>>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

[Tom Naeger]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Yes complete brain fart, thanks for correcting, too much going on for me these days.... Liberty and Patriot, they all patriotic anyways...

What I meant to say is there would be some options in the Liberty League and I've always thought the Patriot league would be a good fit for RIT's other athletic programs.

Somehow I merged the two in my head, must have been that 90MPH Fast ball I took in the head the other night in Geneva, maybe I've lost some brain cells. Enjoy that comment boys...

I think the D-III philosophical ship has long sailed at RIT...

[woodenskates]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

It's only because I value the same principles that Division III espouses. I think the higher divisions, especially Division I, place too much emphasis on recruiting potential professional athletes rather than student-athletes who are in college to get an education. I think an institution can bear one sport at that level without corrupting its values, but moving the entire athletic department to D-I would be a major philosophical and financial change for my alma mater.

Powers &8^]

https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2018-...ease_-_Men.pdf

It seems that some schools in the ECAC can play competitive Div I hockey and still focus on the student part of student/athlete?

[komey1]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Scholarships or no, I see very little positive argument for joining a new conference. Those teams in the conference aren't going to move the needle for getting more fans to the games. I don't know if that league would help in terms of travel costs since it does lose Air Force.

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

It seems that some schools in the ECAC can play competitive Div I hockey and still focus on the student part of student/athlete?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

If Division I doesn't place a greater emphasis on athletics than Division III, why do we even have different divisions?

Also, I'm not sure what the presence of players on an All-Academic squad has to do with my point. "Some hockey players get good grades" is not a statement in dispute.


Powers &8^]

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

I think the D-III philosophical ship has long sailed at RIT...

I don't see why you'd say that, considering the vast majority of RIT's sports are, in fact, played at the Division III level. With much success, national championship droughts aside.

I've always thought the Patriot league would be a good fit for RIT's other athletic programs.

I agree, but we're a very long way from needing to find a Division I league to move to.


Powers &8^]

[Haaafs]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Alexander Kuqali has re-signed with the Orlando Solar Bears of the ECHL for the 19-20 season. He has played in 197 games in the ECHL in the past 4 seasons.

[Tom Naeger]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Wayne Wilson on the radio saying that AHA will try 3 on 3 OT after a 5 on 5 OT period next season...

[Tom Naeger]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Scholarships or no, I see very little positive argument for joining a new conference. Those teams in the conference aren't going to move the needle for getting more fans to the games. I don't know if that league would help in terms of travel costs since it does lose Air Force.

There is more to it than fans in the seats (which I have to disagree with, ECAC would bring more fans, if not just from visiting fans alone) and travel costs

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Wayne Wilson on the radio saying that AHA will try 3 on 3 OT after a 5 on 5 OT period next season...

Blech. They better not go to loser points.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Blech. They better not go to loser points.

I have no problem with 3x3 (for regular season only). But I do have a problem with loser points. A win is a win. A loss is a loss. And leave it at that. (If you absolutely must differentiate, then go with a three-point system.)

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Blech. They better not go to loser points.

The 3-point system didn't come into effect in the pros until the shootout was implemented and ties were eliminated. So I don't think AHA will go there just yet.
Although I absolutely hate the concept of skills competitions deciding "winners" and "losers" of real games (at least as it impacts standings or playoff advancement), if they go to those lengths to eliminate ties, the third point is a bit of a consolation to reward teams that battle their butts off through 60 minutes of real action to earn a tie but happened to lose the ridiculous shootout or the reduced man-power OT. Again, I don't like anything about that part of pro hockey, but as long as we have to put up with the abomination, at least there is some consolation for the teams that didn't actually "lose" the actual hockey game, really (except for OT, of course. But 5-on-5 OT was seldom decided in 5 minutes). That's my take on why I don't agree with the term "Loser Point". Teams don't get points for losing, they get a point for finishing the game tied. The unnecessary point is the OT/shootout win point, IMO.
I just don't understand why hockey leagues are so against the concept of a tie. What is so wrong about that?

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

The 3-point system didn't come into effect in the pros until the shootout was implemented and ties were eliminated. So I don't think AHA will go there just yet.
Although I absolutely hate the concept of skills competitions deciding "winners" and "losers" of real games (at least as it impacts standings or playoff advancement), if they go to those lengths to eliminate ties, the third point is a bit of a consolation to reward teams that battle their butts off through 60 minutes of real action to earn a tie but happened to lose the ridiculous shootout or the reduced man-power OT. Again, I don't like anything about that part of pro hockey, but as long as we have to put up with the abomination, at least there is some consolation for the teams that didn't actually "lose" the actual hockey game, really (except for OT, of course. But 5-on-5 OT was seldom decided in 5 minutes). That's my take on why I don't agree with the term "Loser Point". Teams don't get points for losing, they get a point for finishing the game tied. The unnecessary point is the OT/shootout win point, IMO.
I just don't understand why hockey leagues are so against the concept of a tie. What is so wrong about that?

Technically, the three-point system is when you get three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime win, and one point for an overtime loss. Thus, you get rewarded for winning without a gimmicky overtime system. The entire game is worth three points total for both teams in the standings whether it goes OT or not.

What the NHL has is not a three-point system. What they have is a loser point. The game is worth two points or three points depending on whether it goes OT. It is mathematically extremely unfair.

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Technically, the three-point system is when you get three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime win, and one point for an overtime loss. Thus, you get rewarded for winning without a gimmicky overtime system. The entire game is worth three points total for both teams in the standings whether it goes OT or not.

What the NHL has is not a three-point system. What they have is a loser point. The game is worth two points or three points depending on whether it goes OT. It is mathematically extremely unfair.

I get all that. Just used the term "3-point system" to avoid calling it a "loser point".
Yes, it is unfair that not all games are worth the same number of points, but leagues are afraid that their fans are too mathematically challenged to figure out an actual 3-point system (or the ultimately fair 5-point system the HEA used briefly). It is more complicated to decipher the standings than what used to exist, but to me much more straightforward than what they use now. But that's just me. I'm a stats dork.

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

I agree the international-style 3-point system is ideal. I even (gasp) like it better than a flat 2-point system.

3x3 is miles better than a shootout, but I don't know if it makes for good hockey outside of the pro ranks.


Powers &8^]

[woodenskates]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

I agree the international-style 3-point system is ideal. I even (gasp) like it better than a flat 2-point system.

3x3 is miles better than a shootout, but I don't know if it makes for good hockey outside of the pro ranks.


Powers &8^]

I am not sure if I like the 3 point system. It creates a wider spread between the rankings. It is more fun to have a loser point and keep more teams in the running until later in the season. Just my $.02

The CJHL used 3x3 last year and it was fun to watch. I am certain the college teams can make it exciting.