Home or Away for the Playoffs?

OK, first of all, let me just say that I'd love to see the Red sweep this weekend's games, get the first round bye, annihilate their second round opponent at home, and go on to take the ECAC title in Albany. And then...

But this isn't 2003. This has been one strange, up-and-down season, that's sure to have yet a few more twists before it ends.

So, as I sit here playing with all the possibilities that could come out of the last RS weekend (and I probably don't have half of them, considering the tie breaks that may yet have to be determined), I got to thinking that it would be interesting to get people's takes on what the respective advantages and disadvantages would be of finishing in the top 4, versus finishing 5th (I don't think we can finish any lower), and having to play in the first round, then being on the road for the second round.

Anyway, looking at the home vs. road records this year, one might initially pick being on the road as being favorable. Interestingly, how we do this weekend will not only determine where we are, it will reinforce where we may want to be. If we win 2, we have a 4-game home winning streak. Not a bad way to enter the playoffs. On the other hand, if we lose, our home record becomes that much worse than on the road, so obviously, we'd want to travel (sorry, home crowd, but the idea is to get to Albany). A split? Who knows?

If we get 5th, we probably host Vermont or Princeton in round 1. I can't see us losing to either. Is it better to play a relatively easy opponent and stay game-ready, or get the bye, stay rested and let some aches and pains go away?

Getting 5th and moving on to round 2, we'd visit number 4. There's a good chance that's either RPI or Dartmouth. We beat them both on the road. But if we got 4th and either of them got 5th, they'd come to play us at Lynah, where (gasp!), they both won this year.

I know there are lots of other possibilties, but I'm a terrible typist, so I'll let the rest of you guys expound on them and debate their relative merits. I'm curious to hear what people have to say.

Let's Go Red!!!

I think it's in the team's best interests to get a first-round bye, for no other reason than it will give the players an extra week to get healthy and be at full strength for whoever we end up playing the following week. I can't believe Schafer isn't thinking the same thing right now.

I agree completely. An extra week to get healthy is just what this team needs.

JH

In addition to a first round bye helping injuries to heal, it would be beneficial to the team to have some momentum going into the playoffs. Worst case is we play terribly this weekend and go into a first round of playoffs with 3 straight losses, or we win a pair and have some confidence to build on in with 2 weeks of rest/practice before we play.

Regardless of whether you think we would certainly beat Vermont or Princeton (and I agree we probably would) it's always better to have to win fewer games. It's not inconceivable for an upset in the ECAC.

The extra week off could be a detriment in some cases but I think this year it would be nothing but an advantage.

I think people are making too much of the home/road split this year. It may be somewhat true that the team was pressing a bit at home and therefore not playing as well in Lynah (Vesce said something like this after a home loss earlier in the season). But probably the disparity between home and away records (4-5-5 vs. 7-3-1) has a lot to do with random chance. I do NOT think that we would have a better chance of beating RPI or Dartmouth on the road, regardless of the fact that we happened to lose against them at Lynah and win on the road.

Lest there be any confusion, I'm in the camp of getting the first round bye. I don't think there's any tougher place for an opponent to visit than Lynah*. So, let's kick some SLU and Clarkson butts and get a well-deserved week off.


* One could argue that when we used to play BU in the old Boston Garden in the ECAC and NCAA playoffs with 13,000 maniacal fans screaming, "Go BU!", it may have actually been more hostile. Of course, that experience did have the distinction of adding "Screw BU" to our repertoire. Still, we'd have preferred another championship over the cheer.

The poor home league record is an artifact of our injuries coinciding with a string of home games, and (hopefully) with us not yet having the sub-.500 North Country teams at home.

Not counting the North Country opponents, our league record is:

4-3-2 Home (10 points)
6-3-0 Road (12 points)

If we sweep we will finish just 1 point shy of having the same record home and away in league games.

Our road record is actually 7-3-1 for 15 points.

You're right that our home record is skewed by the injuries not to mention the early season struggles in non-conference games.

I would much rather see us get the bye and only need to win at home to get to Albany. How long has it been since we have lost a playoff series at home?

Steve Marciniec '85 wrote:

How long has it been since we have lost a playoff series at home?

The end of the '98-'99 season, against Princeton in the season following their so-called "Cinderella" season, when our overall record was a meager 12-15-4 (9-10-3 ECAC).



Post Edited (02-26-04 10:32)

[q]Our road record is actually 7-3-1 for 15 points.[/q]
I was comparing record against common opponents and thus dropped the 1-0-1 in the North Country.


