I just want to get a viewpoint of some of the different players, coaches and fans around the league about strength of schedule.

I feel that while strength of schedule should be a factor when ranking teams, it seems to hold more power than I believe it should hold. Sometimes when comparing teams who have similar records, this could be the tie-breaker among the teams. However, I feel that your rank should depend on your achievements, which would include (but not be limited to) winning games and goal differential, which I haven't even seen as a criteria for ranking teams, not just who you've played against.

The main reason I bring this up is with a team like Ferris State. They are currently 3-8-2, winning games against an unranked U of I team and winning another against unranked St. Cloud, while tying Kentucky and St. Cloud. They have the 13th worst record out of 41 teams in the Central Division. With that, they are ranked higher than a 16-2-3 team in ISU. Fine, they play mostly Silver division opponents, but they've win games. It has almost come to the point that instead of asking about other team's records, the first question is "Who have they played?". How can you say a team isn't deserving of a spot, because the competition "Isn't as good as teams you've played against?" Both have won games against unranked opponents, ISU winning 13 more than Ferris State.

As bad as some teams may appear to be, wins aren't given to you, they are earned. I've experienced this in a game last year, and im sure many of you share the same type of experiences against different teams. It was a game that we were supposed to win, but in the end we didn't, and it almost cost us a trip to regionals. We even ended up in a 3 way tie with Ferris State at the end of last year, but went to regionals because we won more games (21 to their 8). How were they even ranked with 8 wins?

A team can play a monster schedule, but if they cant win a game, why should they be rewarded? Because of many 1 or 2 goal games against "tough opponents"? As it stands right now, all 8 GMHL teams are ranked, 5 in the Central, 3 in the Southeast, and it seems they have to play themselves out of a spot, instead of into one like everyone else.

I dont mean be whining or bitching, hell im not even talking about my team here. Granted, we are just midway through the season and teams may fall off later in the year, but I just want to see teams get a fair shake at all points of the season.

Agree? Disagree? Post it on here.

While I do think you make a good point in asking why Ferris St. is ranked, I don't think comparing them to the ISU team is a good way of going about things. I am a fan of ISU and I believe they are lucky to be ranked #11 right now with the cometition they have played. If ISU was in the gold division they would be someplace from the middle of the pack to the bottom. I'm not sure exactly where they would be but they probably would not be a ranked team. Hopefully next year we can find out what they can do in gold. Until then, their only hope is winning every game the rest of the year, and that might not even do the trick with their quality of competition.

the the ISU fan who responded, I respect your non bias opinion if u really are an ISU fan. BUt i am gonna have to go with Kich on this one due to the fact he is correct. say for instance a team like Northwestern in the silver division. Not the best silver division team but they try. If next year out of their 30 games they play their 16 or so conference games. the other 14 they play teams in the gmhl and maybe some d1 teams and get their ass kicked.. even if they end up lets say 10 and 20 would they deserve a rank just because they stepped on the ice with better teams.

NO ...

you must win to make yourself seen, like southern teams such as missouri state, mizzou, siue, and rmcspringfield.

I think that is his point. If just cuz u play hard teams earns a team a spot in regionals eveyone should schedule games against michigan team and get their asses kicked like ferris state does...



all this is hypothetical and im not attacking the previous post nor the first post...i agree with all them i just also would like to post.

i think you need to have a tough schedule. why should teams be rewarded for beating low end d2 teams and others who play d1 teams who may not have a better record get screwed. yes you do need to win but in many cases i would rather lose to the 3rd ranked team in d1 by a couple of goals rather than beat a ****ty team by 10. a team that has a record like 10-2-2 (not any particluar team) may have a better record than a 6-5-3 team but the team with the worse record is better because they play higher tougher teams. but also teams need to win the games in their own league or divsion. alot of teams play higher divisons as a safty for slipping and losing a game to a team they should of beat but had a bad night. teams that always play down shouldnt be rewarded with a high seed.

