D1 Pools (Projected)

[ISFN]

Pool A
1.LU
12.Rutgers
13.West Point
24.Michigan

Pool B
2.UMSL
11.Ohio State
14.UNT
23.Hofstra

Pool C
3.Michigan State
10.UNLV
15.NC State
22.Cal Poly

Pool D
4.Buffalo
9.UCF
16.UCONN
21. Santa Barbra

Pool E
5.FAU
8.ASU
17.EMU
20.Stoney Brook

Pool F
6.Long Beach
7.Rhode Island
18.Towson
19 Sam Houston

Numbers indicate overall rank, had to move some teams to avoid having to many of the same conference in the same pool. Rankings based off 1st-Regionals & 2nd-Regular Season

[alex]

Does anyone know, officially, how these pools are assembled? I know they avoid having teams from the same region in the same pool as much as possible, but is there any other rhyme or reason to the way they try to create the pools?

[ISFN]

Unofficially- I would have to say Regionals, Regular Season, and Inter regional play all factor in the rankings prior to the assembling of the pools.

[GripperWheels]

Pools look right on.

What team is going to win each pool?

Now is the time to set up a fantasy game.
How many points for a win? Like March madness whats the point system for advancing in the tournament?

[ISFN]

Pool A
LU
West Point
Rutgers
Michigan

Pool B
UMSL
UNT
Ohio State
Hofstra

Pool C
Mighigan State
UNLV
NC State
Cal Poly

Pool D
UCF
Buffalo
UCONN
Santa Barbra

Pool E
ASU
FAU
Stony Brook
EMU

Pool D
Long Beach
Rhode Island
Towson
Sam Houston

After round robin play is complete I believe these will be the standings.

[cusanorojo]

Pool D will not end up like that. Buffalo, uconn, ucf then Santa barbera. Someone said last year ucf would end up above buff and last year buffalo **** on them twice beating then 10-1 both times. Ucf will not even come close to buff as buffalo is definitly a much stronger team this season, no losses in 23 games in the ecrha. I think uconn is often underrated they've played buff tight this season and rhode isle tight many times. Look for uconn to upset ucf!!

[ISFN]

Pool D will not end up like that. Buffalo, uconn, ucf then Santa barbera. Someone said last year ucf would end up above buff and last year buffalo **** on them twice beating then 10-1 both times. Ucf will not even come close to buff as buffalo is definitly a much stronger team this season, no losses in 23 games in the ecrha. I think uconn is often underrated they've played buff tight this season and rhode isle tight many times. Look for uconn to upset ucf!!

Feel free to create your own standings its all for fun! I based my predictions off last years teams vs this year along with current records and such and I think the Bulls of Buffalo are a great team but weaker from last year compared to this year, still should easily make it to the elite 8 but after that its a toss up.

Very interested in seeing ASU, UNLV and Long Beach.

[cusanorojo]

how can you say there not as good as last year?? They have added better role players and depth, they had a few really weak players last year taht they don't have this season. They only played with seven at regionals and that's what I would imagine they do at nationals, and they looked their best they have all season last weekend. I'm pretty sure one of their players got hurt and is done for season and he was a weak link for them so their going to be very dangerous with their 7. THier the wings by the way not the bulls

[cusanorojo]

I think the final four will be the same as last year, UMSL, Buffalo, Lindenwood, and Mich state , but it seems there's some more competitive teams along the way these four are going to have to beat to get through. There will be some better games then last seasons nationals for sure.

[ISFN]

how can you say there not as good as last year?? They have added better role players and depth, they had a few really weak players last year taht they don't have this season. They only played with seven at regionals and that's what I would imagine they do at nationals, and they looked their best they have all season last weekend. I'm pretty sure one of their players got hurt and is done for season and he was a weak link for them so their going to be very dangerous with their 7. THier the wings by the way not the bulls

Losing their goalie was the main reason, I thought he was the backbone of their team last year. And having 7 guys is going to kill them at nationals, deeper benches almost* always prevail and when playoffs roll around and the games get closer to each other in time all that adds up and with 7 guys thats going to be extremly difficult.

