Thursday, September 17, 2009

Yes, CHN's Pre-Season Poll!!!!

College Hockey News is the first to bust out a pre-season poll, isn't that just wonderful! Thanks to Goon for the link. Here is the top 10:

1. Denver
2. Miami
3. Boston University
4. Cornell
5. Michigan
6. minnesota
7. Princeton
8. Notre Dame
9. UMass-Lowell
10. Yale

None of this really matters, its just fun for discussion's sake. Reading the comments over at CHN and on Goon's blog, no one really sees the ECAC worthy of three teams in the top 10. I'd have to agree, simply because the PWR favors three good teams from the same bad conference doesn't mean they belong in the top 10 of any poll or in the NCAA tourney. Does an ECAC fan really want to debate that Cornell, Yale and Princeton all belonged in the NCAA tourney last year over Wisconsin and minnesota? See when you play a panzy ass schedule like the ECAC (or the CCHA) the PWR favors you because you can rack up wins against bad teams, only facing tough competition on occasion. In the WCHA, where are the bad teams? Oh sure Tech and UAA and Mankato are regularly at the bottom, but while they are bad by WCHA standards they are still better than any team outside of the top 3 in the ECAC, and probably just as good as those. Last season Wisconsin had something like 30+ games against TUC's in the PWR, I think Yale or Princeton had just enough (10) to use the criteria in the ranking. So they skate in w/ just enough TUC's, meaning that 2/3 of their games were against teams not in the PWR top 25, and that is suppose to be impressive?

This doesn't even bring in the KRACH rankings from last season. Yale ranks 10th, Cornell 17th and Princton 20th. Wisconsin was 11th, BC was 12th, the gophers 13th and UMASS Lowell 14th. So you really want to tell me that these ECAC teams are better than those four teams and Cornell and Princeton deserved spots in the tourney over them?

I wasn't even planning on going on that tangent until I started in and realized once again the facts are there, and the ECAC has no business getting the respect it does, playing the weak ass schedules they do.

What I really wanted to point out was CHN's reason for putting the gophers at #6.

6. minnesota: A usual NCAA postseason staple, the gophers fell short of expectations last season, but if their late-season run showed anything, it was that they'd be back with a vengeance in 2009-10. They lose top scorer Ryan Stoa to the pro ranks, but return Jordan Schroeder, who excelled as a freshman, and Jay Bariball on a deep offense that will be complemented by a defense led by Cade Fairchild and Aaron Ness, both of whom matured nicely as the roller coaster season continued. The biggest piece of the puzzle will be seeing which Alex Kangas shows up in net -- the one who gave up 42 goals in a 12 game mid-season stretch, or the one who allowed just 19 over the final nine matches of the season.

I was unaware that INCH fired all their idiots and CHN gave them jobs. Late season run? You mean the three games in a row they won before losing to Duluth at the Final Five play-in game? I guess they forgot about them going 2-7-2 in the 11 games before that; quite the late season surge. They almost blew home ice by losing to Tech on the last friday of the regular season and they were making a run? That was Tech's second win in WCHA play.

I don't really care who is in any top 10, the only rankings that matters is first the WCHA standings, and second the PWR after the last buzzer sounds to end conference tourneys, but I expect a little more out of CHN, since someone is paying this writer to put this together (edit: I'm assuming this is true), they at least should qualify an absurd statement like "late season run," especially when one didn't happen. They are spot on about Kangas though, like poison in a well.

I'm glad Wisconsin is under the radar, good place to be to start the season.