Utica College hockey. ..Can we catch a break this season?

[capswon]

Just to piggyback off of you Fish. Thought the D took too many chances which is ok, if your forwards cover for you. How many odd man breaks were there after UC tied it 3?? No traffic in front, but game tying goal scored because of going to the net.

Thought the line of Zapatta, Ott and Moncovic(sp) was best line of night. In words of Dave Starman they were tenderizing the meat and had that dog on bone mentality.

Fritz and Young will lead from back end and Bagetta will keep them in games. Going to have to learn to score from greasy areas if your going to put 40 plus shots a game on net. Hopefully they watch the tape of the third UC goal and learn from it.

[Fishman'81]

Just to piggyback off of you Fish. Thought the D took too many chances which is ok, if your forwards cover for you. How many odd man breaks were there after UC tied it 3?? No traffic in front, but game tying goal scored because of going to the net.

Thought the line of Zapatta, Ott and Moncovic(sp) was best line of night. In words of Dave Starman they were tenderizing the meat and had that dog on bone mentality.

Fritz and Young will lead from back end and Bagetta will keep them in games. Going to have to learn to score from greasy areas if your going to put 40 plus shots a game on net. Hopefully they watch the tape of the third UC goal and learn from it.

We noticed Moncovich as well. He appears to be a player.

Fritz was very good on D, we thought. His points were the frosting on the cake. Allen, on the other hand, was fairly awful all night long. Big-time mental errors. I'd scratch him for the upcoming weekend.

The Swedes are large, but somewhat ponderous. Zapata and Ott stood-out for a few shifts here and there, but weren't really don't look like consistent difference-makers.

Not seeing an NCAA team here right now, unless Baggs returns to form. (I guarantee that he'd want that 3rd goal back.)

EDIT: And yeah, didn't see much of any hunger from this bunch. Very few guys went to the net, as you stated.

[Fishman'81]

There they go. A disciplined performance on the road, and a conference win. UC looked much better tonight.

[sshablak]

Osmundsen(sp) with a natural hat trick, might be special.

[capswon]

6-2 over hello Neumann. Pretty solid weekend for the Pioneers. Going to Aston is like a box of chocolates, never know what your going to get. I've seen a lot of crazy stuff happen to good teams when visiting there, going all the way back to Squirt days.
Looks like all lines can contribute but I'm still not sold on the D yet. Couple of them delay too long to move the puck and try to make too many moves. Time will tell.

[Fishman'81]

6-2 over hello Neumann. Pretty solid weekend for the Pioneers. Going to Aston is like a box of chocolates, never know what your going to get. I've seen a lot of crazy stuff happen to good teams when visiting there, going all the way back to Squirt days.
Looks like all lines can contribute but I'm still not sold on the D yet. Couple of them delay too long to move the puck and try to make too many moves. Time will tell.

Definitely a solid weekend. Much better than I expected, on the basis of the Canton game.

Nice to see the Fr. stepping up.

Perhaps there's hope after all.

[UCBadger]

Nazareth also had a good weekend at Neumann/Manhattanville. They won 8-3 at Neumann on Friday and 7-2 Saturday at Manhattanville.
Friday's game against Naz will be huge.

[capswon]

With the Canton game in the rearview looking to this weekend I thought a split was in the cards. Loss on Friday win on Saturday but was really pleased with the pushback after 'Ville went up 2-1. Long stretches in both games where UC dominated and neither side had any quality chances. Does that mean 'Ville and Neumann are that bad? I wouldn't think. Getting ready to make a trip up either this weekend or next.

[Fishman'81]

Nazareth also had a good weekend at Neumann/Manhattanville. They won 8-3 at Neumann on Friday and 7-2 Saturday at Manhattanville.
Friday's game against Naz will be huge.

It'll certainly be a good win for whomever gets it, but I wouldn't call it "huge" in either case.