[q]How long has it been since we have lost a playoff series at home?[/q]
The last time we lost a playoff series at home was 1988, when we lost to Clarkson in the minigame. We lost the Princeton series in 1999 at Princeton.

Record of playoff series here: [members.cox.net]

Record of playoff games here: [members.cox.net]



Post Edited (02-26-04 10:45)

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

[q]How long has it been since we have lost a playoff series at home?[/q]
The last time we lost a playoff series at home was 1988, when we lost to Clarkson in the minigame. We lost the Princeton series in 1999 at Princeton.

Whoops, you're right. Guess I tend to ignore those pesky "@"s in the USCHO archives.

One of the guys who got revenge on Volonnino wrote:

Steve Marciniec '85 wrote:

How long has it been since we have lost a playoff series at home?

The end of the '98-'99 season, against Princeton in the season following their so-called "Cinderella" season, when our overall record was a meager 12-15-4 (9-10-3 ECAC).

Actually, we haven't lost in the playoffs at Lynah since 1988 against Clarkson, when the Big Red wound up having to play that god-awful mini-game, during which they had that god-awful line change resulting in a long uncontested pass from one Tretowicz brother to the other to set up that damn goal that I can STILL SEE IN MY DREAMS -- Prozac kicks in, ah, that's better.

Anyway, '88 and '78 are the only two times Cornell has lost in the playoffs at home.

Geez, two posts while I was writing -- I'm getting slow in my old age...



Post Edited (02-26-04 10:49)

OK, looks like the bye and home ice is the definitive winner, not that I ever really doubted it would be the choice. But it's always fun to play devil's advocate and see if there are any dissenting opinions. And I never could have posed this question last year, could I?

Personally, I think the guys will pull out all the stops in front of a raucous home crowd and pave the way to Albany. I envy those of you who will be there to see the games. But we're planning to be there at Pepsi Arena to watch them take the title.

The fewer games you have to win in order to achieve something, the better. The only advantage I could possibly see to playing an additional two or three games next weekend would be to give Mike additional time to sort out his lines--which right now seem to be in a bit of a jumble--before the key games in Albany. On the whole, however, no thanks.

I was thinking this same sort of thing about a month ago. But that was when when had just gone through the horrible stretch at home of 1-3-1 and away seemed better. But then we had the 4 point home weekend and the 5 game winning streak. Now I think we'd be better off with a bye and the home playoff.

I don't know if anyone has looked at the tiebreakers and all the scenarios, but what would need to happen this weekend for us to get a first round bye, and a second round series at home against Harvard(sucks). Would anyone feel more comfortable playing them at home, rather than RPI or Dartmouth, who beat us at home?

Too many permutations are possible to make your situation possible

But as to your second question, i'd much rather play Sucks than RPI or Dartmouth. The latter two are much better teams, and I'd rather play a weaker opponent.

JH

Yeah, go with Harvard. They're in a season-long meltdown. They have their moments, but Mazzoleni will find a way to make sure they lose when it really counts.

I guess Boston is running dangerously low on jam....

[Q]Yeah, go with Harvard[/Q]


Definitely. And as if Lynah wouldn't already be intense for the playoffs, just imagine....



Post Edited (02-26-04 18:56)

[Q]Definitely. And as if Lynah wouldn't already be intense for the playoffs, just imagine....[/Q]Um, careful what you wish for. As much as they have shown an utter lack of jam this year, the Cantabrigians (sp?) have plenty of talent. I'd much rather find ourselves playing Yale.

Keith K '93 wrote:

[Q]Definitely. And as if Lynah wouldn't already be intense for the playoffs, just imagine....[/Q]Um, careful what you wish for. As much as they have shown an utter lack of jam this year, the Cantabrigians (sp?) have plenty of talent. I'd much rather find ourselves playing Yale.

Yep. And let's not forget they took an ECAC championship away from us two years ago and came within 32 seconds of doing it again last year. As Keith said, "careful what you wish for."

I definitely think we want top 4 and the associated bye. However, finishing 3 or 4 is going to mean a tough series at Lynah. Playing RPI, Dartmouth, or Harvard will be no picnic. (I just don't see Yale finishing in the 6 spot.) If the Red manage to finish 2nd, I expect they'll play Yale, and then I'll be much more confident about the chances of making it to Albany. With all this in mind, do we root for Dartmouth to beat Brown on Friday night? (If Dartmouth loses on Friday then our chances for second go away barring a collapse by Colgate, which seems unlikely.) Or do we just root against Dartmouth and RPI and aim for 3rd place? I'm going to think positive for the Red's results this weekend and therefore root for Dartmouth on Friday and against them on Saturday. If we handle the NC teams and Dartmouth beats Brown and loses to Harvard, I think we're in second.

