Poll (yay) 3/27

USA Today Only. I'd have loved to see us at 5 or 6. And CC moves up?

USA TODAY/American Hockey men's poll

March 27, 2006

Rank, school (first-place votes)        Record     Points     LW
1. Wisconsin          (28)              28-10-3     504        2
2. North Dakota       ( 4)              29-15-1     474        6
3. Boston College     ( 2)              25-12-3     442        8
4. Maine                                28-11-2     402       10
5. Screw BU                             26-10-4     362        1
6. Michigan State                       25-12-8     319        3
7. Cornell                              22- 9-4     311        9
8. Minnesota                            27- 9-5     276        4
9. Miami (Ohio)                         26- 9-4     214        5
10. Sucks                               21-12-2     162        7
11. Colorado College                    24-16-2     156       13
12. Michigan                            21-15-5     140       12
13. UHN                                 20-13-7     138       11
14. Holy Cross                          27-10-2     107       NR
15. St. Cloud State                     22-16-4      22       14

Others receiving votes:  Denver 21, Nebraska-Omaha 13,
Northern Michigan 10, Dartmouth 4, Bemidji State 2.

God. Talk about irrelevant.

(The poll. Not the post)

Cornell finishes tied with the fewest losses in D-1.

Jeff Hopkins '82
God. Talk about irrelevant.

(The poll. Not the post)

I doubt it's irrelevant to recruits...

It's nice to be ranked ahead of Minnesota.

The thing I hate about this poll is that every year the top 4 teams are exactly the same four teams that make the Frozen Four. Just once I'd like the voters to recognize the fact that success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that you're the best team. Maine isn't necessarily a better team than MSU simply because they were victorious in the latest head to head matchup and the win certainly doesn't mean they must be better than BU. Otherwise Holy Cross should be ranked #8 and ahead of Minnesota.

KeithK
Otherwise Holy Cross should be ranked #8 and ahead of Minnesota.

Hahaha... now *THAT* I'd pay to see. Ah, just the thought makes me happy

KeithK
The thing I hate about this poll is that every year the top 4 teams are exactly the same four teams that make the Frozen Four. Just once I'd like the voters to recognize the fact that success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that you're the best team. Maine isn't necessarily a better team than MSU simply because they were victorious in the latest head to head matchup and the win certainly doesn't mean they must be better than BU.

I find this an interesting comment in light of your impassioned statements that we didn't earn the right to play for the national championship. If simply having success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that Harvard is the best team in the conference, why should they be the only representative in the national tournament?

You may point to the Cleary Cup, but given the showing of Cornell v. Colgate during the year, and the Albany weekend, I don't think it's a very stable argument to say Dartmouth/Colgate earned that right as the best in the league either.

I just like seeing us ahead of Minnesota. Regardless of the source. Woof woof!!

Jordan 04

KeithK
The thing I hate about this poll is that every year the top 4 teams are exactly the same four teams that make the Frozen Four. Just once I'd like the voters to recognize the fact that success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that you're the best team. Maine isn't necessarily a better team than MSU simply because they were victorious in the latest head to head matchup and the win certainly doesn't mean they must be better than BU.

I find this an interesting comment in light of your impassioned statements that we didn't earn the right to play for the national championship. If simply having success in a single elimination tournament does not automatically mean that Harvard is the best team in the conference, why should they be the only representative in the national tournament?

You may point to the Cleary Cup, but given the showing of Cornell v. Colgate during the year, and the Albany weekend, I don't think it's a very stable argument to say Dartmouth/Colgate earned that right as the best in the league either.

OK, I'll explain again. My philosophy is win and move on, lose and go home. Winning the league championship (however it's defined) means you won and have earned the right to move on. It doesn't prove that you're the best team, but that's not exactly the point. I prefer to define the championship such that it's more likely to pick the best team. Thus my preference for RS championship over tournament. But regardless, win or go home.

Relating that to the poll, I think that the poll should be about the determination of "best" team. However that's defined. It's a subjective measure and thus well suited to judging this very subjective question. I find it hard to believe that people really think that Maine is the 4th best team in the country after spening weeks and weeks around #10. The voters are simply trying to mirror the FF field. If you're just doing that then why have a poll? (Of course, they shouldn't bother having polls at this point in the season, but that's a different question.)

KeithK
OK, I'll explain again. My philosophy is win and move on, lose and go home. Winning the league championship (however it's defined) means you won and have earned the right to move on. It doesn't prove that you're the best team, but that's not exactly the point. I prefer to define the championship such that it's more likely to pick the best team. Thus my preference for RS championship over tournament. But regardless, win or go home.

