Poll (yay) 3/27

[ebilmes]

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

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.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

God.  Talk about irrelevant.

(The poll.  Not the post)

[Trotsky]

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

[atb9]

[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]God.  Talk about irrelevant.

(The poll.  Not the post)[/quote]

I doubt it's irrelevant to recruits... ;-)

It's nice to be ranked ahead of Minnesota. B-]

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

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK]Otherwise Holy Cross should be ranked #8 and ahead of Minnesota.[/quote]

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

[Jordan 04]

[quote 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.  [/quote]

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.

[RatushnyFan]

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

[KeithK]

[quote Jordan 04][quote 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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]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.)

[Scersk '97]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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.

[Liz '05]

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

[Rich S]

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

[DeltaOne81]

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

http://www.uscho.com/FAQs/?data=selection#b7

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

[Scersk '97]

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.

[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*