2015 / 8-Team University Cup - Halifax

[Hollywood3]

For some reason, people have OUA #2 at 4 seed over AUS #2. I don't see the rationale in that. Can someone explain???

The OUA has way too much clout.

 

[AdamMcg83]

For some reason, people have OUA #2 at 4 seed over AUS #2. I don't see the rationale in that. Can someone explain???

The more technical way to put Holly's answer is that the Uni Cup is treating the OUA east and west champions as "conference" champions. Therefore, the top four seeds will be the four conference champs (CW, AUS, OUAE, OUAW).

 

[Rob]

Well the organizers will probably want to ensure that two conference teams do not play each other in the quarters.

 

[MiamiHockey]

The more technical way to put Holly's answer is that the Uni Cup is treating the OUA east and west champions as "conference" champions. Therefore, the top four seeds will be the four conference champs (CW, AUS, OUAE, OUAW).

The explanation is very simple. The CIS is comprised of four conferences: Canada West, the OUA, QSEF, and the AUS. Men's Hockey is the only sport in which the OUA and the QSEF have merged to form a single league. So, the QSEF berth is granted to the OUA.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "clout" or the CIS office being in Ottawa, or any other conspiracy theories one may concoct.

 

[AdamMcg83]

The explanation is very simple. The CIS is comprised of four conferences: Canada West, the OUA, QSEF, and the AUS. Men's Hockey is the only sport in which the OUA and the QSEF have merged to form a single league. So, the QSEF berth is granted to the OUA.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "clout" or the CIS office being in Ottawa, or any other conspiracy theories one may concoct.

Amen.

Also, Carleton has just been eliminated, setting up a UQTR-McGill east final. So let's just pretend that they will represent the Quebec conference, and stop complaining for another year.

 

[Rob]

In 2016 does the OUA get two and Canada West get three teams?

 

[UNB Bruins Fan]

In 2016 does the OUA get two and Canada West get three teams?

I believe that is the plan. I think I remember reading something that if they continue with the 8 team format and two year hosting cycle than the non-host conferences will rotate between 2 and 3 berths for those two years. So, say if an OUA team gets the tournament after Halifax than the AUS will get 3 spots and the CW 2 spots one year and vice versa the following year.

 

[UNB Bruins Fan]

It'd be nice to see Guelph/Toronto get to the University Cup just for variety sake, but I would bet a lot of money we are going to see Windsor/McGill/UQTR representing the OUA.

 

[Dutch]

I have a feeling Toronto would get a shalaking at the Nationals.

 

[Hollywood3]

The explanation is very simple. The CIS is comprised of four conferences: Canada West, the OUA, QSEF, and the AUS. Men's Hockey is the only sport in which the OUA and the QSEF have merged to form a single league. So, the QSEF berth is granted to the OUA.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "clout" or the CIS office being in Ottawa, or any other conspiracy theories one may concoct.

The QSSF was replaced with the RSEQ years ago. (The new body handles CEGEP and all student sport in the province.) There was no "merger". The QSSF folded their men's hockey league and three of the remaining teams were admitted to the OUA hockey league and a 4th (Ottawa) was already an OUA member.

But, yes, the CIS has allowed the RSEQ to assign their berth in the nationals to the OUA. This makes no sense.

 

[AdamMcg83]

The QSSF was replaced with the RSEQ years ago. (The new body handles CEGEP and all student sport in the province.) There was no "merger". The QSSF folded their men's hockey league and three of the remaining teams were admitted to the OUA hockey league and a 4th (Ottawa) was already an OUA member.

But, yes, the CIS has allowed the RSEQ to assign their berth in the nationals to the OUA. This makes no sense.

Yes, because assigning 1/8th of the Uni Cup bids to a conference that includes 55% of the teams makes much more sense.

 

[Hollywood3]

Yes, because assigning 1/8th of the Uni Cup bids to a conference that includes 55% of the teams makes much more sense.

The number of teams per conference has never been the guideline. The OUA does not get an extra berth because it has so many teams. It gets the extra berth because it took in the 3 Quebec teams. Period.

