Polls 1/13/2003

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
January 13, 2003

   Team      (First Place)    Record  Pts   Last Week
 1 Maine              (25)    18-2-2  581     3
 2 Colorado College   ( 7)    16-2-4  544     2
 3 North Dakota       ( 8)    19-2-3  542     1
 4 Cornell                    12-3-0  466     4
 5 New Hampshire              14-4-2  450     5
 6 Minnesota                  12-6-5  331     7
 7 Denver                     15-6-3  316     6
 8 Boston College             12-5-3  304    10
 9 Ohio State                 15-4-2  300     9
10 Michigan                   15-6-1  243     8
11 Ferris State               16-5-1  232    12
12 Boston University          13-7-2  199    11
13 Harvard                    12-6-1   90    13
14 St. Cloud State             9-8-3   83     -
15 Massachusetts              13-8-1   51    15

Others receiving votes: Miami 49, Dartmouth 5, 
Quinnipiac 5, MSU-Mankato 3, Alabama-Huntsville 2, 
Clarkson 2, Providence 2

Looks like a close loss to Princeton didn't hurt Harvard (sucks!) at all in terms of poll position, though I don't know about vote count. But with the exam break, who knows?

I'm a bit surprised St. Cloud moved up given that they have had a number of losses against weak teams. Guess those big wins mean a lot more. And maybe the fact that everyone looked at the PWR rankings and decided they're a better team after all.

Clarkson is getting votes!

Alan wrote:

Clarkson is getting votes!

Well, it takes a damn good team to give up five goals to Dartmouth.

Held our own at #4 for the idle week:

[uscho.com]

Who is voting for Quinnipiac?
They should have their votes taken away.
That is such a joke.

If all you look at is overall record (and I'll bet at least a few voters do only that), well, Quinnipiac is 14-4-1, very similar to top-10 teams New Hampshire and Ohio State. And Q has actually won a couple of non-MAAC games this year! OK, they were over Bentley and AIC at their own tournament (Q Cup), but still...

I am not saying I agree with this reasoning (far from it!) but I can see it.

That isn't reasoning. Votes for Quinnipiac are either superficial analysis or bogus "support the conference" boosterism.

"Support the conference" isn't always bogus. Let's say there was a voter who philosophically refused to vote for any ECAC team, period. Let's say a different voter knew of this and simply adjusted his/her votes to push ECAC teams the "correct" number of votes forward in compensation.

I would not call that bogus (because it would benefit us