Well, we did promise that we'd do this if the Engineers were in striking distance in January. And it's January. And they are. And a promise is a promise.
Welcome to Engineer Bracketology. Each Wednesday, from now until the end of the season (or when it seems pointless to talk about, whichever comes first), we'll break down the NCAA field, show you where the Engineers line up, and talk about what needs to happen (besides the most important element, just keep winning) to boost their standing.
As a quick reminder, there are three elements to the PairWise Rankings (PWR), the objective method by which the field is chosen:
* Ratings Percentage Index (RPI)
* Record against Common Opponents (COp)
* Head-to-head wins (H2H)
And, as always, because RPI is both the name of a PWR criteria and the preferred nomenclature for our fair school, we use "Rensselaer" in order to make sure there's no confusion when referring to the Engineers. For more information, click here.
Here's the current PWR situation.
1. Quinnipiac*
2. Harvard
3. Omaha
4. St. Cloud State
5. North Dakota*
6. Providence*
7. Cornell
8. Michigan
9. Yale
10. St. Lawrence
11. Penn State*
12. Boston University
13. Notre Dame
14. UMass-Lowell
15. Rensselaer
16. Boston College
17. Minnesota State*
23. Holy Cross*
Last in: Notre Dame, UMass-Lowell
First out: Rensselaer, Boston College
League breakdown: 5 ECAC, 4 HEA, 3 NCHC, 2 B1G, 1 WCHA, 1 AHA
Albany's hosts are Rensselaer (15 PWR) and Union (18 PWR), Worcester is Holy Cross (23 PWR and leading AHA), Cincinnati is Miami (28 PWR), and St. Paul is Minnesota (19 PWR). Worth keeping in mind when it comes to placement, as hosts are required to be placed in their hosted regional (which could get messy if Rensselaer and Union both manage to qualify). For right now, though, it's just Holy Cross who has to be in a place, everyone else is (somewhat) fungible.
Worcester
1. Quinnipiac
2. Providence
3. St. Lawrence
4. Holy Cross
Albany
1. Harvard
2. Cornell
3. Boston University
4. UMass-Lowell
Cincinnati
1. Omaha
2. Michigan
3. Yale
4. Notre Dame
St. Paul
1. St. Cloud State
2. North Dakota
3. Penn State
4. Minnesota State
Been a while since I did this, so I'm a bit rusty and this may not comport with more professional bracketlogists. Basically, the rule of thumb is that the NCAA will place #1 seeds in their closest available regional starting with #1 overall and working down. Anywhere that requires travel of 400 miles or more is a flight, and the NCAA has traditionally tried to keep the number of flights down as much as they can while maintaining bracket integrity and ensuring that there are no intra-conference matchups in the first round (although, funny enough, 5 of the 8 first round matchups feature teams who were formerly in the same conference, some quite recently). In each regional, it's 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. Winners compete for a berth in the Frozen Four.
So yes, as of now, that's a crazy five ECAC teams in the tournament, with an option on a sixth - and there eight ECAC teams including Union and Dartmouth that are within striking distance of the field. It seems, right now, that three will be a very bare minimum for the ECAC, and four a very strong likelihood. Five isn't out of the question, either. Six is probably a stretch.
Because there are only three Pairwise criteria, and the Engineers only face off this season against 21 of the 59 other programs, RPI is all that matters in the vast majority of comparisons. If two teams in a comparison don't play each other in a given year, COp simply doesn't matter because RPI is the tiebreaker (it also doesn't matter at all when a season series is split, or tied, so Miami can be treated like any other non-opponent in this respect). So in relation to how comparisons are flipped when looking at teams Rensselaer didn't play this year, it's exclusively a matter of having a better RPI. Generally, that means rooting against such teams.
We can, however, look more in depth at comparisons with teams the Engineers have played and either beaten or lost to. We'll ignore most ECAC comparisons for the time being, because there are far too many moving parts when it comes to COp/H2H this early.
Alaska-Anchorage: This is very cut and dried, and won't have to be brought up again, because it's a guaranteed loss for the Engineers. Just something to note. Rensselaer could win all of its remaining games while UAA loses all of theirs, and the Engineers still lose this comparison 2-1 on COp and H2H, just as they are now.
The reason is simple - the only two common opponents with the Seawolves this season are Alaska and Arizona State. The Engineers swept ASU but lost their only game to UAF, giving them a combined winning percentage of 1.000. Meanwhile, UAA beat ASU (barely, in OT, but it counts) and, in the first two out of at least four games against the Nanooks, lost and tied. That gives UAA a combined winning percentage of 1.250, which, when added to their head-to-head win over the Engineers, gives UAA the comparison win. Even if UAA loses their next two games against the Nanooks, they'll still have a combined winning percentage of 1.125 thanks to that tie they've already got, and Rensselaer can't rise above the 1.000 they have now.
This is a perfect illustration on the difference in how COp is now calculated. Before, the Engineers would have won with a 2-1-0 record against COp against 1-1-1 for UAA. But now, it's a matter of adding each individual winning percentage against each individual team. There are pros and cons to both methods, but it'll look awful strange at the end of the year if UAF sweeps UAA in February and the Seawolves still win COp despite a 2-1-0 and 1-3-1 total record difference.
At the moment it's not keeping Rensselaer out of the tournament (adding this comparison wouldn't move them ahead of Lowell), but it does stand as a possibility that the losses in Alaska could have an outsized impact on the Engineers' NCAA hopes.
As an aside, the Nanooks themselves are not a problem specifically because their only two COp are UAA and Arizona State - and the Nanooks lost to the Sun Devils. Otherwise, it's the same problem. So should the Engineers squeak into the tournament, ASU's first ever Division I victory -and Rensselaer's home sweep - could be the difference. It's the same 2-1-0/1-1-1 COp records, but it's how those games are divided up among opponents that makes this one a win for the Engineers, and a permanent one unless the wide RPI gap narrows (at which point it won't matter anymore).
UMass-Lowell: This, right now, is the most interesting comparison as the other of two comparisons that Rensselaer loses to a team they are ahead of in RPI. They fall 2-1, so it is imperative, as with any comparison with a team the Engineers have lost the season series to, that they win the COp comparison.
And that might be changing in Rensselaer's favor soon. Right now, COp is 1.500 to 1.000 in UML's favor based on common opponents of Brown (both tied) and Clarkson (Engineers tied, River Hawks won). But UML has yet to play two important Hockey East opponents that Rensselaer has beaten - New Hampshire and Boston College. Once that happens, the Engineers COp will increase by 2.000. UML also has a pair of games coming up with Arizona State. UML should be huge favorites at home, but even a single draw would be big for Rensselaer.
And would you look at that - UML plays UNH on Friday. Should the Wildcats win, that would flip this comparison to the Engineers - 2-1 on RPI/COp. If it's a tie, it would likely flip 1-1 on RPI with COp as a tie. So we're rooting hard for UML to lose at least once to UNH and BC this season, though they don't face the Eagles until late February.
But RPI is very close anyway in this comparison, so as a general rule of thumb, we're rooting against UML in Hockey East play right now.
Boston College: 2-0 RPI/H2H win for the Engineers at the moment. Obviously, we'd like to possibly win COp here as well as a hedge against BC's RPI improving (as it likely will), so the first game of the Beanpot against Harvard will be a big one here. A Crimson win would give Rensselaer a permanent edge in COp against Harvard, since it's BC's only game with them this season and the Engineers have already tied them.
The only COp right now is UNH, who both teams have beaten. BC plays them again in February - immediately after the Harvard game, so a UNH win or tie would be huge, too. No matter what else happens, a Harvard win in the first round of the Beanpot (since Beanpot games can't tie) and a UNH win or tie the following Friday would go a long way toward making this comparison a win no matter what the RPI is - but those BC-UML games at the end of the regular season loom large, too.
Union: Because of the unique nature of the series with the Dutchmen, the Engineers can practically guarantee themselves a comparison win with their rivals by winning the Mayor's Cup game. That would produce a third H2H point, enough to trump both RPI and COp completely, barring a playoff meeting.
One other thing about Union - if their RPI stays in the Top 20 (they are currently 18th), the Engineers get two quality win bonuses on a graduating scale depending on how high the Dutchmen are ranked. So there's a vested interest in Union remaining as high as they can in RPI - just not too high.
Speaking of which - here's the bonus cutoff. Teams the Engineers have defeated (and thus can get RPI bonuses for) will be bolded in our weekly RPI quality win bonus aggregate.
16. Boston University - .541
17. Minnesota State - .537
18. Union - .527
19. Minnesota - .526
20. Bowling Green - .525
---
21. Denver - .525
22. Holy Cross - .525
23. Dartmouth - .523
24. Minnesota-Duluth - .513
25. Robert Morris - .512
Quality wins
Yale (#9, at home)
St. Lawrence (#10, on the road)
Boston College (#14, at home)
Union (#18, at home and on the road)
Missed opportunities
Harvard (#2, neutral ice and at home)
Michigan (#8, at home)
UMass-Lowell (#12, on the road)
Upcoming opportunities in the next 10 games
Cornell (#7, at home) - Jan 15
Quinnipiac (#1, on the road) - Jan 21
Union (#18, neutral ice) - Jan 23
Yale (#9, on the road) - Jan 30
St. Lawrence (#10, at home) - Feb 5
Harvard (#2, on the road) - Feb 12
One other comparison worth mentioning due to games this week:
Yale: It's a long-shot, but Arizona State popping up in the Bulldogs' schedule this week could provide an unexpected and semi-unusual COp boost if the Sun Devils can get a result out in the Valley of the Sun. Normally, it makes the most sense to root for the ECAC in any non-conference games, but this could be a minor exception, if only because ASU is an independent, with a schedule that draws from pretty much all over the place, so their impact on overall league RPI is blunted a little here. Rensselaer's H2H win over Yale makes this comparison one that could be flipped, especially with an Engineers win over Princeton on Thursday (Yale lost to the Tigers).
General rules of thumb for the order in which we are cheering for other teams. Relevant numbers are listed next to the games/series.
1. Wherever there is direct COp assistance
2. For the ECAC out-of-conference
3. For improved quality win bonuses (QWB)
4. Against teams ahead of or just behind Rensselaer in the RPI or PWR
5. For non-conference opponents
Not including Rensselaer's games - the elimination of the old TUC cliff, for those that remember that, basically eliminates any real impetus to succeed by losing. Let's go Red.
Engineer Cheering Section
Thursday
Harvard over Boston University - 1/2/4
Union over Quinnipiac - 1/3 (despite Union getting a big RPI bonus themselves from beating QU)
Weekend series
Boston College over Providence - 3/5
Michigan State over Michigan - 4
Minnesota over Penn State - 4 (although Minnesota is not far back either)
Cornell over Merrimack - 2
Colgate over Maine - 2
St. Lawrence over Northeastern - 2/3
Miami over Minnesota-Duluth - 4
Western Michigan over Notre Dame - 4/5
Northern Michigan over Minnesota State - 4
Alaska over Alabama-Huntsville - 5
Alaska-Anchorage over Bemidji State - 5
Bentley over Robert Morris - 5
Friday
New Hampshire over UMass-Lowell - 1/4
Union over Princeton - 3
Arizona State over Yale - 1/4/5
Dartmouth over Vermont - 2
Saturday
Harvard over Quinnipiac - 1 (not terribly important either way, both way out in front on RPI/PWR)
Sunday
Yale over Michigan Tech OR UConn - 2/3
Dartmouth over Holy Cross - 2
Tuesday
Clarkson over St. Lawrence - 4 (SLU win at least helps QWB)
Important COp/H2H games for currently relevant comparisons
Friday, January 8: UMass-Lowell at New Hampshire
Saturday, January 23: Union vs. Rensselaer (Mayor's Cup)
Friday, January 29: Arizona State at UMass-Lowell; Rensselaer at Brown
Saturday, January 30: Arizona State at UMass-Lowell
Monday, February 1: Harvard vs. Boston College (Beanpot)
Friday, February 5: New Hampshire at Boston College
Saturday, February 6: New Hampshire at UMass-Lowell; Clarkson at Rensselaer
Friday, February 26: UMass-Lowell at Boston College
Saturday, February 27: Boston College at UMass-Lowell
Unwinnable comparisons (H2H loss, will lose COp)
Alaska-Anchorage
Clinched comparisons (H2H win, will win COp)
Western Michigan, Bentley
Showing posts with label ncaa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ncaa. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Regional Solutions
So, from looking at the breakdown of regional attendances, there are a couple of different things that become apparent. First, the top attendees are almost all home teams at their home rinks. The second is the difference between attendance in the vaster west and the more compact east.
So what's the solution? Having some games played at campus sites has been brought up with some frequency, but there are pros and cons to the idea.
Could we potentially go back to the previous system of having a best of three series at campus sites? Unlikely. That would bring up two possibilities. One would turn the Frozen Four into the Elite Eight following the best-of-three, forcing a three-day single-elimination death march to a national championship. That would be difficult to coordinate, with eight different schools getting access to tickets, a quadruple-header on the first day of the competition... it would be a logistical nightmare.
The other option is to have two best-of-three rounds ahead of the Frozen Four, but there are issues with this as well. First, you're looking at a team ending up playing as many as eight contests AFTER the conference tournaments are over, twice the current maximum of four. Second, unless you push the Frozen Four back another week, now fully into mid-April, there's no bye week between the determining of the Frozen Four and the event. Part of the reason the Frozen Four draws well and many regionals don't is simply the timing - fans are more apt to travel long distances when they have more time to plan a trip, and two weeks is better than one.
No, the best option is to keep the tournament single-elimination. But what options do we have to improve on what already exists? Super regionals of eight teams each? Since no teams have byes as they did in the super regional days of the 12-team tournament, you're looking at one day with four games at the same location. As with the Elite Eight notion above, that's a logistical nightmare.
The best option, in my view, has got to be to award the #1 seeds the right to host each regional.
In the west, it seems that the only time crowds come out is if the home team is playing. This is frequently viewed as a negative because it's not always the #1 team that's hosting, and that can put a team that's produced better results over the course of the season behind the 8-ball. So why not just create a system whereby at least the hosts have earned that right through their play, rather than just fortunately being the pre-determined hosts?
Let's look at how last year's regionals might have turned out if this had been the plan in 2013.
1 Quinnipiac
2 Minnesota
3 UMass-Lowell
4 Notre Dame
5 Miami
6 Boston College
7 New Hampshire
8 North Dakota
9 Denver
10 Niagara
11 Minnesota State
12 Union
13 St. Cloud State
14 Wisconsin
15 Yale
-- Canisius
Hamden, CT (TD Bank Sports Center)
1. Quinnipiac
2. New Hampshire
3. Denver
4. Canisius
Minneapolis, MN (Mariucci Arena)
1. Minnesota
2. North Dakota
3. Niagara
4. Yale
Lowell, MA (Tsongas Arena)
1. UMass-Lowell
2. Boston College
3. Union
4. Wisconsin
South Bend, IN (Compton Family Ice Arena)
1. Notre Dame
2. Miami
3. Minnesota State
4. St. Cloud State
This is actually extremely close to what the brackets played out to be in real life. The West Regional in Grand Rapids is exactly the same as it was, only now it's in Minneapolis. The Midwest Regional is also exactly the same, only now it's in South Bend. The two eastern regionals are close, but they have swapped 2-3 matchups. Why? Well, because instead of #2 seed New Hampshire being required to be placed in Manchester as a host, they can instead slot into a more natural position in Hamden.
There's another consideration to ponder as well - Brown was the host in Providence, and nearly made the tournament by winning the ECAC championship, considering that they made the title game. If they'd made the tournament, not only would they have displaced Yale, they'd have been automatically slotted in Providence, requiring conference-mates Quinnipiac to be moved to Manchester and making a mess of the bracket. This is better - because Brown wouldn't have been hosting as a #4 seed in this scenario.
How would this tournament have differed? Well, for one, Yale, having just barely made it into the tournament after imploding in Atlantic City, would be forced to play Minnesota on their home turf instead of the sparse crowd that greeted them in Grand Rapids. Is that fair? It's certainly more fair than Denver's lot in the real tournament, since they got what was basically a home team in New Hampshire, all because they were the pre-selected hosts of that regional. At least in this scenario, Minnesota's earning their home ice.
Perhaps, in a bit of irony, Minnesota fans might have turned out to cheer on Niagara against North Dakota, the way North Dakota fans had cheered Holy Cross to the upset over the Gophers in 2006 in Grand Forks.
Would attendance be an issue, though? We can cross Minneapolis and South Bend off the concern list right away - those arenas are past and future regional spots already. How much better can we expect the crowds to be when we're guaranteed that the home team will be there?
What about Lowell and Hamden? Tsongas seats about 6,500 for hockey, while the TD Bank Sports Center sells out at 4,074. Both of those figures are lower than the actual crowd sizes in Providence and Manchester.
