PWR Update (through 2/4 games)
1. Boston University (30)
2. Michigan (28)
3. Mass.-Lowell (28)
4. Ferris State (27)
------------------------------------------
5. Minnesota-Duluth (26)
6. Boston College (25)
7. Minnesota (24)
8. Merrimack (24)
------------------------------------------
9. Maine (21)
10. Notre Dame (20)
11. Union (20)
12. Ohio State (18)
------------------------------------------
13. Michigan State (17)
14. Northern Michigan (17)
15. North Dakota (16)
16. Atlantic Hockey Champ
Worcester:
1. Boston University
8. Merrimack
11. Union
14. Northern Michigan
Green Bay:
2. Michigan
5. Minnesota-Duluth
12. Ohio State
16. Atlantic Hockey Champ
Bridgeport:
3. UMass-Lowell
6. Boston College
10. Notre Dame
13. Michigan State
St. Paul:
4. Ferris State
7. Minnesota (Host)
9. Maine
15. North Dakota
The first four teams out are Colorado College, Denver, Miami, and Western Michigan.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:02 AM ^
what is PWR? Sorry. don't follow hockey? that closely?
February 5th, 2012 at 2:04 AM ^
The mathematical formula that determines what at-large teams make the NCAA tournament (conference tournament winners get automatic bids like basketball).
How it works: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=pwcrpi
Current PWR: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php
February 5th, 2012 at 2:06 AM ^
Thanks for the info. I try but bball and football consume me.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:07 AM ^
redwings8831 must be bored, anyone can see power rankings if the follow hockey.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^
You do realize that these aren't power rankings? They're a formula actually used by the NCAA to seed tournament teams.
Also, this is a discussion board. Some people aren't familiar with concepts in sports they're either new to or follow from a distance, and other people are nice enough to answer the questions they have. I guess I'm glad people like Magnus, JeepinBen, ect. have so much time on their hands, because I've had a lot of questions answered by those guys since I've been here.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:07 AM ^
redwings8831 must be bored, anyone can see power rankings if the follow hockey.
February 6th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^
Isn't it actually a system that predicts who will make the tournament, but not the official system used by the NCAA? The fact that it accurately predicts the field (I think even 100%) means that it's probably the same, but I don't think it's confirmed. It's obviously amazingly accurate, but I think it's just a predictor.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:08 AM ^
PairWise Ranking. Basically they compare every "top" team directly against every other "top" team, and your ranking is based on how many of those comparisons you win.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:14 AM ^
Pair wise is like words for friends, what have you done lately.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:24 AM ^
I'm not going to sugar coat it, looking at the way this team was playing in the first half, I was 99.9% certain this was the year we'd break the tourney streak. It was downright awful hockey on a rather consistent basis. It's unbelievable the way they've managed to pull it together so quickly.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:33 AM ^
February 5th, 2012 at 11:46 AM ^
since the hot streak started before Merrill's return from bolivia
February 5th, 2012 at 2:30 AM ^
And, let's look a little closer at that hypothetical bracket. And think real hard about who would actually go to that Green Bay regional.
Hooray, 95% empty arena in Green Bay, that hockey hotbed! Can't wait!
February 5th, 2012 at 2:35 AM ^
UMD would bring a decent amount of people with them to GB. Granted its not St. Paul for them (though they don't need to be there with host Minnesota and North Dakota), it's still a doable trip. Atlantic Hockey champ (whoever that is) will bring no one and by how OSU can't even fill up their own arena, I wouldn't count on them either. The one thing GB has going for them is that it's the smallest arena of the host sites.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:41 AM ^
I mean, the other three sites are definitely possibilities to fill 75%+ for at least night one, but the Green Bay site, if it's only Duluth, will struggle. Still a lot of hockey to be played, but I think it's always worth pointing out when the NCAA's flawed regional system looks poised to create yet another sterile, boring, inconveniently-located regional site in the name of creating their sterile, boring, non-competitive-advantage dream tournament.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:55 AM ^
If the NCAA wanted to avoid competitive advantages, they wouldn't let anyone hosting a regional play at the host site. Minnesota, for instance, has a massive advantage in their regional and they probably won't even be a 1-seed. The system is a mess of cross-purposes.
February 5th, 2012 at 2:35 AM ^
scare me. Except for Merrimack. Minnesota wouldn't, except they're guaranteed St. Paul which makes them much more dangerous. But especially Duluth, they're probably the best team int he country right now, they've just hit a little bit of a skid against Tech and now UAA. Ironically, only BU of the other one seeds intimidates me. Of the three seeds, please, whatever divinity there may or may no be, no Maine in the NCAA tournament. Notre Dame would not be fun either. Then the four seeds are four seeds. North Dakota is mildly scary because they're always good and tend to go on runs late, but they're certainly not close to what they were last year.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:22 AM ^
AHHHHH how does the state of Michigan never get regionals anymore ARGHHH
February 5th, 2012 at 5:13 AM ^
The state of Michigan has a regional next year. However, it's impossible for us to go there, as we're the "host" of a regional in Toledo.
February 5th, 2012 at 5:19 AM ^
Not true. We're hosting the Grand Rapids regional. BGSU has Toledo.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:46 AM ^
Well, since the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decided to stop using on-campus regional sites (but only after shipping us off to Grand Forks for one last hurrah), that kind of screwed over the state of Michigan for hosing a regional. JLA is way too big. The Palace is probably too big. You need a mid-range, non-NHL arena. Which, basically, narrows it down to Grand Rapids. It's not going to matter who the "host" is, it has to be in GR.