If the Quebec teams joined the AUS, they would take the berth with them and the AUS would get more berths than the OUA even though it would still be smaller. (Unless, of course, the OUA voted to change the rules.)

 

[MiamiHockey]

The QSSF was replaced with the RSEQ years ago. (The new body handles CEGEP and all student sport in the province.) There was no "merger". The QSSF folded their men's hockey league and three of the remaining teams were admitted to the OUA hockey league and a 4th (Ottawa) was already an OUA member.

But, yes, the CIS has allowed the RSEQ to assign their berth in the nationals to the OUA. This makes no sense.

Hockey is not the only sport in the CIS. In each sport for which there is a national championship tournament (i.e., most of them), each conference champion gets an automatic berth. So, this makes perfect sense, as it is completely consistent with how the CIS operates every national championship.

Heaven forbid, even in football, where the AUS teams have been very weak in recent years, they AUS champion still gets to the national semi-finals.

The only thing that makes no sense is why you think hockey should operate differently from every other sport, and somehow blame somebody in the OUA for the fact that it operates EXACTLY the same as every other CIS sport.

 

[northvanman]

The QSSF was replaced with the RSEQ years ago. (The new body handles CEGEP and all student sport in the province.) There was no "merger". The QSSF folded their men's hockey league and three of the remaining teams were admitted to the OUA hockey league and a 4th (Ottawa) was already an OUA member.

But, yes, the CIS has allowed the RSEQ to assign their berth in the nationals to the OUA. This makes no sense.

This is such a tired argument -and by the way, you are the only one still making it. The reality is that if a decision had been made to create a Quebec / Eastern Ontario conference, as there has been in the past in hockey, football, and basketball (probably other sports too, but who knows) there would be no debate. But the OUA instead has decided to create two large divisions in the same conference. As a point of historical reference, the last two years of the QUAA conference for hockey (85/86 and 86/87), they were awarded a berth at the Nationals with a conferece that included 5 teams (85) and 4 teams (86) - Ottawa, UQTR, McGill, and Concordia (UQAC was the 5th team in 85). So what's the difference? If anything, it's more competitve to get that berth now.

Is your issue, really, that the OUA on balance is weaker than the other two conferences? I understand that, overall, the competitive balance in the AUS and Canada West is relatively stronger, and that this is frustrating among some of those who live and support teams in these parts of the country when they see berths get awarded to the OUA. We could discuss for hours why the OUA is not stronger, which, based on population alone, should not be the case. But the reasons for this have been discussed at length on this board.

In the absence of a national crossover schedule (and let's not even get into non-conference exhibiton games, which are really meaningless), and trying to find a rational way of assigning berths, it's pretty tough to argue against the OUA getting at least 2 slots at the Nationals, having 19 out of 35 teams in the country.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

For some reason, people have OUA #2 at 4 seed over AUS #2. I don't see the rationale in that. Can someone explain???

I don't get it either. I thought the three conference champs would be seeded 1,2,3 based on their rankings. I didn't know the OUA runner-up automatically got the 4 spot, but I could be wrong.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I don't get it either. I thought the three conference champs would be seeded 1,2,3 based on their rankings. I didn't know the OUA runner-up automatically got the 4 spot, but I could be wrong.

It's the same reason that was discussed above. The CIS has four conferences: CW, OUA, RSEQ, and AUS. The top four spots go to the four conference champions, and the OUA has the RSEQ's conference champion berth.

 

[UNB Bruins Fan]

I don't think there is anything in the CIS Hockey Rules for the University Cup that says the OUA runner-up HAS to be the 4th seed though...

For example, in 2009 UNB was ranked #4 as the AUS runner-up and McGill went in as #5 as the OUA runner-up. In 2013 Saint Mary's was the AUS runner-up and went in as #4 and Waterloo, as the OUA runner-up, went in as #6. But I do think in these cases this was done because they had to manipulate the pools a bit to keep same-conference teams on opposite draws.

I do think in general they would prefer to put the OUA runner-up 4th....but it is certainly not set in stone....just depends on how everything else shakes out.

