Jeff Partnow writes...
>--UAF: Currently #7 in CCHA (pre-season coaches' poll had us last-
>unanimously!)
 
The Nanooks were picked to finish in the basement in the coaches'
poll, but it wasn't unanimous.  UAF received 15 points.  Since the
coaches' votes do not include their own team, the eleven ballots
each contain ten teams...with each team being listed on ten of the
ballots.  So, UAF received 15 points on 10 ballots.  Obviously, there
are plenty of possible voting combinations to satisfy the above,
one being five 9th place (next to last on the ballot) votes and five
10th place (last on the ballot) votes.
 
In the CCHA media poll, UAF was picked to finish 10th among the
eleven teams.  They were a substantial margin (77 points to 47
points over 31 ballots) in front of Ohio State.
 
Admittedly, my pre-season crystal ball placed the 'Nooks in the
basement.  On paper, UAF was (is) clearly not in the class of the
top six (BGSU, LSSU, MU, UM, MSU and WMU) for 1995-96.
However, 7th to 11th was (and still is) a complete toss up among
UAF, FSU, UIC, UND and OSU.  I'm sure it won't make any UAF
fans feel better, but here are some of the reasons I saw to put the
Nanooks in the pre-season cellar:
  (A) The first season in the conference factor.  Yes, UAF was an
affiliate for three years, but this is the first season that they'll play
a full CCHA schedule.  There was little to no empirical evidence
as to how they would respond to the competition over 30 games.
For that matter, it was unclear how the competition would respond
to them.  UAF had some success versus CCHA clubs during its
affiliate period, but would CCHA teams now take games versus
UAF more seriously because they counted in the conference
standings?  LOTS of UNCERTAINTY.  That's probably the primary
ingredient.  Lack of familiarity with the Nanooks.
  (B) Recent empirical evidence of other first year clubs.  Sure, all
of the programs entered under a different set of circumstances,
but Alaska Anchorage (WCHA), Kent (CCHA), Mass Amherst (HEA)
Notre Dame (CCHA) and Union (ECAC) didn't exactly set the world
on fire in their first conference season.  UAA's struggle in the WCHA
isn't unnoticed.  UAA has had a slight upper hand on UAF in their
head-to-head battles over the past 2-3 years, and UAA has not
fared well in the WCHA.  Given that, it was possible to envision a
similar early fate for UAF.
  (C) Returning defense, both quality and quantity.  Dallas Ferguson
is the only "name" defenseman on the Nanook roster.  (Again, this
relates to unfamiliarity with UAF in general.)  Also, UAF only returned
67.5% of their "defenseman games" from 1994-95, second lowest
in the CCHA to UIC.  Eight CCHA teams returned over 83% of their
defenseman games.
  (D) UAF was hammered in the CCHA playoffs by OSU last March.
Given that they couldn't beat OSU (at Columbus) in a "must win"
game in March, there was little to suggest that they would consistently
beat the likes of OSU come October.
 
So, I think there were some good reasons to have low expectations
for UAF this season.  Given the level of uncertainty, I felt it better to
pick them for 11th and possibly see them in 7th than pick them 7th
and possibly see them in 11th.
 
As for the current position of the Nanooks, it's not really surprising
to see them in 7th, even though they were picked to be 11th. :=^)
However, UAF's grip on 7th is tenuous at best.  Here's a look at the
bottom half of the CCHA standings with games played and (points):
  6 Miami 22 (19)
  7 Alaska Fairbanks 25 (14)
  8 Notre Dame 22 (13)
    Ferris State 23 (13)
 10 Illinois at Chicago 22 (11)
    Ohio State 22 (11)
 
UAF has but five games remaining...a pair at Ohio State and a trio
at home versus Western Michigan.  Let's assume for the moment
that Miami will hold onto 6th...or at least remain in the top eight.  So,
the final five teams are fighting for two playoff spots.  Head-to-head
games among that group, other than the UAF@OSU pair, are:
  OSU@FSU (2), FSU@UIC (2), FSU@UND, UIC@OSU
 
So, some of these teams will definitely be gaining points.  And, all
but UAF have 7-8 games remaining to do so.  As much as I'd like
to see UAF knock the snot out of WMU late in the season, I don't
see the Nanooks doing so.  Hence, the upcoming UAF at OSU
series is pivotal for the playoff fortunes of both teams.  They each
need to come away with 3-4 points for playoff positioning.  I believe
that UAF has one the only meeting to date between the two.  It's
quite possible that UAF could go into Columbus and sweep the Bucks,
but that's a tall order given that OSU is playing well (1-2-5 in 1996)
and the Buckeye goaltenders can smell the playoffs within their
grasp like a shark can smell blood.  Plus, UAF didn't win there last
year when they had to.
 
Fwiw...this post was in no way meant to knock the Nanooks, but
rather to give some thoughts on where they were in the pre-season
and where they are now.  I think the race for 7th and 8th in the CCHA
is just as exciting as the positioning battle among the top four.  The
decision to have only eight teams in the playoffs produces similar
results to being in a fantasy hockey league.  One begins to watch
*everything* more closely, rather than just his/her favorite team.
 
 
John H ([log in to unmask]) LOVE THE CCHA!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.