UMD wins 4-0 over Wisconsin to claim its fourth women’s NCAA title in sports eight-year history.

Here is a portion of Shannon Miller’s opening statement from the postgame press conference.

You have to feel fortunate when you get into the final game because there are so many great teams across the country. I would like to say this, UNH is probably the best team we played this year, and we got so lucky to get through that game it was unbelievable. In the 20 years I’ve been coaching I’ve never ever left the rink and felt, wow, big time luck. So we survived that game, and today, I felt we pulled together the perfect hockey game.

The WCHA placed three teams in the final eight, both teams in the national championship game, and yet earned only three of 12 All-Americans. Is this “Eastern bias” in the voting?

I would say there is bias only insofar as the system tends towards proportional representation. One simple reason for this is that if each coach gets one vote, there are more votes for Eastern teams. Another is that there are simply more players in the East, and with few interregional games to distinguish East from West, so odds are more Eastern players will get votes.

Here is the breakdown of teams by conference (excluding independents):

ECAC: 12 (37.5%)
WCHA: 8 (25%)
Hockey East: 8 (25%)
CHA: 4 (12.5%)

And here is the breakdown of All-Americans:

ECAC: 5 (41.7%)
WCHA: 3 (25%)
Hockey East: 2 (16.7%)
CHA: 2 (16.7%)

Thus, the share of All-Americans did not differ much from the share of coaches in each conference. The only conference that had fewer All-Americans than its share of coaches was Hockey East, which was the weakest conference in the country by most statistical measures.

On the flip side, the WCHA was the strongest by any measure, and only got an equal share of All-Americans. Experience and name-recognition bias were surely major factors. The top three WCHA teams were younger and more balanced than they have been in the past. Such a combination has never led to success in individual award voting.

First-Team All-Americans

G Kim Martin, So., UMD
D Tessa Bonhomme, Sr., OSU
D Caitlin Cahow, Sr., Harvard
F Meghan Agosta, So., Mercyhurst
F Melissa Boal, Jr., WSU
F Sarah Vaillancourt, Jr., Harvard

Second-Team All-Americans

G Christina Kessler, So., Harvard
D Martine Garland, Sr., UNH
D Annie Guay, Sr., St. Lawrence
F Gigi Marvin, Jr., Minnesota
F Sabrina Harbec, Sr., St. Lawrence
F Dominque Thibault, So. UConn

UMD coach Shannon Miller said at Thursday’s pre-game press conference that No. 2 scorer Saara Tuominen was 50-50 for Thursday night’s game. She suffered a sprained MCL in the quarterfinal win against Mercyhurst.

In any NCAA championship event, handling the pressure of the big stage is a major factor in determining the outcome. So it comes as no surprise that experience was a common topic of conversation in Wednesday’s pre-game press conferences at the Women’s Frozen Four in Duluth.

Harvard vs. Wisconsin

In some sense, the first semifinal is the biggest mismatch in terms of Frozen Four experience. Wisconsin is the two-time defending NCAA champion, while Harvard hasn’t played at this level since 2005 – the longest Frozen Four drought in a stacked semifinal field. But Harvard coach Katey Stone does not believe this puts her team at a disadvantage. She cited two reasons why her team would be able to handle the pressure—the team’s leadership and the overall looseness of the squad.

“A lot of people have asked me about the youth of our team—it’s a reason why we’re here,” Stone said. “They don’t think. They just play. Our dynamic is unbelievable. It has been in the past, but there’s definitely something special about this group no matter what happens this weekend. It’s probably one of the loosest groups we’ve had in a long time. I noticed that early in November. They just figure out a way to win games and hopefully that is what will happen this weekend. “

Wisconsin coach Mark Johnson suggested that Harvard’s freshmen added an element of uncertainty.

“It comes down to getting on the ice and executing and performing in the Frozen Four, and they have a number of freshmen who have been big contributors for their hockey clubs, how are they going to react on the big stage?” Johnson said. “As a coach, you don’t know that until you get the puck dropped and see how they do react. “

But Harvard captain Caitlin Cahow expects her team to be loose and upbeat. The variety of personalities and talents on the team are what create that atmosphere.

“We’ve got a hugely diverse group, which is fantastic for ice hockey teams because the season is so long, we spend so much time together, and If we didn’t have different personalities and interests, we’d be all over each other, and nothing would work,” Cahow said. “It’s easy for us to stay loose and unbeat, because no matter who scores, we’re going to be celebrating on the bench like we just won the Stanley Cup, so for us every second on the ice is fun for the whole group.”

