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:
QuoteClarkson 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:
http://uscho.com/polls/?data=usatoday&week=poll
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 ;-)