Sure, if Yale is an option, I pick Yale over Harvard. But of RPI, Dartmouth or Harvard, I pick Harvard.

JH

I could see Vermont making it to the second round. They're a hot team and going to end up in 10th or 11th place, play a team in the 1st round that just missed a bye and will be on a bit of a downswing. Of course, if Colgate hangs onto first they'll get to play the lower seed.

I remember that mini-game in '88 as well. That was the loudest I ever heard Lynah during my four years, but to no avail.

87-90 was a time of close but yet so far and was sandwiched between the NCAA teams of '86 and '91. '87 failed to make the playoffs. '88 lost in mini-game. '89 went to the Garden and lost to SLU in the semis and to Sucks in the Consolation (though I was sitting in the first row and got to taunt Lane MacDonald mercilessly), '90 beat Sucks at Lynah, but lost to RPI in the semis. I went to the Garden again in '91 (girlfriend (now wife) at MIT) only to see us lose again to SLU. My all-time record at the Garden 0-4.

My record at the Everbaldes is a lot better at 3-1.

Jay Fisher '90

Just to be sure, I'm assuming there's no re-seeding of the teams after Round 1. The brackets are fixed, in the sense that the top team, after gettings its bye in the first round, plays the winner of the #8 vs #9 series. They do not play the lowest remaining seed from Round 1, which would be the case if re-seeding took place.

No need to post a response unless I'm wrong.

[Q]I'm assuming there's no re-seeding [/Q]

Actually, there is re-seeding

Avash '05 wrote:

[Q]I'm assuming there's no re-seeding [/Q]

Actually, there is re-seeding

Interesting. Thanks.

That would go counter to what's posted on the USCHO site for the ECAC tourney. They make no mention of re-seeding and show the brackets playing out as I described.

Oh, man, now I'm gonna have to go through a whole new set of mental gymnastics to figure out how this thing could play out.

Yes, the brackets reseed (as they have for decades). So, the RS champ will host the worst seeded survivor of the First Round, and so on.

For the record, here are the First Round upsets since the PIG:

-----10-PIG Format-----------
1998: 8/3, 7/4
1999: 6/5
2000:
2001: 10/1
2002:
-----12-Bye Format-------
2003: 11/6, 10/7



Post Edited (02-27-04 15:17)

Who was the #10 team that upset #1 team in 2001? Forgot.

calgARI '07 wrote:

Who was the #10 team that upset #1 team in 2001? Forgot.

That was Vermont, toppling Clarkson. In recent years, Vermont seems to enjoy upsetting Clarkson.

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

Yes, the brackets reseed (as they have for decades). So, the RS champ will host the worst seeded survivor of the First Round, and so on.

You'll have to excuse an oldtimer. When I was there, I believe only 8 teams made the playoffs, and the quarters were only 1 game. The best-of-three format came in later. Can't remember if any re-seeding was done.

Killer wrote:

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

Yes, the brackets reseed (as they have for decades). So, the RS champ will host the worst seeded survivor of the First Round, and so on.

You'll have to excuse an oldtimer. When I was there, I believe only 8 teams made the playoffs, and the quarters were only 1 game. The best-of-three format came in later. Can't remember if any re-seeding was done.

Take it from another old-timer: re-seeding was done in the days of eight teams and one-blessed-game quarterfinals. But there was a time in the '60s when it was not.



Post Edited (02-27-04 19:16)

Ah yes, reseeding. The end all was 1980 when we won the ECAC as an eighth seed. We beat #1 BC, then #2 Providence, and finally #3 Dartmouth. No one can say we did it the easy way that year.

There is fixed bracket for sure through 1969, and reseeding for sure from 1973. There isn't a way to determine between 1970 and 1972 from the results.


1964:

Quarterfinals
#1 Providence 3, #8 Colgate 2
#7 St. Lawrence 3, #2 Army 2
#6 RPI 3, #3 Boston College 2
#4 Clarkson 6, #5 Harvard

Semifinals
Providence 6, Clarkson 5
St. Lawrence 3, RPI 1


1968:

Quarterfinals
#1 Cornell 6, #8 Princeton 1
#2 Clarkson 7, #7 Brown 3
#6 Boston College 7, #3 St. Lawrence 6 (ot)
#5 Boston University 6, #4 Harvard 3

Semifinals
Cornell 7, Boston University 2
Boston College 6, Clarkson 5 (2 ot)


1969:
Quarterfinals
#1 Cornell 6, #8 St. Lawrence 0
#2 Harvard 4, #7 New Hampshire 3 (ot)
#6 Clarkson 4, #3 Boston College 2
#4 Boston University 4, #5 RPI 2