The UCHC is getting better from the ground up, but I'm not seeing an elite team in this conference. My guess is that they'll eat their own young, and that there will be several teams in the mix with only a week or two remaining.

Then, we negate the entire season via the conference tournament..! Gotta love that calculus.

[Birdwatcher]

It'll certainly be a good win for whomever gets it, but I wouldn't call it "huge" in either case.

The UCHC is getting better from the ground up, but I'm not seeing an elite team in this conference. My guess is that they'll eat their own young, and that there will be several teams in the mix with only a week or two remaining.

Then, we negate the entire season via the conference tournament..! Gotta love that calculus.

Face it Fish ...it is the same in every sport .. a wild card is the world champion of baseball !

[Transplanted Tiger Fan]

...My guess is that they'll eat their own young, and that there will be several teams in the mix with only a week or two remaining.

Then, we negate the entire season via the conference tournament..!

....or, we will settle that mess with a tournament to decide who comes-out on-top.

[Fishman'81]

Face it Fish ...it is the same in every sport .. a wild card is the world champion of baseball !

Yeah, but all the RS division-winners get in as a matter of course. Not so in college hockey.

[Birdwatcher]

Yeah, but all the RS division-winners get in as a matter of course. Not so in college hockey.

Okay ... but who is more deserving ... your own thoughts from the past ... a team with 80 wins in their division...or the 3rd place team in another division with 95 wins? Kind of the same thing you have said in the past about a weak league and now you say at least all the RS winners get in.....

[Fishman'81]

Okay ... but who is more deserving ... your own thoughts from the past ... a team with 80 wins in their division...or the 3rd place team in another division with 95 wins? Kind of the same thing you have said in the past about a weak league and now you say at least all the RS winners get in.....

Ummm... no.

What I've said is this: I would prefer to see no AQ's whatsoever, but if they simply must exist, let them be predicated on the many RS results, not on the basis of a handful of weekend side-shows after the fact.

Makes perfect sense to me. And sports are in general getting more logical in their rules. Even D-3 hockey went to the PWR! There's hope for an better selection process down the road.

How's this sound..? Straight PWR and no AQ's of any ilk. I'd go for that in a heartbeat.

[NUProf]

It's probably not worth getting into this, because it just goes round and round and round, but here goes:

1. There is nothing wrong per se with AQs or using a league tournament to determine it.
I would prefer that tournaments in D3 mimic the D1 tournaments in that the preliminary rounds are a series rather than a one-and-done single game. This means that if a team pulls off an upset, it's more than just a one-off puck luck kind of deal. There is a longstanding tradition in college sports (except for the horribly corrupt D1 football process) of giving the underdog a chance to shine. Allowing teams from lesser conferences into the national tournament is a good thing. It allows for enthusiasm for the sport to grow in unexpected places. In basketball, Gonzaga became a national power by rising from those kinds of circumstances with an AQ.

2. The NCAA D3 process doesn't allow enough at large berths - this is really the big flaw in the system. If there were more at large berths, the presence of a lower ranked team would not dilute the field the way that it does. In D1, there are more at large berths than there are AQs. With the D3 rules in all sports having a 1:6.5 ratio for tournament spots, and conferences getting an AQ if they have seven members, the number of Pool B and Pool C spots is always going to be limited unless leagues get bigger. There are always going to be "deserving" teams that get shut out because they didn't win their league title. The argument can be "didn't win the league, didn't deserve to go," and "they had their opportunity and didn't get it done in the playoffs."

3. Could it be better - probably, but the system is what it is and at least the smoke filled room is no longer in play (and you can't say that about D1 football).

[Fishman'81]

It's probably not worth getting into this, because it just goes round and round and round, but here goes:

1. There is nothing wrong per se with AQs or using a league tournament to determine it.
I would prefer that tournaments in D3 mimic the D1 tournaments in that the preliminary rounds are a series rather than a one-and-done single game. This means that if a team pulls off an upset, it's more than just a one-off puck luck kind of deal. There is a longstanding tradition in college sports (except for the horribly corrupt D1 football process) of giving the underdog a chance to shine. Allowing teams from lesser conferences into the national tournament is a good thing. It allows for enthusiasm for the sport to grow in unexpected places. In basketball, Gonzaga became a national power by rising from those kinds of circumstances with an AQ.

