RIT

Question maybe someone could answer.
I was looking at RIT's schedule this year.
They have 3 games this year against D3 schools that are listed as NC games.
These games arent going to count toward their RPI and their overall ranking are they?
This of course will effect Cornell, because it will effect our strength of schedule and strength of opponents schedule.
Thoughts?

Only D1 games count in the tournament calculations.

It would be impossible to count them in RPI, etc. You'd have to use the other team's record, their opponent's record, and their opponent's opponent's record. The latter two are the Strength of Schedule and consist of (nearly) entirely D-III teams. So you'd be giving them a SOS that's totally irrevelent to D-I.

In fact, they may be some of the better D-III schools, so they may get a high SOS, helping out RIT and in turn Cornell . Funny, but still totally irrevelant

Well i just pointed this out because USCHO lists those SUNY games as non-conference games, as opposed to exhibition. (or something else)

Well, they are non-conference games. The fact that they do not count for NCAA tournament consideration does not make them exhibitions. They still count toward RIT's 34 game limit the same way any other game against an NCAA team does.

Wow....welcome to D1.

something else of note, on USCHO they were saying that games against RIT do not count towards pwr/rpi.
is this true?

That is not true. If RIT had scheduled fewer than 20 games against Division I teams, then the games against RIT would not have counted in the RPI and PWR. But, RIT has scheduled well over minimum of 20 games needed for it to be eligible for the NCAA Tournament. Because RIT is eligible, the games against it count in the ratings used for the NCAA Tournament selection criteria.

Despite being outshot 68!! to 15, RIT held on to beat SLU 3-2 last night. That has to be frustrating for the SLU players. Over on USCHO they were saying that T.J. Trevelyan had somewhere around 17 shots by himself, and still couldn't solve the RIT netminder, Guimond. Hopefully he doesn't play like that come January (Guimond that is...I'd be fine with Trevelyan having 17 shots with no goals)...

[Q]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:

Despite being outshot 68!! to 15, RIT held on to beat SLU 3-2 last night. That has to be frustrating for the SLU players. Over on USCHO they were saying that T.J. Trevelyan had somewhere around 17 shots by himself, and still couldn't solve the RIT netminder, Guimond. Hopefully he doesn't play like that come January (Guimond that is...I'd be fine with Trevelyan having 17 shots with no goals)...[/q]

Those stats are hard to believe...it'll be interesting to see how Guimond responds tonight (if he gets the start). Count me among the few who continue to believe RIT will surprise people this year, and not just SLU, and that's largely because of Guimond. He'll keep them in a lot of games and they'll end up stealing a few, like last night's. Before RIT, he was 2nd team BCHL at Williams Lake.

They kind of have to count, or else why would anyone schedule games against RIT? Now it may be that RIT is tournament ineligible this year. I think there at least used to be a probationary period for new programs, but I don't know.

I would expect that RIT which is already being outplayed pretty badly at times, will be run down by that time of the year.. any goalie getting that much play would have a hard time keeping it up for a full year..

[Q]upprdeck Wrote:

I would expect that RIT which is already being outplayed pretty badly at times, will be run down by that time of the year.. any goalie getting that much play would have a hard time keeping it up for a full year.. [/q]
Don't they say after four hours you should call your doctor?

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

They kind of have to count, or else why would anyone schedule games against RIT? Now it may be that RIT is tournament ineligible this year. I think there at least used to be a probationary period for new programs, but I don't know.[/q]

There was a year when Niagara was on probation and games against them didn't count.