Polls 2013-14

I've always worried about the "can't be punished for a win" fudge creating different outcomes strictly based on game order. Say for instance Yale and Harvard play the same schedule with exactly the same results (their h2hs are ties) except Yale plays UAH (1-31-1) the first game of the season and Harvard plays them the last. Does the fudge factor mean that Harvard will have a better Modified RPI because they aren't allowed to drop, while Yale doesn't get the benefit because, having played UAH first, their proportionately smaller bump is not counted as a "drop"?

(I hate the "can't be 'punished'" epicycle anyway, since it rests on an emotional misperception of "punishment". I'd much prefer building the impossibility of losing value by winning or gaining value by losing into a continuous function rather than creating an artificial stepwise "floor." )

Cornell is 11 in the USCHO poll:

US PW Team
03 03 Union
08 07 Quinnipiac
11 11 Cornell
15 18 Yale
16 13 Colgate
24 24 Clarkson
-- 25 RPI
-- 31 SLU
-- 32 Brown
-- 40 Harvard
-- 45 Dartmouth
-- 55 Princeton

Trotsky
I've always worried about the "can't be punished for a win" fudge creating different outcomes strictly based on game order. Say for instance Yale and Harvard play the same schedule with exactly the same results (their h2hs are ties) except Yale plays UAH (1-31-1) the first game of the season and Harvard plays them the last. Does the fudge factor mean that Harvard will have a better Modified RPI because they aren't allowed to drop, while Yale doesn't get the benefit because, having played UAH first, their proportionately smaller bump is not counted as a "drop"?

(I hate the "can't be 'punished'" epicycle anyway, since it rests on an emotional misperception of "punishment". I'd much prefer building the impossibility of losing value by winning or gaining value by losing into a continuous function rather than creating an artificial stepwise "floor." )

I would hope that the system would come out the same for both of them. The only way for that to happen would be to figure out the RPI without UAH in the schedule for both teams, regardless of when they played them.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
I've always worried about the "can't be punished for a win" fudge creating different outcomes strictly based on game order. Say for instance Yale and Harvard play the same schedule with exactly the same results (their h2hs are ties) except Yale plays UAH (1-31-1) the first game of the season and Harvard plays them the last. Does the fudge factor mean that Harvard will have a better Modified RPI because they aren't allowed to drop, while Yale doesn't get the benefit because, having played UAH first, their proportionately smaller bump is not counted as a "drop"?

(I hate the "can't be 'punished'" epicycle anyway, since it rests on an emotional misperception of "punishment". I'd much prefer building the impossibility of losing value by winning or gaining value by losing into a continuous function rather than creating an artificial stepwise "floor." )

I would hope that the system would come out the same for both of them. The only way for that to happen would be to figure out the RPI without UAH in the schedule for both teams, regardless of when they played them.

Pretty sure what it means is that midseason RPI is a work-in-progress. While the games might have a different affect on RPI at the time of the game, they will have the exact same weight in the final result. If you play a team that is 5-0 and they finish the season 5-25, your final RPI treats the game as one against a 5-25 team. Basically you aren't punished for having played UAH in your hypothetical, regardless of when the game was.

This has to be right, right?

ugarte

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
I've always worried about the "can't be punished for a win" fudge creating different outcomes strictly based on game order. Say for instance Yale and Harvard play the same schedule with exactly the same results (their h2hs are ties) except Yale plays UAH (1-31-1) the first game of the season and Harvard plays them the last. Does the fudge factor mean that Harvard will have a better Modified RPI because they aren't allowed to drop, while Yale doesn't get the benefit because, having played UAH first, their proportionately smaller bump is not counted as a "drop"?

(I hate the "can't be 'punished'" epicycle anyway, since it rests on an emotional misperception of "punishment". I'd much prefer building the impossibility of losing value by winning or gaining value by losing into a continuous function rather than creating an artificial stepwise "floor." )

I would hope that the system would come out the same for both of them. The only way for that to happen would be to figure out the RPI without UAH in the schedule for both teams, regardless of when they played them.

Pretty sure what it means is that midseason RPI is a work-in-progress. While the games might have a different affect on RPI at the time of the game, they will have the exact same weight in the final result. If you play a team that is 5-0 and they finish the season 5-25, your final RPI treats the game as one against a 5-25 team. Basically you aren't punished for having played UAH in your hypothetical, regardless of when the game was.

This has to be right, right?

I'm pretty sure this is right because the selection committee isn't tracking RPI (or PWR) throughout the season the way we do. They look at the results after the dust has settled on March 23. Hopefully the various sites that calculate the metrics during the season use the same approach: calculating ratings using the entire season to date to get today's rankng.