In addition, Wisconsin’s epic 1-0 quadruple overtime win over Harvard last season could just as well have been a championship game, Cahow said.
Although this is Badger team may be two-time defending champions, it is younger than recent Badger Frozen Four squads with three seniors and seven freshmen. It will be on the seniors, like captain Emily Morris, to help ready the younger players.

“This year being a senior and knowing we’ve been in this position two ears previously, I still have those jitters in my stomach, but I know our freshmen and sophomores have the early ones I had, so I know now I can be more composed and give them the reassurance that this is just another hockey game,” Morris said.

New Hampshire vs. Minnesota-Duluth

The home crowd for UMD creates a different dynamic in the nightcap on Thursday. UNH knows full well what it is like to play the host in the Frozen Four, having fallen 5-4 at Minnesota in 2006.

“It’s going to be loud, and we’re just going to have stay in control of our emotions,” said UNH captain Martine Garland. “Most of the people haven’t played a single player on that team. There’s a lot of unknowns. A lot of it’s going to be adjusting quickly and using your first shift and learning as you go.

UNH coach Brian McCloskey believes the adversity his team faced in road games this season—coming back on the road and winning opening weekend against St. Lawrence, coming back and winning at Mercyhurst—will be good preparation for Thursday night. Garland believes her team will carry momentum from handling St. Lawrence 3-2 in overtime last weekend.

“That game against St. Lawrence more than anything was a huge confidence builder,” Garland said. “They whooped us lost year. Coming back twice and winning an overtime, that’s a unique experience for any athlete.”

Minnesota-Duluth coach Shannon Miller noted that her team is facing pressure it did not last season. When UMD reach the NCAA final in 2007 and fell to Wisconsin, there were no expectations. Now there is more pressure, but UMD also has more experience.

“There’s only one way to get experience, and that is to get experience, and that is exactly what we got last year, and I know we know what it’s going to take to get maybe one more step this year,” Miller said.

Like UNH, UMD boasts its fair share of come-from behind wins.

“We’re fortunate because we’ve had to overcome adversity in a lot of games,” Miller said. “This team knows how to persevere and get it done.”

Miller said UMD was tight in the first two periods in its NCAA quarterfinal win against Mercyhurst, but hopefully her team has learned its lesson. She said she hopes to take some of the pressure off the team with a meeting Wednesday night.

“My plan is to send them to bed very confident and relaxed and aware of their abilities and potential,” Miller said. “I didn’t feel pressure last year. The only pressure I felt was to get here. Now it should just be fun for us.”

It’ll be Wisconsin vs. Harvard and UNH vs. UMD in Duluth on Thursday. Harvard will play at 5 p.m. CT followed by UMD at 8 p.m.

It was a familiar result for the Badgers, who won in overtime in the quarterfinals en route to each of their NCAA titles in the last two years. The matchup was unfortunate for the Gophers, who might have had a better shot had the NCAA spent the money to send St. Lawrence to Ridder. Four of the Gophers’ 7 losses this season — including the only three since mid-November — came at the hands of the Badgers. It was a tough ending for five Gopher seniors, who will graduate with three NCAA appearances, two Frozen Fours, and one NCAA title.

Attendance

Here are some quick stats on attendance from the NCAA quarterfinals.

2008: UNH 1607, Harvard 1497, Minnesota 1458, UMD 925
2007: Wisconsin 5125, Dartmouth 2344, Mercyhurst 1350 (sellout), UNH 1215
2006: UNH 2061, Wisconsin 1333, St. Lawrence 816, Minnesota 703
2005: Dartmouth 1619, Minnesota 1194, Harvard 1013, UMD 906

In terms of total attendance, 2008 was the second-best year. There really wasn’t any one game that drew a spectacular crowd this season, however. In contrast, 2007 had three extraordinary crowds at Wisconsin, Dartmouth, and Mercyhurst, who also saw extraordinary overtime games. The success of the 2007 quarterfinal round will be tough to match. The 2007 quarterfinals led to a somewhat anticlimactic Frozen Four, however, since Wisconsin so thoroughly dominated the field, though UMD-BC was still a superb semifinal.