That's why there's no easy fix for the regional problem - because it's largely an east vs west issue. Eastern regionals at larger neutral sites don't frequently have a problem selling at least a decent number of tickets, and home rinks in the east are frequently smaller than their western counterparts.
But in balancing the desire to have important games played in front of large crowds, ticket sales, bracket integrity, and the single-elimination tournament, it's the only idea that really works. We can't guarantee that every year we'll have two of the #1 seeds from the east and two from the west.
Even then, you're not guaranteeing results, especially if the #4 team upsets the #1 team on their home ice. Two #1s were upset last year by #4s that ended up in the Frozen Four. If Yale still beats Minnesota at Mariucci, you'd still probably have enough North Dakota fans coming out the next night, but what about Miami-St. Cloud in South Bend? It's probably not well attended. But that's the chance you take in order to balance all those various factors.
What about small rinks hosting regionals? Union's doing pretty well this year, what if they were to be a #1 seed, forcing four teams to play for the right to go to the Frozen Four in that tiny dump in Schenectady? There's no easy solution, as we've already said. It's not like Union (and RPI, for that matter) can just have the Times Union Center on hold for that weekend, just in case. Quinnipiac and Yale can't just ask the Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport to keep some dates open for them.
It's not perfect. But it's at least merit-based, more likely to produce full rinks, and hopefully, up the excitement for teams seeking to reach the Frozen Four.
So what's the solution? Having some games played at campus sites has been brought up with some frequency, but there are pros and cons to the idea.
Could we potentially go back to the previous system of having a best of three series at campus sites? Unlikely. That would bring up two possibilities. One would turn the Frozen Four into the Elite Eight following the best-of-three, forcing a three-day single-elimination death march to a national championship. That would be difficult to coordinate, with eight different schools getting access to tickets, a quadruple-header on the first day of the competition... it would be a logistical nightmare.
The other option is to have two best-of-three rounds ahead of the Frozen Four, but there are issues with this as well. First, you're looking at a team ending up playing as many as eight contests AFTER the conference tournaments are over, twice the current maximum of four. Second, unless you push the Frozen Four back another week, now fully into mid-April, there's no bye week between the determining of the Frozen Four and the event. Part of the reason the Frozen Four draws well and many regionals don't is simply the timing - fans are more apt to travel long distances when they have more time to plan a trip, and two weeks is better than one.
No, the best option is to keep the tournament single-elimination. But what options do we have to improve on what already exists? Super regionals of eight teams each? Since no teams have byes as they did in the super regional days of the 12-team tournament, you're looking at one day with four games at the same location. As with the Elite Eight notion above, that's a logistical nightmare.
The best option, in my view, has got to be to award the #1 seeds the right to host each regional.
In the west, it seems that the only time crowds come out is if the home team is playing. This is frequently viewed as a negative because it's not always the #1 team that's hosting, and that can put a team that's produced better results over the course of the season behind the 8-ball. So why not just create a system whereby at least the hosts have earned that right through their play, rather than just fortunately being the pre-determined hosts?
Let's look at how last year's regionals might have turned out if this had been the plan in 2013.
1 Quinnipiac
2 Minnesota
3 UMass-Lowell
4 Notre Dame
5 Miami
6 Boston College
7 New Hampshire
8 North Dakota
9 Denver
10 Niagara
11 Minnesota State
12 Union
13 St. Cloud State
14 Wisconsin
15 Yale
-- Canisius
Hamden, CT (TD Bank Sports Center)
1. Quinnipiac
2. New Hampshire
3. Denver
4. Canisius
Minneapolis, MN (Mariucci Arena)
1. Minnesota
2. North Dakota
3. Niagara
4. Yale
Lowell, MA (Tsongas Arena)
1. UMass-Lowell
2. Boston College
3. Union
4. Wisconsin
South Bend, IN (Compton Family Ice Arena)
1. Notre Dame
2. Miami
3. Minnesota State
4. St. Cloud State
This is actually extremely close to what the brackets played out to be in real life. The West Regional in Grand Rapids is exactly the same as it was, only now it's in Minneapolis. The Midwest Regional is also exactly the same, only now it's in South Bend. The two eastern regionals are close, but they have swapped 2-3 matchups. Why? Well, because instead of #2 seed New Hampshire being required to be placed in Manchester as a host, they can instead slot into a more natural position in Hamden.
There's another consideration to ponder as well - Brown was the host in Providence, and nearly made the tournament by winning the ECAC championship, considering that they made the title game. If they'd made the tournament, not only would they have displaced Yale, they'd have been automatically slotted in Providence, requiring conference-mates Quinnipiac to be moved to Manchester and making a mess of the bracket. This is better - because Brown wouldn't have been hosting as a #4 seed in this scenario.
How would this tournament have differed? Well, for one, Yale, having just barely made it into the tournament after imploding in Atlantic City, would be forced to play Minnesota on their home turf instead of the sparse crowd that greeted them in Grand Rapids. Is that fair? It's certainly more fair than Denver's lot in the real tournament, since they got what was basically a home team in New Hampshire, all because they were the pre-selected hosts of that regional. At least in this scenario, Minnesota's earning their home ice.
Perhaps, in a bit of irony, Minnesota fans might have turned out to cheer on Niagara against North Dakota, the way North Dakota fans had cheered Holy Cross to the upset over the Gophers in 2006 in Grand Forks.
Would attendance be an issue, though? We can cross Minneapolis and South Bend off the concern list right away - those arenas are past and future regional spots already. How much better can we expect the crowds to be when we're guaranteed that the home team will be there?
What about Lowell and Hamden? Tsongas seats about 6,500 for hockey, while the TD Bank Sports Center sells out at 4,074. Both of those figures are lower than the actual crowd sizes in Providence and Manchester.
That's why there's no easy fix for the regional problem - because it's largely an east vs west issue. Eastern regionals at larger neutral sites don't frequently have a problem selling at least a decent number of tickets, and home rinks in the east are frequently smaller than their western counterparts.
But in balancing the desire to have important games played in front of large crowds, ticket sales, bracket integrity, and the single-elimination tournament, it's the only idea that really works. We can't guarantee that every year we'll have two of the #1 seeds from the east and two from the west.
Even then, you're not guaranteeing results, especially if the #4 team upsets the #1 team on their home ice. Two #1s were upset last year by #4s that ended up in the Frozen Four. If Yale still beats Minnesota at Mariucci, you'd still probably have enough North Dakota fans coming out the next night, but what about Miami-St. Cloud in South Bend? It's probably not well attended. But that's the chance you take in order to balance all those various factors.
What about small rinks hosting regionals? Union's doing pretty well this year, what if they were to be a #1 seed, forcing four teams to play for the right to go to the Frozen Four in that tiny dump in Schenectady? There's no easy solution, as we've already said. It's not like Union (and RPI, for that matter) can just have the Times Union Center on hold for that weekend, just in case. Quinnipiac and Yale can't just ask the Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport to keep some dates open for them.
It's not perfect. But it's at least merit-based, more likely to produce full rinks, and hopefully, up the excitement for teams seeking to reach the Frozen Four.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Regional History
To understand the problem with the NCAA regionals, first we have to understand where they've come from So a little history lesson is in order.
Regionals are a relatively new concept in the history of the NCAA tournament. For the first 30 years or so, there were only four teams that qualified for the tournament in the first place, so no additional games were required to determine the Frozen Four once qualification was over. The concept was very simple during this time - two teams from the east, two teams from the west. Every year, no exceptions.
In the late 1970s, there was some experimentation with play-in games to determine the second semifinalist from one or both of the two regions - especially due to the advent of the CCHA and its automatic bid to the tournament - but it wasn't until the tournament expanded to eight teams for the 1980-81 season (and four teams from both regions) that the pre-Frozen Four element of the national tournament became a real thing.
From 1981 through 1987, the quarterfinal round consisted of two-game series of inter-regional matchups, played at the higher seed. The team that scored the most goals in the two games advanced to the Frozen Four, with overtime taking place in the second game if the two teams had scored the same number of goals. RPI hosted two first round series during this time period, infamously falling to North Dakota at the Field House in 1984 and defeating Lake Superior State the next year on the way to winning the national championship.
The tournament expanded again to 12 teams in the 1987-88 season, which required the awarding of byes in order to get down to four teams for the Frozen Four. Initially, the top four seeds earned a free pass to the quarterfinal round, with the remaining eight teams competing in the first round - still a two-game, most goals series hosted by the higher seed. The winners would then travel the following weekend to the four highest seeds, and compete in yet another two-game, most goals series, with the winners advancing to the Frozen Four.
That lengthened the tournament by an entire week, pushing the Frozen Four into the month of April for the first time. The following season, and for the next three years between 1989 and 1991, the two-game series that had previously comprised the first and quarterfinal rounds became best of three series, turning the national tournament into a battle of attrition. For instance, Boston University in 1990 played seven NCAA games before losing in the semifinals at the Frozen Four.
So for 30 years, there wasn't much beyond the Frozen Four, and for another 10, series were played at the higher seeds on campus. In 1992, the first neutral-site regionals took place ahead of the Frozen Four in Albany. Six teams were sent to the East Regional in Providence, while six were sent to the West Regional in Detroit. The top two teams in each regional were given a bye to the second round of the regional, while the other four played each other in the first round, the winners advancing to take on the top seeds the next day.
That's pretty much how things played out for the next 10 years. However, there was a perceived problem in the west, as a number of West Regionals were hosted in campus rinks - in 1994 (Michigan State), 1995 (Wisconsin), 1996 (Michigan State), 1998 (Michigan), 1999 (Wisconsin), 2000 (Minnesota), and 2002 (Michigan). Each of those seasons, with the exception of 1996, 1999, and 2000, saw the home team playing on its own ice sheet. In 1998 and 2002, Michigan teams that hadn't earned a bye to the second round won twice on their home ice and earned a trip to the Frozen Four. (The East didn't have the same problem, as the Regional basically alternated between Albany and Worcester for most of the 1990s.)
With the expansion of the tournament to 16 teams in time for the 2002-03 season, the NCAA basically had two options. They could either continue the East/West regionals, seeding eight teams in each regional and eliminating the bye, or expand to four regional sites per season, seeding four teams per site playing three games to determine a regional champion that advances to the Frozen Four. They chose the latter, and since 2003, the tournament has proceeded in that fashion.
The problem? Practically since the very beginning, most regionals have been practically devoid of spectators, with some major exceptions coming only when a notable host team is present.
The record for attendance at a regional final came in 2006 at the West Regional as North Dakota took on Holy Cross in... Grand Forks, North Dakota. For the geographically challenged, that's where UND's campus is, and the game took place on their home ice surface at Ralph Engelstad Arena. 11,492 took in the Fighting Sioux's victory over a Holy Cross team fresh off the biggest upset in the recent history of the tournament. One has to wonder how many of the 11,153 at that game were Sioux fans cheering fervently against their hated rivals from Minnesota.
In fact, five of the top six best attended regional finals involved a team either playing on its home ice surface or within 10 miles of its campus. All of these occurred in the west, and involved one or both of Minnesota, North Dakota, or Wisconsin. The one exception was the 2007 West Regional in Denver, which drew 11,217 for a game between Minnesota and North Dakota in a regional that also included Michigan, played in an easy-to-travel-to city with teams that have large followings.
But these are the exceptions and not the rule. The median regional final attendance is somewhere around 6,250, and in most cases, special circumstances - the right teams in the right place - are necessary to drive that figure up.
Take the 2010 East Regional in Albany, for instance. It featured Denver as the top seed, Cornell as the second seed, New Hampshire as the third seed, and RIT as the fourth seed. It was seen as a bit of a compromise situation for Denver to be in Albany, since they would have to fly to whatever region they went to, and the other three teams, from relatively nearby schools, would be able to draw some fans, especially considering that those three schools have solid fanbase sizes.
The end result? For starters, Denver played an ostensible road game in front of an almost entirely pro-RIT crowd and lost a close one, 2-1. But the total attendance? Between DU-RIT and Cornell-UNH, the total listed attendance was 4,073. Surely not all of those people were at both games, played in a building that holds over 14,000 for hockey, creating a pretty dead atmosphere. Only 3,737 were on hand to watch RIT earn a trip to the Frozen Four the next night. By comparison, last year's RPI-Union game in the same building drew a shade under 6,000, but the upper bowl was closed and tickets were included in both schools' season ticket package.
Which draws us back to the west. In the Midwest and West regionals, outside of the aforementioned 2007 West Regional, no regional final has ever cleared the median average without having a team with significant local interest involved, and with the exception of the 2008 West Regional in Colorado Springs, none have ever even cleared 5,000.
Tonight, we'll post the attendance figures from each of the 43 regional finals that we have figures for - the 2011 West Regional in St. Louis was unreported. That was almost certainly due to the paltry crowd that was in attendance for a game between Michigan and Colorado College in a building that seats over 19,000. Draw your own conclusions on what makes for worthwhile attendance.
Regionals are a relatively new concept in the history of the NCAA tournament. For the first 30 years or so, there were only four teams that qualified for the tournament in the first place, so no additional games were required to determine the Frozen Four once qualification was over. The concept was very simple during this time - two teams from the east, two teams from the west. Every year, no exceptions.
In the late 1970s, there was some experimentation with play-in games to determine the second semifinalist from one or both of the two regions - especially due to the advent of the CCHA and its automatic bid to the tournament - but it wasn't until the tournament expanded to eight teams for the 1980-81 season (and four teams from both regions) that the pre-Frozen Four element of the national tournament became a real thing.
From 1981 through 1987, the quarterfinal round consisted of two-game series of inter-regional matchups, played at the higher seed. The team that scored the most goals in the two games advanced to the Frozen Four, with overtime taking place in the second game if the two teams had scored the same number of goals. RPI hosted two first round series during this time period, infamously falling to North Dakota at the Field House in 1984 and defeating Lake Superior State the next year on the way to winning the national championship.
The tournament expanded again to 12 teams in the 1987-88 season, which required the awarding of byes in order to get down to four teams for the Frozen Four. Initially, the top four seeds earned a free pass to the quarterfinal round, with the remaining eight teams competing in the first round - still a two-game, most goals series hosted by the higher seed. The winners would then travel the following weekend to the four highest seeds, and compete in yet another two-game, most goals series, with the winners advancing to the Frozen Four.
That lengthened the tournament by an entire week, pushing the Frozen Four into the month of April for the first time. The following season, and for the next three years between 1989 and 1991, the two-game series that had previously comprised the first and quarterfinal rounds became best of three series, turning the national tournament into a battle of attrition. For instance, Boston University in 1990 played seven NCAA games before losing in the semifinals at the Frozen Four.
So for 30 years, there wasn't much beyond the Frozen Four, and for another 10, series were played at the higher seeds on campus. In 1992, the first neutral-site regionals took place ahead of the Frozen Four in Albany. Six teams were sent to the East Regional in Providence, while six were sent to the West Regional in Detroit. The top two teams in each regional were given a bye to the second round of the regional, while the other four played each other in the first round, the winners advancing to take on the top seeds the next day.
That's pretty much how things played out for the next 10 years. However, there was a perceived problem in the west, as a number of West Regionals were hosted in campus rinks - in 1994 (Michigan State), 1995 (Wisconsin), 1996 (Michigan State), 1998 (Michigan), 1999 (Wisconsin), 2000 (Minnesota), and 2002 (Michigan). Each of those seasons, with the exception of 1996, 1999, and 2000, saw the home team playing on its own ice sheet. In 1998 and 2002, Michigan teams that hadn't earned a bye to the second round won twice on their home ice and earned a trip to the Frozen Four. (The East didn't have the same problem, as the Regional basically alternated between Albany and Worcester for most of the 1990s.)
With the expansion of the tournament to 16 teams in time for the 2002-03 season, the NCAA basically had two options. They could either continue the East/West regionals, seeding eight teams in each regional and eliminating the bye, or expand to four regional sites per season, seeding four teams per site playing three games to determine a regional champion that advances to the Frozen Four. They chose the latter, and since 2003, the tournament has proceeded in that fashion.
The problem? Practically since the very beginning, most regionals have been practically devoid of spectators, with some major exceptions coming only when a notable host team is present.
The record for attendance at a regional final came in 2006 at the West Regional as North Dakota took on Holy Cross in... Grand Forks, North Dakota. For the geographically challenged, that's where UND's campus is, and the game took place on their home ice surface at Ralph Engelstad Arena. 11,492 took in the Fighting Sioux's victory over a Holy Cross team fresh off the biggest upset in the recent history of the tournament. One has to wonder how many of the 11,153 at that game were Sioux fans cheering fervently against their hated rivals from Minnesota.