The fact that there's a percieved need for a fudge factor simply points to the limits of RPI as a ranking system. But we've covered that ground many, many times through the years.

    USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
February 24, 2014
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Boston College	(49)	25- 4-4	999	1
2	Minnesota	( 1)	21- 4-5	946	2
3	Union		        22- 6-4	901	3
4	Ferris State		23- 7-3	834	6
5	St. Cloud State		18- 7-5	781	4
6	Wisconsin		19- 9-2	732	8
7	Massachusetts-Lowell	20- 8-4	679	7
8	Quinnipiac		21- 8-5	650	5
9	Northeastern		18-10-4	588	9
10	North Dakota		18- 9-3	575	11
11	Cornell		        14- 7-5	479	13
12	Providence		17- 9-6	450	12
13	Michigan		15-10-3	372	10
14	Notre Dame		19-12-2	326	15
15	Yale		        14- 8-5	300	14
16	Colgate		        16-11-5	269	19
17	Vermont		        17-11-3	261	16
18	Maine		        15-11-4	141	17
19	Minnesota State		19-13-0	86	NR
20	Denver		        14-12-6	30	18
Others receiving votes: Ohio State 25, New Hampshire 23, Minnesota-Duluth 15, 
Clarkson 13, Western Michigan 12, Air Force 7, Mercyhurst 6.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA
Rank 	School 	Last Week
1. 	Boston College,(33) 509  	1
2. 	Minnesota,     (1)  477  	2
3. 	Union,              435 	3
4. 	Ferris State,       405 	5
5. 	St. Cloud State,    364 	4
6. 	Wisconsin,          325 	8
7. 	Quinnipiac,         287 	6
8. 	UMass Lowell,       280 	7
9. 	Northeastern,       232 	9
10. 	North Dakota,       230 	11
11. 	Cornell,            163 	13
12. 	Providence,         103 	12
13. 	Michigan,            94 	10
14. 	Yale,                51 	14
15. 	Colgate,             46 	RV

Others receiving votes: Notre Dame, 42; Vermont, 27; Maine, 4; Minnesota State, 4.

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
February 24, 2014
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	32- 1-1	150	1
2	Wisconsin		25- 5-2	133	2
3	Clarkson		25- 4-5	120	4
4	Boston College		25- 5-3	100	5
5	Harvard		        21- 4-4	85	5
6	Cornell		        20- 5-4	81	3
7	Quinnipiac		20- 5-9	52	9
8	Mercyhurst		22- 7-4	43	8
9	North Dakota		17-11-4	27	7
10	Robert Morris		24- 7-3	24	9
Others receiving votes: Boston University 6, Northeastern 4.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

PWR Previously Posted

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
March 03, 2014
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(37)	23- 4-5	987	2
2	Boston College	(12)	25- 5-4	951	1
3	Union	        ( 1)	24- 6-4	912	3
4	St. Cloud State		19- 8-5	806	5
5	Wisconsin		19- 9-2	786	6
6	Quinnipiac		22- 8-6	709	8
7	Ferris State		23- 9-3	693	4
8	Massachusetts-Lowell	21- 9-4	680	7
9	North Dakota		19-10-3	608	10
10	Providence		19- 9-6	559	12
11	Notre Dame		20-12-2	446	14
12	Michigan		16-10-4	426	13
13	Cornell		        15- 8-5	397	11
14	Northeastern		18-12-4	374	9
15	Vermont		        18-12-3	258	17
16	Yale		        15- 9-5	242	15
17	Minnesota State		21-13-0	228	19
18	Colgate		        17-12-5	227	16
19	Minnesota-Duluth	15-13-4	72	NR
20	Maine		        15-13-4	28	18
Others receiving votes: Denver 27, Clarkson 17, Ohio State 17, New Hampshire 16, 
Air Force 10, Mercyhurst 8, Western Michigan 8, Nebraska-Omaha 6, Alaska 2.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA
Rank 	School 	           Last Week
1. 	Minnesota,    (27) 503  2
2. 	Boston College,(7) 480  1
3. 	Union,             427 	3
4. 	St. Cloud State,   391 	5
5. 	Wisconsin,         376 	6
6. 	Quinnipiac,        307 	7
7. 	Ferris State,      304 	4
8. 	UMass Lowell,      278 	8
9. 	North Dakota,      235 	10
10. 	Providence,        210 	12
11. 	Michigan,          148 	13
12. 	Notre Dame,        144 	RV
13. 	Cornell,           119 	11
14. 	Northeastern,       92 	9
15. 	Yale,               27 	14

Others receiving votes: Minnesota State, 14; Vermont, 13; Colgate, 10; Alaska, 2.

