2019-20 Schedules

[smbenny]

And the eliminating the tournament AQ's is the next logical path forward.

🙄🙄🙄 I’m glad the UCHC finally has the AQ.

[Birdwatcher]

I don't see the dead horse here. People got tired of the old selection process, and some progress has been made in that regard. And the eliminating the tournament AQ's is the next logical path forward.

What people?? You should start a poll to see what "people" think. There is a need to back up statements with facts!

[PSUChamps2001]

What people?? You should start a poll to see what "people" think. There is a need to back up statements with facts!

Come on...its Fish and all his friend...I mean friends

[Fishman'81]

What people?? You should start a poll to see what "people" think. There is a need to back up statements with facts!

It's very simple, really.

If there's an AQ to be had, use the biggest sample-size available. If you care to play a conference tourney, fine, but weight those results as you would every RS game.

Ganging-up to attack that very obvious logic just amounts to bullying a la PSUC, and is miles away from resembling a decent statistical analysis for a season's body of work.

"Popular" does not equate to "equitable", nor to "smart".

Good Lord.

[joecct]

It's very simple, really.

If there's an AQ to be had, use the biggest sample-size available. If you care to play a conference tourney, fine, but weight those results as you would every RS game.

Ganging-up to attack that very obvious logic just amounts to bullying a la PSUC, and is miles away from resembling a decent statistical analysis for a season's body of work.

"Popular" does not equate to "equitable", nor to "smart".

Good Lord.

Don Quixote.

[spwood]

It's very simple, really.

If there's an AQ to be had, use the biggest sample-size available. If you care to play a conference tourney, fine, but weight those results as you would every RS game.

Ganging-up to attack that very obvious logic just amounts to bullying a la PSUC, and is miles away from resembling a decent statistical analysis for a season's body of work.

"Popular" does not equate to "equitable", nor to "smart".

Good Lord.

****This was supposed to be a video of the Judge Judy eye roll****...

[NUProf]

It's very simple, really.

If there's an AQ to be had, use the biggest sample-size available. If you care to play a conference tourney, fine, but weight those results as you would every RS game.

Ganging-up to attack that very obvious logic just amounts to bullying a la PSUC, and is miles away from resembling a decent statistical analysis for a season's body of work.

"Popular" does not equate to "equitable", nor to "smart".

Good Lord.

This the the method ALL of the DIII hockey conferences have chosen. Live with it. You might prefer something else, but the people with the power have made another choice.

[altazo]

I think the Champion should be the team playing the best hockey in March, not November.

[joecct]

I think the Champion should be the team playing the best hockey in March, not November.

The Champion is the one that goes undefeated in the tournament. They may not be the best team, but they were the better team in their contests.

[Fishman'81]

[QUOTE=joecct;6833025]Don Quixote.[/QUOTE)

That's what your coterie said about the possibility of a PWR being employed in D-3, isn't it? ("Tilting at windmills"...?)

But that happened: the D-3 PWR finally exists, no thanks to you traditionalists, and that constitutes some progress.

The next step towards a logical selection-process would obviously be to consider a larger body of work than the end of season side-shows.

It's so very obvious. It really is.

[Fishman'81]

I think the Champion should be the team playing the best hockey in March, not November.

So, again, why play the RS in the first place, if all that matters are few games in March?

[Fishman'81]

This the the method ALL of the DIII hockey conferences have chosen. Live with it. You might prefer something else, but the people with the power have made another choice.

So, you're saying that because d-3 is in cahoots on this one, it makes sense?

It doesn't. And you, as a statistician, must certainly grasp that fact.

[Russell Jaslow]

[QUOTE=Fishman'81;6833326]

Don Quixote.[/QUOTE)

That's what your coterie said about the possibility of a PWR being employed in D-3, isn't it? ("Tilting at windmills"...?)

But that happened: the D-3 PWR finally exists, no thanks to you traditionalists, and that constitutes some progress.

The next step towards a logical selection-process would obviously be to consider a larger body of work than the end of season side-shows.

