What is your definition of a Successful Season

With the season sitting before us what set of conditions would lead you to say, "The team did well, this season was a success." Here is my take:

Women:

Return to the Frozen 4
Beating Harvard twice.


Men:

First round bye in the ECAC Tournament
League Average Penalty Minutes

Men:

4th in RS + Make Lake Placid

or

Score on a penalty shot

Trotsky
Men:

4th in RS + Make Lake Placid

or

Score on a penalty shot

Let's not get too crazy here.

Trotsky
Men:

4th in RS + Make Lake Placid

or

Score on a penalty shot

+1

Actually just making it to LP is good enough for me (this year). And for the women, I agree with Towerroad.

Men: LP

Women: 1 or 2 in ECAC and get into NCAAs.

I think you're asking too much for the women to always make the FF. There are getting to be too many good teams.

Jim Hyla
Men: LP

Women: 1 or 2 in ECAC and get into NCAAs.

I think you're asking too much for the women to always make the FF. There are getting to be too many good teams.

However, it is an Olympic year, so a lot of teams (Minnesota, Duluth, Wisconsin) might be missing their top players. Didn't some of that contribute to our magical run in 2010? Too lazy to look through the archives, but are we losing anyone for the year due to the Olympics?

Rita

Jim Hyla
Men: LP

Women: 1 or 2 in ECAC and get into NCAAs.

I think you're asking too much for the women to always make the FF. There are getting to be too many good teams.

However, it is an Olympic year, so a lot of teams (Minnesota, Duluth, Wisconsin) might be missing their top players. Didn't some of that contribute to our magical run in 2010? Too lazy to look through the archives, but are we losing anyone for the year due to the Olympics?

Brianne Jenner

Jim Hyla
Men: LP

Women: 1 or 2 in ECAC and get into NCAAs.

+1

Weder

Rita

Jim Hyla
Men: LP

Women: 1 or 2 in ECAC and get into NCAAs.

I think you're asking too much for the women to always make the FF. There are getting to be too many good teams.

However, it is an Olympic year, so a lot of teams (Minnesota, Duluth, Wisconsin) might be missing their top players. Didn't some of that contribute to our magical run in 2010? Too lazy to look through the archives, but are we losing anyone for the year due to the Olympics?

Brianne Jenner

The run in 2010 was without Rebecca Johnston, which is a big reason why that was such a wonderful surprise to many of us.

Jenner is a big loss, obviously. I assume that she'll return for her Senior season in '14-'15? Throw in the graduations of defensive stars Fortino and Rougeau, and there's a lot to replace in order to get back to the level of the past few seasons. I'm tempering my expectations, but they have the talent to make the NCAAs.

This article is an outstanding league preview for the Women. All signs point to Clarkson as the team to beat.

Usually, I set the bar at "make the NCAAs" for men's hockey, which I know is a pretty high bar. But I'm not one to kick and scream if we fall under that bar, so whatever.

This year, I think make Lake Placid would suffice. Though I think we'll overachieve, if for no reason other than to balance last year out.

Wouldn't sell our guys short. We return 4 of our 5 leading scorers and our goalie. We have 7 NHL draft picks, plus 3 players from the USNDT. Our freshmen class is 10 strong. We should have plenty of talent and a bad taste from last year. Drop the puck!

CAS
Wouldn't sell our guys short. We return 4 of our 5 leading scorers and our goalie. We have 7 NHL draft picks, plus 3 players from the USNDT. Our freshmen class is 10 strong. We should have plenty of talent and a bad taste from last year. Drop the puck!

You have told us why we are wrong, what is your definition of success this year?

Don't think I said anyone was wrong. A successful season would be top 4 in conference and an NCAA bid.

Men: top 3 finish in ECAC regular season (find a way), make ECAC tourney finals (find a way), NCAA bid

No matter how things shake out, ending on a high note, or at least a possibly high note, is important to me.

Last year hurt, but having that best of three with Q was a good way to go out.

For both teams: top four in the ECAC, making the conference semi-finals and making the NC$$ tourney. For the boys, also include more discipline with respect to committing fewer penalties.

Dafatone
No matter how things shake out, ending on a high note, or at least a possibly high note, is important to me.

Last year hurt, but having that best of three with Q was a good way to go out.