In fact, five of the top six best attended regional finals involved a team either playing on its home ice surface or within 10 miles of its campus. All of these occurred in the west, and involved one or both of Minnesota, North Dakota, or Wisconsin. The one exception was the 2007 West Regional in Denver, which drew 11,217 for a game between Minnesota and North Dakota in a regional that also included Michigan, played in an easy-to-travel-to city with teams that have large followings.
But these are the exceptions and not the rule. The median regional final attendance is somewhere around 6,250, and in most cases, special circumstances - the right teams in the right place - are necessary to drive that figure up.
Take the 2010 East Regional in Albany, for instance. It featured Denver as the top seed, Cornell as the second seed, New Hampshire as the third seed, and RIT as the fourth seed. It was seen as a bit of a compromise situation for Denver to be in Albany, since they would have to fly to whatever region they went to, and the other three teams, from relatively nearby schools, would be able to draw some fans, especially considering that those three schools have solid fanbase sizes.
The end result? For starters, Denver played an ostensible road game in front of an almost entirely pro-RIT crowd and lost a close one, 2-1. But the total attendance? Between DU-RIT and Cornell-UNH, the total listed attendance was 4,073. Surely not all of those people were at both games, played in a building that holds over 14,000 for hockey, creating a pretty dead atmosphere. Only 3,737 were on hand to watch RIT earn a trip to the Frozen Four the next night. By comparison, last year's RPI-Union game in the same building drew a shade under 6,000, but the upper bowl was closed and tickets were included in both schools' season ticket package.
Which draws us back to the west. In the Midwest and West regionals, outside of the aforementioned 2007 West Regional, no regional final has ever cleared the median average without having a team with significant local interest involved, and with the exception of the 2008 West Regional in Colorado Springs, none have ever even cleared 5,000.
Tonight, we'll post the attendance figures from each of the 43 regional finals that we have figures for - the 2011 West Regional in St. Louis was unreported. That was almost certainly due to the paltry crowd that was in attendance for a game between Michigan and Colorado College in a building that seats over 19,000. Draw your own conclusions on what makes for worthwhile attendance.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Regionally Speaking
Popular opinion had it that North Dakota, the perennial NCAA tournament program which is more often than not a solid part of the national championship discussion, was probably going to beat a Yale team that had backed into the tournament after a dreadful ECAC tournament showing in Atlantic City. Even though the Bulldogs had just upset one of the tournament favorites, Minnesota, luck was supposed to run out on Cinderella the next night.
Through 50 minutes, it was looking good for the favorites. They hadn't been able to unleash a great many shots on Jeff Malcolm, but a Corban Knight goal from the first period was still holding up for a 1-0 lead. Clarke Saunders had been magnificent in turning away shot after shot, accumulating 25 in the first two periods alone.
Then, Yale took momentum and wouldn't let go, shocking the college hockey world in the process. A goal with 7:35 left tied it. Then a power play tally about two and a half minutes later put the Bulldogs in front. Another two and a half minutes later, it was 3-1, and 90 seconds after that, an empty netter put the seal on a 4-1 victory that ended North Dakota's season and put Yale, for the first time in several decades, in the Frozen Four on their way to their first national championship.
With a comeback on that magnitude, you think you'd probably hear a pin-drop in the arena, especially given North Dakota's fanbase, well-known as one of the largest and best traveling in the country. Truth be told, one probably could have heard a pin-drop in Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan that day. The problem is, you could probably have heard it at the opening puck drop. And during Knight's goal. And during the second period as well.
Only 1,918 people were in attendance for one of the biggest victories in the very, very long history of Yale hockey, sitting in a building capable of seating close to 11,000.
Earlier in the year, a reported sellout crowd of 3,500 had watched the Bulldogs win an exhibition game over the Russian Red Stars in a 10-2 laugher. Yale punched its ticket to the Frozen Four in front of fewer fans than had seen their poor play in Atlantic City, a location much maligned in the ECAC for its inability to draw fans. They'd played in front of fewer fans on only four occasions before during the year - in two games at the Ivy Shootout to start their season at Brown, neither game coming against a home team that draws notoriously poor crowds to start with, in a road game at Holy Cross, and then in a road game at... Brown. Even their game at similarly light-crowd-drawing Colgate managed 1,962.
The game set the record for the lowest official attendance at an NCAA regional final since the tournament expanded to 16 teams in 2003. The very next day, in Toledo, Ohio, St. Cloud State ended a drought for its long-suffering fans by earning its first ever Frozen Four berth, taking down the ostensible local team in Miami before only 2,460 fans. If not for the poor turnout in Grand Rapids the previous day, that would have been the record for smallest regional final crowd. The original record? Set in 2012 in Green Bay, Wisconsin between Ferris State and Cornell at 3,102.
RPI took on Denver in the middle of a snowstorm a couple of weeks ago, and managed an attendance of 2,703, which was bigger than two NCAA tournament regional finals last season.
Six of the 10 smallest regional final crowds ever have come in the last four seasons, and if the attendance figures for the 2011 West Regional final in St. Louis had been released, it is thought that it would also rank in that bottom 10. None of these crowds eclipsed 4,000 attendees, which means RPI/Union games in Albany and Troy during the regular season have regularly been beating out games that determine Frozen Four participants. So while regional attendance has never been earth shattering - only three finals have ever cleared 10,000 - of late it has certainly appeared to be getting worse.
Over the next four days, we'll be taking a look at regionals past, present, and future, and discuss just what can be done about major NCAA games frequently being played in front of practically no one.
Through 50 minutes, it was looking good for the favorites. They hadn't been able to unleash a great many shots on Jeff Malcolm, but a Corban Knight goal from the first period was still holding up for a 1-0 lead. Clarke Saunders had been magnificent in turning away shot after shot, accumulating 25 in the first two periods alone.
Then, Yale took momentum and wouldn't let go, shocking the college hockey world in the process. A goal with 7:35 left tied it. Then a power play tally about two and a half minutes later put the Bulldogs in front. Another two and a half minutes later, it was 3-1, and 90 seconds after that, an empty netter put the seal on a 4-1 victory that ended North Dakota's season and put Yale, for the first time in several decades, in the Frozen Four on their way to their first national championship.
With a comeback on that magnitude, you think you'd probably hear a pin-drop in the arena, especially given North Dakota's fanbase, well-known as one of the largest and best traveling in the country. Truth be told, one probably could have heard a pin-drop in Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan that day. The problem is, you could probably have heard it at the opening puck drop. And during Knight's goal. And during the second period as well.
Only 1,918 people were in attendance for one of the biggest victories in the very, very long history of Yale hockey, sitting in a building capable of seating close to 11,000.
Earlier in the year, a reported sellout crowd of 3,500 had watched the Bulldogs win an exhibition game over the Russian Red Stars in a 10-2 laugher. Yale punched its ticket to the Frozen Four in front of fewer fans than had seen their poor play in Atlantic City, a location much maligned in the ECAC for its inability to draw fans. They'd played in front of fewer fans on only four occasions before during the year - in two games at the Ivy Shootout to start their season at Brown, neither game coming against a home team that draws notoriously poor crowds to start with, in a road game at Holy Cross, and then in a road game at... Brown. Even their game at similarly light-crowd-drawing Colgate managed 1,962.
The game set the record for the lowest official attendance at an NCAA regional final since the tournament expanded to 16 teams in 2003. The very next day, in Toledo, Ohio, St. Cloud State ended a drought for its long-suffering fans by earning its first ever Frozen Four berth, taking down the ostensible local team in Miami before only 2,460 fans. If not for the poor turnout in Grand Rapids the previous day, that would have been the record for smallest regional final crowd. The original record? Set in 2012 in Green Bay, Wisconsin between Ferris State and Cornell at 3,102.
RPI took on Denver in the middle of a snowstorm a couple of weeks ago, and managed an attendance of 2,703, which was bigger than two NCAA tournament regional finals last season.
Six of the 10 smallest regional final crowds ever have come in the last four seasons, and if the attendance figures for the 2011 West Regional final in St. Louis had been released, it is thought that it would also rank in that bottom 10. None of these crowds eclipsed 4,000 attendees, which means RPI/Union games in Albany and Troy during the regular season have regularly been beating out games that determine Frozen Four participants. So while regional attendance has never been earth shattering - only three finals have ever cleared 10,000 - of late it has certainly appeared to be getting worse.
Over the next four days, we'll be taking a look at regionals past, present, and future, and discuss just what can be done about major NCAA games frequently being played in front of practically no one.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
We're Low on Frozen Fours
Anyone else notice that after the Frozen Four in Philadelphia at the end of this season... we're going to plum out of Frozen Four locations? We don't know where it's going to be held next year. By comparison, during the 2005-06 season, we were aware of where the next seven in a row would be.
Well, fear not. Word is that the NCAA is going to be awarding the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Frozen Fours in December. But where will they be? Given the 10 cities that are finalists, odds are pretty good that they'll be in places that we've seen in the recent past - 8 of the 10 have hosted the event at some point in the last 12 seasons.
In 2009, during the last bidding round, I did a thorough run-through of possible 2013-15 Frozen Four sites for College Hockey News. The NCAA ultimately awarded only the 2013 and 2014 Frozen Fours, to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia respectively, making me look like an idiot for suggesting that they wouldn't both get 2 out of 3 when they ended up getting 2 of 2.
Boston (1960, 1963†, 1972-74, 1998, 2004): More and more, Beantown is expected to be a heavy favorite for the 2015 gig, and it's with good reason. Already one of what most would consider the four metropolitan meccas of college hockey (we'll get to the other three down the list), Boston hasn't hosted in 10 years and they're about ready for another one. They are considered to have the infrastructure and experience needed to host the event with the 18 months advance notice, and it's actually a bit shocking that they apparently didn't put in a bid to host last time around. The TD Garden has a bid in for this next round, and it would be foolish not to expect Boston to be one of the host cities, if not in 2015 then in 2016 for sure. The entirety of their bid packet should be "Hi. We're Boston."
Buffalo (2003): The Buffalo Sabres are backing a bid to host the Frozen Four at the First Niagara Center for the second time (along with Niagara and Canisius), and the bid does seem to have a lot going for it. The strong backing from the local NHL team should probably be seen as a good sign, as the 2009 and 2013 affairs in Washington and Pittsburgh had very strong support from the Capitals and Penguins, and Buffalo is the center of a significant hotbed of hockey action. The 2003 event didn't go off very well, but the support by Terry Pegula, who owns the Sabres and got varsity hockey going at Penn State, could be a deal clincher.
Columbus (2005): The last time the Frozen Four was held in Columbus, it was noteworthy for a few reasons. First off, the event featured four teams from the WCHA (none of which are still in that conference), which became a major turnoff for basically the rest of the country, and it was also held on the Ohio State campus, away from downtown Columbus. The Buckeyes' home arena is usually full of lots of empty seats (RPI draws twice as many fans on a regular basis in a building three times smaller), but it's still a touch small for a Frozen Four spot. This time around, the bid comes instead from the Blue Jackets' home, Nationwide Arena. It's bigger and closer to the action, but the location as a hockey destination may leave something to be desired. Not only do the Buckeyes not draw to their own games, the Blue Jackets have routinely been near the bottom of the NHL's attendance figures for years.
Washington (2009): It's hard to find anyone who disliked the Washington Frozen Four. It had thrilling games and was very well organized from top to bottom. At the time the bid was awarded, Washington was still considered something of a hockey backwater, in part due to a history of underachieving Capitals teams that the locals just never got excited about. Alex Ovechkin changed all that, and by the time the Frozen Four was hosted there, attendance had already begun picking up dramatically. Caps tickets are now in hot demand in the nation's capital. On top of that, long time Caps general manager George McPhee is a strong supporter of college hockey, which makes complete sense considering that he won the 1982 Hobey Baker Award while at Bowling Green. And of course, Adam Oates needs no introduction, either. It's not a shoo-in since Boston will be hosting at least over 10 years following its last gig, but it's a very strong contender. The arena's right on a subway line, which makes it easily accessible from lodging all over the area.
St. Paul (1958‡, 1966‡, 1989, 1991, 1994, 2002, 2011): Pretty much everything that was said about Boston could be said about the Twin Cities with one major exception - they hosted the event just three years ago, and while it was absolutely tremendous (speaking from personal experience), it's probably too soon to turn around and go back right away. If not for the Boston bid, the St. Paul bid would probably be the logical choice for a quick hosting job for 2015, but as it is it's probably too soon to bring the event back to Minnesota even in any of the other three years being awarded at this point. As one of the meccas of college hockey, the Twin Cities area can put on a true hockey show without even really trying, so any hockey fan should be hopeful that there will be another Frozen Four at the Xcel Energy Center in the future, it probably just won't be happening until 2019 at the earliest. If we're wrong about that, it would be quite OK.
Tampa (2012): Talk about a rehabilitation. When Tampa was announced as a surprise choice for 2012 back in 2005 (surprise partially because they were only expected to announce the '09, '10, and '11 sites), there was much caterwauling from the college hockey community. When the Tampa Bay Lightning canceled the mid-season tournament that they had been holding there in preparation, there was more howling. Too far from college hockey's footprint, they said. Non-traditional. Well, by the time 2012 rolled around, and even despite having a couple of difficult draws in Ferris State and Union, most people's tune had changed dramatically. Everyone who went seemed to love Tampa as a host and some even jokingly asked if they could just have it there every year. The bidding school? Wisconsin, of course. (Of course.) Two problems, though. First, the 2012 event, as fun as it was for attendees, did not sell out. Second, it's probably too soon to return to Tampa, given the NCAA's seeming preference for spreading the event around the country a little.
Pittsburgh (2013): By most accounts, last year's Frozen Four went very well, and had a lot of push from the Penguins. Things could have been downright disastrous given that all four of last year's participants were, shall we say, "non-traditional," given that only one (Yale) had ever been to the Frozen Four in the past, and it had been decades prior. But, like with Tampa, it's certainly too soon to turn back to the Iron City right away, not with some bigger hotbeds of the college game waiting their turn.
Philadelphia (2014): Yes, this year's event hasn't even taken place yet and the City of Brotherly Love is already hungry for more. See also Tampa, Pittsburgh, and then apply the fact that it would be even sooner. Not even really certain why they're putting forward the effort to bid again before they even know how the event is going to play out this year - if things turn out poorly it's not like they'd want to be hosting the event so quickly.
Chicago (never): The time might be just about right for a Frozen Four in the Second City. The Blackhawks have won two of the last four Stanley Cups, and in doing so, have vaulted themselves to the top of the NHL's attendance sheet five years running. The United Center holds a ton of people for hockey, and that's got to look attractive from the NCAA's standpoint. Considering the general lack of "non-traditional" college hockey markets besides Tampa, it would be a good move for college hockey in general to get some exposure in a large city that at least has Notre Dame somewhat nearby (and the Irish have played a few regular-season games in the city as well). The United Center isn't really that close to the most happening spots in Chicago, though, and a bit more troubling is that a few years ago, the area around the arena was deemed the most dangerous neighborhood in America.
Brooklyn (never): For years fans have talked about the possibility of hosting the Frozen Four on the grandest stage of them all, New York City. Even though there's no college team located in the five boroughs, there seems to always be interest for bringing the event to the City that Never Sleeps. Three hockey playing schools, Yale, Quinnipiac, and Army, are in the metropolitan footprint, and two of those schools just did battle for the national championship. But it's not Madison Square Garden that is the focus of this year's bid, instead, it's the newer, hipper Barclays Center in Brooklyn, the future home of the New York Islanders which is the center of an entertainment revolution in the most populated of the boroughs. The bid does have some serious problems with it, first and foremost, the small capacity for hockey (15,813, which isn't far off from what Albany holds), and the fact that New York City's a very expensive city to stay in. Still, it would be pretty nice to finally have the event in NYC.
A number of bids either never materialized or were left off the list of the Top 10, including the other two college hockey meccas, Detroit and Denver (which should probably be considered the shock of this round that Denver apparently didn't bid), Milwaukee, Kansas City, Orlando, Cleveland, San Jose, and Nashville.
There used to be a significant east-west balance in Frozen Fours, but that has died out recently - the 2005-09 Frozen Fours were all in college hockey's "west," while the 2012-14 editions have all been in the "east," and seven of the ten bids are in the east. That seems to be pretty much out the window, although you'd have to think at least one western locale will get to host.
So what are we going with? Let's try this on for size.
2015 - Boston: Really, a no-brainer here.
2016 - Chicago: The dangerous neighborhood aside, it makes complete sense for the NCAA to hit a burgeoning hockey hotspot.
2017 - Buffalo: Think the Pegula factor will come into play here - his bucks spent on Penn State and the Sabres.
2018 - Washington: The 2009 event went over well enough for this to be a good spot to bring it back.
† - Chestnut Hill, MA
‡ - Minneapolis, MN
Well, fear not. Word is that the NCAA is going to be awarding the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Frozen Fours in December. But where will they be? Given the 10 cities that are finalists, odds are pretty good that they'll be in places that we've seen in the recent past - 8 of the 10 have hosted the event at some point in the last 12 seasons.