Now, I'm not going to disagree with you strenuously here (or, really, even at all), since I agree with you that the NCAAs are overpopulated with teams that really haven't done anything but do reasonably well in difficult leagues (UNO, UNH, CC, maybe [gulp] us?), but isn't part of the fun of organized sports the possibility that, even towards the end of a reasonably unsuccessful season, you can put it all together and make a run at a championship, whether league or NCAA? I think sometimes that we have to remember that the whole thing is being played for the benefit of the players as well as the fans. What would Yale have to play for at the end of the season, or even midway, had there been no tournament berth for them? Tournaments at the end of seasons keep things lively and fun.

That being said, perhaps, even with the current instability regarding the CHA, it's time to go back to giving automatic bids to regular-season "champions" as well as tournament champions for *all* the leagues. Who says Niagara or Dartmouth (or Colgate) didn't deserve to be in the tournament? I'd even like to see the Clarkson rule come back. The seedings are artificial anyway--I don't need them to reflect team strength so much. Why not a #1 seed for Holy Cross? With the small sample space of non-conference games involved, were they ever proved to be that undeserving?

I don't know, make the Clarkson rule only apply to conferences with 8 teams or more or something, but a team that pulls off a "double" championship should see a reward, 'cause we all know exactly how difficult that is.

I feel like I should know this, but can you define "the Clarkson rule"?

Have you talked to recruits and asked them what went into their decision? I have yet to hear a single reference to polls.

Liz '05
I feel like I should know this, but can you define "the Clarkson rule"?

[www.uscho.com]

(May as well check out the Colorado College rule right above it too)

It came about because Clarkson got screwed with an awful seed in the 1991 NCAA tournament. Even though they had turned a double, they had to face Wisconsin in the first round at Walker Arena in Potsdam and then Lake State (very powerful at the time) on the road in the second round. Frankly, I think they just ran out of gas at the Frozen Four, ending up getting crushed by a very good BU team.

When the tournament moved to the unholy two regional arrangement, involved byes and rests for the top two seeds in each regional, Clarkson ironically never was able to take advantage of "its" rule.

[q]Now, I'm not going to disagree with you strenuously here (or, really, even at all), since I agree with you that the NCAAs are overpopulated with teams that really haven't done anything but do reasonably well in difficult leagues (UNO, UNH, CC, maybe [gulp] us?), but isn't part of the fun of organized sports the possibility that, even towards the end of a reasonably unsuccessful season, you can put it all together and make a run at a championship, whether league or NCAA? I think sometimes that we have to remember that the whole thing is being played for the benefit of the players as well as the fans. What would Yale have to play for at the end of the season, or even midway, had there been no tournament berth for them? Tournaments at the end of seasons keep things lively and fun.[/q]No, the fun of organized sports is the fun of organized sports. I can easily enjoy a game thoroughly at the end of a season when my team is well out of contention. (Case in point: I started watching Cornell hockey in the 92-93 season.) There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.

Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before. Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.

This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*

KeithK
There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.

I think professional athletes (and high level amateurs) tend to be less romantic than this, even if they act all weepy and sentimental on camera.

I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*

Don't despair and don't take that as evidence. Those decisions are usually driven by less graceful considerations than purity of accomplishment. I still disagree with your extremism but my line drawing would come well short of the current state of affairs in the major pro sports leagues. I could very well be called an extremist myself.

Scersk '97
When the tournament moved to the unholy two regional arrangement, involved byes and rests for the top two seeds in each regional, Clarkson ironically never was able to take advantage of "its" rule.

I was, at the same time, disappointed for them and vaguely satisfied about it.

Did Colorado College ever get to take advantage of "their" rule in the eight or so years it was in effect by winning the WCHA regular season but not tournament title again, either? I should know where to find the information, but I can't at the moment.

Beeeej

KeithK
No, the fun of organized sports is the fun of organized sports. I can easily enjoy a game thoroughly at the end of a season when my team is well out of contention. (Case in point: I started watching Cornell hockey in the 92-93 season.) There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.

Hey, I agree. I was the co-captain of my school's 2-13-1 soccer team my senior year. It was still fun. But it was a lot more fun the year before when we actually had a slight chance of making sectionals late in the season. Your mileage may vary.

Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before.

Also agreed. I disliked it when the ECAC went to 10 teams, and I like the 12-team tourny less.

Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.

This point is where you lose me and I think you lose a lot of people. Baseball involves a season of, what, 132 games? I don't care enough about it to know, but it's *long*. Other pro sports involve similarly long seasons. It's a sampling issue. I don't think a home and home series vs. every team in the league, over a space of a couple of months, involving inconsistencies such as practice starting times, extra games, recruiting issues, and injuries, chooses the best team in a league like the ECAC. It chooses one of the best teams, but the tournament does a similarly good job in choosing one of the best teams.