2. The NCAA D3 process doesn't allow enough at large berths - this is really the big flaw in the system. If there were more at large berths, the presence of a lower ranked team would not dilute the field the way that it does. In D1, there are more at large berths than there are AQs. With the D3 rules in all sports having a 1:6.5 ratio for tournament spots, and conferences getting an AQ if they have seven members, the number of Pool B and Pool C spots is always going to be limited unless leagues get bigger. There are always going to be "deserving" teams that get shut out because they didn't win their league title. The argument can be "didn't win the league, didn't deserve to go," and "they had their opportunity and didn't get it done in the playoffs."

3. Could it be better - probably, but the system is what it is and at least the smoke filled room is no longer in play (and you can't say that about D1 football).

Come on! It's not that Byzantine, unless you make it so.

1. If there are going to be AQ's, choose them on the basis of the largest set of statistical evidence available.

2. (See the above.)

[Fishman'81]

It's probably not worth getting into this, because it just goes round and round and round, but here goes:

1. There is nothing wrong per se with AQs or using a league tournament to determine it.
I would prefer that tournaments in D3 mimic the D1 tournaments in that the preliminary rounds are a series rather than a one-and-done single game. This means that if a team pulls off an upset, it's more than just a one-off puck luck kind of deal. There is a longstanding tradition in college sports (except for the horribly corrupt D1 football process) of giving the underdog a chance to shine. Allowing teams from lesser conferences into the national tournament is a good thing. It allows for enthusiasm for the sport to grow in unexpected places. In basketball, Gonzaga became a national power by rising from those kinds of circumstances with an AQ.

2. The NCAA D3 process doesn't allow enough at large berths - this is really the big flaw in the system. If there were more at large berths, the presence of a lower ranked team would not dilute the field the way that it does. In D1, there are more at large berths than there are AQs. With the D3 rules in all sports having a 1:6.5 ratio for tournament spots, and conferences getting an AQ if they have seven members, the number of Pool B and Pool C spots is always going to be limited unless leagues get bigger. There are always going to be "deserving" teams that get shut out because they didn't win their league title. The argument can be "didn't win the league, didn't deserve to go," and "they had their opportunity and didn't get it done in the playoffs."

3. Could it be better - probably, but the system is what it is and at least the smoke filled room is no longer in play (and you can't say that about D1 football).

Secondly, the football thing was much more equitable a few years ago, when actual stats were involved.

Then, the #5 team leap-frogged the #4 team on the final RS weekend, and the Bible-Belt went apoplectic.

Thing is, the #5 team had a quality win, while the #4 team did not...That's how a good statistical analysis is supposed to function, isn't it?

(Edited to get the rankings right.)

[NUProf]

Secondly, the football thing was much more equitable a few years ago, when actual stats were involved.

Then, the #4 team leap-frogged the #3 team on the final RS weekend, and the Bible-Belt went apoplectic.

Thing is, the #4 team had a quality win, while the #3 team did not...That's how a good statistical analysis is supposed to function, isn't it?

Removing the statistical analysis and replacing it with the equivalent of a smoky room that is weighted towards teams from the southeast was what made me lose all respect for the D-1A (or whatever it is called this week) process.

[sshablak]

Ladies and gentlemen, tune in to 2019-20 version of spy vs spy, I mean NUProf vs Fishman, I love it.

[LakerEagleLover]

Removing the statistical analysis and replacing it with the equivalent of a smoky room that is weighted towards teams from the southeast was what made me lose all respect for the D-1A (or whatever it is called this week) process.

. God how I missed you guys!!!!