PDA

View Full Version : Top 100 Greatest Teams of the NCAA era Tournament



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

Cat lover
02-27-2013, 02:48 PM
Where was Vermonts 95-96 final four team? you know the Thomas/StLouis team.
The other three final four teams from that year made the list.
Would have been nice to get some other teams in this instead of some schools having double digit teams in.

MavHockey14
02-27-2013, 03:51 PM
I never would expect them to be in the top 100, or even 200, but do you know where 2002-2003 Minnesota State be?

du78
02-27-2013, 03:51 PM
Kind of surprised DU only scored 3 goals considering they averaged 5.88 goals per game in 77/78. Also surprised at all the posts they hit. That team had some real good snipers on it. Lots of fun FS23!! Looking forward to that 77/78 DU/BU matchup after you complete this tourney.

Priceless
02-27-2013, 04:17 PM
Kind of surprised DU only scored 3 goals considering they averaged 5.88 goals per game in 77/78. Also surprised at all the posts they hit. That team had some real good snipers on it. Lots of fun FS23!! Looking forward to that 77/78 DU/BU matchup after you complete this tourney.
On the other hand, they were facing Alfie Michaud who sported a 28-6-3 record with a 2.32 and 3 shutouts; and a sub 1.5GAA in the postseason.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-27-2013, 05:27 PM
The game reviews are excellent BTW. The only thing that's a little hard to believe are the number of posts that the players hit during each game.

So, what is the next game and when will it be played?

The sim doesn't technically say that the shot hit the post...I add that for effect. :)

That being said, I didn't think 3 posts between the two sides was all that unrealistic.

The next game will be 2001-2002 New Hampshire (#62) vs. 1994-1995 Michigan (#67). Puck drop has not be determined (not today). Perhaps tomorrow. If tomorrow, it would be later in the day. If not tomorrow, then it will likely be Friday around noon.


Where was Vermonts 95-96 final four team? you know the Thomas/StLouis team.
The other three final four teams from that year made the list.
Would have been nice to get some other teams in this instead of some schools having double digit teams in.

I thought about that. I could always do a "best of" Tournament, featuring the top team from each of the 59 schools. Perhaps following this tournament.

The '95-96 Vermont squad finished #195 with 101.4492 points. Just ahead of them at #194 was the '57-58 National Champions Denver, and Just below them at #196 was the '90-91 Clarkson squad.


I never would expect them to be in the top 100, or even 200, but do you know where 2002-2003 Minnesota State be?

The '02-03 Mavs finished at #355 with 64.4907 points. Just ahead of them at #354 was the '94-95 Clarkson squad. Just below them at #356 was the '75-76 National Champions Minnesota.


Kind of surprised DU only scored 3 goals considering they averaged 5.88 goals per game in 77/78. Also surprised at all the posts they hit. That team had some real good snipers on it. Lots of fun FS23!! Looking forward to that 77/78 DU/BU matchup after you complete this tourney.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. As Priceless mentioned, the '98-99 squad had a tremendous goalie, capable of keeping any team in check. Just about any matchup in this tournament is a tossup. The Maine squad had a 51.35% chance of victory, and they barely squeaked it out. IMO, any game decided by more than a goal in these early matchups (not counting ENG) is an outlier of sorts. Even the '77-78 DU/BU matchup (#69 DU vs. #11 BU) is relatively even. BU would only be a roughly 60/40 favorite. As promised, I'll make sure and run that matchup for you after the tournament...just remind me at that time.

JimmyC67
02-28-2013, 01:38 AM
FS23

Great simulation tournament! If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to link this thread to my website (we do simulated tournaments for hockey, football, basketball, baseball). Not trying to steal any thunder...eventually we'll do a College Hockey Greats with only 8 teams. Still need to locate stats for 1960-61 Denver. This won't be as grand a scale as your tournament.

I had a question: I found an old all-time rankings of yours (sometime last year) to round out the field of 8. I had the 1977-78 BU squad with a 30-2 record in the field. I noticed you had the 2008-09 BU team ranked above them. Is that a strength of schedule thing that placed the latter team ahead of the former? 1978 Terriers were loaded with talent...just curious...may have to have a "play-in" to see who gets in.

Thanks again and let my know about the link...keep up the good work

JimmyC67
02-28-2013, 01:48 AM
The '87-'88 SLU squad ranked #153 All-Time. They totaled 118.6044 points, about 20 points behind the #100 squad ('02-'03 UNH). To put it into perspective, the #152 team is the '88-'89 LSSU squad, and the #154 team is the '09-'10 BC squad.