Agreed. 64 seconds from Atlantic City against the eventual NCAA Runner-up was pretty impressive.

Trotsky

Dafatone
No matter how things shake out, ending on a high note, or at least a possibly high note, is important to me.

Last year hurt, but having that best of three with Q was a good way to go out.

Agreed. 64 seconds from Atlantic City against the eventual NCAA Runner-up was pretty impressive.

Except for the part about it being Atlantic City.

A successful season would be:

No serious injuries to any player (mens and womens) and a continued effort by the teams toward community service/out reach efforts.

Josh '99

Trotsky

Dafatone
No matter how things shake out, ending on a high note, or at least a possibly high note, is important to me.

Last year hurt, but having that best of three with Q was a good way to go out.

Agreed. 64 seconds from Atlantic City against the eventual NCAA Runner-up was pretty impressive.

Except for the part about it being Atlantic City.

If there's any year I was going to be okay with them bowing out in the quarterfinals, it was a year with the tournament in Atlantic City, because I didn't have to feel guilty about not going.

This!

Jim Hyla
This!

Agreed - I wish I lived closer and made the trip more often.

Nothing is a successful season at this point unless we win the National Championship, thanks to what Yale did last year. Prior to this year I would have said making the NCAA's is a successful season. I would perhaps settle for making the NCAA's and embarrassing Yale and Q horribly (don't care about Harvard really).

I think the mens would have a successful season if Dustin Mowrey would stop taking so many Penalty! In the 2012-13 season he had 63 penalty minutes in just 30 games! And this year alone he already has 8

Suppose this is as good of a place as any to note that Cornell is the last team in the nation with a 1.000 record - didn't check, but it seems like that happened even earlier than usual this year. Hope we can still say the same tomorrow - Q will certainly be our toughest test yet.

Win at MSG when I'm there watching.

Robb
Suppose this is as good of a place as any to note that Cornell is the last team in the nation with a 1.000 record - didn't check, but it seems like that happened even earlier than usual this year. Hope we can still say the same tomorrow - Q will certainly be our toughest test yet.

Well, you just had to go and say that, didn't you?

Successful season:

1) stop stupid penalties
2) crisper, smoother break-out
3) more energetic and less predictable power-play
4) RULE the front of our goal
5) stop stupid penalties!

Townie
Successful season:

1) stop stupid penalties
2) crisper, smoother break-out
3) more energetic and less predictable power-play
4) RULE the front of our goal
5) stop stupid penalties!

No poofters!

Jeff Hopkins '82

Townie
Successful season:

1) stop stupid penalties
2) crisper, smoother break-out
3) more energetic and less predictable power-play
4) RULE the front of our goal
5) stop stupid penalties!

No poofters!

I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights out.

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Townie
Successful season:

1) stop stupid penalties
2) crisper, smoother break-out
3) more energetic and less predictable power-play
4) RULE the front of our goal
5) stop stupid penalties!

No poofters!

I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights out.

THERE IS NO...rule 6.

Were your expectations met?

Jim Hyla
Men: LP

Women: 1 or 2 in ECAC and get into NCAAs.

I think you're asking too much for the women to always make the FF. There are getting to be too many good teams.

The same. Yes, I expect we all feel the teams could have done better. And yes, I would have liked, and think it would have helped them next year, if the men could have made the NCAAs. But I'm glad they made it back to the ECACs, regardless of where they are. I can hope that the team feels the same way, and work as hard in the off season as they were said to have done this past year.

It will be hard to go to the game tonight, but I'll be pulling for Colgate.

In regards to the women, they had a very successful season, although I think many of us felt they could have gotten to the FF. Since it's in the east, it would have been nice. I think they can do at least as well next year, but it's becoming harder to do that every year.

This was not a successful season for the men.

BearLover
This was not a successful season for the men.

Not trying to troll, but I kind of agree. People should have high standards for things they care about, and for the regulars here, Cornell hockey is one of those things. In this context, 2014 was an OK season.

Successful to me means an NCAA bid and playing well in the tournament (i.e. not barely getting a bid and get steamrolled during the first game). 2009, 2010, 2012 were successful seasons.

ajh258

BearLover
This was not a successful season for the men.

Not trying to troll, but I kind of agree. People should have high standards for things they care about, and for the regulars here, Cornell hockey is one of those things. In this context, 2014 was an OK season.

