2007-2008 NCRHA Preseason Rankings

[Jtslick89]

http://ircnationalrankings.blogspot.com/

[RichardGraham]

Hi JT,

The photos add a lot. Good work!

[WeakSauce]

FYI, Long Beach State has been bumped up to Division I according to WCRHL.

[Jtslick89]

Just to clarify, I did not make these rankings. I am just posting them in case people didn't know about them.

[ISFN]

So...Stony Brook is indeed in D1?

I read an article on their web site I believe saying they were playing but hadn't seen anything posted on the ECRHA web site, but glad to hear it.

D1 will be the most competive its been in a while.

[MBurke]

Correct. Both Stony Brook and Hofstra are playing DI this year.

ECRHA should on a whole be a much more entertaining season with a lot more parity - I'm excited.

[ISFN]

Awesome, 4 of the top 15 d2 teams are moving up, thats great news.

I don't blame a few teams for staying down but there are a couple who year after year do good (top 15) and continue competing at the D2 level.

Step up to the challenge don't back down from it!

Congrats and GoodLuck to:

Long Beach State
UM-Saint Louis
Hofstra
Stony Brook

[KillinAintShe]

word up. teams who maybe have played in a few championships and final 4's year after year after year need to bring it up to d1.

[DGlass]

Just gonna post my normal rant about the mis-conception that you all have regarding the divisions:




According to the NCRHA, divisional alignment has nothing to do with talent level. Standard divisional alignment is based on school size; all schools, regardless of size, can play in Division I. Likewise, schools with large enrollments (18,000+) must appeal and be granted approval to play in Division II.


Again, the current and official NCRHA policy is that divisional alignment has no direct relationship to talent of that division. It is an INCORRECT perception that the NCRHA provides multiple divisions for the separation of talent.

- Division I is for schools with enrollments larger than 18,000.

- Division II is for schools with enrollments less than 18,000.

- Division III is for Junior/Community Colleges.

- B Division is for secondary and tertiary teams from a given school.


The ECRHA recognizes that the perception of DI being the most talented is a pervasive one and cannot/will not be broken. As such, the ECRHA is working with the NCRHA and slowly instituting policies that will have the effect of shifting the most organized, committed and (as a by-product) talented teams to Division I and the less organized teams to Division II. To date, both Stony Brook and Hofstra have realized that their organizational strength and commitment have allowed them to grow into stable and talented teams.

[HockeyGod98]

It seems like some schools are being pressured to move up because of talent. Because most of the d1 schools are less than 18000.

[DGlass]

I don't know about most of the DI schools having enrollments greater than 18,000 but there are some glaring exceptions (Hofstra, Stony Brook, UMSL, not to mention the successes of RIT and Lindenwood).

Personally, I very much feel that Division I should be for the most organized and committed programs. In the vast majority of instances, these organized and committed programs will also have a significant amount of talent. Likewise, I feel that Division II should be for the lesser organized teams, regardless of talent. The reasoning behind this is that in order to grow these leagues and companies into legitimate organizations, we must highlight our organized, committed and talented programs. When a team shows up with non-matching uniforms, no visually formal coaching staff and does not have their organization together (paperwork, insurance, etc.), that team is a poor representation of the players, their school and the league.


My previous post is one that I often post because the NCRHA has no official policy stating that the divisional structure should be based on talent. To my knowledge, when these rules were written, they were written based on the incorrect assumption that a large school (such as Penn State, Pittsburgh and Maryland, to sue the ECRHA as an example) would have a greater chance of enjoying success and finding talent than a small school (Neumann, Hofstra, Shippensburg) due to the larger student body. As far as I am concerned, and I believe 99% of you would agree, this is completely backwards.


In the ECRHA's new divisional structure, we do not want to pressure programs into Division I. We want to reward them for better organizing themselves and committing to the league. To cite the most oft-mentioned example, Neumann has no reason to move "up" to Division I, because there has been a gluttony of talent in Division II and, truth be told, they didn't need to.

[KillinAintShe]

These rankings are hilarious btw.

[hockeybum21]

I don't know about most of the DI schools having enrollments greater than 18,000 but there are some glaring exceptions (Hofstra, Stony Brook, UMSL, not to mention the successes of RIT and Lindenwood).

Personally, I very much feel that Division I should be for the most organized and committed programs. In the vast majority of instances, these organized and committed programs will also have a significant amount of talent. Likewise, I feel that Division II should be for the lesser organized teams, regardless of talent. The reasoning behind this is that in order to grow these leagues and companies into legitimate organizations, we must highlight our organized, committed and talented programs. When a team shows up with non-matching uniforms, no visually formal coaching staff and does not have their organization together (paperwork, insurance, etc.), that team is a poor representation of the players, their school and the league.