Can you find me a link to their schools website please? And while you're there check out the athletic department, not sure why the NCRHA lets them change their mascot but they do, They are in fact the Bulls of UB not WINGS.

[cusanorojo]

yea I understand their the bulls but the university of buffalo doesn't let club sports use the bulls name so they had to use another name when the club started.... smart guy

[cusanorojo]

they'll be fine with seven, jsut watch and see they play a system within themselves. Most of their players all play for a pro team in Buffalo that competes in Narch and Torhs and does very well. They've been togehter for years their going to be tough to beat. They only had seven at chicago pretty sure and they outshot umsl 42-24.

[ISFN]

They can represent the schools name but not the mascot? Why pick the wings? Why not just be UB then?
I know its irrelvant but making up a mascot for a school seems ridiculous when you could of easily just left it at the schools initials.

[FAUplayer]

In no way will ucf get close to buffalo. Sorry. Ucf is a lot worse this year than last year , losing Reich and Gaspar, two of their top three. Ucf also lost to rhode island a month ago in ft myers.

[ISFN]

they'll be fine with seven, jsut watch and see they play a system within themselves. Most of their players all play for a pro team in Buffalo that competes in Narch and Torhs and does very well. They've been togehter for years their going to be tough to beat. They only had seven at chicago pretty sure and they outshot umsl 42-24.

I can't seem to find any shot totals it only shows their win's and losses, and why would you bring up a game that they lost in a argument where we're debating the strength of the team, makes no sense.

I'm not debating rather UB is going to go far at nationals one bit, they have a couple awesome players (Walser is easily one of the tops in the league) but it takes more than a couple guys to win, nationals is a pretty short tournament and having a short bench come playoff time is hard. They may pull it off I'm just saying its a disadvantage to them, they seem to have a fairly decent "B" team why haven't any of those players been utilized on their "A" squad or have they?

I haven't seen UB this year nor will I get the chance but any team who can keep LU as close as they have must be doing something right so goodluck to them and the rest of the D1 participants at Nationals.

[ISFN]

In no way will ucf get close to buffalo. Sorry. Ucf is a lot worse this year than last year , losing Reich and Gaspar, two of their top three. Ucf also lost to rhode island a month ago in ft myers.

Feel free to predict your own pools I promise I wont get offended. What would be the fun in predicting if I just guessed all the top seeds would advance, its for fun.

[FAUplayer]

There is no fun in losing or being wrong ;)

[uconnhockey1]

On the issue of Buffalo...

Normally losing a goalie would be a big deal, and Latona certainly was/is a great goalie and a big reason for some of their past success, but Christie came in and picked up nicely for them. I don't think there are many question marks surrounding Buffalo's team, but if there are, goaltender is certainly not one of them.

Buffalo will win their pool for sure. I would expect a final four appearance for them. What I like about them this year over years past is the fact that now they have a couple games against the big boys under their belts (Lindenwood/UMSL, etc.) as opposed to last year's nationals.

Good luck to Buffalo and the rest of the ECRHA teams at nationals.

[rollerRocket]

They did play a couple games against some big boys last year also in an interregional event right before regionals, losing to Lindenwood and Michigan State.

They looked decent at the interregional event in Illinois this year, but lost some close games to Lindenwood and UMSL and tied a surprisingly good North Texas team.

They definitely have a different playing style than most teams and having 7 players at Nationals will definitely hurt them against the deeper and faster teams. I don't see them getting past the Final Four again this year.