CHN PWR

Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	preRPI 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	Minnesota 	58 	.6012 	2 	.5922 	.0090 	23-4-5 	.7969 	.7872
2 	Boston College 	57 	.6012 	1 	.5932 	.0080 	25-5-4 	.7941 	.8047
3 	Union 	        55 	.5818 	3 	.5772 	.0046 	24-6-4 	.7647 	.7688
4 	St. Cloud State 55 	.5602 	4 	.5546 	.0055 	19-8-5 	.6719 	.6606
5 	Wisconsin 	54 	.5586 	5 	.5538 	.0048 	19-9-2 	.6667 	.6538
6 	Ferris State 	53 	.5584 	6 	.5576 	.0008 	23-9-3 	.7000 	.7246
7 	Quinnipiac 	52 	.5542 	8 	.5496 	.0046 	22-8-6 	.6944 	.6903
8 	Mass.-Lowell 	51 	.5546 	7 	.5506 	.0040 	21-9-4 	.6765 	.6766
9 	North Dakota 	50 	.5516 	9 	.5487 	.0030 	19-10-3 .6406 	.6369
10 	Notre Dame 	49 	.5458 	10 	.5399 	.0059 	20-12-2 .6176 	.5975
11 	Providence 	47 	.5456 	11 	.5417 	.0039 	19-9-6 	.6471 	.6404
12 	Michigan 	46 	.5430 	12 	.5393 	.0037 	16-10-4 .6000 	.6069
13 	Cornell 	45 	.5407 	13 	.5388 	.0019 	15-8-5 	.6250 	.6259
14 	Vermont 	45 	.5392 	14 	.5366 	.0026 	18-12-3 .5909 	.5833
15 	Northeastern 	44 	.5387 	15 	.5324 	.0063 	18-12-4 .5882 	.5901
16 	Colgate 	43 	.5351 	17 	.5277 	.0074 	17-12-5 .5735 	.5632

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
March 03, 2014
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	34- 1-1	150	1
2	Wisconsin		27- 6-2	126	2
3	Clarkson		27- 4-5	125	3
4	Boston College		26- 5-3	104	4
5	Cornell		        22- 5-4	87	6
6	Harvard		        23- 5-4	76	5
7	Quinnipiac		22- 5-9	50	7
8	Mercyhurst		22- 7-4	45	8
9	North Dakota		19-11-4	33	9
10	Robert Morris		24- 7-3	23	10
Others receiving votes: Boston University 3, Northeastern 2, Minnesota-Duluth 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings

Rank	Team	        PWR	W-L-T	Win %	Win %   RPI	RPI Rank
                                                Rank	
1	Minnesota	16	34-1-1	.9583	1	.6738*	1
2	Wisconsin	15	27-6-2	.8000	4	.6049*	2
3	Clarkson	14	27-4-5	.8194	2	.6019*	3
4	Cornell	        13	22-5-4	.7742	6	.5966*	4
5	Boston College	12	26-5-3	.8088	3	.5928*	5
6	Harvard	        11	23-5-4	.7812	5	.5889*	6
7	Robert Morris	10	24-7-3	.7500	7	.5638*	8
8	Mercyhurst	9	22-7-4	.7273	9	.5626*	9
9	Quinnipiac	8	22-5-9	.7361	8	.5661*	7
10	North Dakota	7	19-11-4	.6176	12	.5516	10
11t	Boston Univ	5	22-12-1	.6429	10	.5381	11
11t	Northeastern	5	19-13-2	.5882	14	.5225	12
13t	Minnesota-Duluth4	15-14-6	.5143	18	.5196	13
13t	Syracuse	4	20-13-3	.5972	13	.5176	14
15	Ohio State	2	15-17-5	.4730	19	.5027	16
16	Princeton	1	14-13-4	.5161	17	.5113	15
17	Vermont	        0	18-13-4	.5714	15	.5027	17

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

So who are the better prognosticators?

Coaches’ preseason poll
                         Ended
1. Yale       (4) - 103  6
2. Rensselaer (2) - 102  7
3. Quinnipiac (2) - 93   3
    Union     (2) - 93   1
5. Cornell    (1) - 89   4
6. Harvard        - 67  11
7. Dartmouth  (1) - 64  10
8. Brown          - 46   9
9. Colgate        - 44   2
10. St. Lawrence  - 43   8
11. Princeton     - 26  12
12. Clarkson      - 22   5

