Each week during the season, we look at the big events and big games around Division I men’s college hockey in Tuesday Morning Quarterback.
Paula: Dan, my friend! How nice to be back on the TMQ beat with you. I want to echo Jimmy Connelly’s season-opening remarks from a week ago and say hello to all TMQ’s readers.
It’s two weeks into TMQ, but it feels like the college hockey season is much further along and there is already so much drama – of the on-ice kind, which is a welcome change.
To me, the biggest story is Massachusetts’ home sweep of Denver, not only knocking off the defending champ and a team that entered the weekend No. 1 in the DCU/USCHO poll, but the Minutemen holding the Pioneers to two goals in two games. The Minutemen were up 2-0 before Friday’s game was five minutes old, while the Pioneers put up 47 shots on Luke Pavicich in a 4-2 loss. Pavicich stopped 30 shots in Saturday’s 3-0 shutout.
It was an interesting weekend for NCHC hockey all around. Western Michigan and St. Cloud each swept nonconference opponents, but the league went 5-7-2 against nonleague foes and I do not think that this is something that most fans of college hockey expected.
What are your thoughts on that Denver-Massachusetts series? And is it fair to look at these early weekends and make some assumptions about relative conference strength?
Dan: Paula, it is positively delightful to return to TMQ this year, and I’m excited to swing back into this thing with the hottest takes known to man.
Speaking of hot, let’s talk about Tampa, the site of this year’s Frozen Four, and this past weekend’s matchup between UMass and Denver. It was billed as a potential matchup in the Frozen Four – and rightfully so, given the teams’ recent histories – and watching them skate onto the ice made us dream of sunny skies and Florida golf courses where my clubs will inevitably destroy the fescue.
The games themselves acted as the conduit between those thoughts and our future predictions. UMass’ sweep included two very different, distinct styles of victories and left the Minutemen thumping their chest with two massive wins. They jumped from No. 13 to No. 6 in the DCU/USCHO Division I poll, though it’s important to note how Denver only went from No. 1 to No. 4.
Back to your question about the leagues. I’ve been notoriously vocal over the past couple of years about how the Pairwise Rankings are problematic in determining the national tournament, but I think these games add a little bit of flavor to what we’ll see when March rolls around. I always felt like Hockey East was better than last year indicated, but the league won’t get the number of bids it deserves unless teams like UMass beat teams like Denver. Make no mistake. These games mattered in a big way to that conversation.
But that’s kind of my problem. I don’t know if Hockey East is better than the NCHC, and teams in October aren’t exactly their best selves, in my opinion. In my mind, we didn’t see the “defending national champion,” and we won’t know if we saw an actual national championship contender until we see more production from either team. It’s fun to speculate, but that’s part of my usual issue.
Can we make assumptions about the parity or competitiveness about the conferences? Absolutely, but we should also know that those are going to change as quickly as they formed.
One thing I know – it at least gave us a second eastern team to talk about with the polls. I’ve heard a lot about eastern bias, but when I look at the polls, I see Minnesota, Minnesota State, Denver, Michigan, North Dakota, St. Cloud, Minnesota Duluth…the only eastern teams are Quinnipiac, UMass, and Boston University. Providence, Northeastern and UConn are No. 11, No. 12 and No. 14.
Paula – where’s the love for my eastern teams?? UConn’s Ice Bus deserves better!
Paula: You said something, Dan, that really sums up so much of what I’m thinking about after this weekend’s games – and something that harkens back to discussions from seasons past about interconference play and parity.
You’re right: Hockey East won’t get the number of bids it deserves unless teams like UMass beat teams like Denver.
It’s more than just the PWR and whatever shortcomings it may have as a predictive tool. When teams like UMass beat teams like Denver, such victories negate the perceived shortcomings and biases, and override what we know to be difficult-to-define inequities in D-I men’s hockey. Of course, when teams like UMass beat teams like Denver, regularly – thereby elevating the conferences of the victorious teams – there’s an argument to be made that the PWR is a system that works.
I agree, though, that these games do matter in that conversation.
As for the lack of love for eastern teams, given that the NCHC has been so dominant for so long and the top teams in the Big Ten have been real contenders for several years – plus Minnesota State’s continued excellence – I’m not surprised that it’s taking voters a while to warm up to eastern teams. Connecticut went from No. 17 to No. 14 in this week’s poll, which is not insignificant, while Ohio State, a team that’s 4-1-1, sank from No. 11 to No. 16. (For the record, in my ballot this week, UConn is 14 and OSU 15). That indicates to me that voters think that the Buckeyes should have had better success against the Huskies.
