PDA

View Full Version : The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1-#59



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Fighting Sioux 23
04-16-2012, 01:11 PM
If you would like to catch up...

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?94422-The-Greatest-Programs-of-All-Time-1-58&p=5430408#post5430408

2012-2013 Preseason Standings:
1. Michigan - 492.1054 points
2. North Dakota - 439.9358 points
3. Minnesota - 411.0563 points
4. Denver - 353.8417 points
5. Boston College 349.1316 points
6. Boston University 345.4844 points
7. Wisconsin - 340.5347 points
8. Michigan State - 234.6119 points
9. Maine - 170.4416 points
10. Michigan Tech - 161.3680 points
11. Cornell - 155.2406 points
12. LSSU - 154.1266 points
13. Colorado College - 148.9003 points
14. Clarkson - 123.7410 points
15. Harvard - 119.2895 points
16. Minnesota Duluth - 110.5424 points
17. RPI - 98.5607 points
18. Northern Michigan - 80.9381 points
19. New Hampshire - 79.7827 points
20. Bowling Green - 79.5213 points
21. St. Lawrence - 64.4836 points
22. Miami - 43.0583 points
23. Providence - 37.8025 points
24. Notre Dame - 37.2961 points
25. Dartmouth 35.3232 points
26. Yale - 33.6690 points
27. Colgate - 28.9543 points
28. Ferris State - 27.3798 points
29. Northeastern - 25.0440 points
30. Brown - 18.5029 points
31. Ohio State - 17.3244 points
32. Vermont - 15.8458 points
33. SCSU - 13.8159 points
34. Bemidji State - 12.3413 points
35. Union - 11.6379 points
36. RIT - 9.5637 points
37. Lowell - 8.5005 points
38. Western Michigan - 7.2926 points
39. Niagara - 6.7155 points
40. Air Force - 6.0956 points
41. Princeton - 5.4220 points
42. Anchorage - 5.3976 points
43. Holy Cross - 4.9548 points
44. Quinnipiac - 4.1548 points
45. Merrimack - 4.1040 points
46. Omaha -3.7569 points
47. Mercyhurst - 3.6398 points
48. Alaska - 3.1866 points
49. Massachusetts - 3.1275 points
50. Mankato - 2.6048 points
51. Alabama Huntsville - 2.2262 points
52. Army - 1.3795 points
53. UConn - 0.2446 points
54. Sacred Heart - 0.1570 points
55. Canisius - 0.0279 points
56. Robert Morris - 0.0267 points
57. Bentley - 0.0255 points
58. American International - 0.0079 points
59. Penn State - 0.0000 points

JohnsonsJerseys
04-16-2012, 01:22 PM
PSU deserves at least a tenth of a point for having a donor willing to fork out tens of millions of dollars. Of course they also get a -70.00 pt deduction for reorganizing all of Western college hockey by starting a team. So I guess that would still leave them in 59th at -69.90 pts.
Ryan J

UncleRay
04-16-2012, 01:47 PM
If Penn State were to open with a win against Michigan, would that put them ahead of AIC? Canisius?

Fighting Sioux 23
04-16-2012, 03:08 PM
If Penn State were to open with a win against Michigan, would that put them ahead of AIC? Canisius?

Well, I don't usually go game by game, but it theoretically could bump them up a few spots, yes. It would also depend on what AIC/Canisius did in their openers and the like. It will be interesting to see how Penn State does in the formula.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-01-2013, 02:23 PM
With 4 teams left, 3 teams making their first Frozen Four appearance, and 0 past national champions, look for big changes in the rankings come April 14th.

Tipsy McStagger
04-01-2013, 02:31 PM
With 4 teams left, 3 teams making their first Frozen Four appearance, and 0 past national champions, look for big changes in the rankings come April 14th.
Can you please link to the formula? I have been hunting for about 10 minutes and can't find it.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-01-2013, 02:33 PM
Can you please link to the formula? I have been hunting for about 10 minutes and can't find it.

I haven't posted the formula, but if you look back at the old thread (I want to say around post 587 or so) I discuss what went into the formula in relatively good detail.


Well, I'm glad most of you enjoyed my research. As promised, I will discuss what criteria I used to determine these rankings and why. I'll also try to answer any questions in a relatively timely manner.

First lets discuss the criteria used. There were a ton of options that I had when picking out what would be used:

National Championships - This was the easiest and most obvious piece of criteria to use. While many of us would agree that the National Champion isn't necessarily the best team that season, it shows two very important things within any one season. First, it shows that team was good throughout the year. Outside the AQs, you can't be good for only a few weekends to make the tournament, you have to be good all year long. Second, the National Champion has to win 2-4 games against other very good teams in order hoist a national trophy. Finally, it's the most pressure packed stage in our game. Given those three things, it was a no brainer that National Championships would be used, and would have some significant weight behind it.