In 2009, during the last bidding round, I did a thorough run-through of possible 2013-15 Frozen Four sites for College Hockey News. The NCAA ultimately awarded only the 2013 and 2014 Frozen Fours, to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia respectively, making me look like an idiot for suggesting that they wouldn't both get 2 out of 3 when they ended up getting 2 of 2.
Boston (1960, 1963†, 1972-74, 1998, 2004): More and more, Beantown is expected to be a heavy favorite for the 2015 gig, and it's with good reason. Already one of what most would consider the four metropolitan meccas of college hockey (we'll get to the other three down the list), Boston hasn't hosted in 10 years and they're about ready for another one. They are considered to have the infrastructure and experience needed to host the event with the 18 months advance notice, and it's actually a bit shocking that they apparently didn't put in a bid to host last time around. The TD Garden has a bid in for this next round, and it would be foolish not to expect Boston to be one of the host cities, if not in 2015 then in 2016 for sure. The entirety of their bid packet should be "Hi. We're Boston."
Buffalo (2003): The Buffalo Sabres are backing a bid to host the Frozen Four at the First Niagara Center for the second time (along with Niagara and Canisius), and the bid does seem to have a lot going for it. The strong backing from the local NHL team should probably be seen as a good sign, as the 2009 and 2013 affairs in Washington and Pittsburgh had very strong support from the Capitals and Penguins, and Buffalo is the center of a significant hotbed of hockey action. The 2003 event didn't go off very well, but the support by Terry Pegula, who owns the Sabres and got varsity hockey going at Penn State, could be a deal clincher.
Columbus (2005): The last time the Frozen Four was held in Columbus, it was noteworthy for a few reasons. First off, the event featured four teams from the WCHA (none of which are still in that conference), which became a major turnoff for basically the rest of the country, and it was also held on the Ohio State campus, away from downtown Columbus. The Buckeyes' home arena is usually full of lots of empty seats (RPI draws twice as many fans on a regular basis in a building three times smaller), but it's still a touch small for a Frozen Four spot. This time around, the bid comes instead from the Blue Jackets' home, Nationwide Arena. It's bigger and closer to the action, but the location as a hockey destination may leave something to be desired. Not only do the Buckeyes not draw to their own games, the Blue Jackets have routinely been near the bottom of the NHL's attendance figures for years.
Washington (2009): It's hard to find anyone who disliked the Washington Frozen Four. It had thrilling games and was very well organized from top to bottom. At the time the bid was awarded, Washington was still considered something of a hockey backwater, in part due to a history of underachieving Capitals teams that the locals just never got excited about. Alex Ovechkin changed all that, and by the time the Frozen Four was hosted there, attendance had already begun picking up dramatically. Caps tickets are now in hot demand in the nation's capital. On top of that, long time Caps general manager George McPhee is a strong supporter of college hockey, which makes complete sense considering that he won the 1982 Hobey Baker Award while at Bowling Green. And of course, Adam Oates needs no introduction, either. It's not a shoo-in since Boston will be hosting at least over 10 years following its last gig, but it's a very strong contender. The arena's right on a subway line, which makes it easily accessible from lodging all over the area.
St. Paul (1958‡, 1966‡, 1989, 1991, 1994, 2002, 2011): Pretty much everything that was said about Boston could be said about the Twin Cities with one major exception - they hosted the event just three years ago, and while it was absolutely tremendous (speaking from personal experience), it's probably too soon to turn around and go back right away. If not for the Boston bid, the St. Paul bid would probably be the logical choice for a quick hosting job for 2015, but as it is it's probably too soon to bring the event back to Minnesota even in any of the other three years being awarded at this point. As one of the meccas of college hockey, the Twin Cities area can put on a true hockey show without even really trying, so any hockey fan should be hopeful that there will be another Frozen Four at the Xcel Energy Center in the future, it probably just won't be happening until 2019 at the earliest. If we're wrong about that, it would be quite OK.
Tampa (2012): Talk about a rehabilitation. When Tampa was announced as a surprise choice for 2012 back in 2005 (surprise partially because they were only expected to announce the '09, '10, and '11 sites), there was much caterwauling from the college hockey community. When the Tampa Bay Lightning canceled the mid-season tournament that they had been holding there in preparation, there was more howling. Too far from college hockey's footprint, they said. Non-traditional. Well, by the time 2012 rolled around, and even despite having a couple of difficult draws in Ferris State and Union, most people's tune had changed dramatically. Everyone who went seemed to love Tampa as a host and some even jokingly asked if they could just have it there every year. The bidding school? Wisconsin, of course. (Of course.) Two problems, though. First, the 2012 event, as fun as it was for attendees, did not sell out. Second, it's probably too soon to return to Tampa, given the NCAA's seeming preference for spreading the event around the country a little.
Pittsburgh (2013): By most accounts, last year's Frozen Four went very well, and had a lot of push from the Penguins. Things could have been downright disastrous given that all four of last year's participants were, shall we say, "non-traditional," given that only one (Yale) had ever been to the Frozen Four in the past, and it had been decades prior. But, like with Tampa, it's certainly too soon to turn back to the Iron City right away, not with some bigger hotbeds of the college game waiting their turn.
Philadelphia (2014): Yes, this year's event hasn't even taken place yet and the City of Brotherly Love is already hungry for more. See also Tampa, Pittsburgh, and then apply the fact that it would be even sooner. Not even really certain why they're putting forward the effort to bid again before they even know how the event is going to play out this year - if things turn out poorly it's not like they'd want to be hosting the event so quickly.
Chicago (never): The time might be just about right for a Frozen Four in the Second City. The Blackhawks have won two of the last four Stanley Cups, and in doing so, have vaulted themselves to the top of the NHL's attendance sheet five years running. The United Center holds a ton of people for hockey, and that's got to look attractive from the NCAA's standpoint. Considering the general lack of "non-traditional" college hockey markets besides Tampa, it would be a good move for college hockey in general to get some exposure in a large city that at least has Notre Dame somewhat nearby (and the Irish have played a few regular-season games in the city as well). The United Center isn't really that close to the most happening spots in Chicago, though, and a bit more troubling is that a few years ago, the area around the arena was deemed the most dangerous neighborhood in America.
Brooklyn (never): For years fans have talked about the possibility of hosting the Frozen Four on the grandest stage of them all, New York City. Even though there's no college team located in the five boroughs, there seems to always be interest for bringing the event to the City that Never Sleeps. Three hockey playing schools, Yale, Quinnipiac, and Army, are in the metropolitan footprint, and two of those schools just did battle for the national championship. But it's not Madison Square Garden that is the focus of this year's bid, instead, it's the newer, hipper Barclays Center in Brooklyn, the future home of the New York Islanders which is the center of an entertainment revolution in the most populated of the boroughs. The bid does have some serious problems with it, first and foremost, the small capacity for hockey (15,813, which isn't far off from what Albany holds), and the fact that New York City's a very expensive city to stay in. Still, it would be pretty nice to finally have the event in NYC.
A number of bids either never materialized or were left off the list of the Top 10, including the other two college hockey meccas, Detroit and Denver (which should probably be considered the shock of this round that Denver apparently didn't bid), Milwaukee, Kansas City, Orlando, Cleveland, San Jose, and Nashville.
There used to be a significant east-west balance in Frozen Fours, but that has died out recently - the 2005-09 Frozen Fours were all in college hockey's "west," while the 2012-14 editions have all been in the "east," and seven of the ten bids are in the east. That seems to be pretty much out the window, although you'd have to think at least one western locale will get to host.
So what are we going with? Let's try this on for size.
2015 - Boston: Really, a no-brainer here.
2016 - Chicago: The dangerous neighborhood aside, it makes complete sense for the NCAA to hit a burgeoning hockey hotspot.
2017 - Buffalo: Think the Pegula factor will come into play here - his bucks spent on Penn State and the Sabres.
2018 - Washington: The 2009 event went over well enough for this to be a good spot to bring it back.
† - Chestnut Hill, MA
‡ - Minneapolis, MN
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Leaders Among Women
As the women wrap up a successful exhibition campaign with a combined 14-0 output against the Ottawa Jr. Senators and Brock University, let's take a quick look at the top returning players in the ECAC.
The list is more difficult to put together this year since it's an Olympic season, which means there are a handful of players with remaining eligibility who won't be with their teams this year. Four players in particular are gone in the ECAC who would have appeared in at least one category below - Cornell's Brianne Jenner, with Canada, Harvard's Lyndsey Fry and Michelle Picard with the USA (along with their coach, Katey Stone), and Quinnipiac's Erica Uden Johansson with Sweden. Additionally, St. Lawrence defenseman Amanda Boulier will miss the season with a medical redshirt.
RPI's top players are added where they are not already among the top 10 in each category.
Points
Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 35
Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 29
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 25
Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 23
Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 22
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 19
Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 18
Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 17
Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 16
Abbey McRae, St. Lawrence - 16
(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 14)
Goals
Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 17
Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 12
Abbey McRae, St. Lawrence - 11
Jessica Campbell, Cornell - 10
Kalley Armstrong, Harvard - 9
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 9
Brittany Styner, Clarkson - 8
Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 8
Nicole Connery, Quinnpiac - 8
Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 7
(Toni Sanders, RPI - 6)
Assists
Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 22
Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 18
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 16
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 16
Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 15
Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 14
Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 12
Sarah Edney, Harvard - 12
Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 11
Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 10
(Alexa Gruschow/Jenn Godin, RPI - 8)
Power Play Points
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 11
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 11
Tara Tomimoto, Yale - 9
Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 8
Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 7
Taylor Woods, Cornell - 7
Jamie Haddad, Yale - 7
Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 7
Katie Case, Colgate - 7
Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 6
(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 5)
Power Play Goals
Jamie Haddad, Yale - 5
Taylor Woods, Cornell - 4
Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 4
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 4
Ailish Forfar, Dartmouth - 3
Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 3
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 3
Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 3
Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 3
Lindsey Allen, Dartmouth - 3
(Toni Sanders, RPI - 2)
Defenseman Scoring
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 19
Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 17
Sarah Edney, Harvard - 15
Kate Martini, Yale - 12
Tara Tomimoto, Yale - 12
Alyssa Gagliardi, Cornell - 11
Jenn Godin, RPI - 11
Megan Wickens, Colgate - 11
Cassandra Poudrier, Cornell - 10
Mel Desrochers, St. Lawrence - 9
Goals Against Average
Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - 1.04
Erica Howe, Clarkson - 1.23
Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - 1.54
Lindsay Holdcroft, Dartmouth - 1.97
Aubree Moore, Brown - 2.18
Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - 2.24
Kelly O'Brien, RPI - 2.35
Ashlynne Rando, Colgate - 2.65
Jaimie Leonoff, Yale - 2.67
Shenae Lundberg, Union - 3.15
Save Percentage
Erica Howe, Clarkson - .957
Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - .947
Jaimie Leonoff, Yale - .927
Aubree Moore, Brown - .925
Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - .920
Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - .920
Lindsay Holdcroft, Dartmouth - .917
Ashlynne Rando, Colgate - .910
Kelly O'Brien, RPI - .907
Kimberly Newell, Princeton - .907
Returning Goals Per Game (difference from last year)
Clarkson - 2.36 (-0.41)
Cornell - 2.23 (-1.59)
Quinnipiac - 2.00 (-1.00)
St. Lawrence - 1.82 (-1.13)
RPI - 1.50 (-0.68)
Princeton - 1.36 (-0.73)
Yale - 1.23 (-0.36)
Dartmouth - 1.14 (-1.50)
Harvard - 1.12 (-2.38)
Colgate - 1.09 (-0.73)
Brown - 0.95 (-0.46)
Union - 0.55 (-0.13)
--
We'll round out the stat pack with a look at the national leaders, and how RPI's top returning players stack up against them. The following would-be stat leaders are gone for Olympic duty.
Boston College: Alex Carpenter (USA)
Boston University: Marie-Philip Poulin (Canada)
Minnesota: Amanda Kessel (USA)
Northeastern: Kendall Coyne (USA)
ECAC players are bolded. Players on RPI's schedule this year are in italics.
Points per game
Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 2.00
Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 1.95
Haley Skarupa, Boston College - 1.61
Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 1.53
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 1.44
Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 1.43
Emily Field, Boston College - 1.22
Sarah Lefort, Boston University - 1.16
Jenna Dingeldein, Mercyhurst - 1.16
Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 1.15
(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 0.75)
Goals per game
Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 0.80
Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 0.78
Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 0.76
Haley Skarupa, Boston College - 0.73
Sarah Lefort, Boston University - 0.65
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 0.61
Rebecca Vint, Robert Morris - 0.52
Madison Packer, Wisconsin - 0.51
Emily Janiga, Mercyhurst - 0.51
Meghan Dufault, North Dakota - 0.50
(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 0.36)
Assists per game
Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 1.49
Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 1.19
Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 1.10
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 0.88
Haley Skarupa, Boston College - 0.88
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 0.83
Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 0.82
Emily Field, Boston College - 0.78
Jenna Dingeldein, Mercyhurst - 0.76
Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 0.75
(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 0.39)
Power play goals
Madison Packer, Wisconsin - 10
Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 10
Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 10
Michelle Karvinen, North Dakota - 9
Milica McMillen, Minnesota - 8
Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 8
Emily Janiga, Mercyhurst - 8
Molli Mott, St. Cloud State - 7
Jill Holdcroft, Penn State - 6
Karley Sylvester, Wisconsin - 6
(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 5)
Points per game (Defensemen)
Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 1.06
Molly Byrne, Mercyhurst - 0.86
Kari Schmitt, Ohio State - 0.76
Milica McMillen, Minnesota - 0.74
Rachel Ramsey, Minnesota - 0.71
Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 0.71
Brigette Lacquette, Minnesota-Duluth - 0.71
Alexis Crossley, New Hampshire - 0.71
Maggie DiMasi, Northeastern - 0.66
Courtney Burke, Wisconsin - 0.66
(Jenn Godin, RPI - 0.43)
Goals Against Average
Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - 1.44
Alex Rigsby, Wisconsin - 1.49
Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - 1.55
Kallie Billadeau, Syracuse - 1.56
Erica Howe, Clarkson - 1.73
Amanda Makela, Mercyhurst - 2.01
Shelby Amsley-Benzie, North Dakota - 2.08
Lindsay Holdcroft, Dartmouth - 2.11
Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - 2.19
Kerrin Sperry, Boston University - 2.20
(Kelly O'Brien, RPI - 2.48)
Save Percentage
Alex Rigsby, Wisconsin - .943
Kallie Billadeau, Syracuse - .940
Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - .935
Erica Howe, Clarkson - .931
Nicole Paniccia, Penn State - .928
Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - .927
Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - .925
Jaimie Leonoff, Yale - .925
Aubree Moore, Brown - .921
Alexius Schutt, Sacred Heart - .920
(Kelly O'Brien, RPI - .905)
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
EZAC!
So there it was, Easter night, and suddenly it dawned on me.
The national championship game could be a rematch of the ECAC consolation game.
Yeah. We're not in Kansas anymore, are we?
A couple of times this season, I've pooh-poohed some of the more excited suggestions about what the ECAC could accomplish on the national level. So far, I've been proven about right - three NCAA bids was about what I expected. So what is it to say that the ECAC now has two teams in the Frozen Four for the first time since 1983, and just a year removed from ending a nine-year drought without even a single team in the ultimate event of the college hockey season?
Some would say it was nothing but luck. Those people will point to the fact that Yale essentially backed into the tournament after failing miserably in Atlantic City (scoring a grand total of zero goals in two games), that Union could well have been out of the NCAAs themselves if they hadn't won the ECAC title (probably true), and that Quinnipiac had a lousy February and (of course) was never a deserving #1.
Ask Minnesota, North Dakota, and Boston College about what kind of year the ECAC had. Those three powerhouse programs can boast a single split regular-season title (the Gophers, with St. Cloud State earning the #1 seed in the conference tournament) between them while two ECAC teams do battle in Pittsburgh for the opportunity to claim the league's first national championship since 1989.
While I was trying to calm down the overly optimistic expectations of four or five bids, I also pointed to the upward trend the league has been experiencing in the last couple of years as a legitimate source of optimism, and this is certainly another sign of growth. In 2011, we saw the league picking up three bids for the first time in several years. In 2012, it was a Frozen Four berth. Now, it's both, plus an extra spot in the Frozen Four.
Now, we don't need to have Quinnipiac and Yale win tomorrow to make this a successful season for the league, and there are plenty of additional steps that need to be taken before we can really pound our chests. And, as I also brought up earlier this season, the ECAC is set to pretty much overtake the "new" WCHA starting next season in terms of stature.