My previous post is one that I often post because the NCRHA has no official policy stating that the divisional structure should be based on talent. To my knowledge, when these rules were written, they were written based on the incorrect assumption that a large school (such as Penn State, Pittsburgh and Maryland, to sue the ECRHA as an example) would have a greater chance of enjoying success and finding talent than a small school (Neumann, Hofstra, Shippensburg) due to the larger student body. As far as I am concerned, and I believe 99% of you would agree, this is completely backwards.


In the ECRHA's new divisional structure, we do not want to pressure programs into Division I. We want to reward them for better organizing themselves and committing to the league. To cite the most oft-mentioned example, Neumann has no reason to move "up" to Division I, because there has been a gluttony of talent in Division II and, truth be told, they didn't need to.


Now, I'm going to agree with points and disagree with others.
Talent shouldn't be distributed between D1 and 2 leagues, it should be based on size of schools... where typically the larger the student body, the more oppurtonity for talented individuals, means a better team. BUT, I disagree strongly with your perception of what being committed is. In my case, I run the Sonoma State University team in California, and it is a difficult team to run, making the perception come off as disorganized. The problems faced is things like, I attend a university of 8,000 individuals, and 2,000 of the 8,000 are male students. Well it just so happens that the team at one point was very talented having a top 20 finish in Division 1, 13th or 16th I believe. With the death of a student and the graduation of others, the body wasn't there and the team disbanded. The next year some of the individuals to play weren't able to afford the higher costs and it resulted in only playing 1/2 a year, wearing cheaper uniforms that didn't match. Is that then the result of a disorganized team, or a team that was hit with/by misfortune? Coach left when his son graduated and the team was left without a knowledgable coach. They went on to win just 1 game of 8 last year?

This year will be a similar situation, I have to offer out scholarships to certain players because of financial difficulties and a school that requires supporting more female clubs because of the 3:1 ration and the california laws that require funding be equal to the sports ratio. Am I then creating a team inadequate to be a Divison 1 school, because my uniforms don't match and the school requires slight assistance in funds?
OR can what I say be valid in that, size of school should be the more deciding of the factors

[DGlass]

I'm sorry but I honestly had a difficult time understanding your points made in your post.

The point I am trying to make is that the current divisional alignment guidelines the NCRHA uses are outdated. Originally, it was assumed that because schools with a larger student body had a larger pool of potential players to draw from, they could put a more talented team on the floor.

I believe that history has show this to be incorrect. Schools such as Neumann, RIT, Lindenwood and (I believe) UMSL all have enrollments UNDER 18,000 and have proven to be some of the most successful programs. Meanwhile, a school such as Maryland (36,000+ and a member of the ECRHA for the previous 8+ years) can no longer field a team.

If I am reading your post correctly, you agree with this point; small schools have just as much talent as big schools.

Where it seems we disagree is the ECRHA's current divisional structure. You claim that the annual turnover (as well as the horrible tragedy that has befallen other schools as well - Penn State, Hofstra and UConn I believe have each lost a student-athlete over the years) that occurs to a program should have little or no bearing on its divisional placement.

Unfortunately I feel very strongly that no matter how talented the players on a team are, if they do not have the appearance of organization (matching uniforms to say the least), there is NO chance that the NCRHA (and its member organizations) can grow their leagues into more established and self-sufficient businesses.

While I understand and am extremely sympathetic to the incidents that have occurred to schools such as yours (although I have NO way of knowing the after-effects of losing a friend and teammate), I feel very strongly that for the benefit of the entire country (NCRHA and its member teams), the divisional structure of the league must be designed to promote the league and provide for the future of college roller hockey.

I will end with one last recommendation I've yet to make. If the NCRHA wants to keep the current divisional structure, they should enforce it. Schools with enrollments above 18,000 should be in DI and those with enrollments under 18,000 should be in DII.

...of course that puts Lindenwood into DII and I don't think this league would accept that.

[cojones81]

From what I remember playing against sonoma my first two years of play, they were actually division II and not division I. It's good to see them back though. Good luck this year
Corey Jones
#81 Nevada Wolfpack

[GoRangrHky]

Having matching jerseys year after year is not all that difficult- plenty of teams buy a set, and then players return them at the end of the year, and they are distributed to new players the following season.