Conference Titles (Regular Season/Tournament) - This was a tricky one. If Conference Titles were to be used, what title would be weighted more heavily, or should they be weighted the same. The Regular Season Conference Title is obviously more difficult to win. It requires strong, consistent play throughout an entire regular season. Saying that, it doesn't have the pressure of the Tournament Title. Also, in conferences that are not as strong as the CCHA, Hockey East, WCHA and ECAC, usually only the Tournament champion advances to the NCAA Tournament. There is also sectional differences here. In the East, the Tournament title is generally seen as more important, while in the West, especially the WCHA, the Regular Season title is seen as the top dog. So, two questions came out of this, 1) Do we count Conference Titles, and 2) How do we weigh Conference Titles. I ultimately decided to count Conference Titles. They are an important piece of a program's history, and honestly, we spend far more time playing for Conference Titles than anything else. As for how to weigh Conference Titles, this was actually aided by my formula strategy (which I will discuss later). In the end, Conference Titles were weighed relatively similar, with Regular Season Conference Titles having a slight edge.

Tournament Appearances - This was an obvious choice as well. Making the NCAA Tournament is a goal for every program at the beginning of each and every season. This criteria also theoretically adds to the weighting of a Conference Tournament Title (at least if you subscribe to the theory that a Tournament Title is more important because it gets you into the NCAA Tournament). Realistically, most teams that win their Conference are going to make the NCAA Tournament, but not always. So, if you were upset that I weighed Regular Season titles slightly over Tournament titles, this criteria basically makes up for that difference.

Tournament Record (W-L-T) - This particular criteria I debated about for awhile. At the end of the day, I felt it was important to include how well a program does in the most pressure packed situations. Once I decided it was in, I debated about whether points should be awarded for Losses in the NCAA Tournament. This was a difficult decision. On one hand, we are already awarding teams for making the tournament, why should they be rewarded for losing in the tournament. On the other hand, playing in the NCAA Tournament is the most pressure packed stage and even playing, and losing, is still very prestigious for most programs. It also further adds weight to making the NCAA Tournament. Ultimately, I decided that losses would get a very small amount of points.

Tournament Winning % - I decided to include this as well. I felt that if I'm going to include points for ties or losses that it should be countered by a winning percentage factor. It also shows which teams did the best in their trips to the NCAA Tournament, along with how well they do when they are in the most pressure packed stage that we have in our game.

Frozen Four Appearances - This was another no doubter.
Frozen Four Record (W-L-T) - See Tournament Record.
Frozen Four Winning % - See Tournament Winning %.

Program Record (W-L-T) - I ultimately decided not to included raw points for Program wins.

Program Winning % - I definitely debated about whether or not to include winning %. There is the obvious con to using this, in that teams play very different schedules. It's not very fair to compare Minnesota's SOS to say Bentley's. Saying that, I felt that winning games is the base of what every program tries to do on a regular basis. At the end of the day, I felt I had to include Program Winning %. I also felt that I needed another criteria that would best account for SOS. After looking through a variety of different ways (including trying to come up with some sort of all-time RPI) I decided I would include Winning Percentage vs NCAA Champions. After all, if you were able to consistently beat the best, that speaks volumes for the difficulty of a program's schedule. If you've never played an NCAA Champion...that also shows what kind of schedule you typically have.

The last set of criteria I looked at was indivdual excellence. I debated for awhile whether I should include this at all, but I ultimately felt that having top notch individuals on your team/program helps show how quality that program is. There were several criteria here:

All-Americans - This was the most obvious choice to use. All-Americans have been awarded since 1954, it is done by a consistent body (AHCA) and it looks at all of the programs. It also shows which players were "the best" that particular year across the nation.

All-Conference - This was a difficult decision, but ultimately I decided against using All-Conference selections. The reasoning behind that, was that if you had a very good team in a very terrible conference, it would skew the results.

Hobey Baker Finalists - At first I thought this was a no brainer if I was going to include All-Americans, but after debating about it, the main thing that was drawing me away from it was that it only applies to 1981-present. Ultimately I decided to include it. It is a more exclusive group than All-Americans (10 chosen compared to 24 All-Americans) and the winner of the award brings a tremendous amount of attention to the program. That is why I also included Hobey Baker winners as a piece of criteria.

Players in the Pros - This was another difficult decision. The biggest stage for hockey is the NHL, and what better way to promote a program than by having a top notch player in the NHL. However, as many of us know, some of the best players in college, do not translate to the pros. Think of all the Hobey Baker Winners that have never played a game in the NHL. Therefore, I decided to not include this.

These were the criteria that I mainly debated about.

FlagDUDE08
04-01-2013, 02:53 PM
QPac's certainly going up in rank.