ECAC Hockey Media Association's 2013-14 preseason poll
                          Ended
1. Rensselaer (18) - 367  7
2. Yale        (5) - 224  6
3. Quinnipiac  (6) - 292  3
4. Union       (3) - 287  1
5. Cornell     (1) - 238  4
   Dartmouth       - 238 10
7. St. Lawrence    - 212  8
8. Brown           - 188  9
9. Colgate         - 125  2
10.Harvard         - 108 11
11.Princeton       - 102 12
12.Clarkson        -  83  5

                             Preseason
Final Season 	        Pts Coaches Media	
1 	Union 	        37      4   4 
2 	Colgate 	29      9   9
3 	Quinnipiac 	28      3   3
4 	Cornell 	26      5   5
5 	Clarkson 	24     12  12
	Yale 	        24      1   2
7 	Rensselaer 	21      2   1	
8 	St. Lawrence 	18     10   7
9 	Brown 	        17      8   8
10 	Dartmouth 	16      7   6	
	Harvard 	16      6  10	
12 	Princeton 	8      11  11

Whichever coach picked Dartmouth to finish first is clearly the worst prognosticator.

Jim Hyla
So who are the better prognosticators?

Coaches’ preseason poll
                         Ended
1. Yale       (4) - 103  6
2. Rensselaer (2) - 102  7
3. Quinnipiac (2) - 93   3
    Union     (2) - 93   1
5. Cornell    (1) - 89   4
6. Harvard        - 67  11
7. Dartmouth  (1) - 64  10
8. Brown          - 46   9
9. Colgate        - 44   2
10. St. Lawrence  - 43   8
11. Princeton     - 26  12
12. Clarkson      - 22   5

ECAC Hockey Media Association's 2013-14 preseason poll
                          Ended
1. Rensselaer (18) - 367  7
2. Yale        (5) - 224  6
3. Quinnipiac  (6) - 292  3
4. Union       (3) - 287  1
5. Cornell     (1) - 238  4
   Dartmouth       - 238 10
7. St. Lawrence    - 212  8
8. Brown           - 188  9
9. Colgate         - 125  2
10.Harvard         - 108 11
11.Princeton       - 102 12
12.Clarkson        -  83  5

                             Preseason
Final Season 	        Pts Coaches Media	
1 	Union 	        37      4   4 
2 	Colgate 	29      9   9
3 	Quinnipiac 	28      3   3
4 	Cornell 	26      5   5
5 	Clarkson 	24     12  12
	Yale 	        24      1   2
7 	Rensselaer 	21      2   1	
8 	St. Lawrence 	18     10   7
9 	Brown 	        17      8   8
10 	Dartmouth 	16      7   6	
	Harvard 	16      6  10	
12 	Princeton 	8      11  11

Well, who is? Eyeball test says the media by a hair, but neither did great, and I can't so a sum of squares in my head.

French Rage

Jim Hyla
So who are the better prognosticators?

Coaches’ preseason poll
                         Ended
1. Yale       (4) - 103  6
2. Rensselaer (2) - 102  7
3. Quinnipiac (2) - 93   3
    Union     (2) - 93   1
5. Cornell    (1) - 89   4
6. Harvard        - 67  11
7. Dartmouth  (1) - 64  10
8. Brown          - 46   9
9. Colgate        - 44   2
10. St. Lawrence  - 43   8
11. Princeton     - 26  12
12. Clarkson      - 22   5

ECAC Hockey Media Association's 2013-14 preseason poll
                          Ended
1. Rensselaer (18) - 367  7
2. Yale        (5) - 224  6
3. Quinnipiac  (6) - 292  3
4. Union       (3) - 287  1
5. Cornell     (1) - 238  4
   Dartmouth       - 238 10
7. St. Lawrence    - 212  8
8. Brown           - 188  9
9. Colgate         - 125  2
10.Harvard         - 108 11
11.Princeton       - 102 12
12.Clarkson        -  83  5

                             Preseason
Final Season 	        Pts Coaches Media	
1 	Union 	        37      4   4 
2 	Colgate 	29      9   9
3 	Quinnipiac 	28      3   3
4 	Cornell 	26      5   5
5 	Clarkson 	24     12  12
	Yale 	        24      1   2
7 	Rensselaer 	21      2   1	
8 	St. Lawrence 	18     10   7
9 	Brown 	        17      8   8
10 	Dartmouth 	16      7   6	
	Harvard 	16      6  10	
12 	Princeton 	8      11  11

Well, who is? Eyeball test says the media by a hair, but neither did great, and I can't so a sum of squares in my head.

I'd say the coaches did worst, mainly because of Harvard. Year after year, they keep picking Harvard in the top half, and except in 2011-12 (I actually think they didn't pick them top half) they have been disappointing since losing that first round series to Brown in 2009.

gatefan

French Rage

Jim Hyla
So who are the better prognosticators?

