On this the eve of the next hockey signing period I felt it
appropriate to take a look back at this past year. The following is a
breakdown of which teams made the biggest improvements, or dropped the
most in the RPI ratings. As a lot of schools at each end of the spectrum
proves, recruits aren't the only thing, and blue-chippers by the dozen
don't guarantee wins. So if your school makes out well don't go booking a
plane flight to Milwaukee just yet, and there's hope for those who's
teams pull in a truck load of stiffs, goons and sieves.
        Some examples (list follows):
         I found it very intersting that despite only having one freshman
see significant ice time, UMass (+15) placed third on this list, although I
suppose this is partly due to a lack of graduating seniors, and a more
experienced core. This year should be interesting as the team loses
probably its most solid all-around player in Sal Manganaro, but during
the early signing period inked a pair of Canadians Nathan Sell, and Jeff
Blanchard, who's Bobby Orr's nephew. I met him when he was in town for a
game earlier this year, he definately seems like a good kid, and there's
definately a family resemblance. As for this signing period though, we'll
have to see what coach Scott MacPherson has up his sleve.
        But notice, most of the teams at the top brought in big name
players, that were generally of better caliber than their predecessors.
UMass is sort of an exception, doing it witout an league Rookie of the
Year candidate. As examples, WMU (+20) brought in Magliarditi, who won some
games all by himself. BC (+14) added Reasoner, the reason for their success.
        The opposite is true of schools near the bottom, like Princeton (-26),
who's freshmen this year, pale in comparson (at this stage at least) to
the seniors that they replaced. I don't mean to pick on the Tigers though.
        Then the most consistant teams, the perrennial powers were all
about even. Schools like Minnesota seldom have problems finding a quality
player to fill big shoes. BU for example will lose Pandolfo, Wood and
Lachance next year, but pick up Jr. National Team member and Cushing
Academy star Tom Poti, along with Greg Quebec, a solid player from
Deerfield, and Tabor's Bobby Hanson, And those are just early signings. The
rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor I guess.
 
1995 Fianl RPI, vs. 1996 Final RPI:
 
10 Biggest Improvements:        10 Biggest Dips:
Cornell            +20          Princeton       -26
Western Michigan   +20          Northeastern    -18
UMass              +15          Brown           -17
Providence         +15          New Hampshire   -17
Boston College     +14          RPI             -15
UMass-Lowell       +13          Wisconsin       -10
Ohio State         +12          N. Michigan     -8
Lake State         +10          Yale            -7
Colgate            +9           Harvard, MC,
Notre Dame / UVM   +7           N. Dakota & SCSU -6
 
Models of consistency (+/- 1):
BGSU, BU, Michigan   No change
CC/ Minnesota        +1
Air Force, MSU, MTU  -1
 
Difference by conference:
CCHA    +50
HE      +13
Ind.    +1
WCHA    -25
ECAC    -39
 
        In that department, HE seemed to have the least homeostasis
between this year and last year. HE had the 3,4,5 and 6th biggest
gainers, but second and third biggest losers to help balance it out.
        Although the CCHA only had one in the top 6, it made the biggest
overall jump, partly due to the fact that Michigan State, UIC and Miami
slipped and they just fell -1, -3 and -3 respectively. This is probably
why they had more NCAA teams than any other, there's no really bad teams
to hurt the strength of schedule. Remember, the CCHA had 4 get in
(without one being in JUST beacuse they won the title) and the top bubble
team was from the CCHA (BGSU).
        The WCHA had little improvement, its top gainers being UAA and
UMD and they only went up 4. What hurt them was that although CC and
Minnesota were both much better teams this year, there was really no place
for them to go, finishing last year at No. 4 and No. 6 respectively.
        Then there's the ECAC, where only four teams improved from last
year. While schools like UVM and Clarkson proved in the NCAA that the
often mailgned conference can produce some solid clubs, the lack of
consistency hurts the conference. This year at least, the first and
second tiers of the ECAC was definately more clearly defined than in the
other conferences. I'm not picking on the ECAC, it could be HE next year.
 
Just food for thought, as our coaches anxiously wait by their fax
machines looking for stuff from Powell River to Providence.
 
Leigh
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.