It’s early. Teams playing in a conference that is perceived as having less success in recent years will have to prove themselves for voters to show some love. It’s not lost on me that Hockey East has the current best interconference win percentage (.692). If that persists, not only will voters recognize that, but that will be reflected in the PWR as well.
Perception is a funny thing. Western Michigan is 4-1-1 to start the season and they are No. 17 in the poll because all of their opponents have been CCHA or independent teams. Notre Dame is 2-1-1 and No. 13 after a loss to Denver, a tie with Air Force and a sweep of Northern Michigan. Unranked Michigan State is 2-2-0 and received no votes after splitting at home this past weekend to UMass Lowell, who dropped from No. 16 to No. 19 with that loss.
Dan: I suppose it’s the duality of that conversation that’s most fascinating in the early days of the season. There aren’t a lot of numbers, so we base everything on the history of what we know, which is why teams outrank others.
Minnesota is No. 1 after splitting with Minnesota State and sweeping Lindenwood. Minnesota State is No. 2 after sweeping Duluth. Our logic tells us that a Big Ten team has to be better than a CCHA team, and the perception greatly factors into how people rank teams. When we shake down the end of the season, we won’t have that luxury because we will have the treasure trove of empirical evidence.
Yet it’s also too early to make that call. We need to base the end of the season on every result, but here I am arguing that it’s unfortunate that the data relies almost as critically on the games when a team isn’t playing its best hockey in the first few weeks. We base it all on history, which is why Harvard is ranked higher than Western Michigan despite not playing a game yet (we’re getting there, Ivies!).
Either way, it sure is fun to let the wheels churn a bit.
I mentioned Lindenwood, which lost to Minnesota but unquestionably held its own against both the Gophers and Michigan before splitting with Air Force. The new guys on the block in college hockey are putting on a show early on. LIU hung with Northeastern and tied Quinnipiac, and the Sharks are headed to Michigan State next.
Stonehill is going to play more of a hybrid schedule this year against teams from every level, but how exciting is it to see those two newer teams enjoy some modest success?
Paula: It is very exciting to see new programs improve and become competitive. Arizona State has been fun since the beginning and watching the forward motion of each new program as it emerges makes from some interesting D-I scenarios.
Looking at the current independent D-I teams and seeing the two Alaska programs that once had conference homes is both disturbing and understandable. I want both Alaska teams to thrive. I can understand the money issues surrounding both teams. Both should belong to a conference – but how?
There are five current independent teams and Stonehill when fully participatory will make six. How will this force the D-I landscape to change in the coming years?
Without a conference home, independent teams have significant disadvantages in recruiting and scheduling, and that affects their ability to compete nationally. How long can independent teams function if there is no payoff for them other than a self-contained regular season?
In a perfect world, Dan, what would you like to see happen?
Dan: We talk about conference alignments, but we are really bearing down on a time when the change is going to happen, in my opinion. And, to me, the reason isn’t Arizona State or Lindenwood or even LIU. It’s that last team in the mix: Stonehill.
Stonehill is likely unknown outside of Massachusetts, but the small school located an hour outside of Boston joined Merrimack, Bryant, and UMass Lowell as former Northeast-10 teams that reclassified to Division I. As a result of the move, the hockey program formally moved up to Division I, but since the Northeast Conference doesn’t sponsor the sport, it currently doesn’t have a home. The Skyhawks are going to play a schedule mostly against lower division teams, but their move should influence what happens to the Division II hockey programs that don’t currently compete for a national championship.
That myriad group of schools – Southern New Hampshire, Assumption, Saint Michael’s Franklin Pierce, Post, and Saint Anselm – aren’t eligible to compete for the Division III national championship, but because hockey doesn’t sponsor a D-II championship, they could all reclassify to Division I without penalty.
Atlantic Hockey is no longer considered a “cost containment” league – the number of new arenas, the increase in scholarships, and the overall spending of the member institutions should be obvious indicators – so all of those schools without a logical home could potentially band together and reclassify together to form a league similar to the women’s hockey NEWHA.
The NEWHA doesn’t have an NCAA autobid, but there’s mounting evidence that the league is ripe for Division I men’s hockey if it’s there. I personally would love it since the larger number of schools are increasingly cost prohibitive to startup programs. LIU and Stonehill could be trailblazers in that regard, but I’m looking more at Stonehill, which is less than 10 years removed from a trip to the NCAA Division II baseball tournament and is a noted basketball power that went to the D-II Final Four in 2012 and the D-II Elite Eight in 2016, as the torchbearer.
We all knew what Arizona State brought to the table, and Augustana is headed for the CCHA. LIU was a curious addition, and Lindenwood already had a women’s team in the CHA. Stonehill is coming more from D-II, and if it succeeds, it would offer a roadmap for others to follow on the ice.