'90-'91 NMU is #5. I had to use "No. Michigan" for NMU. I did not rank the '81-'82 NMU squad. They were 15-21-0, and missed the NCAA Tournament. Perhaps it was a different squad that you were thinking of? Wasn't the 1981-82 North Dakota team a strong club? Maybe it was them instead of NMU....very cool tournament...love the creativity and detail

FreshFish
02-28-2013, 09:03 AM
I could always do a "best of" Tournament, featuring the top team from each of the 59 schools. Perhaps following this tournament.

Would some of those schools have a play-in tournament to determine which team represents them in the inter-school tournament?

You have some schools who might have multiple contenders for that one slot...do you take Cornell with Dryden or Cornell's perfect season team the year after Dryden graduated? the latter might "only" have a 56% - 44% chance of winning that game (or some similar number), no?

RPI fan 4 life
02-28-2013, 10:11 AM
Would some of those schools have a play-in tournament to determine which team represents them in the inter-school tournament?

You have some schools who might have multiple contenders for that one slot...do you take Cornell with Dryden or Cornell's perfect season team the year after Dryden graduated? the latter might "only" have a 56% - 44% chance of winning that game (or some similar number), no?

Or better yet, since there are currently 59 Div I teams, how about adding 5 teams who no longer play Division I hockey (Wayne State, Illinois Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc.) and making it a field of 64?

Shirtless Guy
02-28-2013, 10:29 AM
Or better yet, since there are currently 59 Div I teams, how about adding 5 teams who no longer play Division I hockey (Wayne State, Illinois Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc.) and making it a field of 64?Certainly could add the best seasons of Wayne State, Findlay, Illinois Chicago, Fairfield and Iona.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-28-2013, 12:16 PM
FS23

Great simulation tournament! If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to link this thread to my website (we do simulated tournaments for hockey, football, basketball, baseball). Not trying to steal any thunder...eventually we'll do a College Hockey Greats with only 8 teams. Still need to locate stats for 1960-61 Denver. This won't be as grand a scale as your tournament.

I had a question: I found an old all-time rankings of yours (sometime last year) to round out the field of 8. I had the 1977-78 BU squad with a 30-2 record in the field. I noticed you had the 2008-09 BU team ranked above them. Is that a strength of schedule thing that placed the latter team ahead of the former? 1978 Terriers were loaded with talent...just curious...may have to have a "play-in" to see who gets in.

Thanks again and let my know about the link...keep up the good work

I have no problem with linking to this thread. I can't imagine USCHO would either, but I don't speak for them. :)

As for your question, the '08-09 BU and '77-78 BU squads were very close in the rankings, and the biggest reason why the '08-09 squad ranked slightly higher was due to the fact that they won their Conference Tournament, while the '77-78 squad did not (Finished 3rd). The two teams SOS numbers were very similar, and didn't really have a huge effect on their differing point totals. Had the '77-78 squad won their conference tournament, they would have likely been in the top 5.


Wasn't the 1981-82 North Dakota team a strong club? Maybe it was them instead of NMU....very cool tournament...love the creativity and detail

'81-82 UND was a very good squad (#65 on my list), but they tend to get overshadowed by the '79-80 team (#23) somewhat, and definitely by the '86-87 team (#4).

Fighting Sioux 23
02-28-2013, 12:24 PM
Would some of those schools have a play-in tournament to determine which team represents them in the inter-school tournament?

You have some schools who might have multiple contenders for that one slot...do you take Cornell with Dryden or Cornell's perfect season team the year after Dryden graduated? the latter might "only" have a 56% - 44% chance of winning that game (or some similar number), no?

We could have a play-in to decide. Perhaps take the top 2 teams from each school, and square them off in a best of 3 series.


Or better yet, since there are currently 59 Div I teams, how about adding 5 teams who no longer play Division I hockey (Wayne State, Illinois Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc.) and making it a field of 64?

This is possible, but it would require me to get a bunch of data that I don't really have. I would need detailed media guides from each of the schools to begin to compile the data. I could probably do Wayne State, Iona, and Findlay, but I don't have the requisite info from schools like UIC, Penn, Kent, etc.

Most likely, I would just give the top 5 schools byes. Although, if I can get the information, I would be willing to at least attempt to include those schools...Wayne State being the easiest because they actually had a team make the NCAA Tournament, and they are already ranked in my formula (#536).

Fighting Sioux 23
03-01-2013, 09:39 AM
Game today (2001-2002 UNH vs. 1994-1995 Michigan) will likely have a puck drop of 2:00pm Eastern.

Shirtless Guy
03-01-2013, 09:43 AM
Game today (2001-2002 UNH vs. 1994-1995 Michigan) will likely have a puck drop of 2:00pm Eastern.Come on Billy Muckalt!