Coaches’ preseason poll
                         Ended
1. Yale       (4) - 103  6
2. Rensselaer (2) - 102  7
3. Quinnipiac (2) - 93   3
    Union     (2) - 93   1
5. Cornell    (1) - 89   4
6. Harvard        - 67  11
7. Dartmouth  (1) - 64  10
8. Brown          - 46   9
9. Colgate        - 44   2
10. St. Lawrence  - 43   8
11. Princeton     - 26  12
12. Clarkson      - 22   5

ECAC Hockey Media Association's 2013-14 preseason poll
                          Ended
1. Rensselaer (18) - 367  7
2. Yale        (5) - 224  6
3. Quinnipiac  (6) - 292  3
4. Union       (3) - 287  1
5. Cornell     (1) - 238  4
   Dartmouth       - 238 10
7. St. Lawrence    - 212  8
8. Brown           - 188  9
9. Colgate         - 125  2
10.Harvard         - 108 11
11.Princeton       - 102 12
12.Clarkson        -  83  5

                             Preseason
Final Season 	        Pts Coaches Media	
1 	Union 	        37      4   4 
2 	Colgate 	29      9   9
3 	Quinnipiac 	28      3   3
4 	Cornell 	26      5   5
5 	Clarkson 	24     12  12
	Yale 	        24      1   2
7 	Rensselaer 	21      2   1	
8 	St. Lawrence 	18     10   7
9 	Brown 	        17      8   8
10 	Dartmouth 	16      7   6	
	Harvard 	16      6  10	
12 	Princeton 	8      11  11

Well, who is? Eyeball test says the media by a hair, but neither did great, and I can't so a sum of squares in my head.

I'd say the coaches did worst, mainly because of Harvard. Year after year, they keep picking Harvard in the top half, and except in 2011-12 (I actually think they didn't pick them top half) they have been disappointing since losing that first round series to Brown in 2009.

They are trying to fool the AD at Harvard into thinking that Teddy is worth keeping on the Cantab's payroll.

French Rage
Well, who is? Eyeball test says the media by a hair, but neither did great, and I can't so a sum of squares in my head.

I can't either, but I'll tell you this -- it aint TBRW. It picked Colgate 12th. Nothing like a 100 cell value (greater than many entire league runs) to ruin your prediction.

Media wins by a smidge.

		Coach	Media	TBRW		Coach	Media	TBRW
1	Uni	4	4	3		3	3	2
2	Col	9	9	12		7	7	10
3	Qpc	3	3	2		0	0	-1
4	Cor	5	5	5		1	1	1
5	Clk	12	12	10		7	7	5
6	Yal	1	2	7		-5	-4	1
7	RPI	2	1	1		-5	-6	-6
8	SLU	10	7	4		2	-1	-4
9	Brn	8	8	6		-1	-1	-3
10	Drt	7	6	8		-3	-4	-2
11	Hvd	6	10	9		-5	-1	-2
12	Prn	11	11	11		-1	-1	-1
						198	180	202

Trotsky

French Rage
Well, who is? Eyeball test says the media by a hair, but neither did great, and I can't so a sum of squares in my head.

I can't either, but I'll tell you this -- it aint TBRW. It picked Colgate 12th. Nothing like a 100 cell value (greater than many entire league runs) to ruin your prediction.

Media wins by a smidge.

		Coach	Media	TBRW		Coach	Media	TBRW
1	Uni	4	4	3		3	3	2
2	Col	9	9	12		7	7	10
3	Qpc	3	3	2		0	0	-1
4	Cor	5	5	5		1	1	1
5	Clk	12	12	10		7	7	5
6	Yal	1	2	7		-5	-4	1
7	RPI	2	1	1		-5	-6	-6
8	SLU	10	7	4		2	-1	-4
9	Brn	8	8	6		-1	-1	-3
10	Drt	7	6	8		-3	-4	-2
11	Hvd	6	10	9		-5	-1	-2
12	Prn	11	11	11		-1	-1	-1
						198	180	202

You do get points for picking Clarkson tenth rather than twelfth.

marty
You do get points for picking Clarkson tenth rather than twelfth.

This year's good prediction was that Yale would regress, which was projected from Yale's 2013 ECAC upset loss and second half drop, and the loss of their goaltending and a substantial amount of their offense.

Then again, the other team that was supposed to crater by those metrics was... Colgate. Oh well.

The teams possibly in trouble in 2014-15 based on loss of senior scoring will be: Clarkson (losing 4 of their top 5 scorers), Princeton (4/6 including Caloff), Quinnipiac (3/5: the Jones brothers and Samuels-Thomas), St. Lawrence (3/5 including Greg Carey's 181 career points), Union (3/5 including Carr and Bodie), and Yale again (3/4, including Root and Agostino).