So, what are the chances of an ECAC champion this weekend? I'd go with... fair. It sounds pessimistic to say that with half the teams being from the ECAC, but it's about as far as I'd be willing to go. UMass-Lowell, on their current seven-game win streak, has given up either one goal or none at all in six of those games. That's a defense that's dialed in. St. Cloud State played exceptionally well in the WCHA, and settled for a #4 seed based almost entirely upon non-conference stumbles against UNH, RPI, and Northern Michigan, plus a loss to Wisconsin in the WCHA tournament. They're good.
That's not to say that Yale and Quinnipiac don't have things going for them as well. The Bobcats may be as dialed in on offense as UML is on defense, and a matchup between the Q and the River Hawks could be very exciting - as could the actual Yale-UML matchup provided that the Bulldogs get the offense they had in Grand Rapids rather than the one they had in Atlantic City.
Overall, though? This is a weekend to enjoy if you're a college hockey fan. It's the Frozen Four, of course, and that's cause every year. But this year? It's an even bigger celebration of what makes college hockey special. It's borne out of Union beating Boston College and St. Cloud State beating Notre Dame. Name another sport where that result would be even remotely possible.
When the casual college sports fan looks at the Frozen Four and says "who the hell are these guys?", you can take pride when you say - these are four damn good college hockey teams, and they proved it.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Favored Sons
Well, we wanted Minnesota State and North Dakota, we got Wisconsin and Colorado College. Not the best start, but fortunately we're not in a position to be do-or-die anywhere just yet... although we're looking at some BIG games today.
With the two setbacks, RPI's KRACH-weighted odds of making the national tournament now sits at 14.8794%. The Engineers can no longer finish 13th in the Pairwise, the best they can now hope for is 14th (587 scenarios of a possible 32,296).
We've got the same 12 teams that are locks or virtual locks. Here's where we stand with the rest of the at-large hopefuls.
Notre Dame - 85.9161%
Western Michigan - 81.9957%
Union - 54.5077%
Wisconsin - 25.1730%
Boston University - 19.5755%
Providence - 18.7168%
Rensselaer - 14.8784%
Robert Morris - 0.8433%
Alaska has been eliminated from NCAA contention due to CC's win over North Dakota.
All of those figures are down from yesterday with the exception of Wisconsin, naturally. RPI and Union took the biggest hits (as did RMU, if you consider that they were at least above 3% yesterday), the others were minimal at best.
It should go without saying that we want our closest competitors for an at-large bid to lose ASAP. That means we'd like to get those four teams ahead of us out tonight, if possible. Since all four are playing teams that are guaranteed to be in the tournament anyway, it makes much of what we're hoping to see today very academic.
Here's the schedule, all times eastern.
3pm
St. Cloud State over Wisconsin
4pm
Quinnipiac over Brown
Niagara over Canisius
5pm
UMass-Lowell over Providence
7:30pm
Yale over Union
Mercyhurst over UConn
8pm
Boston College over Boston University
Minnesota over Colorado College
The Mercyhurst/UConn game has been hard to draw a bead on for sure, in part because it's probably the least important game of the night for the Engineers, but also because there are different potential reasons for supporting either team. Ultimately, our gut instinct is to take Mercyhurst. Why? Because RPI played the Lakers this year (winning twice), which suggests a better PWR boost if they win tonight. They are lower rated in KRACH than UConn, suggesting that if Niagara advances as we hope they will, the Purps would be more heavily favored against Mercyhurst than against the Huskies.
Despite this, the Engineers appear to be better off in the KRACH-weighted odds if UConn wins, even though a Mercyhurst victory leaves more paths to an at-large bid open. We're sticking with our gut and taking the Lakers - which could be irrelevant if Niagara wins anyway.
The good news? We're rooting for higher seeds in every game but the Mercyhurst/UConn game.
The bad news? Losses for our teams in any of the five biggest games - SCSU/UW, Niagara/Canisius, UML/PC, Yale/UC, and BC/BU - would be difficult to swallow.
With the CCHA on a Saturday/Sunday schedule this year, it's likely we won't know for sure if the Engineers are in the tournament until Sunday. If they're definitively out, that could come today or tomorrow.
We'll keep you updated via Twitter as the day progresses. Starting at three, we'll also have a chat here at WaP if you wish to keep caught up on what's going on around the country in real time.
Once more unto the breach, friends.
With the two setbacks, RPI's KRACH-weighted odds of making the national tournament now sits at 14.8794%. The Engineers can no longer finish 13th in the Pairwise, the best they can now hope for is 14th (587 scenarios of a possible 32,296).
We've got the same 12 teams that are locks or virtual locks. Here's where we stand with the rest of the at-large hopefuls.
Notre Dame - 85.9161%
Western Michigan - 81.9957%
Union - 54.5077%
Wisconsin - 25.1730%
Boston University - 19.5755%
Providence - 18.7168%
Rensselaer - 14.8784%
Robert Morris - 0.8433%
Alaska has been eliminated from NCAA contention due to CC's win over North Dakota.
All of those figures are down from yesterday with the exception of Wisconsin, naturally. RPI and Union took the biggest hits (as did RMU, if you consider that they were at least above 3% yesterday), the others were minimal at best.
It should go without saying that we want our closest competitors for an at-large bid to lose ASAP. That means we'd like to get those four teams ahead of us out tonight, if possible. Since all four are playing teams that are guaranteed to be in the tournament anyway, it makes much of what we're hoping to see today very academic.
Here's the schedule, all times eastern.
3pm
St. Cloud State over Wisconsin
4pm
Quinnipiac over Brown
Niagara over Canisius
5pm
UMass-Lowell over Providence
7:30pm
Yale over Union
Mercyhurst over UConn
8pm
Boston College over Boston University
Minnesota over Colorado College
The Mercyhurst/UConn game has been hard to draw a bead on for sure, in part because it's probably the least important game of the night for the Engineers, but also because there are different potential reasons for supporting either team. Ultimately, our gut instinct is to take Mercyhurst. Why? Because RPI played the Lakers this year (winning twice), which suggests a better PWR boost if they win tonight. They are lower rated in KRACH than UConn, suggesting that if Niagara advances as we hope they will, the Purps would be more heavily favored against Mercyhurst than against the Huskies.
Despite this, the Engineers appear to be better off in the KRACH-weighted odds if UConn wins, even though a Mercyhurst victory leaves more paths to an at-large bid open. We're sticking with our gut and taking the Lakers - which could be irrelevant if Niagara wins anyway.
The good news? We're rooting for higher seeds in every game but the Mercyhurst/UConn game.
The bad news? Losses for our teams in any of the five biggest games - SCSU/UW, Niagara/Canisius, UML/PC, Yale/UC, and BC/BU - would be difficult to swallow.
With the CCHA on a Saturday/Sunday schedule this year, it's likely we won't know for sure if the Engineers are in the tournament until Sunday. If they're definitively out, that could come today or tomorrow.
We'll keep you updated via Twitter as the day progresses. Starting at three, we'll also have a chat here at WaP if you wish to keep caught up on what's going on around the country in real time.
Once more unto the breach, friends.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Hacking the Pairwise, 2013
You may remember that, two years ago, with the Engineers sitting out for two full weeks waiting to find out what their fate would be, RPI junior Reilly Hamilton, in part spurred by impatient RPI fans, decided to go ahead and calculate what the odds were. We found out after the conference quarterfinals were all over that the odds were actually pretty decent - one week out, the Tute was sitting on an 81% chance of playing in the NCAAs, a result that was borne out by the end.
This year, the calculations are easier (the CCHA has ditched their consolation game, significantly dropping the number of potential scenarios) but the slog is significantly higher.
According to Reilly's calculations this year, (that would now be RPI grad Reilly) the Engineers currently sit at a 20.9488% chance of picking up an NCAA bid.
That's not stellar. But on the other hand, it's actually not that bad when you look at the full collection of at-large bubble teams - underscoring the need to have as few tournament upsets as possible.
So how does it work? We can do the heavy lifting to simply determine what the percentage is on the number of scenarios that put the Engineers in the tournament - the figure is under 10% - but that presumes that each and every scenario is equally likely. Instead, Reilly weights potential scenarios using KRACH, perhaps the best option out there for comparing teams to each other. As he mentions, there's no really good way of using KRACH to determine the odds of a tie, but with only one game left that can end in a tie - the ECAC consolation - it's not an overly major concern.
Here's what it says.
There are seven teams, as we mentioned on Tuesday, that will be in no matter what happens as of right now (teams with no games remaining are in italics):
Quinnipiac (#1)
Minnesota (#2)
Miami (#3-#6)
UMass-Lowell (#3-#10)
Boston College (#3-#10)
North Dakota (#3-#11)
New Hampshire (#5-#11)
Then there are five other teams that are at over 99% in terms of scenarios that have them in. These teams are functionally in the tournament:
Minnesota State (#3-#13)
Denver (#9-#13)
Niagara (#4-#14)
Yale (#3-#14)
St. Cloud State (#4-#15)
So that's 12 teams that are in. The odds of teams on the bubble for an at-large:
Notre Dame - 87.9112%
Western Michigan - 86.8950%
Union - 60.1731%
Rensselaer - 20.9488%
Boston University - 19.7945%
Providence - 18.7914%
Wisconsin - 9.9528%
Robert Morris - 3.1676%
Alaska - 0.0324%
This is where we start to see why it's important to have favorites (especially teams in that 12 team group that are already in the tournament) winning this coming weekend. Especially if we can get losses as soon as possible by BU, Providence, and Wisconsin, the Engineers actually stand a decent chance of being that last team in as long as upsets are kept at a minimum.
For teams that must win their tournament to make the NCAAs:
UConn - 23.5290%
Mercyhurst - 17.4484%
Ohio State - 14.3688%
Canisius - 13.1246%
Michigan - 11.7761%
Brown - 10.3210%
Colorado College - 3.7661%
So, where do we go from here? Well, Reilly has already done the calculations for tonight's WCHA Final Five games.
The most important one, as we expected, was the game taking place at 3pm Eastern time between Minnesota State and Wisconsin. If the Mavericks win, the Engineers will see their odds boosted almost 5%. If the Badgers win, the odds go down over 5%. That makes this one of the weekend's key games.
As far as the Colorado College/North Dakota game, it doesn't seem to be all that important, since the changes are not that big - though for some reason, a Colorado College win provides a small boost, while a North Dakota win provides a small hit. Not overly important, but if that's the case we probably prefer CC, although if UND does win, it helps end the very slight possibility of an upset champion from the WCHA (completely ending it if MSU and UND both win). That should be more important in the long run.
We'll have more updates as Reilly reruns his program after each night's activity.
As for today:
Minnesota State over Wisconsin
North Dakota over Colorado College
It's not an optimal situation, of course - but it's better than being where the other three ECAC quarterfinal losers are now: knowing there's no hope for an NCAA bid.
Go Mavericks!
This year, the calculations are easier (the CCHA has ditched their consolation game, significantly dropping the number of potential scenarios) but the slog is significantly higher.
According to Reilly's calculations this year, (that would now be RPI grad Reilly) the Engineers currently sit at a 20.9488% chance of picking up an NCAA bid.
That's not stellar. But on the other hand, it's actually not that bad when you look at the full collection of at-large bubble teams - underscoring the need to have as few tournament upsets as possible.
So how does it work? We can do the heavy lifting to simply determine what the percentage is on the number of scenarios that put the Engineers in the tournament - the figure is under 10% - but that presumes that each and every scenario is equally likely. Instead, Reilly weights potential scenarios using KRACH, perhaps the best option out there for comparing teams to each other. As he mentions, there's no really good way of using KRACH to determine the odds of a tie, but with only one game left that can end in a tie - the ECAC consolation - it's not an overly major concern.
Here's what it says.
There are seven teams, as we mentioned on Tuesday, that will be in no matter what happens as of right now (teams with no games remaining are in italics):
Quinnipiac (#1)
Minnesota (#2)
Miami (#3-#6)
UMass-Lowell (#3-#10)
Boston College (#3-#10)
North Dakota (#3-#11)
New Hampshire (#5-#11)
Then there are five other teams that are at over 99% in terms of scenarios that have them in. These teams are functionally in the tournament:
Minnesota State (#3-#13)
Denver (#9-#13)
Niagara (#4-#14)
Yale (#3-#14)
St. Cloud State (#4-#15)
So that's 12 teams that are in. The odds of teams on the bubble for an at-large:
Notre Dame - 87.9112%
Western Michigan - 86.8950%
Union - 60.1731%
Rensselaer - 20.9488%
Boston University - 19.7945%
Providence - 18.7914%
Wisconsin - 9.9528%
Robert Morris - 3.1676%
Alaska - 0.0324%
This is where we start to see why it's important to have favorites (especially teams in that 12 team group that are already in the tournament) winning this coming weekend. Especially if we can get losses as soon as possible by BU, Providence, and Wisconsin, the Engineers actually stand a decent chance of being that last team in as long as upsets are kept at a minimum.
For teams that must win their tournament to make the NCAAs:
UConn - 23.5290%
Mercyhurst - 17.4484%
Ohio State - 14.3688%
Canisius - 13.1246%
Michigan - 11.7761%
Brown - 10.3210%
Colorado College - 3.7661%
So, where do we go from here? Well, Reilly has already done the calculations for tonight's WCHA Final Five games.
The most important one, as we expected, was the game taking place at 3pm Eastern time between Minnesota State and Wisconsin. If the Mavericks win, the Engineers will see their odds boosted almost 5%. If the Badgers win, the odds go down over 5%. That makes this one of the weekend's key games.
As far as the Colorado College/North Dakota game, it doesn't seem to be all that important, since the changes are not that big - though for some reason, a Colorado College win provides a small boost, while a North Dakota win provides a small hit. Not overly important, but if that's the case we probably prefer CC, although if UND does win, it helps end the very slight possibility of an upset champion from the WCHA (completely ending it if MSU and UND both win). That should be more important in the long run.
We'll have more updates as Reilly reruns his program after each night's activity.
As for today:
Minnesota State over Wisconsin
North Dakota over Colorado College
It's not an optimal situation, of course - but it's better than being where the other three ECAC quarterfinal losers are now: knowing there's no hope for an NCAA bid.
Go Mavericks!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Pipe Dream is Over
With non-conference games winding down for the season, it's safe to say at this point that the ECAC is having an "up" year, if nothing else. There are just a handful of non-conference games left. One of them is RPI-Union at the Times Union Center in Albany, which might as well be a conference game for the impact it'll have on the balance of power between conferences.
Excluding that, we're left with...
UConn at Quinnipiac on January 22
Sacred Heart at Princeton on January 27
Harvard in the Beanpot on February 4/February 11
If QU and PU can't pick up wins in those games I'll be shocked. Harvard has to play Boston College in the first round of the Beanpot, if history holds true they'll lose that game (the Crimson haven't beaten anyone other than Northeastern in the first round since 1998) and then take on Northeastern in the consolation the following week, which is a winnable game for them.
What's that mean? Well, for starters, it means that the ECAC's place in the national discussion is more or less solidifying at this point, since the rest of the schedule contains internecine squabbling. Unless the league leaders all fall off significantly, the league is looking to be in halfway decent shape for three NCAA bids, which is usually considered a pretty good haul. This last happened two years ago, when RPI, Union, and Yale all grabbed bids.
A couple of months ago, there was some giddy shrieking suggesting that the league could nab four or five bids. We scoffed. From the looks of things, that seems to have been a pretty good opportunity to say "told ya."
That's not to say that things didn't start looking like they could turn out like that, but, to be honest, last weekend's non-conference roll pretty much squelched that idea. Union getting swept by Lake Superior State, Cornell getting swept by Denver, Clarkson getting swept by UMass-Lowell, St. Lawrence splitting with RIT, and even RPI's twin defeats at BU and UNH really brought things back down to earth - the only really good result was Yale's 3-3 tie against Boston College, but the rest of it hurt a lot.
If the tournament started today, it would include Quinnipiac, Dartmouth, and Yale. Only the Bobcats are on really solid ground - in fact, they'd be the #2 overall seed if things started today. Just outside would be Colgate, and Cornell and Union are a bit behind the eight-ball right now. Is four possible? Yes. Two is also still a possibility, which would be more of a "normal" season for the ECAC.
Just something to keep in mind going forward.
Excluding that, we're left with...
UConn at Quinnipiac on January 22
Sacred Heart at Princeton on January 27
Harvard in the Beanpot on February 4/February 11
If QU and PU can't pick up wins in those games I'll be shocked. Harvard has to play Boston College in the first round of the Beanpot, if history holds true they'll lose that game (the Crimson haven't beaten anyone other than Northeastern in the first round since 1998) and then take on Northeastern in the consolation the following week, which is a winnable game for them.
What's that mean? Well, for starters, it means that the ECAC's place in the national discussion is more or less solidifying at this point, since the rest of the schedule contains internecine squabbling. Unless the league leaders all fall off significantly, the league is looking to be in halfway decent shape for three NCAA bids, which is usually considered a pretty good haul. This last happened two years ago, when RPI, Union, and Yale all grabbed bids.
