Nationals Suggestions for Next Year

[Ben Lambert]

Just wanted to throw a few things out there for next year.

1. LU and UMSL should never be on the same side of the bracket, especially when they're the only 2 GP teams in D1.

2. If a team is in the same pool as another team in JC, why would they not play each other? The system is FLAWED when a team that goes 3-0 has to play an extra game and a team that goes 1-2 doesn't.

3. More D2 Great Plains teams should be in the tournament next year if we are sticking with this year's format in the future. We really got hosed this year.

4. If we are going to have rules (i.e. earguards), why would we not abide by them? Especially after these rules had been touched on specifically in the captains meeting before the tournament even starts.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Discuss.

[Ben Lambert]

One more I forgot. Why in the hell is the D2 championship AFTER the D1 game?? That makes a whole lot of sense.

[socalhockey]

Just wanted to throw a few things out there for next year.

1. LU and UMSL should never be on the same side of the bracket, especially when they're the only 2 GP teams in D1.

2. If a team is in the same pool as another team in JC, why would they not play each other? The system is FLAWED when a team that goes 3-0 has to play an extra game and a team that goes 1-2 doesn't.

3. More D2 Great Plains teams should be in the tournament next year if we are sticking with this year's format in the future. We really got hosed this year.

4. If we are going to have rules (i.e. earguards), why would we not abide by them? Especially after these rules had been touched on specifically in the captains meeting before the tournament even starts.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Discuss.

I would assume it's because Lindenwood and UMSL finished #2 and #3 in pool A where they both had records of 1-1-1. Where as Buffalo being the #1 in pool A with a 2-1 record was put in the same bracket as the 1-2 #4 Michigan State. Makes perfect sense to me. If Lindenwood and UMSL would have finished #1 and #2 in pool A they would have been in the opposite bracket. I believe the format and the way the brackets were set up was great. It put a lot of importance to the pool play. (as it should).

[Ben Lambert]

I would assume it's because Lindenwood and UMSL finished #2 and #3 in pool A where they both had records of 1-1-1. Where as Buffalo being the #1 in pool A with a 2-1 record was put in the same bracket as the 1-2 #4 Michigan State. Makes perfect sense to me. If Lindenwood and UMSL would have finished #1 and #2 they would have been in the opposite bracket.

I understand why it happened. I'm saying that it shouldn't have.

[letsgoisles89]

I understand why it happened. I'm saying that it shouldn't have.

then they both shouldve done better in their pool. if theyre gonna finish #2 and #3 in pool A there shouldnt be any exceptions for them.

[ISFN]

The one main downfall to the way pools were set up was that it hurt teams who (a) only have a few guys and/or (b) rely on certain guys

I can guarantee Buffalo would have gone further and may have won it if the set up wasn't like it was this year, they had 6 guys and were done by the pool play because they played all top teams. It benefited Lindenwood because of their deep bench. This is only my assumption, but I would bet that Buffalo would vote to change this format.

We shouldn't cater to the weaker teams by allowing them to play equal opponents in round robin play that's ridiculous, everyone makes playoffs so whats it matter if they lose all their rr games they still end up with a bad seed just like they did this year, you could of easily set up a fair round robin by taking 1 team from each pool and creating a pool out of that, that's the way it should of been done.

[socalhockey]

then they both shouldve done better in their pool. if theyre gonna finish #2 and #3 in pool A there shouldnt be any exceptions for them.

You took the words right out of my mouth. The brackets were set up perfectly for a Lindenwood/UMSL final, except they both didn't take care of business in their pool. The better team, that being ASU deserved and proved that they belonged in the final.

Congratulations to Lindenwood on another championship season and to ASU on a great run by a great team. Next year should be even more competitive, as many of the top teams return a lot of their key players and I know a few will be adding some more top level players as well.

[NCSU17]

I liked the D1 setup, it seemed like the games were alot closer than usual

[hockeykid12]

sounds like sour grapes on UMSL part because they didnt do well in pool play. But maybe next year NCRHA will just say ok UMSL is the onlyyyyy team that can beat LU so lets put them in a seat to just get to the finals and play LU...

