M. Hockey Deserves Pollsters' Attention

Upsetting then-No. 1 Boston College couldn’t do it. Knocking off then-No. 10 Boston University one week later didn’t do the trick. So how, exactly, is the Harvard men’s hockey team supposed to crack the national rankings?

Thus far, the Crimson’s advancement has been stunted by the misconceptions surrounding the team at the season’s start. After losing a cadre of impact skaters to graduation a season ago, Harvard, then as now unranked, was thought to be “a rebuilding project,” particularly at the hands of a neophyte coach.

Early results vindicated the detractors who said so. A disappointing tie at Brown followed by a pair of losses to Cornell and Colgate confirmed that the Crimson should not have been counted among the nation’s best.

But Harvard’s recent run—five wins in six games, including two over top-10 opponents—should have dispelled any doubts as to whether the Crimson can contend this season. And that’s just a superficial analysis, one which overlooks Harvard’s power-play unit—third-best nationwide—the emergence of several talented freshman forwards to complement seniors Tom Cavanagh, Brendan Bernakevitch & Co. and several other positive indicators.

Yet the voters’ biases remain. As in Division I-A football—where USC arguably may remain atop the polls not on the strength of its undefeated record but instead its preseason No. 1 ranking—pundits are unlikely to second-guess themselves and will reverse their prognostications only when egregiously in error.

Of the 15 teams nationally ranked in September prior to the start of the 2004-2005 slate, 13 retained that distinction entering December. Only then-No. 11 Dartmouth (4-4-1, 3-3-0 ECAC) and then-No. 15 Miami (5-8-1, 3-6-1 CCHA), each a clear underachiever, have been toppled, replaced by Colgate and Northern Michigan.

Of course, the predictions of that handful of college hockey gurus who assembled the preliminary top 15 might simply have been correct. But, while I do not deny the accuracy of many of their choices, it’s likely that the minimal turnover within the polls is in fact due to their unwillingness to displace schools that haven’t lost—even if they’ve recorded few impressive wins—in favor of up-and-comers who have similar records highlighted by major victories.

Cornell, for example, began the season ranked No. 13, and, on the strength of its 5-2-2 record, has improved to No. 12. But while the Big Red’s record is certainly favorable, wins over Army, Sacred Heart, Brown and Canisius are nothing to write home about. In fact, Cornell’s only notable victory was recorded against Harvard, then a fledgling squad competing in only its second game as a unit. The Big Red’s two losses have come at the hands of Dartmouth, mediocre to say the least, and Michigan State, whose record is currently below .500.

The Crimson on the other hand, currently 5-3-1, has recorded wins over BC and BU, in addition to its victories over less-talented Yale, Princeton and Clarkson. Its most recent loss, to St. Lawrence, was an aberration, the likely product of a seven-hour bus ride to North Country, and its 0-2-1 record to start the year will ultimately be chalked up to growing pains, not lack of talent.

With their comparable records, Harvard should be ranked as highly as Cornell if not higher, with the Crimson’s head-to-head loss to the Big Red mitigated by its extra quality win.

But that simplified assessment presupposes that each week’s rankings are drawn up from scratch and not a modification of those which came a week before. If Harvard had begun the season in the top 15, then turned in exactly the same 5-3-1 record it has thus far, there is little reason to believe the Crimson would not have held even or even improved its standing in the polls.

Realistically, the pre-season rankings are based on educated conjecture and taint those that follow, which are supposed to be based on substance.

Northern Michigan, currently ranked No. 15, began the season ahead of the Crimson within the “also receiving votes” category, then slid into the top 15 when Dartmouth and Miami plummeted. The Wildcats’ record, 6-4-2, isn’t nearly so solid as Harvard’s 5-3-1, though. Only one of their wins has come against a team with a winning record, while this nationally ranked school has twice lost to and twice tied a sub-.500 team.

Even worse, Minnesota-Duluth currently sits at No. 14, despite a 2-5-1 record in its last eight games, and just one victory over a team with a winning record all year. Why? Its pre-season No. 4 ranking.

The Bulldogs current run—highlighted by a pair of losses at Alaska-Anchorage and a home loss to Brown—would have torpedoed the efforts of a school looking to climb into the rankings, but because UMD was so highly touted to start the year, the same pundits who exaggerated its potential at the start are now cushioning its fall.

Of course, the Crimson will have several opportunities to rectify all these oversights in the weeks to come. Five of Harvard’s next eight matchups pit the squad against opponents currently ranked—No. 11 Vermont, No. 10 Maine and No. 15 Northern Michigan, No. 13 Colgate and No. 12 Cornell—with a possible showdown with No. 1 Minnesota on Dec. 23 in the final round of the Dodge Holiday Classic thrown in as an added bonus.

And if a solid showing during that stretch can’t earn the Crimson a spot in the national rankings, well, nothing will.

—Staff writer Timothy J. McGinn can be reached at mcginn@fas.harvard.edu.