Fighting Sioux 23
03-01-2013, 09:50 AM
Come on Billy Muckalt!

The 1994-1995 Michigan Roster was loaded...didn't realize that prior to doing this formula/ranking. You had Brendan Morrison, John Madden, Mike Knuble, Marty Turco, Bill Mcukalt, and Blake Sloan...plus another handful of guys that all had at least a couple dozen games in the NHL. I wouldn't be surprised if this squad put up close to 4500-5000 NHL games combined...pretty darn impressive.

And they'll be the slight underdog in the game. :p:D:D

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 09:54 AM
Have to give credit where credit is due. This is a pretty cool idea and has been pretty well done. Kudos to you FS23, I have been really enjoying this. Especially the game descriptions.

Shirtless Guy
03-01-2013, 09:59 AM
The 1994-1995 Michigan Roster was loaded...didn't realize that prior to doing this formula/ranking. You had Brendan Morrison, John Madden, Mike Knuble, Marty Turco, Bill Mcukalt, and Blake Sloan...plus another handful of guys that all had at least a couple dozen games in the NHL. I wouldn't be surprised if this squad put up close to 4500-5000 NHL games combined...pretty darn impressive.

And they'll be the slight underdog in the game. :p:D:DPretty impressive, 11 guys with NHL games, 7 with over 150 games...totaling just over 4300 games combined.

Fighting Sioux 23
03-01-2013, 10:02 AM
Pretty impressive, 11 guys with NHL games, 7 with over 150 games...totaling just over 4300 games combined.

Now you've got me wondering how other teams stack up.

Maybe this summer...:p:D:D

FreshFish
03-01-2013, 10:32 AM
Now you've got me wondering how other teams stack up.

Maybe this summer...:p:D:D

Of course, you will have to weight the teams by the number of NHL roster slots available at that time.

I don't know the exact details, but suppose there were 20 roster spots on each team in the "Original Six" era. That means there were 120 roster spots available per season, or, say, 480 possible roster slots over a four-year period (assuming that you either make it to the NHL in your first 4 years out of college or you don't make it at all).

So if one team in 1950s or early 1960s had 3 NHL players on it, that is an extraordinarily amazing score of 0.625%

Again, I don't know the exact details, but suppose now there are 24 roster spots on each of 30 teams, or 720 roster spots per season, or 3600 possible roster slots over a five-year period (five years instead of four, assuming that there is now more opportunity to play professional hockey at other levels longer, and a greater chance of being called up later).

If one modern team had 8 NHL players on it, that is still an impressive 0.22% score, but nowhere near as dominating as the first one.

Sounds right up your alley! Look forward to seeing it. :)



PS in order to <strike>silence</strike> tone down certain opiniated loudmouths, I also have some ideas on how one could develop a metric to measure "tradition" in a tangible, meaningful way, if you would be interested to hear about them. It might shift the dialog back toward areas of genuine curiosity and common inquiry toward a shared goal.

Fighting Sioux 23
03-01-2013, 10:39 AM
Of course, you will have to weight the teams by the number of NHL roster slots available at that time.

I don't know the exact details, but suppose there were 20 roster spots on each team in the "Original Six" era. That means there were 120 roster spots available per season, or, say, 480 possible roster slots over a four-year period (assuming that you either make it to the NHL in your first 4 years out of college or you don't make it at all).

So if one team in 1950s or early 1960s had 3 NHL players on it, that is an extraordinarily amazing score of 0.625%

Again, I don't know the exact details, but suppose now there are 24 roster spots on each of 30 teams, or 720 roster spots per season, or 3600 possible roster slots over a five-year period (five years instead of four, assuming that there is now more opportunity to play professional hockey at other levels longer, and a greater chance of being called up later).

If one modern team had 8 NHL players on it, that is still an impressive 0.22% score, but nowhere near as dominating as the first one.

Sounds right up your alley! Look forward to seeing it. :)

I don't know if I would use it for anything more than my curiosity, but keep in mind that there also weren't as many people playing hockey in the 1950s and 1960s. There is probably some middle ground there, but I don't know exactly where. If I decide to do it, I'll probably start a new thread and we can hash out some sort of compromise.




PS in order to <strike>silence</strike> tone down certain opiniated loudmouths, I also have some ideas on how one could develop a metric to measure "tradition" in a tangible, meaningful way, if you would be interested to hear about them. It might shift the dialog back toward areas of genuine curiosity and common inquiry toward a shared goal.

I would definitely be interested in hearing them. That being said, it probably isn't best for this thread, as tradition has little or nothing to do with how a single team performs against another single team. Feel free to post it in my Greatest Programs of All-Time thread, and I'd be more than interested to see. And who could you possibly be talking about? :p:D:D ;)