If you took care of business in your pool you would have had that seat.

[ianmackie]

I won't fault the league for trying something new. The Pools make sense, but can be altered. What about Top 8, next 8, and final 8 in D1? The difference for two short bench teams like ASU and Buffalo was obvious. It isn't about LU and UMSL, it's about the top team in Pool A being drained by the time they were in the Semi's. The deeper bench helped us immensely this year and I am pretty sure more teams will think that way in the future. My problem with the way it is set up was that it hurt the top team more then helped the bottom team...the top team being Buffalo. This Pool issue just needs to be tweaked a little.

The fact that SIUE and Missouri State finished 1, 2 in the Great Plains Region and then went to Nationals to only be put into the same bracket is a joke. If you play each other in the playoffs then people get it, but this was in their control and they blew it. The Great Plains Region had 2 teams and somehow they had to play each other?

The Junior College bracket was a mess. Just go 6 teams in the same bracket and go from there. Pretty easy.

Good conversation starter Ben!

[letsgoisles89]

I liked the D1 setup, it seemed like the games were alot closer than usual

to my suprise, the D-1 set-up worked out well (given the crappy situation of 21 teams). I didn't like the idea at first but it did work out well and made for more exciting games.

The only thing that could have made d-1 nationals better would have been if 24 teams to showed up.

[Ben Lambert]

sounds like sour grapes on UMSL part because they didnt do well in pool play. But maybe next year NCRHA will just say ok UMSL is the onlyyyyy team that can beat LU so lets put them in a seat to just get to the finals and play LU...

If you took care of business in your pool you would have had that seat.

Do you ever come up with anything of substance or do you just get on the boards to try (poorly) to discredit and argue with everyone who's not your buddy?

I'm not affiliated with UMSL any longer, so it has nothing to do with me personally. UMSL is the only team who's ever beaten LU in a championship game (once in regionals and once at nationals), so right now, yeah, they are the "onlyyyyyy" team who can beat LU when it counts.

We took care of business in our pool, but still got shafted in our bracket. Yet another reason why JC should be absorbed into D1/D2/D3 and have the same requirements (credit hours, uniforms, etc) as the other teams in the respective division and be done with it.

[RowanPhil]

Do you ever come up with anything of substance or do you just get on the boards to try (poorly) to discredit and argue with everyone who's not your buddy?

I'm not affiliated with UMSL any longer, so it has nothing to do with me personally. UMSL is the only team who's ever beaten LU in a championship game (once in regionals and once at nationals), so right now, yeah, they are the "onlyyyyyy" team who can beat LU when it counts.

We took care of business in our pool, but still got shafted in our bracket. Yet another reason why JC should be absorbed into D1/D2/D3 and have the same requirements (credit hours, uniforms, etc) as the other teams in the respective division and be done with it.

if you are not affilated with umsl, why did you say "we took care of business in our pool"......
buffalo played with lindenwood in pool play, they shouldnt be playing with 6 guys, which killed them at the end.

[dan sangiorgio]

Ben what would be your suggestion in setting up the brackets instead oF the way it was done. Also what does it matter if you face lindenwood in the final four or the finals would u or anyone from umsl felt better with a second place finish rather then third I know I wouldn't. it seemed to me there were 5 teams at nationals with a chance of winning and you all made it past the other teams equally easy for the most part

[teamcarramrod]

Just wanted to throw a few things out there for next year.

1. LU and UMSL should never be on the same side of the bracket, especially when they're the only 2 GP teams in D1.

2. If a team is in the same pool as another team in JC, why would they not play each other? The system is FLAWED when a team that goes 3-0 has to play an extra game and a team that goes 1-2 doesn't.

3. More D2 Great Plains teams should be in the tournament next year if we are sticking with this year's format in the future. We really got hosed this year.

4. If we are going to have rules (i.e. earguards), why would we not abide by them? Especially after these rules had been touched on specifically in the captains meeting before the tournament even starts.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Discuss.

lol on number 2