This year’s Frozen Four, which features the top four teams in the year-end USCHO poll, looks to be tougher to predict. Harvard has the nation’s best record at 32-1, but is 0-1 against the rest of the field. UNH is a sterling 3-0 against the rest of the field, but none of those games took place this calender year. Wisconsin went 1-4 against UMD and 0-2 against UNH. Yet four of those games were in the fall, and the Badgers are the two-time defending champions, with the same No. 1 goal-scorer and same No. 1 goalie as in the previous two editions. Recent history suggests the WCHA tournament teams will benefit from their conference competition, and meet again in the NCAA final — this has happened the last two years — but UNH and Harvard have both had impressive seasons, having held the top two spots in the polls all winter. This dynamic will make for an interesting weekend.

UMD advances to the Frozen Four with a 5-4 win over Mercyhurst. More heartbreak for the Lakers, who led 3-2 early in the third. Mercyhurst had lost its previous three NCAA quarterfinals in triple, double, and single overtime. It was another tough ending for the six Mercyhurst seniors.

UMD extends its homestand which also included its four WCHA tournament games. The UMD win creates an exciting and unfamiliar semifinal matchup with UNH. The teams have not met since the 2000-01 regular season. As uninsipring as these NCAA quarterfinal matchups have been (two repeat quarterfinals from last season, two intraconference matchups), the NCAA semifinal matchups will be compelling. UMD is the third team to advance to a Frozen Four it was hosting. The previous participating hosts were UMD, which won in 2003, and Minnesota, which placed second in 2006.

The attendance of 925 was a bit disappointing, but it was on par with the 906 from the SLU@UMD quarterfinal in 2005. A bigger disappointment is that Mercyhurst-UMD was the only NCAA quarterfinal without a videocast. It’s highly ironic that all other UMD home games were available through B2LiveTV for a one-time fee or a season pass, but consumers had no opportunity to view Saturday’s quarterfinal. The NCAA needs better support for its younger championships.

No big surprises in No. 1 Harvard’s 5-1 NCAA women’s quarterfinal win over Dartmouth. Harvard proves once again why it was the best in the ECAC this season. The attendance of 1497 was solid, but I was hoping for a little better. It was up from Harvard’s 2005 NCAA quarterfinal, the triple overtime win over Mercyhurst which was seen by 1,013.

One characteristic of this Harvard team is that it handles pressure well. This Harvard team has been much more loose, relaxed, and joyous than past Crimson No. 1 teams. Such attitude should be an asset for the Crimson going forward.

One downside for Harvard is this year’s edition is the first since the WCHA’s existence not to play a WCHA team during the regular season. Now in the NCAA semifinals, Harvard will be assured of facing a WCHA opponent. Harvard lost its only game against a non-ECAC NCAA team this season by a 4-1 margin to UNH, so this Crimson team still has plenty to prove at the national level.

More thoughts on intraconference play in the NCAA tournament — it is fair to allow for it in cases in which the No. 1 team and the No. 8 team are from the same conferences, and there is a big gap in the selection criteria between No. 1 and 2 and No. 7 and 8. That was the surely case this season. This debate was also relevant in 2006, when it looked as if No. 1 UNH would have a tough quarterfinal against No. 7 Mercyhurst against a much weaker No. 8 BC, but Harvard pulled off a surprising ECAC tourney win and made that debate irrelevant. Protecting the No. 1 seed in a tournament is a noble goal, although it sure makes for a less interesting quarterfinal matchup.

Congrats to New Hampshire, the first team into the Women’s Frozen Four with a 3-2 overtime win over St. Lawrence.

One story line of this game that stands out is the play of seniors Sabrina Harbec for SLU and Sadie Wright-Ward for UNH. Both were conference players of the year as sophomores, but never quite received the same attention thereafter. Harbec’s brilliant second period goal looked like it might stand for the win, but it was the Durham native Wright-Ward who netted the clincher in the end.

UNH showed some hubris in playing too much offense on the Saints’ power play that led to the 2-1 Saints lead. The Wildcats hadn’t had to face a top five national power play since their win over Harvard in December.

Credit to UNH though for playing from behind for the first time since December and overcoming some clearly frustrating moments leading up to the game-tying goal by Jenn Wakefield from Kacey Bellamy.

Credit to the 1607 fans that supported this quarterfinal, a bit better than last year’s sparse crowd of 1215 for the same matchup.

And credit to the St. Lawrence seniors Harbec, forward Chelsea Grills, defenseman Annie Guay, and goalie Meaghan Guckian, who each had distinguished award-winning careers. Tough luck for them to end with back-to-back overtime defeats — the first time that has happened since UMD in 2005 (excluding the WCHA consolation game that season). UNH’s win ended a brilliant four-year Frozen Four run by St. Lawrence. The Saints deserve plenty of credit for that achievement, and for coming so close in year five.