Tipsy McStagger
04-01-2013, 02:53 PM
I haven't posted the formula, but if you look back at the old thread (I want to say around post 587 or so) I discuss what went into the formula in relatively good detail.
I have a question about the winning % vs. NCAA champions.

A. Is this weighted by number of games played?
B. Does a team get points in this category for games won this year vs. the teams they played that have previously won titles, or is that just for games against the team that wins the title in that year?

Fighting Sioux 23
04-01-2013, 03:25 PM
I have a question about the winning % vs. NCAA champions.

A. Is this weighted by number of games played?
B. Does a team get points in this category for games won this year vs. the teams they played that have previously won titles, or is that just for games against the team that wins the title in that year?

Let me do my best to answer this...

As to A: Yes and No. The % is not weighted as to the number of games played (i.e. going 1-0 is equal to going 100-0), but teams do get a small number of points for each game played (so 100-0 is worth more than 1-0). Ultimately, a team is better off playing and losing to NCAA Champions than not playing them at all (or very infrequently). Obviously, this only applies to the historical nature portion, which leads me to...
As to B: My formula is actually a series of formulas that are averaged. In some of the series, it is historical in nature, so say Tech plays Anchorage, and they tie, Anchorage gets a tie against an NCAA Champion. In others in the series, it is solely based on this season. So if SCSU wins the title, I'll go through each team they played and add their records against the NCAA Champion (So Minnesota would add a 1-1-0 record to this portion). FWIW, the different series produce nearly identical results (i.e. the historical versions of this component come up with nearly identical standings compared with the current version of this component).

I hope that answers your questions.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-01-2013, 03:28 PM
QPac's certainly going up in rank.

They certainly are. If they win the title, they could potentially jump up around 20 spots.

billmich88888
04-01-2013, 05:09 PM
Could you have a "below the line" ranking of discontinued programs?

Wonder if Wayne state would be higher than Bentley

Fighting Sioux 23
04-01-2013, 05:14 PM
Could you have a "below the line" ranking of discontinued programs?

Wonder if Wayne state would be fighter than Bentley

Wayne State would likely be higher (I assume you meant higher) than Bentley given the NCAA Tournament Appearance. How much higher? Not sure.

The problem with discontinued programs is getting the information. It is almost impossible to get anything complete for my purposes.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-14-2013, 12:19 PM
Well, with Yale winning the national championship, expect a big jump for the Bulldogs. I'm still entering in all the information, but I'm hoping to have it completed within the next week or so. Once I do that, then we'll have another countdown of teams.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-15-2013, 04:08 PM
Well, I've completed the data entry, and just finished the double-triple check of data and there were a few things that I found...

1) I missed two tournament appearances: 1 for North Dakota and 1 for Wisconsin
2) I had Denver and Union's overall win totals incorrect last season when I did the rankings.

Anyway, without further delay, let the countdown begin...

59. Bentley - 0.0252 Points

This represents a drop by 0.0003 Points for the Falcons. Bentley went 12-20-3 on the season. The Falcons also went 0-2-0 against former champions, and added a 0-1-0 record to that total when Yale won the title.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-15-2013, 04:57 PM
Coming in at #58...

Penn State Nittany Lions - 0.0267 Points

In their first season at the Division 1 Level, Penn State went 11-12-0 against Division 1 competition, including going 2-2-0 against former national champions.

58. Penn State - 0.0267 Points
59. Bentley - 0.0252 Points

Fighting Sioux 23
04-16-2013, 01:29 PM
Coming in at #57...

Robert Morris - 0.0276 Points

The Colonials went 20-14-4 on the season, the second best ever season (win % wise) for RMU in their short history. Consequently, they earned 0.0009 points despite falling 1 spot to #57.

57. Robert Morris - 0.0276 Points
58. Penn State - 0.0267 Points
59. Bentley - 0.0252 Points

FlagDUDE08
04-16-2013, 01:39 PM
Coming in at #57...

Robert Morris - 0.0276 Points

The Colonials went 20-14-4 on the season, the second best ever season (win % wise) for RMU in their short history. Consequently, they earned 0.0009 points despite falling 1 spot to #57.

57. Robert Morris - 0.0276 Points
58. Penn State - 0.0267 Points
59. Bentley - 0.0252 Points

AIC moves up that much for beating QPac?!

Fighting Sioux 23
04-16-2013, 01:43 PM
AIC moves up that much for beating QPac?!

The ECAC was the most dominating conference in college hockey this year...c'mon man! :p:D:D

The main reason that AIC moved up is because Yale won the title, and AIC has played Yale on numerous occasions in the past. That being said, we're talking hundredths of points.

Biddco
04-16-2013, 01:57 PM
Poor Bentley. They cannot even be better than Penn State.