PDA

View Full Version : Ranked Hockey teams that are not chosen for the NCAA Tourney



Pages : 1 [2]

Slap Shot
11-02-2011, 09:52 PM
The Poles are always getting boned.

bumpreader
11-02-2011, 11:05 PM
It has never happened in the USCHO polls (going back to the 1997-1998 season).

I would be interested to see where CC ended up in 1993-1994 when they won the WCHA, but didn't make the tournament.

Good call. After losing in the first round of the WCHA playoffs they were #5 in the WMEB poll, #8 in the Troy Record poll, and #8 in the College Hockey USA poll.

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9403&L=hockey-l&T=0&P=76335
http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9403&L=hockey-l&T=0&P=70820

Fighting Sioux 23
11-02-2011, 11:23 PM
Good call. After losing in the first round of the WCHA playoffs they were #5 in the WMEB poll, #8 in the Troy Record poll, and #8 in the College Hockey USA poll.

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9403&L=hockey-l&T=0&P=76335
http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9403&L=hockey-l&T=0&P=70820

Sounds about right. That was a very good CC squad too, it's a shame that they didn't make the NCAAs.

D2D
11-03-2011, 12:11 AM
Given the conference alignments the way they are now, I really think the current system is about as fair as it can be. However I reserve judgement and may change my mind once the conferences realign in 2013.

LynahFan
11-03-2011, 12:46 AM
The 25% rule is the reason FBS wil NEVER ever go the playoff route. I think that hockey should only have a top 10 (1 in 6), as that would take care of it.
I disagree. Even if 25% of teams ended up participating in an NCAA playoff championship, there's no particular reason that another 25% of the schools couldn't participate in post-season exhibition games with corporate sponsors.

Nostrajimus
11-03-2011, 06:47 AM
UMO hasn't been in a championship drought longer than UND. What gives? They must be restless up in them their parts, huh Fighting Sue?

streaker
11-03-2011, 09:00 AM
I don't like the fact that the premise for the thread is that you have to be ranked to make the playoffs- at least that is what is inferred.
The beauty of any sport is having the underdog in the chase. If all sports went according to human polls we wouldn't have had teams in the NHL, MLB and the NFL winning championships- just have to look as recent as this year's World Series where the Cardinals came from 10.5 GB in September to win a wildcard spot and upset every team in the playoffs they played. Green Bay was not the best team in football at the end of last season- at 10-6. But they played like it in the playoffs and won the SB. (Tampa also had a 10-6 record and DIDN'T make the playoffs.) If either of those teams would have had to rely on "polls" they may not have been voted in the playoffs. Baseball is pretty cut and dry- W&L's determine your position. In football, a series of tiebreakers determine it. In college hockey, you can't do either- it has to be weighed by various factors.

My point is, especially in college sports- rankings are not indicative of any absolute certainty. They are biased and are only part of any formula used to determine playoff eligibility. This is especially true in college hockey where rarely the #1 team in the polls win the championship and other teams make a run after barely qualifying based on PWR or obtaining an autobid through their conference tournament (and may not have been ranked at all.) For example: Notre Dame in 2008 made the NCAA tourney barely- a 4th seed- yet went all the way to the championship game before losing. (They beat the #1 team to do it.)

I think that the auto bid formula allowed underdogs (especially when the CHA was around) to gain entry into the tourney because their PWR and SOS wouldn't normally have allowed them to. So that was a good thing. It allowed for upsets (HC > Minnesota etc.) and gave audience to the lesser respected conferences and programs. It was a form of affirmative action, I guess.

At the same time, and to the thread starters point, it also bumped out "ranked" teams that may have a better all around formula numbers. There has to be a point where teams are cut off- be it 16, 20 etc. The basketball tourney expanded because of $ and popularity. The same cannot be said for hockey. The system used to determine at large teams is not perfect, but at some point you have to just deal with the fact that teams ultimately determine their own outcome by how they played over the course of the season and in their conference tourney compared to other like teams. If you leave it in the hands of a formula, some fan base of a decent team will always be upset. It's pretty safe to say that the top ten-twelve "ranked" teams usually make the playoffs and that is a pretty good sample size as far as I am concerned.