PDA

View Full Version : The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58



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

Ralph Baer
02-22-2011, 06:18 PM
Books are nice, but obviously, big schools with big fan bases are going to sell more copies than small schools with small fanbases.

I have college hockey books highlighting Minnesota, Michigan, Denver, Cornell, BU, Michigan State, Yale, North Dakota and Wisconsin off the top of my head.

There are probably others, and my favorite two college hockey books are about Princeton's Hobey Baker.

RPI http://www.amazon.com/Skating-Engineers-Hockey-Images-Sports/dp/073853692X

goblue78
02-22-2011, 06:33 PM
For instance, you get x amount of points for a NCAA Tournament bid, y amount of points for a NCAA Tournament win and z amount of points for a NCAA Tournament loss. Then let's make p = NCAA Tournament winning percentage. Then what we do is take p(x+y+z). That's not exactly how mine works, but it's fairly similar.

OK. But now I'm even more confused. This formula makes any criterion in percentages much more important than a criterion in raw counts, since it multiplies the raw counts. If you don't want to give out the formula, that's fine, but I'm professionally curious. By the way, your basic underlying theory, to pick criteria that make sense and then let the chips fall where they may, is the only logical way to proceed. But once you have the individual metrics, you want to make as robust a set of weights as you can. As you mention, the criteria you use all move pretty much together, which helps. But the question is whether minor formula changes change the rankings.

One suggestion: create rankings for all 6 criteria (1-58) and then add the ranks. If you get the same rankings of that aggregate method as with yours, that forms a excellent test of robustness.

Runninwiththedogs
02-22-2011, 06:35 PM
Ok, here's what's going on here.

FreshFish has an agenda. FreshFish, did you recently author a book about college hockey or something? Of ALL the possible choices for measuring fan participation, you choose books.

I'd reject it completely without even being polite about it. What a stupid criterion.

Dirty
02-22-2011, 06:41 PM
Ok, here's what's going on here.

FreshFish has an agenda. FreshFish, did you recently author a book about college hockey or something? Of ALL the possible choices for measuring fan participation, you choose books.

I'd reject it completely without even being polite about it. What a stupid criterion.

You're only saying that because your fanbase sucks! All you have is that old man who is so old that he babysat Phil, DHG who is now on the downside of his taunting career and Biddy. Pathetic.

Ralph Baer
02-22-2011, 06:43 PM
Ok, here's what's going on here.

FreshFish has an agenda. FreshFish, did you recently author a book about college hockey or something? Of ALL the possible choices for measuring fan participation, you choose books.

I'd reject it completely without even being polite about it. What a stupid criterion.


I assume that means that no one has written a book about tUMD. How about total posts on USCHO? :p

Fighting Sioux 23
02-22-2011, 06:43 PM
OK. But now I'm even more confused. This formula makes any criterion in percentages much more important than a criterion in raw counts, since it multiplies the raw counts. If you don't want to give out the formula, that's fine, but I'm professionally curious. By the way, your basic underlying theory, to pick criteria that make sense and then let the chips fall where they may, is the only logical way to proceed. But once you have the individual metrics, you want to make as robust a set of weights as you can. As you mention, the criteria you use all move pretty much together, which helps. But the question is whether minor formula changes change the rankings.

One suggestion: create rankings for all 6 criteria (1-58) and then add the ranks. If you get the same rankings of that aggregate method as with yours, that forms a excellent test of robustness.

It's not exact, but, at least for the top 40 or so, everyone is +/- 2 positions. I did that before I released the rankings to make sure that my formulas weren't too skewed. When you get down to the bottom 20 or so, you see a little more variance. I guess the way I see it, the Points and the Percentages play off each other. Ideally a program would have both a ton of points and very high percentages to give themselves the highest total. The programs that best did that were ranked the highest.

Runninwiththedogs
02-22-2011, 06:44 PM
I assume that means that no one has written a book about tUMD. How about total posts on USCHO? :p

That would just prove which fanbase has the biggest losers.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-22-2011, 06:45 PM
I assume that means that no one has written a book about tUMD. How about total posts on USCHO? :p

IMO, posters on a site like USCHO is just as valid a measure as books.

Biddco
02-22-2011, 06:49 PM
You're only saying that because your fanbase sucks! All you have is that old man who is so old that he babysat Phil, DHG who is now on the downside of his taunting career and Biddy. Pathetic.

The one bright spot!