 

[Drummer]

OUA Runner-up Seeded #4

For some reason, people have OUA #2 at 4 seed over AUS #2. I don't see the rationale in that. Can someone explain???

I don't get it either. I thought the three conference champs would be seeded 1,2,3 based on their rankings. I didn't know the OUA runner-up automatically got the 4 spot, but I could be wrong.

All - the CIS Men's Ice Hockey Playing Regulations outline the following Seeding Criteria - the OUA Runner-up is #4.

4.2.2 SEEDING CRITERIA
1.The three (3) Sport Conference champions will be seeded 1st, 2nd, and 3rd based on their respective team national ranking in the final Top Ten of the season. The last Top 10 ranking will be done after the Sport Conference playoffs are completed.
2. The OUA finalist (either the OUA East or OUA West divisional champion) will be seeded #4.

So, it's a done deal - move on. I believe it's because their division is equal in size to the other conferences and has nothing to do with strength of schedule, caliber of play, etc.

So, the CW/AUS runner-ups, or OUA #3, can not be seeded any better than #5.

 

[Drummer]

For example, in 2009 UNB was ranked #4 as the AUS runner-up and McGill went in as #5 as the OUA runner-up. In 2013 Saint Mary's was the AUS runner-up and went in as #4 and Waterloo, as the OUA runner-up, went in as #6. But I do think in these cases this was done because they had to manipulate the pools a bit to keep same-conference teams on opposite draws.

Yes - somewhere along the line - the CIS explicitly outlined that when there were two teams from the same conference, they had to be in opposite pools regardless of seed. This lead to some teams swapping seeds to align the pools to reflect this rule.

 

[Hollywood3]

Hockey is not the only sport in the CIS. In each sport for which there is a national championship tournament (i.e., most of them), each conference champion gets an automatic berth. So, this makes perfect sense, as it is completely consistent with how the CIS operates every national championship.

Heaven forbid, even in football, where the AUS teams have been very weak in recent years, they AUS champion still gets to the national semi-finals.

The only thing that makes no sense is why you think hockey should operate differently from every other sport, and somehow blame somebody in the OUA for the fact that it operates EXACTLY the same as every other CIS sport.

In the other sports, the conferences each operate a league.

The RSEQ does not operate a hockey league.

When GPAC did not operate a football league, they did not get a berth in the nationals. The only GPAC team with a football program (Manitoba) played in the CWUAA, which had one berth, not 2, in the national playoffs.

In fact, although GPAC operated a hockey league they often did not get a berth in the nationals, i.e. they had to play-in against the CWUAA.

The "berth for each conference winner" principle existed back when there were 3 smaller conferences in Ontario and Quebec (QOAA, OIAA, and OSLC), plus the AUAA and WIAA. When the 3 conferences in Ontario and Quebec became 2, and when the WIAA was split into the CWUAA and GPAC, the principle was abandoned.

To pretend that the CIS has underlying principles in these matters is falacious, to say the least.

Currently, in basketball and volleyball, there are "at large" berths available for allocation. The allocation, in part, depends upon conference size. It also depends upon team/conference performance. Hockey does not have this. Therefore, hockey is inconsistent with the others in this aspect as well.

 

[Hollywood3]

This is such a tired argument -and by the way, you are the only one still making it. The reality is that if a decision had been made to create a Quebec / Eastern Ontario conference, as there has been in the past in hockey, football, and basketball (probably other sports too, but who knows) there would be no debate. But the OUA instead has decided to create two large divisions in the same conference. As a point of historical reference, the last two years of the QUAA conference for hockey (85/86 and 86/87), they were awarded a berth at the Nationals with a conferece that included 5 teams (85) and 4 teams (86) - Ottawa, UQTR, McGill, and Concordia (UQAC was the 5th team in 85). So what's the difference? If anything, it's more competitve to get that berth now.

Is your issue, really, that the OUA on balance is weaker than the other two conferences? I understand that, overall, the competitive balance in the AUS and Canada West is relatively stronger, and that this is frustrating among some of those who live and support teams in these parts of the country when they see berths get awarded to the OUA. We could discuss for hours why the OUA is not stronger, which, based on population alone, should not be the case. But the reasons for this have been discussed at length on this board.