It's so very obvious. It really is.

I don’t know of anyone who argued against using PWR for D3 selections.

Try again...

[Russell Jaslow]

So, again, why play the RS in the first place, if all that matters are few games in March?

You keep thinking the end result is all that matters. It doesn’t. Playing the game does.

[Russell Jaslow]

So, you're saying that because d-3 is in cahoots on this one, it makes sense?

It doesn't. And you, as a statistician, must certainly grasp that fact.

It doesn’t matter whether it makes sense. It only matters that conferences chose that method.

[altazo]

So, again, why play the RS in the first place, if all that matters are few games in March?

Because playing and watching hockey all season long is fun and it can lead to advantages (home ice, favorable opponents) once the really important games happen in conference playoffs and beyond.

It’s just common sense after all...

[Fishman'81]

[QUOTE=Russell Jaslow;6833413]

I don’t know of anyone who argued against using PWR for D3 selections.

Try again...

Well, none of the regulars here argued for a transparent process on this site, either.

Pretty-much the same thing.

[Fishman'81]

Because playing and watching hockey all season long is fun and it can lead to advantages (home ice, favorable opponents) once the really important games happen in conference playoffs and beyond.

It’s just common sense after all...

Of course the RS is "fun", but how meaningful is it, if it can be negated via a couple of games in March? Every game should mean something, in the context of a full season.

Otherwise, why even play them? The current situation absolutely flies in the face of "common-sense", and it's really impossible to build a logical argument to the contrary. Conference-tourament AQ's are a gimmick, period.

I understand that I'm USCHO's designated D-3 AH, and I'm OK with that, actually, but I have never read anything even resembling a cogent opinion as to why it's just fine for a 5th place team -over the course of a 20+ game RS- to usurp an NCAA berth from another team which has won the conference RS...

(And, I don't expect to, ever.)

[Fishman'81]

You fail to grasp the concept that the conferences themselves determine how to award their AQ. They could choose to award it to the RS champion and not have a tournament at all, like the Big 10 once did for basketball. Have you considered writing to the UCHC rather than here?

Look, last year the UCHC was the weakest conference in all of D3 hockey. That’s a one bid conference. When Utica couldn’t take care of their business in their own rink, you blamed it on the fact that Manhattanville’s average age was 8 months older than Utica’s and they were too big and strong. That’s lame sour grapes. Utica was’t left out of NCAA’s because they lost in their conference tournament bThey were left out because they didn’t take advantage of opportunities to beat the limited strong competition they faced out of conference. Those games were in the first half of the season, no?

Umm, no...

I never once referenced M'ville's age, because I never even bothered to look that up. Please.

Had MC won the RS, and a pursuant RS AQ, I would have been OK with that. (20-23 games are better than 4, as a measuring stick, right?)

I seem to recall you as an OSU fan.

So, say, a Morrisville finishes in the pack in the SUNYAC, then gets white-hot for a couple of weekends, and displaces your Lakers from the NCAA's this coming season. Would you actually think that the RS was a throw-away?

I doubt it... The RS exists for a reason, or at least it should.

[altazo]

Umm, no...

I never once referenced M'ville's age, because I never even bothered to look that up. Please.

Had MC won the RS, and a pursuant RS AQ, I would have been OK with that. (20-23 games are better than 4, as a measuring stick, right?)

I seem to recall you as an OSU fan.

So, say, a Morrisville finishes in the pack in the SUNYAC, then gets white-hot for a couple of weekends, and displaces your Lakers from the NCAA's this coming season. Would you actually think that the RS was a throw-away?

I doubt it... The RS exists for a reason, or at least it should.

You absolutely whined about Manhattanville’s age. Now you’re just not telling the truth.

Don’t get swept at home by the worst Adrian team in 10 years, and UC maybe had a shot at an at-large. That was the first weekend of the season, so I guess the first half does count, eh?

You recall wrong yet again. I’m a SNC alum. In ‘14-‘15 they went 20-5-3 and were left out of the NCAA’s and rightfully so, they failed to win their conference tournament.