This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me.

I think part of the problem you're having is seeing people as having the opposite opinion to your own. My opinion certainly doesn't represent a diametrically opposed viewpoint, but you've responded like it does. There are shades of goodness and meaning here. I agree that the proliferation of wild cards in sports is bad, but I'm not willing to say that conference tournaments as selectors are bad in college sports. That's somewhere on a continuum between "only regular-season champs" and "let 'em all in!"

KeithK
This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*

I understand and respect your opinion - but, like most people as you admit, disagree with it.

I think your point is crystal clear. I just think its a matter of priorities and preferences.

I - and apparently most people - would rather see the best teams in the tournament. It seems most "fair" to most people that the best teams from the season as a whole get to play for the national title. And that the group be big enough to include teams that may not have been the best all year long, but are good enough to get it together at the end and prove that they can be the best.

Your philosophy would certainly leave out teams who are the cream of the crop for teams that simply are not (note: this is different than current auto-bids, as I think its pretty hard to argue that Dartmouth, DU, and the other just-missed teams were the cream of the crop).

While some people may be mad that DU and Dartmouth were left our for Bemidji and Holy Cross, it would be a much harder pill for people to swallow if (using regular season championships) Wisconsin, CC, and Harvard were left out for Holy Cross, Niagra, and Dartmouth.


Don't you think, that in order to have something that you can legitimately call a national championship, that you need to do your best to represent the spectrum of the best teams in the nation?

The auto-bids are then added to give everyone something to play for at the end of the year, and to make sure that all leagues are represented. Its weird, Keith, the auto-bids are essentially communist... making sure that everyone gets an equal shot, yet here you are promoting a system with only the autobids

I know I'm very much an extremist on this issue. The extremism is what gets me frustrated. I realize that but I'm also convinced that my own brand of extremism is right!

Yes, there is a wide spectrum between the guy on the USCHO board who seemingly in all seriousness suggested we have a 59 team tournament and my position. I guess I see most of sports and general opinion moving in the "everyone gets in" direction. I don't have any real power to stop this (until I make a few billion and start buying sports leagues) so I simply rail against it. Effective? No. Satisfying? Occasionally, but usually no. Which is why I should just stop.

KeithK
A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.

And conversely, the Augusts and Septembers of Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Philadelphia, etc. would have meant nothing.

("As they should have," you might say). Either way, you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.

KeithK
Which is why I should just stop.

How's that workin' out for ya so far?

Beeeej

[q]("As they should have," you might say). Either way, you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.[/q]IT'S PO-TAY-TO, YOU CRETIN!

It's really all a question of aesthetics.

Beeeej

KeithK
Which is why I should just stop.

How's that workin' out for ya so far?

Beeeej

I think my previous post responding to Jordan shows I've moved away from arguing the point and into silliness. That at least is cathartic (and more fun than writing risk management plans).

KeithK

Beeeej

KeithK
Which is why I should just stop.

How's that workin' out for ya so far?

Beeeej

I think my previous post responding to Jordan shows I've moved away from arguing the point and into silliness. That at least is cathartic (and more fun than writing risk management plans).

I LOOOOOVE writing risk management plans, you cretin!

KeithK
[q]Now, I'm not going to disagree with you strenuously here (or, really, even at all), since I agree with you that the NCAAs are overpopulated with teams that really haven't done anything but do reasonably well in difficult leagues (UNO, UNH, CC, maybe [gulp] us?), but isn't part of the fun of organized sports the possibility that, even towards the end of a reasonably unsuccessful season, you can put it all together and make a run at a championship, whether league or NCAA? I think sometimes that we have to remember that the whole thing is being played for the benefit of the players as well as the fans. What would Yale have to play for at the end of the season, or even midway, had there been no tournament berth for them? Tournaments at the end of seasons keep things lively and fun.[/q]No, the fun of organized sports is the fun of organized sports. I can easily enjoy a game thoroughly at the end of a season when my team is well out of contention. (Case in point: I started watching Cornell hockey in the 92-93 season.) There's a joy in sports that's a lot bigger than whether you have a chance to finish first. Anyone who can't find something to play for once they're eliminated from title contention shouldn't be playing.

Not that the thrill of winning and the pursuit of it isn't an important part of sports. But letting everyone (ECAC) or too many teams into championship tournaments greatly diminishes the intensity of what has come before. Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.

This debate gets so frustrating for me that I really should stop bringing it up and responding to it. I find it so hard to understand why people would have the opposite opinion, since it seems so crystal clear to me. But I'm obvously in the minority here and a small minority at that given the proliferation of wild cards and playoff teams in all levels of sports now. *sigh*

I'll up the ante. Why do we have post-season tournaments at all? Who benefits? Crown the regular season champions and then everyone goes home. Why the obsession with a national champion?