What a joke.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:25 AM ^
Wow. Kind of surprising how far Ohio has fallen. But oh so sweet.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^
There should be a regional in the Michigan-Indiana-Ohio blueprint every year. It's BS that every year there are two in New England and then basically two in WCHA territory and then the CCHA just has to get shipped all over the country
We're on pace to put 6 teams in the trounament and the closest teams to any regionals are Northern (3 hrs from Green Bay) and Notre Dame (5 hrs from Green Bay) and I know most of us will end up in Minnesota or New England
February 5th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
It's probably right about where it should be to have 2 regional sites in New England, 1 in WCHA territory, and 1 in Michigan or Ohio. Fits in with the distribution of where the teams (and fans) are, and makes travel convenient for just about everyone (well, except for the Alaskas and the three Colorado programs). College hockey is a geographic oddity to say the least. You've got programs in 3 out of the 4 geographic corners of the continent, and a whole lot more in the middle.
February 5th, 2012 at 10:24 AM ^
As bad as things were at the beginning of the year, we still have not surpassed our loss total from last season.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have a shot to at least tie with BU for the top spot this weekend? They play, I believe, one TUC while we play two games against MSU. Obviously this is going to depend on every single one of UM/BU's TUC victories to stay on the board, but it's nice to be this high, especially given the start of the season.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
What are the odds M ends up playing in Bridgeport or Worcester? As an East-Coaster I wouldn't mind driving to see them here...would Ferris have to finish ahead of us in the PWR?
February 5th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
If the top 4 teams are 2 eastern teams and 2 western teams, like they are now, there is no way any of them will be moved out-of-region. Michigan will stay West in that scenario. The only reasonable way for Michigan to be a #1 seed in an Eastern regional is if they are #3 or 4 in the pairwise, and there are 2 western teams ahead of them.
If Michigan drops out of the top 4, all bets are off. If Michigan finishes from #5 to #8, the committee tries very hard to preserve 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 matchups in the regional finals, so if Michigan is #6, for example, they are almost certain to be in whatever region includes the #3 team. If Michigan finishes from #9 to #12, I would say that they are again more likely to be West, because the committee takes attendance into account for the 3-seeds more than any other group, and Michigan would be a good draw for the Green Bay regional. I don't even want to think about Michigan dropping lower than that...
February 5th, 2012 at 11:58 AM ^
Great explanation I appreciate it
February 5th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
Give me minnesota-duluth. I want those sons of bitches after last year's game.
Do you realize if Michigan can get the sweep next week (which I think they will), notre dame sweeps ferris and ohio can just stop western from getting all 6 points (which is all very possible) that Michigan will be at the top of the conference?
I'd give anything to win the conference again this season. But this season, I want more than a conference championship. I want the big one. And I firmly believe if this team keeps playing the way they are, they can do it.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
You can think all you want, but the fact of the matter is we're going into Munn without Brown on Friday night. I'd say we're far more likely to split the weekend
February 5th, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^
We are more talented and hot enough to get by MSU on friday, after that it's almost like a home game saturday at Joe Louis. A sweep is very likely.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:03 PM ^
Is there a reason Brown's suspension can't be appealed like Notre Dame did a couple weeks ago? I would say we need him more at Munn than at JLA.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:25 PM ^
Brown threw a punch. It'll be a tough sell.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:31 PM ^
The Notre Dame suspension was a little different--it was handed down by the commissioner after-the-fact. Brown's suspension, unfortunately, is mandated by the rule book: (1) fighting majors carry automatic game disqualifications, and (2) if a player receives a game disqualification, he is suspended for the next game as well. I don't think that there is any way that the CCHA could overturn the penalty, unless possibly they discovered that Brown wasn't involved in the play.
Brown was, however, involved in the play, he dropped his gloves and raised his fists. That's generally enough to get the fighting major, and even if Michigan appealed, I suspect that it would be rejected in about 5 seconds.
Also, I think it would be best to have Brown for the neutral-site game. It would be bad if Michigan appealed, lost to State with Brown in the lineup on Friday and then had to play without him on Saturday. I think it's best to get the suspension out of the way right away.
February 5th, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^
If the PWR ended like that, I think the matchups would be a little different. They like to keep the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 matchups for the regional finals, so I would have:
Worcester: Boston U v Northern Michigan, Merrimack v Notre Dame
St Paul: Michigan v Air Force, Minnesota v Maine
Bridgeport: Mass-Lowell v Michigan State, Boston College v Union
Green Bay: Ferris State v North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth v Ohio State
I don't like being in the St Paul regional, but the 2-7 matchup pretty much forces us to be there. On the other hand, I would rather have a second round game against Minnesota in St Paul than against Minnesota-Duluth in Green Bay. Duluth looks like they are just as good as they were last year. I want a rematch at the frozen four instead.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
I almost posted an second projection (which had us on St. Paul, keeping the 2-7 matchup together). The reason why I didn't is if you go by straight bracket integrity (2, 7, 10, 15), you'd have North Dakota in St. Paul also and which would result in the weakest 1 seed getting the weakest 4. Not sure the committee would have that.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:01 PM ^
Yes, you're right that the committee wouldn't want that. That's why I switched the Atlantic Hockey winner to St Paul and North Dakota to Green Bay.
North Dakota travels very well. They will help sell out Green Bay under my scenario, while St Paul needs no help at all in selling out, with Michigan and Minnesota there.