A couple of months ago, there was some giddy shrieking suggesting that the league could nab four or five bids. We scoffed. From the looks of things, that seems to have been a pretty good opportunity to say "told ya."
That's not to say that things didn't start looking like they could turn out like that, but, to be honest, last weekend's non-conference roll pretty much squelched that idea. Union getting swept by Lake Superior State, Cornell getting swept by Denver, Clarkson getting swept by UMass-Lowell, St. Lawrence splitting with RIT, and even RPI's twin defeats at BU and UNH really brought things back down to earth - the only really good result was Yale's 3-3 tie against Boston College, but the rest of it hurt a lot.
If the tournament started today, it would include Quinnipiac, Dartmouth, and Yale. Only the Bobcats are on really solid ground - in fact, they'd be the #2 overall seed if things started today. Just outside would be Colgate, and Cornell and Union are a bit behind the eight-ball right now. Is four possible? Yes. Two is also still a possibility, which would be more of a "normal" season for the ECAC.
Just something to keep in mind going forward.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
New World Order
We are in the final season of the fourth iteration of the conference system in college hockey. Next year, things are going to look mighty different.
Fourth, you ask? What were the other three? Well, here they are, roughly.
1961 - 1981: The ECAC and the WCHA rule the roost, though the latter is generally stronger. Every national championship during this time period was won by a team from one of these conferences, through to 1983. The CCHA begins as a relatively minor conference midway through this period.
1981 - 1985: Still largely a period of dominance between the ECAC and the WCHA, but the CCHA's addition of Michigan and Michigan State shifts the balance a bit away from the WCHA.
1985 - 2000: The Hockey East split leads to a shift of power between the new conference, the WCHA, and the CCHA, with the ECAC in slow decline, especially after the early 1990s.
2000 - 2013: The era of the "Big Three," as the ECAC moves out of a position of power to become the lone mid-major, while the MAAC/AHA comes to being as the lone minor conference.
2013 - ???: The Big Ten tsunami rearranges the college hockey landscape as never before.
What could we be looking at in this fifth iteration of conference paradigm in college hockey?
Well, now that every team has lost a game this season, let's look at the current KRACH ratings to see where the new conference structure would stand if it were theoretically in place today - not a perfect comparison, since conference schedules will shift, but this is what it looks like.
Hockey East - 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 19, 26, 34, 43, 44, 45, 52
NCHC - 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 39
ECAC - 4, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 46
Big Ten - 12, 27, 37, 42, 49, 54
WCHA - 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 50
Atlantic Hockey - 22, 40, 41, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59
Independents - 58
Look at the NCHC - that's a holy cow stat right there. Seven of its eight teams are currently among the 20 best in the nation, and the eighth (Minnesota-Duluth) won a national championship two years ago. Think that might be a power conference?
The Big Ten is having a shockingly bad season in it's year before birth (to wit - independent Penn State is ranked ahead of 1-7-2 Wisconsin, and Michigan ain't that far ahead of them), but this season is likely the exception and not the rule, considering that four of the six teams in the conference are regulars in the national tournament under the current structure.
Also, no one can deny Hockey East's excellent standing, especially with Notre Dame about to join the fold. Three of its usual "Big Four" are off to a great start (Maine... not so much), although the biggest problem Hockey East faces is its gap between haves and have nots. Providence's decent start has them somewhere in the middle (26th), but besides the Friars there's a big gap between UMass-Lowell (19th) and Merrimack (34th). Still, in recent seasons we've seen the Warriors competitive and the River Hawks not so competitive. They'll be a strong conference.
Atlantic Hockey, with all but two of its teams outside the top 2/3 of the nation, will continue their current role of providing their tournament winner an automatic bid and nothing more. They are still a cost-containment league and until that changes, they are where they are.
That leaves the fate of the original two up for ponderance... the ECAC and the WCHA.
First, the ECAC. The only changes our league needs to worry about is how the shifting paradigms affect recruiting. The last shift certainly affected things for the worse, but with five teams offering a full complement of scholarships and the league as a whole attractive for the educational side, there's only so far the ECAC will slide. It's probably already reached the bottom, really.
But the new WCHA could be in an almost worse situation than the ECAC, and quickly. A mashup of the leftovers between the CCHA and current WCHA after the Big Ten and NCHC tore away basically all of their top programs, it's hard to peg an absolute best program from this new group of nine. By KRACH, right now, it's Alaska followed by Ferris State. You'd almost have to call the Bulldogs early favorites.
The currently comprised ECAC has won only five national championships, among only three of its members, and none since 1989 (Harvard). The new WCHA will have eight, among four members, but none since 1994 (Lake Superior State). That's not overly dissimilar.
There's one other way to look at which conference has the most power teams - NCAA bids. The conferences have averaged the following total bids per season in the last 10 years (since the tournament was expanded).
WCHA - 4.4 mean, 4/5 median, 5 mode (High 6 - 2008; Low 3 - 2007 and 2009)
CCHA - 3.9 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 5 - 2004 and 2012, Low 3 - 2003)
Hockey East - 3.6 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 5 - 2007; Low 2 - 2008)
ECAC - 2.2 mean, 2 median, 2 mode (High 3 - 2005, 2009, 2011; Low 1 - 2004)
Now apply the total bids per season to the new conferences.
NCHC - 4.2 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 7 - 2011; Low 3 - 2003 and 2005)
Hockey East - 4.1 mean (High 6 - 2007; Low 3 - 2008 and 2010)
Big Ten - 3.1 mean, 3 median, 3/4 mode (High 5 - 2004; Low 1 - 2011)
ECAC - 2.2 mean, 2 median, 2 mode (High 3 - 2005, 2009, 2011; Low 1 - 2004)
WCHA - 0.9 mean, 1 median, 0/1 mode (High 3 - 2010; Low 0 - 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011)
That's astounding to see. In the new WCHA, there were four different years in the last ten that none of the teams made the tournament. In fact, between 2004 and 2009 (six consecutive years), there wasn't a single team that will play in the WCHA next year that earned an at-large bid - Bemidji State, on three occasions in that span, won the CHA's automatic bid.
What does that mean? Well, for starters, it means the WCHA is dropping off a long ways prestige-wise. But a cursory look at the numbers tells us that, at least at first, hockey's new world order is still going to consist of the "Big Three," but two of those will be brand new conferences. The ECAC will still be a mid-major, in all likelihood.
The WCHA, however, looks like it's going to have to fight - and hard - to be mid-major level. It essentially ended up as the Island of Misfit Toys after realignment, and although its autobid now represents a big chance for teams that frequently don't get to compete for either the WCHA or CCHA autobid most years in the past, the new league may be hard-pressed to pick up an at-large bid even with the regularity of the ECAC, which almost always gets one and not unfrequently snags a second.
The NCHC, once it gets assembled, will almost certainly never get 7 bids as it did in 2011 (that would be almost the entire league, and someone has to finish in last), but the mean totals could average out about right. That would likely mean, more often than not, the WCHA will probably have to settle for its autobid, but at least they'll probably grab an extra bid every once in a while, which pegs them above Atlantic Hockey. But it looks like a quick drop from the top for college hockey's oldest conference, almost certainly quicker than the ECAC's fall from grace. Their motto is "just got tougher," put in place after Bemidji State and Nebraska-Omaha joined the fold. They can keep it next year, but it'll have a different meaning.
Fourth, you ask? What were the other three? Well, here they are, roughly.
1961 - 1981: The ECAC and the WCHA rule the roost, though the latter is generally stronger. Every national championship during this time period was won by a team from one of these conferences, through to 1983. The CCHA begins as a relatively minor conference midway through this period.
1981 - 1985: Still largely a period of dominance between the ECAC and the WCHA, but the CCHA's addition of Michigan and Michigan State shifts the balance a bit away from the WCHA.
1985 - 2000: The Hockey East split leads to a shift of power between the new conference, the WCHA, and the CCHA, with the ECAC in slow decline, especially after the early 1990s.
2000 - 2013: The era of the "Big Three," as the ECAC moves out of a position of power to become the lone mid-major, while the MAAC/AHA comes to being as the lone minor conference.
2013 - ???: The Big Ten tsunami rearranges the college hockey landscape as never before.
What could we be looking at in this fifth iteration of conference paradigm in college hockey?
Well, now that every team has lost a game this season, let's look at the current KRACH ratings to see where the new conference structure would stand if it were theoretically in place today - not a perfect comparison, since conference schedules will shift, but this is what it looks like.
Hockey East - 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 19, 26, 34, 43, 44, 45, 52
NCHC - 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 39
ECAC - 4, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 46
Big Ten - 12, 27, 37, 42, 49, 54
WCHA - 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 50
Atlantic Hockey - 22, 40, 41, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59
Independents - 58
Look at the NCHC - that's a holy cow stat right there. Seven of its eight teams are currently among the 20 best in the nation, and the eighth (Minnesota-Duluth) won a national championship two years ago. Think that might be a power conference?
The Big Ten is having a shockingly bad season in it's year before birth (to wit - independent Penn State is ranked ahead of 1-7-2 Wisconsin, and Michigan ain't that far ahead of them), but this season is likely the exception and not the rule, considering that four of the six teams in the conference are regulars in the national tournament under the current structure.
Also, no one can deny Hockey East's excellent standing, especially with Notre Dame about to join the fold. Three of its usual "Big Four" are off to a great start (Maine... not so much), although the biggest problem Hockey East faces is its gap between haves and have nots. Providence's decent start has them somewhere in the middle (26th), but besides the Friars there's a big gap between UMass-Lowell (19th) and Merrimack (34th). Still, in recent seasons we've seen the Warriors competitive and the River Hawks not so competitive. They'll be a strong conference.
Atlantic Hockey, with all but two of its teams outside the top 2/3 of the nation, will continue their current role of providing their tournament winner an automatic bid and nothing more. They are still a cost-containment league and until that changes, they are where they are.
That leaves the fate of the original two up for ponderance... the ECAC and the WCHA.
First, the ECAC. The only changes our league needs to worry about is how the shifting paradigms affect recruiting. The last shift certainly affected things for the worse, but with five teams offering a full complement of scholarships and the league as a whole attractive for the educational side, there's only so far the ECAC will slide. It's probably already reached the bottom, really.
But the new WCHA could be in an almost worse situation than the ECAC, and quickly. A mashup of the leftovers between the CCHA and current WCHA after the Big Ten and NCHC tore away basically all of their top programs, it's hard to peg an absolute best program from this new group of nine. By KRACH, right now, it's Alaska followed by Ferris State. You'd almost have to call the Bulldogs early favorites.
The currently comprised ECAC has won only five national championships, among only three of its members, and none since 1989 (Harvard). The new WCHA will have eight, among four members, but none since 1994 (Lake Superior State). That's not overly dissimilar.
There's one other way to look at which conference has the most power teams - NCAA bids. The conferences have averaged the following total bids per season in the last 10 years (since the tournament was expanded).
WCHA - 4.4 mean, 4/5 median, 5 mode (High 6 - 2008; Low 3 - 2007 and 2009)
CCHA - 3.9 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 5 - 2004 and 2012, Low 3 - 2003)
Hockey East - 3.6 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 5 - 2007; Low 2 - 2008)
ECAC - 2.2 mean, 2 median, 2 mode (High 3 - 2005, 2009, 2011; Low 1 - 2004)
Now apply the total bids per season to the new conferences.
NCHC - 4.2 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 7 - 2011; Low 3 - 2003 and 2005)
Hockey East - 4.1 mean (High 6 - 2007; Low 3 - 2008 and 2010)
Big Ten - 3.1 mean, 3 median, 3/4 mode (High 5 - 2004; Low 1 - 2011)
ECAC - 2.2 mean, 2 median, 2 mode (High 3 - 2005, 2009, 2011; Low 1 - 2004)
WCHA - 0.9 mean, 1 median, 0/1 mode (High 3 - 2010; Low 0 - 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011)
That's astounding to see. In the new WCHA, there were four different years in the last ten that none of the teams made the tournament. In fact, between 2004 and 2009 (six consecutive years), there wasn't a single team that will play in the WCHA next year that earned an at-large bid - Bemidji State, on three occasions in that span, won the CHA's automatic bid.
What does that mean? Well, for starters, it means the WCHA is dropping off a long ways prestige-wise. But a cursory look at the numbers tells us that, at least at first, hockey's new world order is still going to consist of the "Big Three," but two of those will be brand new conferences. The ECAC will still be a mid-major, in all likelihood.
The WCHA, however, looks like it's going to have to fight - and hard - to be mid-major level. It essentially ended up as the Island of Misfit Toys after realignment, and although its autobid now represents a big chance for teams that frequently don't get to compete for either the WCHA or CCHA autobid most years in the past, the new league may be hard-pressed to pick up an at-large bid even with the regularity of the ECAC, which almost always gets one and not unfrequently snags a second.
The NCHC, once it gets assembled, will almost certainly never get 7 bids as it did in 2011 (that would be almost the entire league, and someone has to finish in last), but the mean totals could average out about right. That would likely mean, more often than not, the WCHA will probably have to settle for its autobid, but at least they'll probably grab an extra bid every once in a while, which pegs them above Atlantic Hockey. But it looks like a quick drop from the top for college hockey's oldest conference, almost certainly quicker than the ECAC's fall from grace. Their motto is "just got tougher," put in place after Bemidji State and Nebraska-Omaha joined the fold. They can keep it next year, but it'll have a different meaning.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Arguing With Math
So, the other day I was reading USCHO looking for some insight, and I found this.
Hard to argue with the math, which shows ECAC Hockey leading the way
Oh, really? Well, allow me to retort.
The argument that the ECAC "leads the way" nationally in this final season under the current structure is predicated apparently on one item alone - the league boasts the best non-conference record in the nation. That is true - the ECAC is 21-12-7 in non-conference play thus far, a national best .613. Eliminating AHA from the mix, you have a record against the "big three" of 11-8-3. Not bad at all.
Apparently, we're supposed to care that Dartmouth was #1 in the PairWise Rankings before last week's games, too.
OK, now before we start, let's be frank. We don't seek to pile on our own league here. In fact, we defend our league where we can - for example, two seasons ago when the larger college hockey world howled at the audacity of Yale claiming to be the top team in the nation (which they were for several weeks), the Bulldogs had few more fervent defenders than us.
But... seriously. Let's cut the crap.
First, the easy one. The PairWise are a complete joke in October, worthless in November, an oddity in December, intriguing in January, worth pondering in February, and vital in March. Let's see... yes, it's November.
Now, the more complex one.
This far into the early part of the season, if you want a general indication of which teams are doing well and which ones aren't, your best bet is actually... the polls. Yes, there are always a few jokers in there who don't know what they're talking about (see also whoever it was who had Union as the top team in the nation following the Dutchmen's tie with UConn, despite the existence of a Boston College team which is now 28-1 in its last 29 games). But by and large, it's good enough for its purpose this early in the season. Meaningless, of course, but at least an indicator.
And what do we have here! Five ranked ECAC teams? Inconceivable! Yes, Union, Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvard, and Quinnipiac are all ranked in the Top 20. That's a full quarter of the ranking. Heck, Hockey East only has three. But who are these teams playing outside of their own conference?
#1 BC: 1 CCHA
#2 DU: 1 Hockey East, 1 AHA
#3 UNH: 2 WCHA
#4 Minnesota: 2 CCHA, 1 AHA
Are we seeing a trend here?
#5 Miami: 2 ECAC, 2 Hockey East
Aha! Finally, a top team that has played against the ECAC. And... the final scores were Miami 3, Colgate 0 and Miami 5, Colgate 1. Way to go, Raiders. You let the whole conference down.
#6 Notre Dame: 2 Hockey East, 2 WCHA
#7 North Dakota: 1 CCHA, 2 Hockey East
#8 Union: No ranked non-conference opponents
#9 Western Michigan: 2 ECAC. 2 AHA
OK, what do we have here... oh, St. Lawrence beat WMU in overtime 4-3, then lost the next night 3-2. A split, not too shabby. But let's cut to the chase here. The ECAC is 5-5-1 against currently ranked teams. .500 isn't too bad, of course, but the only way to get there is to include Colgate's 10-3 win over now-#20 Niagara, and we aren't really seeking to compare the ECAC to Atlantic Hockey are we?
Cornell's sweep of Colorado College is about the only real noteworthy event for the league in nonconference play thus far. It's the only matchup that has taken place all season between a ranked ECAC team and another team that's ranked. And now they're being jumped in league play so far. The other four ranked ECAC teams? Their non-conference resumes don't include a single ranked team to date.
St. Lawrence's overtime win over Western Michigan probably ranks as the league's non-conference victory of the year - it is the only time an ECAC team has beaten a team in the Top 10 with the exception of Dartmouth's win over Union in league play.