[letsgoisles89]

Pool A
1.LU
12.Rutgers
13.West Point
24.Michigan

Pool B
2.UMSL
11.Ohio State
14.UNT
23.Hofstra

Pool C
3.Michigan State
10.UNLV
15.NC State
22.Cal Poly

Pool D
4.Buffalo
9.UCF
16.UCONN
21. Santa Barbra

Pool E
5.FAU
8.ASU
17.EMU
20.Stoney Brook

Pool F
6.Long Beach
7.Rhode Island
18.Towson
19 Sam Houston

Numbers indicate overall rank, had to move some teams to avoid having to many of the same conference in the same pool. Rankings based off 1st-Regionals & 2nd-Regular Season

i realize these are just your predictions, but my only problem with your pool projections is that with 8 ECRHA teams now coming to nationals, i feel like they will try to spread them out as much as possible so there will be atleast 1 ecrha team in each pool. i'd be upset if they had a pool with no ecrha teams because those teams don't want to travel to san jose to play the teams theyve played all year. the easiest way to fix this without screwing with the rankings would be to either swap Buffalo with Michigan State or UConn with NC State.


I'd also swap West Point and UNT because West Point and Rutgers have already played each other twice in the regular season and just met in the regional playoff bracket.

[ISFN]

Pool A
1.LU
12.Rutgers
13.West Point
24.Michigan

Pool B
2.UMSL
11.Ohio State
14.UNT
23.Hofstra

Pool C
3.Michigan State
10.UNLV
15.UCONN
22.Cal Poly

Pool D
4.Buffalo
9.UCF
16.NC State
21. Santa Barbra

Pool E
5.FAU
8.ASU
17.EMU
20.Stoney Brook

Pool F
6.Long Beach
7.Rhode Island
18.Towson
19 Sam Houston

I completely agree but , seeing how close those two have been and the fact that Michgan State beat a UNT team that Buffalo tied you have to weigh that in, also last years semis which no one wants a repeat so I tried to factor all that in but I changed it up.

(I didn't read your entire message so at first I switch UB and MSU but the NC STATE and UCONN made alot more sense and more realistic, thanks)

[FAUplayer]

Putting UCF and NCS in the same pool, with only 3 SECRHL teams, who have played each other 6 times this season so far, I do not think is correct.

[letsgoisles89]

Putting UCF and NCS in the same pool, with only 3 SECRHL teams, who have played each other 6 times this season so far, I do not think is correct.

you're definitely right - my bad. i was checking to make sure i didn't suggest an option that would result in me having 2 teams from a different conference in another pool...i'm always thinking Florida when I think SECRHL (D-1) and always forget NC State is in it too.


Regarding Buffalo and MSU, I wouldn't factor in too heavily those scores from the regular season when you wanna see teams that don't normally play each other.

But after switching UConn and NC State, you could then swap NC State and EMU, that would fix everything.

[ISFN]

FAU is totally right that would never happen, I knew there was a reason behind my rankings just got confused but it seems all good when you switch NC State and EMU.

Not factoring the inter-regional game then completely dismisses the inter-regional idea, the NCRHA already disrupted it by not having a seeding committee after RR play (where they strongly factored in I.R. games) and it almost makes inter-regional games pointless where now they can only hurt and not really help much, unless in cases like this.

[Meade]

Not factoring the inter-regional game then completely dismisses the inter-regional idea, the NCRHA already disrupted it by not having a seeding committee after RR play (where they strongly factored in I.R. games) and it almost makes inter-regional games pointless where now they can only hurt and not really help much, unless in cases like this.

I agree it disrupted it but they have to seed the teams at one point or another (either before pool play or after) so they're seeding the teams only before pool play and I'm sure I.R. games are being factored, I think UNT helped themselves by traveling to Chicago and playing UB to a tie.

[letsgoisles89]

FAU is totally right that would never happen, I knew there was a reason behind my rankings just got confused but it seems all good when you switch NC State and EMU.

Not factoring the inter-regional game then completely dismisses the inter-regional idea, the NCRHA already disrupted it by not having a seeding committee after RR play (where they strongly factored in I.R. games) and it almost makes inter-regional games pointless where now they can only hurt and not really help much, unless in cases like this.

