gave teams half credit for shared league tourney championships, perhaps teams should also have received half credit for NCAA ties, e.g. RPI and Lake State tied a game in 1985.

I thought of that, but only a handful of teams have ties and only Wisconsin has two. Also, since those were part of the old two-game total goals round, the teams with ties either won or lost the other game, which ended up being the game that mattered for moving on in the tournament.

Onion Man
04-14-2012, 10:08 AM
Teams that "envy Minnesota" should automatically earn an extra point.

HumRsky
04-14-2012, 10:20 AM
Teams that "envy Minnesota" should automatically earn an extra point.

Everyone would earn an extra point except Minnesota, but with their extra point for the tradition bonus, the rankings would be exactly the same.

JDUBBS1280
04-14-2012, 10:25 AM
Sigh..... And I thought FS23's rankings were bad.

willythekid
04-14-2012, 10:42 AM
Sigh..... And I thought FS23's rankings were bad.

you could do your own rankings but that would be way more work than you put into your asinine posts...

JDUBBS1280
04-14-2012, 11:24 AM
you could do your own rankings but that would be way more work than you put into your asinine posts...

Why?

Fighting Sioux 23
04-14-2012, 11:31 AM
Why?

Because you would actually have to look at other programs besides Minnesota.

Good job HumRsky. I obviously had different weightings and looked at different things, but in just looking at team accomplishments this is a pretty good formula. These are always fun to do and look at how the results come out. Anyway, kudos, well done.

Dirty
04-14-2012, 11:35 AM
With the tradition modifier Minnesota is #1.
.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/roLZj_f9sN8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HumRsky
04-14-2012, 11:43 AM
Because you would actually have to look at other programs besides Minnesota.

Good job HumRsky. I obviously had different weightings and looked at different things, but in just looking at team accomplishments this is a pretty good formula. These are always fun to do and look at how the results come out. Anyway, kudos, well done.
Thanks! Since you think about these things a lot harder than any of the rest of us, I was curious about your reaction. I appreciate the positive response. :)

Fighting Sioux 23
04-14-2012, 11:48 AM
Thanks! Since you think about these things a lot harder than any of the rest of us, I was curious about your reaction. I appreciate the positive response. :)

You're welcome. Really, my only criticisms would be nit-picky type stuff (i.e. a championships won in 1948 was worth less (23 points) than a championship won in 2008 (25 points)). That and there are a few numbers that differ from what I have, but as for the formula, I think it works well especially from a relationship standpoint. Like I said before, I would have weighted things a tad differently, but that's just our differences of opinion. Again, I like the formula, and good job.

HumRsky
04-14-2012, 12:06 PM
You're welcome. Really, my only criticisms would be nit-picky type stuff (i.e. a championships won in 1948 was worth less (23 points) than a championship won in 2008 (25 points)). That and there are a few numbers that differ from what I have, but as for the formula, I think it works well especially from a relationship standpoint. Like I said before, I would have weighted things a tad differently, but that's just our differences of opinion. Again, I like the formula, and good job.
I forgot to mention in my first post that I got my NCAA tournament numbers from the NCAA record book, and therefore did not include vacated years. I got my conference numbers from the College Hockey Historical Archive. My decision to include Ivy League and Tri-State Champioships from 1948-1961 may have given me some different numbers than you. I felt that teams in those conferences were very relevant at that time and that was the only conference those teams were in.