In the absence of a national crossover schedule (and let's not even get into non-conference exhibiton games, which are really meaningless), and trying to find a rational way of assigning berths, it's pretty tough to argue against the OUA getting at least 2 slots at the Nationals, having 19 out of 35 teams in the country.

On the latter point, the OUA gets 3 places under the current system, along with two of the top 4 seeds.

On the first point, the OUA can decide to do whatever they want on internal matters. That should have no effect on anybody else. The point is that the CIS created this concept of a floating Quebec berth that the RSEQ could loan out to the OUA.

 

[Hollywood3]

All - the CIS Men's Ice Hockey Playing Regulations outline the following Seeding Criteria - the OUA Runner-up is #4.

4.2.2 SEEDING CRITERIA
1.The three (3) Sport Conference champions will be seeded 1st, 2nd, and 3rd based on their respective team national ranking in the final Top Ten of the season. The last Top 10 ranking will be done after the Sport Conference playoffs are completed.
2. The OUA finalist (either the OUA East or OUA West divisional champion) will be seeded #4.

So, it's a done deal - move on. I believe it's because their division is equal in size to the other conferences and has nothing to do with strength of schedule, caliber of play, etc.

So, the CW/AUS runner-ups, or OUA #3, can not be seeded any better than #5.

The rule is new this year. In prior years the 3 conference winners were the top 3 seeds and that was all that was mandated.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I understand that, overall, the competitive balance in the AUS and Canada West is relatively stronger, and that this is frustrating among some of those who live and support teams in these parts of the country when they see berths get awarded to the OUA.

The AUS has stronger competitive balance than the OUA, yes. With the exception of St. Thomas, every team in the AUS has shown themselves to be capable of a solid showing at the University Cup.

But it's laughable to suggest that Canada West has greater balance. Canada West has a dominant program - Alberta - and very strong program in Saskatchewan. But if the competitive balance is so great, then surely over the past 25 years somebody other than Alberta (and, thanks to Mike Babcock, Lethbridge) should have won the University Cup, particularly when Alberta and Sask have each hosted (the latter on five occasions). In that span, four different OUA programs and five different AUS programs have won.

If you look at the standings, the OUA West is actually the most balanced division / conference, and all but one of the teams in that conference has gone to the University Cup in the past 25 years. Outside of RMC, the OUA East is also remarkably balanced.

But enough with the whining about the OUA's berths.

 

[Hollywood3]

The AUS has stronger competitive balance than the OUA, yes. With the exception of St. Thomas, every team in the AUS has shown themselves to be capable of a solid showing at the University Cup.

But it's laughable to suggest that Canada West has greater balance. Canada West has a dominant program - Alberta - and very strong program in Saskatchewan. But if the competitive balance is so great, then surely over the past 25 years somebody other than Alberta (and, thanks to Mike Babcock, Lethbridge) should have won the University Cup, particularly when Alberta and Sask have each hosted (the latter on five occasions). In that span, four different OUA programs and five different AUS programs have won.

If you look at the standings, the OUA West is actually the most balanced division / conference, and all but one of the teams in that conference has gone to the University Cup in the past 25 years. Outside of RMC, the OUA East is also remarkably balanced.

But enough with the whining about the OUA's berths.

"Balanced" does not mean "strong", nor "weak". The OUA West is the weakest division and the most balanced. It makes it hard to gauge the upper teams when most of their games are against teams the calibre of Regina.

 

[MiamiHockey]

"Balanced" does not mean "strong", nor "weak". The OUA West is the weakest division and the most balanced. It makes it hard to gauge the upper teams when most of their games are against teams the calibre of Regina.

And that assessment is based on what, exactly? The fact that Alberta has a strong record against OUA opponents in the University Cup? Breaking news: Alberta has a dominant record against the CW's second-best team (Saskatchewan). If Canada West was such a strong conference, somebody other than Alberta would emerge. But they don't.