I guess you're right on your second point, but in that case you still happen to contradict your self in your rankings:

why would you have Ohio State (12-10-1) - who when 1-3 in interregional play (beat a depleted Towson team, losses against Rutgers, UConn, and Penn St.) ranked ahead of Rutgers (16-8-1) - who went 2-0 in interregional play, have a much better record, and went farther in their regionals. And also why are they ranked ahead of West Point (13-6-5) who also went 2-0 in inter regional play?

[ISFN]

I guess you're right on your second point, but in that case you still happen to contradict your self in your rankings:

why would you have Ohio State (12-10-1) - who when 1-3 in interregional play (beat a depleted Towson team, losses against Rutgers, UConn, and Penn St.) ranked ahead of Rutgers (16-8-1) - who went 2-0 in interregional play, have a much better record, and went farther in their regionals. And also why are they ranked ahead of West Point (13-6-5) who also went 2-0 in inter regional play?

I'm in my office now I don't have my rankings with me but I remember I had to move a couple teams around because of the ECRHA having so many bids, some teams had to be moved up and down to avoid Interconference teams and what not, but feel free to make you're own pools I'd like to see what you had in mind.

[alex]

Maybe I missed this explanation but how are they determining playoff brackets at nationals now that they've eliminated the seeding meeting?

[NCRHA]

Alex, you are correct. The seeding meeting has been eliminated. All teams will advanced automatically out of their pools, into the brackets.

[cusanorojo]

I guess you're right on your second point, but in that case you still happen to contradict your self in your rankings:

why would you have Ohio State (12-10-1) - who when 1-3 in interregional play (beat a depleted Towson team, losses against Rutgers, UConn, and Penn St.) ranked ahead of Rutgers (16-8-1) - who went 2-0 in interregional play, have a much better record, and went farther in their regionals. And also why are they ranked ahead of West Point (13-6-5) who also went 2-0 in inter regional play?

West point lost to rutgers once during the regular season and also lost to them in the quarter finals of the ecrha 5-1. So I'd have to agree with rutgers ahead of west point even though they are very close teams.

[letsgoisles89]

West point lost to rutgers once during the regular season and also lost to them in the quarter finals of the ecrha 5-1. So I'd have to agree with rutgers ahead of west point even though they are very close teams.

i was asking why is osu ranked ahead of both rutgers and west point.

[alex]

I don't see North Texas getting ranked that low when they won their region and proved themselves against top teams at the Chicago inter-regional.

[osu_buckeyes]

I guess you're right on your second point, but in that case you still happen to contradict your self in your rankings:

why would you have Ohio State (12-10-1) - who when 1-3 in interregional play (beat a depleted Towson team, losses against Rutgers, UConn, and Penn St.) ranked ahead of Rutgers (16-8-1) - who went 2-0 in interregional play, have a much better record, and went farther in their regionals. And also why are they ranked ahead of West Point (13-6-5) who also went 2-0 in inter regional play?

You are absolutely right about our interregional record and I won't argue that Rutgers should be ahead of us given the head-to-head matchup. However we actually went farther at regionals, making it to the championship game against MSU.

[RowanPhil]

soooooooo when are all these pools gnna be posted

[MBurke]

soooooooo when are all these pools gnna be posted

Next week, probably middle of the week. Have to wait til all the bids are accepted / spots filled and teams confirmed since one team dropping just means recreating all of the pools again.

[mustachemarty5]

You are absolutely right about our interregional record and I won't argue that Rutgers should be ahead of us given the head-to-head matchup. However we actually went farther at regionals, making it to the championship game against MSU.

Comparing those two regions is like comparing apples and oranges. The only reason Ohio State went further is because they didn't run into a team as good as Buffalo until the finals. They had to beat a solid West Point team just to get into that game. I'm not sure how the regionals work in the MCRHL (the bracket is confusing), but aside from Michigan State, I don't think that there was as much competition as what Rutgers faced in that bracket.

That's without factoring in head-to-head. Counter in the head-to-head and I think Rutgers is easily better. Plus they have the better overall record in a tougher division.