Successful to me means an NCAA bid and playing well in the tournament (i.e. not barely getting a bid and get steamrolled during the first game). 2009, 2010, 2012 were successful seasons.

For me, it's just getting into the NCAAs. So we came very, very close this year. I remain annoyed at the lack of a consolation game. Just looking at our record, it feels like we shouldn't be done yet. Yeah, our goal differential says we've been getting lucky, but it's a short season. Luck's a part of it.

ajh258

BearLover
This was not a successful season for the men.

Not trying to troll...

Anyone who says anything bad about Cornell is a troll?

20-10-5. Win the ECAC tourney, make it to the NCAAs and pick up a win.

Not a successful season. On the outside looking in at the NCAAs because we couldn't score enough to distance ourselves from the genuinely bad teams we played. Union and Q are better than us, probably Colgate too, but 0-2-2 against Dartmouth and the Hockey East mediocrities are what cost us a spot in the postseason.

Back in the fall I agreed with Jim and both teams met those expectations.

Going into the season, I was hopeful of the men's team doing well but realistically I was very concerned about how the defense would play. Anytime that two freshman and a sophomore are half of the defensive pairings it could be cause for concern. However, I thought they played well. I thought the offense would be better than it was. So the D did better than I thought they would and the O did worse but overall it worked out to meet my expectations.

The women's team, with the losses to graduation and the Olympics, was certainly not going to be the same powerhouse, but overall they did well and played very hard though a lot of injuries resulting in a very short bench at times.

MattS
Back in the fall I agreed with Jim and both teams met those expectations.

Going into the season, I was hopeful of the men's team doing well but realistically I was very concerned about how the defense would play. Anytime that two freshman and a sophomore are half of the defensive pairings it could be cause for concern. However, I thought they played well. I thought the offense would be better than it was. So the D did better than I thought they would and the O did worse but overall it worked out to meet my expectations.

The women's team, with the losses to graduation and the Olympics, was certainly not going to be the same powerhouse, but overall they did well and played very hard though a lot of injuries resulting in a very short bench at times.

Kinda funny how that works. It's "oh yeah, we're Cornell, aren't we?"

Towerroad
With the season sitting before us what set of conditions would lead you to say, "The team did well, this season was a success." Here is my take:

Women:

Return to the Frozen 4
Beating Harvard twice.


Men:

First round bye in the ECAC Tournament
League Average Penalty Minutes

The Women came up a bit short unfortunately. In retrospect, I think I set the bar too high but such is life

The Men met my first criteria but came up a bit short on the penalty minutes. They made progress falling in the Penalty Minutes/Game at #19 vs #1 last year but at 12.69 they are still above the median of 12.31. My expectations for this years team were modest but they came reasonably close to meeting them.

Rita
For both teams: top four in the ECAC, making the conference semi-finals and making the NC$$ tourney. For the boys, also include more discipline with respect to committing fewer penalties.

The women did well, I guess Mercyhurst is our kryponite. The men fell short with not making the NC$$s. I'm not sure about the penalties, but there seemed to be fewer penalties (or ones that made me want to scream) and/or our penalty killing was better (I know I should look this up, but not motivated to do so)

Rita

Rita
For both teams: top four in the ECAC, making the conference semi-finals and making the NC$$ tourney. For the boys, also include more discipline with respect to committing fewer penalties.

The women did well, I guess Mercyhurst is our kryponite. The men fell short with not making the NC$$s. I'm not sure about the penalties, but there seemed to be fewer penalties (or ones that made me want to scream) and/or our penalty killing was better (I know I should look this up, but not motivated to do so)

We were, for the most part, productively chippy, as opposed to the self-destructively chippy that we were the past couple years.

Hard to believe that Iles only tourney appearance was as a sophmore given all the hype coming in. It feels like we've definitely underachieved since the Scrivens-Greening class left.

interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

This was certainly a good season. 17-10-5 is a solid record and finishing 4th in a greatly improved ECAC is nothing to sneeze at. But it's also a disappointing season. For me it's less the actual finish (loss in semis, no bid) and more the number of missed opportunities throughout the year (e.e BU, Dartmouth) that could have resulted in solid tourney position and more hockey.

