PDA

View Full Version : Do you asterisk an Olympic Year?



WHKY blogger
03-23-2010, 09:08 AM
Do you asterisk an Olympic Year as such?

It's something that Ive seen a little discussion on that I think would make for an interesting offseason discussion.

This season we saw Boston U, Clarkson, and Cornell, build from their 08-09 seasons as well as Robert Morris, Quinnipiac, and Northeastern pull off some impressive wins and some other upsets on the power teams. And still newbie program Syracuse managed to ride a freshman and their senior Goalie to much success landing just short of the conference tournament title.

We saw New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Boston College struggle at times to replace what they lost to the Olympics and Graduation. Minnesota-Duluth conversely lost 6 seniors and 3 players to the Olympics (Not including Larocque who played the second half in Duluth) and still won a National Championship.

As we have seen in the past Olympic years can harbor strange results. However do you chalk this season up as another Olympic Year or is it finally the growth in competition we have all been expecting starting to come to the forefront?

ARM
03-23-2010, 09:30 AM
There is some Olympic effect. For example, both UMD and Cornell would have been approximately a line deeper had they had their players lost due to an Olympic year. But having watched the hockey on Sunday, I didn't get the feeling it was "lesser" hockey. Eight to ten years ago, the product was much more dependent on the top stars; if they weren't there, the product suffered. I think that is less true now, because there are more players who can play at a high level.

OnMAA
03-23-2010, 10:05 AM
Do you asterisk an Olympic Year as such??
No....While some teams are clearly affected more than others, this is still a team sport. Secondly, some teams lose stars due to injury etc, and you don't use an asterisk for that either.


This season we saw Boston U, Clarkson, and Cornell, build from their 08-09 seasons as well as Robert Morris, Quinnipiac, and Northeastern pull off some impressive wins and some other upsets on the power teams. And still newbie program Syracuse managed to ride a freshman and their senior Goalie to much success landing just short of the conference tournament title.

Interesting you mention BU, Clarkson and Cornell. All three of these programs are on the rise anyways, and if you look at recruiting classes and players returning, I would expect all three of these teams to be at or near the top in their divisions next year. Syracuse is a program on the rise regardless, with a coach that has a proven track record to build a program. Even in their rookie campaign they were better than the predictions by most pundits.

dave1381
03-23-2010, 10:19 AM
No, not any more. True in 1998 & 2002, but the Olympic effect is much less relevant today.

In 2002, Brown & Niagara made the Frozen Four, UMD & Minnesota were good but not overly dominant. In 2003, UMD/Minnesota/Harvard/UNH were all a class above everyone else. The underclassmen in the Kaz top 10 list in 2002 didn't even get team nominations in 2003 for the most part. Brown & Niagara were average teams.

In 2006, the Frozen Four teams were UNH, Wisconsin, SLU, and Minnesota. In 2007, Wisconsin & SLU both made the Frozen Four, & UNH still hosted an NCAA game, despite not having a big infusion of Olympic talent. Harvard only did marginally better in 2007 relative to 2006 despite picking up 3 Olympians.

Sure, it's true some teams that were weak in Olympic years will be much improved. In 2006, Dartmouth was average, and then they were ECAC champs in 2007. Wisconsin was average this season, and I'm sure they'll be much better next year. But in terms of good teams in 2010 disappearing in 2011 (like Brown & Niagara between 2002 and 2003), that effect is gone. The programs who improved in 2010 are here to stay.

DIGDOGS
03-23-2010, 11:07 AM
UMD actually lost five-- Irwin, Martin, Holmlov, Winberg, and Asserholt. And that doesn't include the ten games Tuominen and Posa missed. But if you recruit those players, that is the trade-off. UMD knew it coming in and thought they would struggle just to be in the top-eight this year.

JosephPSchmoe
03-23-2010, 11:47 AM
Five seniors and five Olympians (plus Larocque) gone for the Bulldogs.

OnMAA
03-23-2010, 08:29 PM
Five seniors and five Olympians (plus Larocque) gone for the Bulldogs.

What you really gotta count is the ones that would have been there if there were no Olympics. That is presumably (to lazy to look it up ) less than the number 5 listed above.

GoBucky36
03-23-2010, 08:57 PM
Yes. Especially in the case of Wisconsin (who lost several players and their coach to the olympics), it can be a major obstacle for a team to overcome.

Trillium
03-23-2010, 09:43 PM
No, not any more. True in 1998 & 2002, but the Olympic effect is much less relevant today.

In 2002, Brown & Niagara made the Frozen Four, UMD & Minnesota were good but not overly dominant. In 2003, UMD/Minnesota/Harvard/UNH were all a class above everyone else. The underclassmen in the Kaz top 10 list in 2002 didn't even get team nominations in 2003 for the most part. Brown & Niagara were average teams.

In 2006, the Frozen Four teams were UNH, Wisconsin, SLU, and Minnesota. In 2007, Wisconsin & SLU both made the Frozen Four, & UNH still hosted an NCAA game, despite not having a big infusion of Olympic talent. Harvard only did marginally better in 2007 relative to 2006 despite picking up 3 Olympians.

Sure, it's true some teams that were weak in Olympic years will be much improved. In 2006, Dartmouth was average, and then they were ECAC champs in 2007. Wisconsin was average this season, and I'm sure they'll be much better next year. But in terms of good teams in 2010 disappearing in 2011 (like Brown & Niagara between 2002 and 2003), that effect is gone. The programs who improved in 2010 are here to stay.

You always give such great, thorough responses backed up by facts. Thanks for never disappointing.

(would rep you but.....must spread!!! :( )

JosephPSchmoe
03-24-2010, 11:15 AM
What you really gotta count is the ones that would have been there if there were no Olympics. That is presumably (to lazy to look it up ) less than the number 5 listed above.

Team Canada: Haley Irwin
Team Sweden: Elin Holmlov, Pernilla Winberg, Kim Martin, Jenni Asserholt

That's five.

UNHKazooMonkey
03-24-2010, 11:33 AM
No you don't *. If you don't * a year that a team used an inelligible player during the regular season, then you sure don't * an Olympic year. Certain teams lost a lot, but as much complaining as people are doing is insulting to all college hockey teams. Even Wisconsin, (who lost a ton) had a chance to get into the NCAA tourney. Not to mention duluth winning. (those two teams seem the most vocal this year on what they lost.)

Here's to hoping that the parity is here to stay. Is it next season yet?

Hux
03-24-2010, 04:54 PM
No you don't *. If you don't * a year that a team used an inelligible player during the regular season, then you sure don't * an Olympic year. Certain teams lost a lot, but as much complaining as people are doing is insulting to all college hockey teams. Even Wisconsin, (who lost a ton) had a chance to get into the NCAA tourney. Not to mention duluth winning. (those two teams seem the most vocal this year on what they lost.)

Here's to hoping that the Chippity is here to stay. Is it next season yet?

FYP ;)