Semifinals
Cornell 3, Boston University 2 (ot)
Harvard 8, Clarkson 6


However, 1973:

Quarterfinals
#1 Cornell 9, #8 RPI 3
#7 Clarkson 7, #2 Harvard 2
#3 Boston College 4, #6 New Hampshire 2
#5 Pennsylvania 7, #4 Boston University 3

Semifinals
Cornell 9, Clarkson 3
Boston College 5, Pennsylvania 3



Post Edited (02-28-04 00:03)

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

There is fixed bracket for sure through 1969, and reseeding for sure from 1973. There isn't a way to determine between 1970 and 1972 from the results.

OK, I went to the ECAC Hockey site. Quite clearly, they spell out that there is re-seeding after the first and second rounds. My confusion came from looking at the ECAC tournament schedule on the USCHO site. They show fixed brackets with no re-seeding. Of course, until I sent them a note and they fixed it, they also had last year's dates (e.g., March 7-9 for Round 1) posted. I probably should have been suspicious then.

Thanks to those who cleared up the confusion.

[Q]There isn't a way to determine between 1970 and 1972 from the results. [/Q]
However, I can state for sure that there was reseeding in effect in '72. I remember after the game, standing by the radio announcer waiting for the Harvard-Clarkson overtime result as that would determine who we played. We were hoping to avoid having to play Clarkson, who we considered a much tougher opponent than UNH.

Twenty-one league games and positions 1-5 are still possible. Amazing; just like an NBA game (not that they're watched much in NH).

ken stillman wrote:
Twenty-one league games and positions 1-5 are still possible. Amazing; just like an NBA game (not that they're watched much in NH).

It's hard to believe how much is still undecided with only one more RS game to go for everyone.

And it's killing me that I can't see or listen to any games tonight. Thumbnail schmaltzy story: I'm taking my wife to see a singer we heard for the first time on a blind date 4 years ago. Second time we saw her, at the same place about a year later, we got engaged. Hard to pass up a chance to see her when she's nearby. But I do score major points towards a road trip to Albany.

Now, if only there were a call-in number to get updates and results, instead of having to wait for tomorrow's paper... Is there one?

Go Red!!!

You could have someone who's listening to the game or watching the forum call you with a 2-second "[score/period/time]" when anything changes.

But do earn those points for Albany.



Post Edited (02-28-04 14:47)

You can get wireless updates on most cell phones from the collegesports.com website. I believe this is the link:

[www.collegesports.com]

You can sign up there to receive updates if you have a cell phone. They are usually pretty reliable, however, a couple of times this year they have sent the wrong score, showing Cornell losing, when they had actually won the game. The final score usually is sent within an hour of when the game ends.

If you don't have a cell phone, or can't subscribe to the service for whatever reason, you can get scores from the Big Red Hotline 607-255-2385. They are pretty good at updating the scores that night.

Thanks. I'm going there to sign up right now. But I'll keep that Big Red Hotline number handy as well.

Hey, if anyone wants to leave key updates on my voicemail, I'd love it. Send me an e-mail and I'll give you my number.

BTW, I also gave up going to the Harvard-Dartmouth game tonight (to root for Harvard, for perhaps the only time in my life) for this one. Definitely major points for the evening.

I've found that the Yahoo updates are pretty good, too.

Final RS league record:

6-3-2 Home (14 points)
7-3-1 Road (15 points)

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

Final RS league record:

6-3-2 Home (14 points)
7-3-1 Road (15 points)

Yep, and a solid end to the RS, both at home and on the road. Give the boys a week off to get some rest (well, sort of), and get healthy, and we should be one nasty opponent for whomever has the bad luck to come to Lynah.

Let's Go Red!!!

Mike Ack wrote:

You could have someone who's listening to the game or watching the forum call you with a 2-second "[score/period/time]" when anything changes.

But do earn those points for Albany.

Many points were earned tonight, and thanks to Daina, I was kept apprised throughout the game. Heck, my wife even thought it was great that I was getting the scores, so no points lost on that front. But let's face it, the most important points tonight were the 2 earned by the Big Red (too bad the sluts couldn't pick up a couple as well).

[Q]Many points were earned tonight, and thanks to Daina, I was kept apprised throughout the game. Heck, my wife even thought it was great that I was getting the scores, so no points lost on that front. But let's face it, the most important points tonight were the 2 earned by the Big Red (too bad the sluts couldn't pick up a couple as well).[/Q]

2/3 ain't bad.

Glad I could be of help Hope you enjoyed the concert!