David Harding
I'll up the ante. Why do we have post-season tournaments at all? Who benefits? Crown the regular season champions and then everyone goes home. Why the obsession with a national champion?

Keep this up and you'll be an Ivy League president.

Al DeFlorio

David Harding
I'll up the ante. Why do we have post-season tournaments at all? Who benefits? Crown the regular season champions and then everyone goes home. Why the obsession with a national champion?

Keep this up and you'll be an Ivy League president.

Or if that doesn't work out, a shoe-in for Union Pres.

KeithK
Since it's baseball season now I'll make a baseball analogy. A tight September pennant race is much more exciting and satisfying to me than a series in October. Last season's AL East race, which was never decided, would have meant much more had both teams known that the loser is finished.

Ah. I was waiting for this before jumping in. I am, have always been, and most likely always will be a staunch opponent of the Loser Card...I mean...Wild Card in baseball.

To address Jordan 04:
[Q]the Augusts and Septembers of Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Philadelphia, etc. would have meant nothing.[/Q]

I firmly believe that's incorrect. Whenever people bring out that argument, they neglect to take into account the old four-division setup. If you go back over the past 10 years and reconstruct the standings using the old divisional alignment, we have missed out on some epic, incredible, and historic pennant races. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that the playoff expansion has LESSENED the late-season excitement, when you consider the number of times the Wild Card safety net has come into play.

Example: late '90s Indian teams strolled to the Central division title. "oh, but now the White Sox and Twins have something to play for! They're 10 games out of the division in August!" Reconstruct the records, and the Indians aren't running away with the AL East, but in HEATED races with the Yankees and Red Sox. Examine 1999. The White Sox and Twins, already blown out of the Wild Card race anyway, are actually closer to the division leaders in the West.

The other argument: Wild Card teams win world series. Well sure, but I still think that those teams didn't deserve a shot at it in the first place. The playoffs become a crap shoot, with a combination of skill and luck (see many historic upsets in NCAA bouncyball, G. Mason excluded). "And we miss out on so many great Divisional series." Well great. Let's end the season in August and have tons of really great playoff series then. Division winners earned the right to the playoffs. The losers don't, in my book.

Now you have weak 4-team divisions being rewarded for mediocrity. There's a reason 162-game season is significant. In the NFL, playing 16 games is NOT significant, and not even balanced in schedule, so expanded playoffs and multiple wild cards make sense. Not in baseball.

But you know what it comes down to? An extra round of playoff $$ for twice as many owners.

It's for this reason that I'm going to step out and support Keith here. I'm not on the extreme side of his argument...color me a few shades of lighter gray. I don't suggest going back to pre-1981 days of a 4-team tournament. There are too many teams deserving of a shot, and too many smoke-filled-room politics that happened back then. 12 teams felt right as far as quality and difficulty making the NCAA field. I hated the concept of a bye, so I'm perfectly fine with 16, and letting the emerging conferences get a taste helps the entire sport.

Oh, and of course, an 8-team ECAC playoff field, please.

For completeness, here's the final poll

USA TODAY/American Hockey men's poll

FINAL POLL — April 10, 2006

Rank, school (first-place votes) Record  Points  LW 

1. Wisconsin (34)                30-10-3  510     1 
2. Boston College                26-13-3  475     3 
3. North Dakota                  29-16-1  435     2 
4. Maine                         28-12-2  401     4 
5. Boston                        26-10-4  363     5 
6. Michigan State                25-12-8  318     6 
7. Cornell                       22-9-4   312     7 
8. Minnesota                     27-9-5   276     8 
9. Miami (Ohio)                  26-9-4   214     9 
10. Harvard                      21-12-2  161    10 
11. Colorado College             24-16-2  158    11 
12. Michigan                     21-15-5  142    12 
13. New Hampshire                20-13-7  135    13 
14. Holy Cross                   27-10-2  108    14 
15. St. Cloud State              22-16-4   22    15 
 

Others receiving votes: Denver, 22; Nebraska Omaha, 13; 
Northern Michigan, 10; Dartmouth College, 4; Bemidji State, 2.. 

Gained two points on MSU.

As stupid as a post-tournament poll is, in light of the QF games, I'm surprised we ended up as low as 7th.

ugarte
As stupid as a post-tournament poll is, in light of the QF games, I'm surprised we ended up as low as 7th.

Them pollsters loves 'em some offense.

Beeeej

Cornell finishes in the top 10 for the 4th time in the last 5 years:

2001: 17th
2002: 9th
2003: 3rd
2004: 20th
2005: 5th
2006: 7th