In the end though, ask yourself whether you enjoyed yourself watching Cornell hockey this season. Even with some of the frustrations it was still fun. So from this fan's perspective it was still somewhat successful. YMMV.

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

Rita

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

I'm actually of the opinion of "screw it. Anyone who we want/need on the team should get in, even if they can't add or subtract." I care more about Cornell Hockey than I do Cornell, honestly, and the way I see it, Cornell as an institution would survive a couple dozen dumb hockey players just fine.

Dafatone

Rita

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

I'm actually of the opinion of "screw it. Anyone who we want/need on the team should get in, even if they can't add or subtract." I care more about Cornell Hockey than I do Cornell, honestly, and the way I see it, Cornell as an institution would survive a couple dozen dumb hockey players just fine.

From what I have heard, that mentality worked during Ned's era, FROM AN ATHLETIC STANDPOINT. I've also been told that, because of this, Ned was not popular with some academic types on campus. Keep in mind, this is second/third hand information from a looong time ago.

Dafatone

Rita

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

I'm actually of the opinion of "screw it. Anyone who we want/need on the team should get in, even if they can't add or subtract." I care more about Cornell Hockey than I do Cornell, honestly, and the way I see it, Cornell as an institution would survive a couple dozen dumb hockey players just fine.

One obvious solution would be for Cornell to leave the Ivy League. Would you go that far? If not then there is no chance of achieving this result.

Towerroad

Dafatone

Rita

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

I'm actually of the opinion of "screw it. Anyone who we want/need on the team should get in, even if they can't add or subtract." I care more about Cornell Hockey than I do Cornell, honestly, and the way I see it, Cornell as an institution would survive a couple dozen dumb hockey players just fine.

One obvious solution would be for Cornell to leave the Ivy League. Would you go that far? If not then there is no chance of achieving this result.

Why not? Do we have to show our admissions results to other schools? If we let in a hockey player with a low SAT score, is someone going to hold us accountable for it?

Dafatone

Towerroad

Dafatone

Rita

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

I'm actually of the opinion of "screw it. Anyone who we want/need on the team should get in, even if they can't add or subtract." I care more about Cornell Hockey than I do Cornell, honestly, and the way I see it, Cornell as an institution would survive a couple dozen dumb hockey players just fine.

One obvious solution would be for Cornell to leave the Ivy League. Would you go that far? If not then there is no chance of achieving this result.

Why not? Do we have to show our admissions results to other schools? If we let in a hockey player with a low SAT score, is someone going to hold us accountable for it?

Really? You follow an Ivy sport and have never heard of the Academic Index? Read up on that - the answer is "yes."

Robb

Dafatone

Towerroad

Dafatone

Rita

KeithK

upprdeck
interesting how high we hold the expectations for the team. as much as we want better players and better results maybe we should be putting some pressure on admissions. no doubt the team would be a bit better of some of the kids they wanted could actually get into the school, if a kid can get in yale/harvard he should be able to get into cornell..

As much as I want the hockey team to be good and I hate seeing good players who want to come to Ithace get rejected I'm still glad that admissions holds athletics to standards. I wouldn't support pressuring admissions to lower standards for guys with great slapshots.

But maybe for guys who are snipers and can find the corners of the net? (and ducking)

I'm actually of the opinion of "screw it. Anyone who we want/need on the team should get in, even if they can't add or subtract." I care more about Cornell Hockey than I do Cornell, honestly, and the way I see it, Cornell as an institution would survive a couple dozen dumb hockey players just fine.

One obvious solution would be for Cornell to leave the Ivy League. Would you go that far? If not then there is no chance of achieving this result.

Why not? Do we have to show our admissions results to other schools? If we let in a hockey player with a low SAT score, is someone going to hold us accountable for it?

Really? You follow an Ivy sport and have never heard of the Academic Index? Read up on that - the answer is "yes."

Cool, thanks.

there are lots of kids getting into cornell with way worse grades than the ones who the hockey team cant get admitted.

Trotsky
Men:

4th in RS + Make Lake Placid

or

Score on a penalty shot

Met.

I expected Lake Placid and wasn't sure whether to expect a bid. Pretty much met my bar.