Far and away the greatest impact from loss in goal will be us. Brown (DeFilippo), Harvard (Girard), and St. Lawrence (Weninger) all either have credible backups or are losing unimpressive incumbents.

Trotsky

marty
You do get points for picking Clarkson tenth rather than twelfth.

This year's good prediction was that Yale would regress, which was projected from Yale's 2013 ECAC upset loss and second half drop, and the loss of their goaltending and a substantial amount of their offense.

Then again, the other team that was supposed to crater by those metrics was... Colgate. Oh well.

The teams possibly in trouble in 2014-15 based on loss of senior scoring will be: Clarkson (losing 4 of their top 5 scorers), Princeton (4/6 including Caloff), Quinnipiac (3/5: the Jones brothers and Samuels-Thomas), St. Lawrence (3/5 including Greg Carey's 181 career points), Union (3/5 including Carr and Bodie), and Yale again (3/4, including Root and Agostino).

Far and away the greatest impact from loss in goal will be us. Brown (DeFilippo), Harvard (Girard), and St. Lawrence (Weninger) all either have credible backups or are losing unimpressive incumbents.

What a surprise, possibly?

Trotsky

marty
You do get points for picking Clarkson tenth rather than twelfth.

This year's good prediction was that Yale would regress, which was projected from Yale's 2013 ECAC upset loss and second half drop, and the loss of their goaltending and a substantial amount of their offense.

Then again, the other team that was supposed to crater by those metrics was... Colgate. Oh well.

The teams possibly in trouble in 2014-15 based on loss of senior scoring will be: Clarkson (losing 4 of their top 5 scorers), Princeton (4/6 including Caloff), Quinnipiac (3/5: the Jones brothers and Samuels-Thomas), St. Lawrence (3/5 including Greg Carey's 181 career points), Union (3/5 including Carr and Bodie), and Yale again (3/4, including Root and Agostino).

Far and away the greatest impact from loss in goal will be us. Brown (DeFilippo), Harvard (Girard), and St. Lawrence (Weninger) all either have credible backups or are losing unimpressive incumbents.

I can't wait for the follow-up thread, "Not-Andy Iles by the numbers".

Jim Hyla
What a surprise, possibly?

Possibly in the sense of if other teams lose more to defections then those teams may not wind up looking too bad.

Edit: oh, I get it, Princeton. Yeah, that could be a serious train wreck, but then again Cornell did pretty well in 1988.

Kyle Rose
I can't wait for the follow-up thread, "Not-Andy Iles by the numbers".

Or "Iles is not an answer."

Trotsky

marty
You do get points for picking Clarkson tenth rather than twelfth.

This year's good prediction was that Yale would regress, which was projected from Yale's 2013 ECAC upset loss and second half drop, and the loss of their goaltending and a substantial amount of their offense.

Then again, the other team that was supposed to crater by those metrics was... Colgate. Oh well.

The teams possibly in trouble in 2014-15 based on loss of senior scoring will be: Clarkson (losing 4 of their top 5 scorers), Princeton (4/6 including Caloff), Quinnipiac (3/5: the Jones brothers and Samuels-Thomas), St. Lawrence (3/5 including Greg Carey's 181 career points), Union (3/5 including Carr and Bodie), and Yale again (3/4, including Root and Agostino).

Far and away the greatest impact from loss in goal will be us. Brown (DeFilippo), Harvard (Girard), and St. Lawrence (Weninger) all either have credible backups or are losing unimpressive incumbents.

Is it too early to start a "Gillam is not the answer" thread?

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
I can't wait for the follow-up thread, "Not-Andy Iles by the numbers".

Or "Iles is not an answer."

I'd hope to see "Not-Iles is the answer."

Swampy
Is it too early to start a "Gillam is not the answer" thread?

The accepted practice is:

1. Wait for X to lose a game*.

2. Judiciously conclude X is not the answer, we are doomed, Schafer must go, and anyone who thinks differently is a Pollyanna to be reviled or pitied.

* note this can occur after any number of wins

Trotsky

Swampy
Is it too early to start a "Gillam is not the answer" thread?

The accepted practice is:

1. Wait for X to lose a game*.

2. Judiciously conclude X is not the answer, we are doomed, Schafer must go, and anyone who thinks differently is a Pollyanna to be reviled or pitied.

* note this can occur after any number of wins

You left out step 3: transfer to RPI. (or is that step 0?)

Robb
You left out step 3: transfer to RPI. (or is that step 0?)

One does not "transfer" to RPI. One is "designated for assignment."