The bottom line is that the ECAC may be doing well outside the conference, but the majority of the success is coming against the middle and bottom third of the national strata, and the league's standard-bearers aren't exactly collecting impressive non-conference wins.
We don't want to put down our league, but facts are facts - since day one here at WaP, we've said the ECAC no longer deserves to be part of a "Big Four" grouping with the WCHA, CCHA, and Hockey East. It's more college hockey's only example of a "mid-major." However, it's fair to say that, early on, there are more teams that are likely to be able to make a national splash. All five of the league's currently ranked teams have shown brushes of greatness this season. Throw St. Lawrence into that mix as well - that's half the league (and a good reason why RPI is going to probably struggle to overcome their putrid league start).
But are all six of those teams going to be there at the end? Of course not. History tells us that once the league season begins in earnest, we'll be stabbing each other in the back and bringing each other down to size. Heck, it's already beginning, just ask Cornell and St. Lawrence. In the end, the league is going to be extremely fortunate to get three teams into the tournament, and four is almost certainly out of the question. Five and six will be impossible.
So let's give credit where credit is due - the ECAC certainly does have more that its usual share of teams that could do well on a national level this season. But "leading the way?" Child, please.
Hard to argue with the math, which shows ECAC Hockey leading the way
Oh, really? Well, allow me to retort.
The argument that the ECAC "leads the way" nationally in this final season under the current structure is predicated apparently on one item alone - the league boasts the best non-conference record in the nation. That is true - the ECAC is 21-12-7 in non-conference play thus far, a national best .613. Eliminating AHA from the mix, you have a record against the "big three" of 11-8-3. Not bad at all.
Apparently, we're supposed to care that Dartmouth was #1 in the PairWise Rankings before last week's games, too.
OK, now before we start, let's be frank. We don't seek to pile on our own league here. In fact, we defend our league where we can - for example, two seasons ago when the larger college hockey world howled at the audacity of Yale claiming to be the top team in the nation (which they were for several weeks), the Bulldogs had few more fervent defenders than us.
But... seriously. Let's cut the crap.
First, the easy one. The PairWise are a complete joke in October, worthless in November, an oddity in December, intriguing in January, worth pondering in February, and vital in March. Let's see... yes, it's November.
Now, the more complex one.
This far into the early part of the season, if you want a general indication of which teams are doing well and which ones aren't, your best bet is actually... the polls. Yes, there are always a few jokers in there who don't know what they're talking about (see also whoever it was who had Union as the top team in the nation following the Dutchmen's tie with UConn, despite the existence of a Boston College team which is now 28-1 in its last 29 games). But by and large, it's good enough for its purpose this early in the season. Meaningless, of course, but at least an indicator.
And what do we have here! Five ranked ECAC teams? Inconceivable! Yes, Union, Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvard, and Quinnipiac are all ranked in the Top 20. That's a full quarter of the ranking. Heck, Hockey East only has three. But who are these teams playing outside of their own conference?
#1 BC: 1 CCHA
#2 DU: 1 Hockey East, 1 AHA
#3 UNH: 2 WCHA
#4 Minnesota: 2 CCHA, 1 AHA
Are we seeing a trend here?
#5 Miami: 2 ECAC, 2 Hockey East
Aha! Finally, a top team that has played against the ECAC. And... the final scores were Miami 3, Colgate 0 and Miami 5, Colgate 1. Way to go, Raiders. You let the whole conference down.
#6 Notre Dame: 2 Hockey East, 2 WCHA
#7 North Dakota: 1 CCHA, 2 Hockey East
#8 Union: No ranked non-conference opponents
#9 Western Michigan: 2 ECAC. 2 AHA
OK, what do we have here... oh, St. Lawrence beat WMU in overtime 4-3, then lost the next night 3-2. A split, not too shabby. But let's cut to the chase here. The ECAC is 5-5-1 against currently ranked teams. .500 isn't too bad, of course, but the only way to get there is to include Colgate's 10-3 win over now-#20 Niagara, and we aren't really seeking to compare the ECAC to Atlantic Hockey are we?
Cornell's sweep of Colorado College is about the only real noteworthy event for the league in nonconference play thus far. It's the only matchup that has taken place all season between a ranked ECAC team and another team that's ranked. And now they're being jumped in league play so far. The other four ranked ECAC teams? Their non-conference resumes don't include a single ranked team to date.
St. Lawrence's overtime win over Western Michigan probably ranks as the league's non-conference victory of the year - it is the only time an ECAC team has beaten a team in the Top 10 with the exception of Dartmouth's win over Union in league play.
The bottom line is that the ECAC may be doing well outside the conference, but the majority of the success is coming against the middle and bottom third of the national strata, and the league's standard-bearers aren't exactly collecting impressive non-conference wins.
We don't want to put down our league, but facts are facts - since day one here at WaP, we've said the ECAC no longer deserves to be part of a "Big Four" grouping with the WCHA, CCHA, and Hockey East. It's more college hockey's only example of a "mid-major." However, it's fair to say that, early on, there are more teams that are likely to be able to make a national splash. All five of the league's currently ranked teams have shown brushes of greatness this season. Throw St. Lawrence into that mix as well - that's half the league (and a good reason why RPI is going to probably struggle to overcome their putrid league start).
But are all six of those teams going to be there at the end? Of course not. History tells us that once the league season begins in earnest, we'll be stabbing each other in the back and bringing each other down to size. Heck, it's already beginning, just ask Cornell and St. Lawrence. In the end, the league is going to be extremely fortunate to get three teams into the tournament, and four is almost certainly out of the question. Five and six will be impossible.
So let's give credit where credit is due - the ECAC certainly does have more that its usual share of teams that could do well on a national level this season. But "leading the way?" Child, please.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Amateurish
You should probably get up to speed on the Nic Kerdiles situation in Wisconsin
Like the article says, it's not uncommon for NHL prospects to have "family advisers" while playing in the NCAA - agents in all but name and pay. These "advisers" latch onto prospects in the hopes of cashing in down the road when they negotiate that big contract, a necessary evil when it comes to landing high caliber players for any program, from Wisconsin to RPI.
This "infraction" seems pretty thin. He was caught in a picture with his "adviser" holding a product? Good God, someone call the ambulance, I think I may have fainted.
The NCAA is notorious for being overzealous in its defense of the high and moral position of amateur sports, but college athletics has long been a development area for professional leagues, most notably in football, basketball, and baseball, but in the last 20 years hockey has certainly joined that realm. The major difference with the other three sports is that there isn't really much of a viable alternative to college (unless players are coming right out of high school). That isn't the case with hockey, as a player who can't play in college really won't think twice about heading north of the border to major junior.
This is a simmering problem, and this incident only threatens to make things worse... and for what? A picture on Twitter? Jeez.
The University of Wisconsin men’s hockey team could lose high-profile freshman winger Nic Kerdiles to what one school official said was an extraordinary case involving NCAA amateurism rules.
UW coach Mike Eaves announced Monday that the school is appealing a NCAA decision to make Kerdiles ineligible for the upcoming season.
If that decision were to stand, it’s doubtful that Kerdiles, a second-round NHL draft pick of Anaheim, would remain in school and return to the Badgers in 2013-14. It’s likely the Ducks would want him to continue his development somewhere else this season, which could mean a move to the Major Junior circuit in Canada.
...
Multiple sources in the NHL and college hockey indicate the NCAA acted on photos and postings made public via social media that involve an agent and took place leading up to the NHL Entry Draft in June.
...
It’s commonplace for hockey prospects like Kerdiles to have family advisers — almost all are certified as professional sports agents — as long as the adviser abides by NCAA rules that prohibit marketing the player, negotiating with professional teams on the player’s behalf or providing extra benefits like clothes, meals or merchandise of value.
It’s not clear what specific issues led the NCAA to rule against Kerdiles, an 18-year-old from Irvine, Calif., but the Bucky’s 5th Quarter website culled a photo from an agent’s Twitter account that showed Kerdiles and two of the agent’s clients holding glasses that advertised a specific energy drink.
The photo could be construed as Kerdiles being marketed by the representative as well as being used to promote a specific product.
The agent who posted the energy drink photo, Toronto-based Ian Pulver of Pulver Sports, didn’t return a phone call seeking comment Monday. Pulver was also shown in the photo with Kerdiles and others at dinner.Well, if that just isn't a kick in the pants. As if the NCAA didn't already have enough problems keeping talented young players in school, now something like this comes along to either scare the amateurism back into everyone or drive NHL-minded prospects to major junior.
Like the article says, it's not uncommon for NHL prospects to have "family advisers" while playing in the NCAA - agents in all but name and pay. These "advisers" latch onto prospects in the hopes of cashing in down the road when they negotiate that big contract, a necessary evil when it comes to landing high caliber players for any program, from Wisconsin to RPI.
This "infraction" seems pretty thin. He was caught in a picture with his "adviser" holding a product? Good God, someone call the ambulance, I think I may have fainted.
The NCAA is notorious for being overzealous in its defense of the high and moral position of amateur sports, but college athletics has long been a development area for professional leagues, most notably in football, basketball, and baseball, but in the last 20 years hockey has certainly joined that realm. The major difference with the other three sports is that there isn't really much of a viable alternative to college (unless players are coming right out of high school). That isn't the case with hockey, as a player who can't play in college really won't think twice about heading north of the border to major junior.
This is a simmering problem, and this incident only threatens to make things worse... and for what? A picture on Twitter? Jeez.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Best of What's Around
Well, it's about that time. We're under three weeks now until the puck drops on another season of RPI hockey. College hockey in general unofficially gets underway this coming weekend as Mercyhurst, RIT, and Colgate play exhibitions in women's hockey, and there'll now be either men's or women's college hockey every week until early April (with the exception of the week before the men's Frozen Four, of course).
It's been a mercifully quiet offseason for the first time since WaP began back in 2009. Only a few ECAC underclassmen jumped to the pros, just one team swapped conferences, and in our own backyard, not much to report with the exception of one player leaving school. So we have been pretty quiet since the season ended back in March, for sure, but it's now time to crank things up once again.
With the season approaching, it's always a good idea to take stock of which players to be watching for. Below are the top ten returning players in each category in ECAC play, with RPI's top returning players added on if necessary - they're the ones in bold. Are these the only players to be watching for? Of course not; some returning players will improve and become stars, and I'm sure you'll see some freshmen providing immediate impact. For those that are returning, though, these are the ones proven to be in the upper echelon of the league.
Points
Danny Biega, Harvard – 23
Daniel Carr, Union – 22
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 21
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 21
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 21
Andrew Miller, Yale – 21
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 20
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 20
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 20
Kenny Agostino, Yale – 19
(Nick Bailen/Brock Higgs – 13 each)
Goals
Daniel Carr, Union – 12
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 11
Brandon McNally, Dartmouth – 10
Greg Miller, Cornell – 10
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 10
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 10
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 9
Eric Robinson, Dartmouth – 9
Wayne Simpson, Union – 9
Rob Kleebaum, Princeton – 8
Kenny Agostino, Yale – 8
(Marty O’Grady – 5)
Assists
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 16
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 16
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 16
Andrew Miller, Yale – 16
Danny Biega, Harvard – 15
Ben Sexton, Clarkson – 14
Kyle Bodie, Union – 14
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 13
Joel Lowry, Cornell – 13
Josh Jooris, Union – 12
(Brock Higgs – 12)
Power Play Points
Danny Biega, Harvard – 14
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 10
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 10
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 10
Ben Sexton, Clarkson – 9
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 9
Marshall Everson, Harvard – 9
Kyle Bodie, Union – 9
Mat Bodie, Union – 9
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 9
Nick Bailen, Rensselaer – 9
Dennis Robertson, Brown – 9
Power Play Goals
Daniel Carr, Union – 6
Marshall Everson, Harvard – 5
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 5
Wayne Simpson, Union – 5
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 5
Alex Fallstrom, Harvard – 4
Nick D’Agostino, Cornell – 4
Loren Barron, Quinnipiac – 4
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 3
Ryan Haggerty, Rensselaer – 3
Short-Handed Points
Matt Hatch, Union – 2
Mark McGowan, Rensselaer – 2
Daniel Carr, Union – 2
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 2
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate – 2
Defenseman Scoring
Danny Biega, Harvard – 23
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 18
Mat Bodie, Union – 16
Michael Sdao, Princeton – 15
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 15
Nick D’Agostino, Cornell – 14
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union – 14
Dennis Robertson, Brown – 14
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate – 14
George Hughes, St. Lawrence – 14
(Nick Bailen, Rensselaer – 14)
Goals Against Average
Troy Grosenick, Union – 1.60
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac – 1.99
Andy Iles, Cornell – 1.99
Bryce Merriam, Rensselaer – 2.32
Jeff Malcolm, Yale – 2.63
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence – 2.73
Eric Mihalik, Colgate – 2.76
Steve Michalek, Harvard – 2.77
Mike Condon, Princeton – 2.99
Sean Bonar, Princeton – 3.08
Save Percentage
Troy Grosenick, Union - .940
Andy Iles, Cornell - .922
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac - .921
Mike Condon, Princeton - .920
Jeff Malcolm, Yale – .916
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence - .911
Bryce Merriam, Rensselaer - .911
Steve Michalek, Harvard - .906
Eric Mihalik, Colgate – .896
Sean Bonar, Princeton - .893
Returning Goals Per Game (difference from last year)
Union – 2.50 (-0.95)
Cornell – 2.36 (-0.64)
Quinnipiac – 2.32 (-0.41)
Princeton – 2.27 (-0.37)
Dartmouth – 2.09 (-0.77)
Harvard – 1.95 (-0.82)
Yale – 1.95 (-1.41)
St. Lawrence – 1.82 (-0.45)
Rensselaer – 1.64 (-0.30)
Brown – 1.45 (-1.00)
Clarkson – 1.41 (-1.18)
Colgate – 1.05 (-2.22)
----
And, while we're at it, a look at the top returning players around the nation. ECAC players are in bold, RPI's top returners are included for comparison, and players in italics are those from outside of the league that the Engineers are scheduled to get a look at this season.
Points per game
Mark Zengerle, Wisconsin – 1.35
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 1.32
Joey Diamond, Maine – 1.27
Brett Gensler, Bentley – 1.25
Cole Schneider, UConn – 1.18
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 1.14
Erik Haula, Minnesota – 1.14
Matt Nieto, Boston University – 1.14
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 1.11
Ben Hanowski, St. Cloud State – 1.10
(Brock Higgs – 0.68)
Goals per game
Joey Diamond, Maine – 0.68
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 0.66
Nick Bjugstad, Minnesota – 0.62
Cole Schneider, UConn – 0.61
Ben Hanowski, St. Cloud State – 0.59
Brett Gensler, Bentley – 0.57
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 0.54
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 0.53
Wade Megan, Boston University – 0.51
Jordan George, Bemidji State – 0.50
(C.J. Lee – 0.21)
Assists per game
Mark Zengerle, Wisconsin – 1.00
Nate Schmidt, Minnesota – 0.88
Andrew Miller, Yale – 0.85
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 0.82
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 0.79
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 0.76
Danny Biega, Harvard – 0.74
T.J. Tynan, Notre Dame – 0.72
Matt Nieto, Boston University – 0.70
Nick Sorkin, New Hampshire – 0.70
(Brock Higgs – 0.59)
Power Play Goals
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 11
Joey Diamond, Maine – 11
Mark Anthoine, Maine – 11
Brant Harris, UConn – 10
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 9
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 9
Derek Arnold, UMass-Lowell – 9
Wade Megan, Boston University – 9
Kyle Rau, Minnesota – 9
Wayne Simpson, Union – 9
Daniel Carr, Union – 9
(Nick Bailen – 6)
Points per game (Defensemen)
Danny Biega, Harvard – 1.03
Nate Schmidt, Minnesota – 0.95
Joey LaLeggia, Denver – 0.88
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 0.82
Nick Jensen, St. Cloud State – 0.82
Lee Moffie, Michigan – 0.78
George Hughes, St. Lawrence – 0.77
Andrew Prochno, St. Cloud State – 0.76
Mike Boivin, Colorado College – 0.76
Mat Bodie, Union – 0.74
(Nick Bailen – 0.56)
Goals Against Average
Troy Grosenick, Union – 1.65
Parker Milner, Boston College – 1.66
Jason Torf, Air Force – 1.73
Shane Madolora, RIT – 1.93
Frank Slubowski, Western Michigan – 2.03
Andy Iles, Cornell – 2.12
Doug Carr, UMass-Lowell – 2.13
Raphael Girard, Harvard – 2.14
Juho Olkinuora, Denver – 2.18
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac – 2.20
(Bryce Merriam – 2.36)
Save Percentage
Parker Milner, Boston College - .937
Troy Grosenick, Union – .936
Raphael Girard, Harvard - .933
Shane Madolora, RIT - .931
Jason Torf, Air Force - .929
Doug Carr, UMass-Lowell - .928
Jared Coreau, Northern Michigan - .928
Casey DeSmith, New Hampshire - .926
Juho Olkinuora, Denver - .924
Josh Thorimbert, Colorado College - .924
(Bryce Merriam - .908)
It's been a mercifully quiet offseason for the first time since WaP began back in 2009. Only a few ECAC underclassmen jumped to the pros, just one team swapped conferences, and in our own backyard, not much to report with the exception of one player leaving school. So we have been pretty quiet since the season ended back in March, for sure, but it's now time to crank things up once again.