The National Collegiate Women’s Ice Hockey committee made two controversial decisions on Sunday. One involved selecting Dartmouth over Clarkson as the last team in the tournament. The other was to abandon the practice of avoiding intraconference play in the NCAA quarterfinal round in order to save money on travel costs. I will discuss each below.

Dartmouth over Clarkson

This was the toughest decision an NCAA committee has ever had to make involving the last team into the field. Recall the NCAA criteria:

RPI (a combination of win pct. and strength of schedule), record against teams with an RPI > .500 (teams under consideration), record against common opponents, and head-to-head play.

Here is how the team’s stacked up in the PWR calculations of these criteria:
RPI: Clarkson .5600, Dartmouth .5594
TUC: Clarkson 5-7-2, Dartmouth 3-7-2
H2H: Clarkson 0-1-1, Dartmouth 1-0-1
COP: Clarkson 18-7-3, Dartmouth 16-7-3

Clearly the committee felt that Dartmouth’s clear head-to-head advantage was decisive, while Clarkson’s three advantages were not large enough for the committee to respect them.

Some fans surely feel any form of discretion in the hands of the committee is a negative — comments like “opening up a can of worms” or “returning us to the era of smoke-filled rooms” come to mind.

I would describe the women’s hockey selections today as “subjective interpretations of objective criteria.” Unlike say, men’s college basketball, the criteria in women’s hockey are very well-defined in the tournament handbook.

That said, there is nothing in the handbook saying that the criteria should be balanced in the manner used by the USCHO Pairwise Rankings — that is, awarding a point for a head-to-head win and a point for any other criterion won, and using RPI as a tiebreaker.

Weighting the criteria is not purely objective, but the committee does not deserve to be discounted as purely subjective either. Having looked at the pairings, it is reasonable to believe that the committee made its choices based on the criteria in the handbook, and thus it did the job it was asked to do.

While this selection is surely disappointing for Clarkson, I see little reason to believe that the committee has sacrificed the integrity of the selection process. Nothing from this selection leads me to believe that teams should be any less confident that they will advance to NCAAs if they do enough to differentiate themselves from their competitors, and that’s what matters most. The fact that there is even an argument to be had between Clarkson and Dartmouth shows that Clarkson could have done plenty more to differentiate itself.

Intraconference Matchups

Many fans will be stunned by the committee’s decision to have two intraconference matchups. When you look at the history of the NCAA in championships that are not profitable, the 2005-07 tournament is what’s really abnormal, and not the current selections. In that context, fans should be grateful for the previous three years, not bitter about the current setup. That the NCAA is cutting costs in the current economic environment should come as no surprise.

Fans should recognize the NCAA governance to be followed by the committee. All that’s written in stone is that the teams ranked No. 1 through No. 4 do not play each other. Beyond that, this is what the handbook says:

Pairings in the quarterfinal round shall be based primarily on the teams’ geographical proximity to one another, regardless of their region, in order to avoid air travel in quarterfinal round games whenever possible. Teams’ relative strength, according to the committee’s selection criteria, shall be considered when establishing pairings if such pairings do not result in air travel that otherwise could be avoided. The NCAA Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet shall have the authority to modify its working principles related to the championship site assignment on a case-by-case basis.

There is nothing in the handbook about avoiding intraconference matchups, but the committee had established the precedent from 2005-07. Thus, I have always written that brackets should be judged in terms of how they balance bracket integrity (i.e. how they preserve the PWR seedings), travels costs, and avoiding intraconference matchups. How the committee has balanced these three objectives has varied greatly from year to year, and I have never been able to predict this balance right.

Clearly the current bracket is the worst yet in terms of avoiding intraconference matchups. It is the best yet, however, in terms of minimizing travel costs. Only one flight, Mercyhurst to UMD, will be necessary for the quarterfinal round.

The reduction of interconference matchups is disappointing. There are too few interconference matchups in women’s hockey to begin with. If any one conference has three of the four best team in the country, the current system makes it unlikely that all three teams will advance to the Frozen Four. National tournaments that become retreads of conference tournaments are a concern.

Another benefit for the NCAA in this decision involves quarterfinal attendance. Wisconsin and Dartmouth have the largest women’s hockey fan bases in their respective regions. The tournament’s bottom line certainly benefits from placing their teams in locations where fans can easily travel to see them play.

Some long-time fans may be disappointed with the lack of novelty of the matchups, but if the respective fan bases can turn out in force and create a better atmosphere for the quarterfinal events, this may be a silver lining.