Swampy
Is it too early to start a "Gillam is not the answer" thread?

Wow, tough crowd. After all, he does lead the team in goals scored per game played.

Give My Regards

Swampy
Is it too early to start a "Gillam is not the answer" thread?

Wow, tough crowd. After all, he does lead the team in goals scored per game played.

whatevs. his goal scoring streak is already over

Trotsky

marty
You do get points for picking Clarkson tenth rather than twelfth.

This year's good prediction was that Yale would regress, which was projected from Yale's 2013 ECAC upset loss and second half drop, and the loss of their goaltending and a substantial amount of their offense.

Then again, the other team that was supposed to crater by those metrics was... Colgate. Oh well.

The teams possibly in trouble in 2014-15 based on loss of senior scoring will be: Clarkson (losing 4 of their top 5 scorers), Princeton (4/6 including Caloff), Quinnipiac (3/5: the Jones brothers and Samuels-Thomas), St. Lawrence (3/5 including Greg Carey's 181 career points), Union (3/5 including Carr and Bodie), and Yale again (3/4, including Root and Agostino).

Far and away the greatest impact from loss in goal will be us. Brown (DeFilippo), Harvard (Girard), and St. Lawrence (Weninger) all either have credible backups or are losing unimpressive incumbents.

Looking at that, we (Colgate) should be in good shape entering next year, losing our No. 1A goalie (Mihalik may be back-up but we owe him 3 playoff series wins) and a fourth-liner. Then again, we also thought we were in good shape entering 2010-11 and only started playing like the team we were supposed to be all year in the postseason.

So, probably the last week to post the polls.
They are even less significant this time of year and reasonably match the PWR.

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
March 10, 2014
	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(29)	24- 4-6	978	1
2	Boston College	(19)	25- 5-4	965	2
3	Union	        ( 1)	24- 6-4	899	3
4	St. Cloud State	( 1)	21- 8-5	841	4
5	Wisconsin		21- 9-2	788	5
6	Ferris State		25- 9-3	719	7
6	Quinnipiac		22- 8-6	719	6
8	Massachusetts-Lowell	21- 9-4	669	8
9	Providence		19- 9-6	569	10
10	North Dakota		20-11-3	554	9
11	Notre Dame		21-12-2	481	11
12	Cornell		        15- 8-5	428	13
13	Michigan		17-11-4	365	12
14	Northeastern		18-12-4	348	14
15	Vermont		        19-12-3	318	15
16	Yale		        17- 9-5	254	16
17	Colgate		        17-12-5	213	18
18	Minnesota State		22-13-1	205	17
19	Maine		        16-13-4	68	20
20	Minnesota-Duluth	16-14-4	62	19
Others receiving votes: New Hampshire 18, Clarkson 8, Western Michigan 8, 
Ohio State 7, Denver 6, Nebraska-Omaha 5, Air Force 4, Alaska 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA
Rank 	School 	                Last Week
1. 	Minnesota,      506 (30)1
2. 	Boston College, 480 (4) 2
3. 	Union,          439 	3
4. 	St. Cloud State,401 	4
5. 	Wisconsin,      371 	5
6. 	Ferris State,   324 	7
7. 	Quinnipiac,     319 	6
8. 	UMass Lowell,   268 	8
9. 	North Dakota,   219 	9
10. 	Providence,     199 	10
11. 	Notre Dame,     161 	12
12. 	Cornell,        133 	13
13. 	Michigan,        86 	11
14. 	Northeastern, 67 	14
15. 	Vermont, 47 	RV

Others receiving votes: Yale, 25; Colgate, 22; Minnesota State, 13.

PWR
Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	Minnesota 	58 	.6011 	1 	.0080 	24-4-6 	.7941 	.7893
2 	Boston College 	57 	.6007 	2 	.0083 	25-5-4 	.7941 	.8047
3 	Union 	        55 	.5809 	3 	.0048 	24-6-4 	.7647 	.7688
4 	Wisconsin 	55 	.5643 	4 	.0042 	21-9-2 	.6875 	.6831
5 	St. Cloud State 54 	.5634 	5 	.0047 	21-8-5 	.6912 	.6836
6 	Ferris State 	53 	.5626 	6 	.0006 	25-9-3 	.7162 	.7371
7 	Quinnipiac 	52 	.5548 	7 	.0045 	22-8-6 	.6944 	.6903
8 	Mass.-Lowell 	51 	.5537 	8 	.0041 	21-9-4 	.6765 	.6766
9 	Notre Dame 	50 	.5482 	9 	.0057 	21-12-2 .6286 	.6074
10 	North Dakota 	49 	.5465 	10 	.0026 	20-11-3 .6324 	.6228
11 	Providence 	47 	.5463 	11 	.0043 	19-9-6 	.6471 	.6404
12 	Vermont 	47 	.5418 	12 	.0026 	19-12-3 .6029 	.5930
13 	Cornell 	45 	.5412 	13 	.0024 	15-8-5 	.6250 	.6259
14 	Michigan 	44 	.5404 	14 	.0035 	17-11-4 .5938 	.6013
15 	Northeastern 	44 	.5393 	15 	.0065 	18-12-4 .5882 	.5901
16 	Colgate 	43 	.5356 	17 	.0077 	17-12-5 .5735 	.5632