Well, if they are losing games by 1 or 2 goals to tough opponents, then I think that is grounds for keeping them somewhere in the rankings or at least close. After looking at their schedule, I dont know how I would have ranked them to be quite honest.
Also, one of the criteria is "general knowledge of voter." That leaves a bit to the imagination as to what that means, but maybe there are a few members on the board who have seen them play or are more familliar with their team than we are down here.

The general goal of a ranking member is to put the top 15 teams on their ranking sheet. Sometimes strength of schedule helps. Sometimes record helps. But when I try to figure out who the top 15 teams are, I think to myself, "who would win if they played each other." It's more of an art than I science I agree. But the biggest factor in the final decision for me is common opponent. With most teams playing two games against each opponent (Mich. teams exempt), you can usually figure out which team is better. Than you just look at common opponents. ISU might have a great record, but Non-ACHA teams don't count. The truth of the matter is that their record is really 13-2-2 with losses to McKendree and Western IL and ties to Palmer and MO St. JV. Everybody has bad games, but they've played close games with some really questionable teams. They can't tie a club's JV team and expect to be ranked too closely behind them. Ferris' win over St. Cloud puts them where they are, because St. Thomas lost to St. Cloud. (Common Opponent) ISU is lucky to be in the middle.

Just my oppinion, good put Kich.

ISU again coming up in discussions. The previous poster hit it on the head. ISU has to go through bumps and bruises. But as it stands right now, they may not even be voted into Gold next year. Who knows what they want since they are playing in two different league's. They say they tried to schedule more Gold teams but couldn't get anyone that would. Well, when you play in Silver and then play in a new, sub par league, you reap what you sow. They are higher than most would rank if it were based solely on strength of schedule. And whether they like hearing this or not, tying MSU JV is worthy of dropping you out. Yes, you are allowed a bad game, and yes the ranking committee is allowed to rank you accordingly after that one game. Once again, the fact here is, they have a bad schedule. They should be commended for winning the games they are supposed to win. They have some good players and have a great foundation. But going from a team that couldn't play an entire season due to numbers just a few years ago to regionals with that schedule is unrealistic. They should keep playing this well, get some better games next season and see what happens. I have seen them play and I have seen some of the good Gold teams play. They will have a tough time as it stands.

I really don't even think the people arguing for ISU to be ranked are ISU fans. Some of us don't think they deserve to be ranked. Hopefully this is just a building block to improve the program and move it up to gold and EVENTUALLY compete at the gold level. This could take anywhere from 2 years to 10 years, it just depends on how many good quality players they get in the next few years. But I do not believe they should be ranked and I'm sure they won't since they only tied Bradley today which is another game that they should win if they want to move up to gold.

With Bradley and Palmer both moving down to silver, and Bradley volunteering to move down (they were voted into Gold and chose to move down themselves after being voted back into Gold) you must beat them both and probably both games to come in strong and say "we DESERVE to be in gold." With that being said, there is no team in silver right now that could play in gold and contend for anything higher than fourth place. So any teams in silver that want to be in gold just to say they are in gold should really realize what they are asking. Just look at Eastern and Marquette and you can see how much being a weak team is playing at that level. Until the MACHA is so strong that every team in Gold gets ranked no matter what they have for win loss record.

If you are going to say Eastern and Marquette, you need to put Iowa in that category as well.

Go to WSR and look under news tab for the article, "So you want to be a Pollster." It opened my eyes on this subject and gave me a little more appreciation of what an impossible task fair ranking is.

The great thing about ice hockey is we keep score. Win, lose, tie. Let's not turn this into figure skating where we have to worry if the judge likes us or has been treated well by the competitor, or is good friends with the coach, or trust his judgement. You win, you lose, you tie!

And there are judges called the ranking comittee that some people have to worry about. Sometimes it matters if you win, lose or tie in their eyes. Win, lose or tie, it matters.

ask michigan football or last years missouri state basketball team about rankers. they can tell you alot.