With the season approaching, it's always a good idea to take stock of which players to be watching for. Below are the top ten returning players in each category in ECAC play, with RPI's top returning players added on if necessary - they're the ones in bold. Are these the only players to be watching for? Of course not; some returning players will improve and become stars, and I'm sure you'll see some freshmen providing immediate impact. For those that are returning, though, these are the ones proven to be in the upper echelon of the league.
Points
Danny Biega, Harvard – 23
Daniel Carr, Union – 22
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 21
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 21
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 21
Andrew Miller, Yale – 21
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 20
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 20
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 20
Kenny Agostino, Yale – 19
(Nick Bailen/Brock Higgs – 13 each)
Goals
Daniel Carr, Union – 12
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 11
Brandon McNally, Dartmouth – 10
Greg Miller, Cornell – 10
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 10
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 10
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 9
Eric Robinson, Dartmouth – 9
Wayne Simpson, Union – 9
Rob Kleebaum, Princeton – 8
Kenny Agostino, Yale – 8
(Marty O’Grady – 5)
Assists
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 16
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 16
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 16
Andrew Miller, Yale – 16
Danny Biega, Harvard – 15
Ben Sexton, Clarkson – 14
Kyle Bodie, Union – 14
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 13
Joel Lowry, Cornell – 13
Josh Jooris, Union – 12
(Brock Higgs – 12)
Power Play Points
Danny Biega, Harvard – 14
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 10
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 10
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 10
Ben Sexton, Clarkson – 9
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 9
Marshall Everson, Harvard – 9
Kyle Bodie, Union – 9
Mat Bodie, Union – 9
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 9
Nick Bailen, Rensselaer – 9
Dennis Robertson, Brown – 9
Power Play Goals
Daniel Carr, Union – 6
Marshall Everson, Harvard – 5
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 5
Wayne Simpson, Union – 5
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 5
Alex Fallstrom, Harvard – 4
Nick D’Agostino, Cornell – 4
Loren Barron, Quinnipiac – 4
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 3
Ryan Haggerty, Rensselaer – 3
Short-Handed Points
Matt Hatch, Union – 2
Mark McGowan, Rensselaer – 2
Daniel Carr, Union – 2
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 2
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate – 2
Defenseman Scoring
Danny Biega, Harvard – 23
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 18
Mat Bodie, Union – 16
Michael Sdao, Princeton – 15
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 15
Nick D’Agostino, Cornell – 14
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union – 14
Dennis Robertson, Brown – 14
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate – 14
George Hughes, St. Lawrence – 14
(Nick Bailen, Rensselaer – 14)
Goals Against Average
Troy Grosenick, Union – 1.60
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac – 1.99
Andy Iles, Cornell – 1.99
Bryce Merriam, Rensselaer – 2.32
Jeff Malcolm, Yale – 2.63
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence – 2.73
Eric Mihalik, Colgate – 2.76
Steve Michalek, Harvard – 2.77
Mike Condon, Princeton – 2.99
Sean Bonar, Princeton – 3.08
Save Percentage
Troy Grosenick, Union - .940
Andy Iles, Cornell - .922
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac - .921
Mike Condon, Princeton - .920
Jeff Malcolm, Yale – .916
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence - .911
Bryce Merriam, Rensselaer - .911
Steve Michalek, Harvard - .906
Eric Mihalik, Colgate – .896
Sean Bonar, Princeton - .893
Returning Goals Per Game (difference from last year)
Union – 2.50 (-0.95)
Cornell – 2.36 (-0.64)
Quinnipiac – 2.32 (-0.41)
Princeton – 2.27 (-0.37)
Dartmouth – 2.09 (-0.77)
Harvard – 1.95 (-0.82)
Yale – 1.95 (-1.41)
St. Lawrence – 1.82 (-0.45)
Rensselaer – 1.64 (-0.30)
Brown – 1.45 (-1.00)
Clarkson – 1.41 (-1.18)
Colgate – 1.05 (-2.22)
----
And, while we're at it, a look at the top returning players around the nation. ECAC players are in bold, RPI's top returners are included for comparison, and players in italics are those from outside of the league that the Engineers are scheduled to get a look at this season.
Points per game
Mark Zengerle, Wisconsin – 1.35
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 1.32
Joey Diamond, Maine – 1.27
Brett Gensler, Bentley – 1.25
Cole Schneider, UConn – 1.18
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 1.14
Erik Haula, Minnesota – 1.14
Matt Nieto, Boston University – 1.14
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 1.11
Ben Hanowski, St. Cloud State – 1.10
(Brock Higgs – 0.68)
Goals per game
Joey Diamond, Maine – 0.68
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 0.66
Nick Bjugstad, Minnesota – 0.62
Cole Schneider, UConn – 0.61
Ben Hanowski, St. Cloud State – 0.59
Brett Gensler, Bentley – 0.57
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 0.54
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 0.53
Wade Megan, Boston University – 0.51
Jordan George, Bemidji State – 0.50
(C.J. Lee – 0.21)
Assists per game
Mark Zengerle, Wisconsin – 1.00
Nate Schmidt, Minnesota – 0.88
Andrew Miller, Yale – 0.85
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 0.82
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 0.79
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 0.76
Danny Biega, Harvard – 0.74
T.J. Tynan, Notre Dame – 0.72
Matt Nieto, Boston University – 0.70
Nick Sorkin, New Hampshire – 0.70
(Brock Higgs – 0.59)
Power Play Goals
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 11
Joey Diamond, Maine – 11
Mark Anthoine, Maine – 11
Brant Harris, UConn – 10
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 9
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 9
Derek Arnold, UMass-Lowell – 9
Wade Megan, Boston University – 9
Kyle Rau, Minnesota – 9
Wayne Simpson, Union – 9
Daniel Carr, Union – 9
(Nick Bailen – 6)
Points per game (Defensemen)
Danny Biega, Harvard – 1.03
Nate Schmidt, Minnesota – 0.95
Joey LaLeggia, Denver – 0.88
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 0.82
Nick Jensen, St. Cloud State – 0.82
Lee Moffie, Michigan – 0.78
George Hughes, St. Lawrence – 0.77
Andrew Prochno, St. Cloud State – 0.76
Mike Boivin, Colorado College – 0.76
Mat Bodie, Union – 0.74
(Nick Bailen – 0.56)
Goals Against Average
Troy Grosenick, Union – 1.65
Parker Milner, Boston College – 1.66
Jason Torf, Air Force – 1.73
Shane Madolora, RIT – 1.93
Frank Slubowski, Western Michigan – 2.03
Andy Iles, Cornell – 2.12
Doug Carr, UMass-Lowell – 2.13
Raphael Girard, Harvard – 2.14
Juho Olkinuora, Denver – 2.18
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac – 2.20
(Bryce Merriam – 2.36)
Save Percentage
Parker Milner, Boston College - .937
Troy Grosenick, Union – .936
Raphael Girard, Harvard - .933
Shane Madolora, RIT - .931
Jason Torf, Air Force - .929
Doug Carr, UMass-Lowell - .928
Jared Coreau, Northern Michigan - .928
Casey DeSmith, New Hampshire - .926
Juho Olkinuora, Denver - .924
Josh Thorimbert, Colorado College - .924
(Bryce Merriam - .908)
Friday, July 27, 2012
Penn State: Light in the Darkness
It's hard to get past it in hindsight.
At the press conference in State College, PA that began the shake-up of the college hockey universe on September 17, 2010, the benefactors of varsity hockey at Penn State, Kim and Terry Pegula, sat flanked by two individuals for whom it made perfect sense to be there - athletic director Tim Curley and university president Graham Spanier. Both men discussed the excitement they felt to be making a step forward, bringing big time college hockey to a sixth Big Ten campus in two years' time.
Fast forward almost two years. Watching the announcement now, knowing the secret both men had been hiding for over a decade, and the impact isn't quite the same. Now, with Spanier fired, Curley on a leave of absence and under indictment, and the school's premier athletic program under a crippling sanction announced earlier this week by the NCAA and the Big Ten, varsity hockey at Penn State will take the ice for the first time in three months under a cloud of shame that now hangs over the entire school.
And the school itself may not yet be out of the woods. As former NCAA.org blogger John Infante says, Penn State may yet be subject to sanction by the federal Department of Education for violations of the Clery Act, which requires schools receiving federal financial aid to publicly report any crime on or near campus. The potential penalties include significant fines or even a prohibition from receiving federal aid, a move which would be akin to a "death penalty" for the entire school.
Could the Penn State scandal have an impact on college hockey? Some have asked if the harsh sanctions applied to the school's cash cow athletic program could produce problems for its 28 other varsity programs, potentially including the new kinds on the block in men's and women's hockey. The short answer, at least as it pertains to hockey, is: probably not. Hockey in Happy Valley is fortunate to be the child of private investment, for both scholarships and new facilities. Construction continues unabated on Pegula Ice Arena, which is slated to be done in about a year, just in time for the start of the hockey version of the Big Ten. The only real fallout from the NCAA sanctions (and the scandal itself) is how potential recruits view the school's reputation in the future.
The only thing hockey fans would have to fear is that "death penalty" from the federal government - an occurrence that would potentially undermine the school in a fundamental manner to make athletics there very difficult to maintain in any real capacity. That would probably lead to some very intense pressure by the other Big Ten schools on fellow conference institutions without varsity hockey due to the irreparable destruction of existing hockey conference bonds making status quo ante bellum highly unlikely (no fewer than 19 programs are slated to change conferences next year).
Honestly, though, it's not even worth pondering that scenario for a couple of reasons. First, it's more frequently an exercise left to those who continue to resent Penn State for helping to alter the college hockey landscape that people had gotten used to; really, those resistant to change. Second, Penn State is likely "too big to fail," as Infante said of them, and it's unlikely the government would intentionally cripple such a large school, putting literally tens of thousands of students' academic careers into chaos.
I prefer to turn the question on its head. Perhaps college hockey can have an impact on the Penn State scandal.
There's no doubt that Penn State is enduring the darkest moments in its 157-year history. Powerful people at the school chose to look the other way while a monster committed unspeakable crimes against the most innocent members of society. Those people have now been removed, responsible parties punished or on their way to punishment, and the program which benefited most from the cover-up has been set back at least five years, and likely well over a decade.
But hockey is a unique sport. It's quite niche, given the fact that the usual east/west split is the Ohio/Pennsylvania border rather than the Mississippi River, and the fact that Alabama-Huntsville continues to be viewed as something of an oddity. Small schools regularly compete with large schools, and sometimes, they even win. And above all, it can be akin to a family, something which anyone who's been to even one Frozen Four can attest. Scholarship scandals tend to be on the rare side, and sanctions are unusual - only two Division I programs have ever had to vacate Frozen Four appearances, and none since 1992.
So we think back to that day two years ago when Penn State and the rest of the college hockey world was excited for varsity hockey in State College, a place that had already proven itself with rabid support for a club program and represented the first major university coming into the sport in decades. Look past the guilty parties that were part of that announcement and see through to the promise of a brighter future for a place in need of some serious healing. Consider Guy Gadowsky, the man who made Princeton hockey relevant again, who always brings to town a team that plays a style that's fun to watch.
Penn State comes to the Capital District in late November to take on Union, right after Thanksgiving. RPI has that weekend off. Let's head up Route 7, welcome college hockey's newest kids on the block, and hope and pray that the potential for excellence on the ice in central Pennsylvania can be the start of a new and positive chapter for a once-great institution that lost its way.
And, while you're thinking about Penn State, why not surf on over to Thank You Terry, a Penn State hockey blog worth bookmarking. Headed up by the very well written Kyle Rossi, if you've got any misgivings about Penn State's hockey future, you'll be sure to lose them by checking out his excellent advocacy.
At the press conference in State College, PA that began the shake-up of the college hockey universe on September 17, 2010, the benefactors of varsity hockey at Penn State, Kim and Terry Pegula, sat flanked by two individuals for whom it made perfect sense to be there - athletic director Tim Curley and university president Graham Spanier. Both men discussed the excitement they felt to be making a step forward, bringing big time college hockey to a sixth Big Ten campus in two years' time.
Fast forward almost two years. Watching the announcement now, knowing the secret both men had been hiding for over a decade, and the impact isn't quite the same. Now, with Spanier fired, Curley on a leave of absence and under indictment, and the school's premier athletic program under a crippling sanction announced earlier this week by the NCAA and the Big Ten, varsity hockey at Penn State will take the ice for the first time in three months under a cloud of shame that now hangs over the entire school.
And the school itself may not yet be out of the woods. As former NCAA.org blogger John Infante says, Penn State may yet be subject to sanction by the federal Department of Education for violations of the Clery Act, which requires schools receiving federal financial aid to publicly report any crime on or near campus. The potential penalties include significant fines or even a prohibition from receiving federal aid, a move which would be akin to a "death penalty" for the entire school.
Could the Penn State scandal have an impact on college hockey? Some have asked if the harsh sanctions applied to the school's cash cow athletic program could produce problems for its 28 other varsity programs, potentially including the new kinds on the block in men's and women's hockey. The short answer, at least as it pertains to hockey, is: probably not. Hockey in Happy Valley is fortunate to be the child of private investment, for both scholarships and new facilities. Construction continues unabated on Pegula Ice Arena, which is slated to be done in about a year, just in time for the start of the hockey version of the Big Ten. The only real fallout from the NCAA sanctions (and the scandal itself) is how potential recruits view the school's reputation in the future.
The only thing hockey fans would have to fear is that "death penalty" from the federal government - an occurrence that would potentially undermine the school in a fundamental manner to make athletics there very difficult to maintain in any real capacity. That would probably lead to some very intense pressure by the other Big Ten schools on fellow conference institutions without varsity hockey due to the irreparable destruction of existing hockey conference bonds making status quo ante bellum highly unlikely (no fewer than 19 programs are slated to change conferences next year).
Honestly, though, it's not even worth pondering that scenario for a couple of reasons. First, it's more frequently an exercise left to those who continue to resent Penn State for helping to alter the college hockey landscape that people had gotten used to; really, those resistant to change. Second, Penn State is likely "too big to fail," as Infante said of them, and it's unlikely the government would intentionally cripple such a large school, putting literally tens of thousands of students' academic careers into chaos.
I prefer to turn the question on its head. Perhaps college hockey can have an impact on the Penn State scandal.
There's no doubt that Penn State is enduring the darkest moments in its 157-year history. Powerful people at the school chose to look the other way while a monster committed unspeakable crimes against the most innocent members of society. Those people have now been removed, responsible parties punished or on their way to punishment, and the program which benefited most from the cover-up has been set back at least five years, and likely well over a decade.
But hockey is a unique sport. It's quite niche, given the fact that the usual east/west split is the Ohio/Pennsylvania border rather than the Mississippi River, and the fact that Alabama-Huntsville continues to be viewed as something of an oddity. Small schools regularly compete with large schools, and sometimes, they even win. And above all, it can be akin to a family, something which anyone who's been to even one Frozen Four can attest. Scholarship scandals tend to be on the rare side, and sanctions are unusual - only two Division I programs have ever had to vacate Frozen Four appearances, and none since 1992.
So we think back to that day two years ago when Penn State and the rest of the college hockey world was excited for varsity hockey in State College, a place that had already proven itself with rabid support for a club program and represented the first major university coming into the sport in decades. Look past the guilty parties that were part of that announcement and see through to the promise of a brighter future for a place in need of some serious healing. Consider Guy Gadowsky, the man who made Princeton hockey relevant again, who always brings to town a team that plays a style that's fun to watch.
Penn State comes to the Capital District in late November to take on Union, right after Thanksgiving. RPI has that weekend off. Let's head up Route 7, welcome college hockey's newest kids on the block, and hope and pray that the potential for excellence on the ice in central Pennsylvania can be the start of a new and positive chapter for a once-great institution that lost its way.
And, while you're thinking about Penn State, why not surf on over to Thank You Terry, a Penn State hockey blog worth bookmarking. Headed up by the very well written Kyle Rossi, if you've got any misgivings about Penn State's hockey future, you'll be sure to lose them by checking out his excellent advocacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