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
March 10, 2014
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	36- 1-1	150	1
2	Cornell		        24- 5-4	126	5
3	Wisconsin		27- 7-2	118	2
4	Clarkson		28- 5-5	112	3
5	Boston College		27- 6-3	87	4
6	Harvard		        23- 6-4	76	6
7	Mercyhurst		23- 8-4	49	8
8	North Dakota		20-12-4	45	9
9	Boston University	24-12-1	29	NR
10	Quinnipiac		22- 6-9	23	7
Others receiving votes: Robert Morris 8, Minnesota-Duluth 1, Rochester Institute of Technology 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings

Rank	Team	        PWR	W-L-T	Win %	Win %    RPI   RPI Rank
                                                Rank	
1	Minnesota	16	36-1-1	.9605	1	.6794*	1
2	Cornell  	15	24-5-4	.7879	4	.6046*	2
3	Clarkson	14	28-5-5	.8026	2	.5999*	3
4	Wisconsin	13	27-7-2	.7778	5	.5980*	4
5	Harvard	        12	23-6-4	.7576	6	.5832*	6
6	Boston College	11	27-6-3	.7917	3	.5886*	5
7	Mercyhurst	10	23-8-4	.7143	9	.5593*	8
8	Quinnipiac	9	22-6-9	.7162	8	.5609*	7
9	Robert Morris	8	24-8-3	.7286	7	.5568	9
10	North Dakota	7	20-12-4	.6111	12	.5529	10
11	Boston Univer	6	24-12-1	.6622	10	.5458	11

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Wisconsin-Clarkson, Harvard-BC, and Quinny-Nodak, all flipped in the the Women's poll relative to the PWR. Sure looks like an anti-ECAC bias to me.

Jeff Hopkins '82
Wisconsin-Clarkson, Harvard-BC, and Quinny-Nodak, all flipped in the the Women's poll relative to the PWR. Sure looks like an anti-ECAC bias to me.

Since 2005, the champship has been won by a western team every year; the runners-up have been other western teams four times, BU twice, Mercyhurst once, Cornell once. I suppose I can understand the bias on that basis.

Josh '99

Jeff Hopkins '82
Wisconsin-Clarkson, Harvard-BC, and Quinny-Nodak, all flipped in the the Women's poll relative to the PWR. Sure looks like an anti-ECAC bias to me.

Since 2005, the champship has been won by a western team every year; the runners-up have been other western teams four times, BU twice, Mercyhurst once, Cornell once. I suppose I can understand the bias on that basis.

Yeah. I think the west has earned it here. In the 13 year history of the event, which has never been won by an eastern school, the ECAC has had the runner up six times, WCHA four times, HEA twice, CHA once.

Also of note, the Frozen Four has never been on an ECAC campus before this year and won't be again until at least 2019. (Minneapolis in '15, Durham in '16, St. Charles, MO(?) in '17, and Minneapolis again (for the sixth time) in '18.

Chris '03
St. Charles, MO(?) in '17

This may seem like a bizarre choice (and, well, it is) but St. Charles is one of the most interesting towns in the country. It's a very strange place -- sort of if Savannah and Reno had a baby in Kansas.

Also the birthplace of Santino from Project Runway, which once you go there makes perfect sense.

Josh '99

Jeff Hopkins '82
Wisconsin-Clarkson, Harvard-BC, and Quinny-Nodak, all flipped in the the Women's poll relative to the PWR. Sure looks like an anti-ECAC bias to me.

Since 2005, the champship has been won by a western team every year; the runners-up have been other western teams four times, BU twice, Mercyhurst once, Cornell once. I suppose I can understand the bias on that basis.

Understand, yes. Accept gracefully? Never!

We drop one slot to 13. Union moves up to 2 for the first time in their history.

02 Uni
05 Qpc
13 Cor
14 Col
20 Yal
26 Clk

Cornell slides to #16 in USCHO.

Union is #1 for the first time in school history.

01 Uni
07 Qpc
12 Col
16 Cor
21 Yal