Happy
02-22-2011, 07:25 PM
I can't imagine the time it took to put together this project, but I hope it was a labor of love. I think that almost everyone that visited this thread really did enjoy even if they didn't post to that effect. It stimulated some great discussion as any great thread deserving a hall of fame nod should. It's a shame that an @-hole like happy has to come along at the end and crap on it because his feelings were hurt, the North Dakota envy must be really making him squirm this year. Thanks for all the effort and can't wait to see where UND sits next year after winning #8....:D

Look stupid. This is one man's idea, which he put a lot of work into, and he did a wonderful job. However, it is a very slanted formula, it basically would probably be fairly accurate if he had said, "Best programs since 1948" since most of his numbers are from after 1948. The information to compare data from before 1948 is much harder to come by, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of "all time".

and, I don't envy UND, after all many of it's championship were won by over-age ex-professional Canadian players, who I disdain. I certainly wouldn't trade a wonderful arena like Mariucci, which has hosted two Championship Gopher teams, for a vanity Hitler-bunker on the god-forsaken frozen tundra, which has never been a host yet to a current Championship team. I do find it funny how the Gopher's arena is named after a Minnesotan, and so is the Sue's.

ecbrevik
02-22-2011, 07:26 PM
How about total posts on USCHO? :p
A metric that RPI can win :D

ecbrevik
02-22-2011, 07:29 PM
Look stupid. This is one man's idea, which he put a lot of work into, and he did a wonderful job. However, it is a very slanted formula, it basically would probably be fairly accurate if he had said, "Best programs since 1948" since most of his numbers are from after 1948. The information to compare data from before 1948 is much harder to come by, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of "all time".

and, I don't envy UND, after all many of it's championship were won by over-age ex-professional Canadian players, who I disdain. I certainly wouldn't trade a wonderful arena like Mariucci, which has hosted two Championship Gopher teams, for a vanity Hitler-bunker on the god-forsaken frozen tundra, which has never been a host yet to a current Championship team. I do find it funny how the Gopher's arena is named after a Minnesotan, and so is the Sue's.
If nothing else, no one can ever say you aren't consistent. :D

Fighting Sioux 23
02-22-2011, 07:31 PM
If nothing else, no one can ever say you aren't consistent. :D

What's interesting, is that early in his post, Happy eludes to Ralph Engelstad to being a Nazi, and then later praises him for being a Minnesotan.

ecbrevik
02-22-2011, 07:36 PM
What's interesting, is that early in his post, Happy eludes to Ralph Engelstad to being a Nazi, and then later praises him for being a Minnesotan.
But through it all he rips on UND and our "overaged Canadians". In that he is consistent.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-22-2011, 07:38 PM
But through it all he rips on UND and our "overaged Canadians". In that he is consistent.

Yeah, He was mostly upset that I didn't include AAU titles. I would consider it, if I could find a list of all the AAU champions.

state of hockey
02-22-2011, 07:52 PM
Yeah, He was mostly upset that I didn't include AAU titles. I would consider it, if I could find a list of all the AAU champions.

Meh. We only won one of 'em.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-22-2011, 07:57 PM
Meh. We only won one of 'em.

Exactly, and even if it is included, it doesn't change Minnesota's rank, but they would be extremely close to UND.

The main problems with AAU titles, is that they voted who would be champion, and there is no uniform list of champions (at least that I can find). The ONLY one I know of is the 1940 one, and that is because Gopher fans bring it up every once in awhile. I've never heard of another program bring up an AAU title.

state of hockey
02-22-2011, 08:03 PM
They also had a shared championship with Yale in 1929 which was a vote, but that was NIAA instead.

While I recognize those as part of the history of the program, I don't have an issue with them being omitted from this ranking.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-22-2011, 08:09 PM
They also had a shared championship with Yale in 1929 which was a vote, but that was NIAA instead.

While I recognize those as part of the history of the program, I don't have an issue with them being omitted from this ranking.

Do you happen to have or know their 1940 AAU Tournament opponents?

state of hockey
02-22-2011, 08:10 PM
Do you happen to have or know their 1940 AAU Tournament opponents?

Of course not. :)

Not for a lack of trying, though.

Edit: Didn't understand what you asked. They beat Amesbury 9-4 of March 2nd, 1940, and Brock Hall 9-1 on the 3rd.

http://www.gopherhockeyhistory.com/history/schedules/30s/30sSchedule.asp?season=1939-1940