Looking back on the season, I think the main disappointment for me is that we only beat a team that was "better" than us (based on end-of-season pairwise) once when we beat Q in Connecticut and had a 14.3% winning percentage. On the opposite side, we lost to teams that were "worse" than us 5 times: Clarkson @ Potsdam, BU @ MSG, RPI @ Lynah, Dartmouth @ Lynah, Clarkson @ Lynah. Against these teams, we had a 70% win percentage, which I feel was at least 10% too low.

KGR11
I expected Lake Placid and wasn't sure whether to expect a bid. Pretty much met my bar.

Looking back on the season, I think the main disappointment for me is that we only beat a team that was "better" than us (based on end-of-season pairwise) once when we beat Q in Connecticut and had a 14.3% winning percentage. On the opposite side, we lost to teams that were "worse" than us 5 times: Clarkson @ Potsdam, BU @ MSG, RPI @ Lynah, Dartmouth @ Lynah, Clarkson @ Lynah. Against these teams, we had a 70% win percentage, which I feel was at least 10% too low.

Our two wins against Yale pushed them below us. I count the road win as a second win against a good team.

This is an attempt to get at what you're talking about, within conference. Our records were 1-4-1 .214 against teams ranked higher and 10-3-3 .719 against teams below us. The Dartmouth results really show up as unfortunate. The only times we have finished with 1 or 0 points against a team at least 6 slots behind us in the 12-team era were:

2014 0-1-1 6 Drt
2012 0-1-1 8 RPI
2004 0-1-1 6 Uni
1997 0-1-1 8 Yal
1986 0-1-1 6 Prn

Trotsky

KGR11
I expected Lake Placid and wasn't sure whether to expect a bid. Pretty much met my bar.

Looking back on the season, I think the main disappointment for me is that we only beat a team that was "better" than us (based on end-of-season pairwise) once when we beat Q in Connecticut and had a 14.3% winning percentage. On the opposite side, we lost to teams that were "worse" than us 5 times: Clarkson @ Potsdam, BU @ MSG, RPI @ Lynah, Dartmouth @ Lynah, Clarkson @ Lynah. Against these teams, we had a 70% win percentage, which I feel was at least 10% too low.

Our two wins against Yale pushed them below us. I count the road win as a second win against a good team.

This is an attempt to get at what you're talking about, within conference. Our records were 1-4-1 .214 against teams ranked higher and 10-2-3 .767 against teams below us. The Dartmouth results really show up as unfortunate. The only times we have finished with 1 or 0 points against a team at least 6 slots behind us in the 12-team era were:

2014 0-1-1 6 Drt
2012 0-1-1 8 RPI
2004 0-1-1 6 Uni
1997 0-1-1 8 Yal
1986 0-1-1 6 Prn

The Yale wins definitely felt like good, especially since they were the reigning champs. You make a good point that if you beat a team enough, it makes their record worse, and makes them look like a worse team.

Thanks for the link, too. It gave additional insight. I looked at the 2010-2011 and 2006-2007 seasons (the last two years we were a 4 seed) to see how we did against non-conference opponents. 2010-2011 saw us go 2-4-1, with NC wins against Alabama-Huntsville and Colgate, while 2006-2007 saw us go 4-3, with NC losses to Wayne State and Sacred Heart. Pretty weak compared to a 4-1-1 this season.

Make that 10-3-3 .719 against teams below us. Fixed above.

KGR11
I looked at the 2010-2011 and 2006-2007 seasons (the last two years we were a 4 seed) to see how we did against non-conference opponents. 2010-2011 saw us go 2-4-1, with NC wins against Alabama-Huntsville and Colgate, while 2006-2007 saw us go 4-3, with NC losses to Wayne State and Sacred Heart. Pretty weak compared to a 4-1-1 this season.

Here is a summary of all RS NC games.

Just to add salt.....


From Adam on CHN:


March 27, 2014

New Pairwise System Worked Well
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor

A few days removed from the NCAA tournament selectionsm it's interesting to note how different it would've been under last year's Pairwise formula.

This year, the Ice Hockey Committee removed the "Record vs. Teams Under Consideration" criteria from the selection process. It was replaced by the "Quality Win Bonus," a different way of handling "good wins." The bonus gave teams extra percentage points on its RPI based on which teams they defeated in the Top 20, on a sliding scale.

Also added to the Pairwise this year was a home-road weighting system.

Looking at it, it's obvious to see that the teams which beat more top teams, and the teams that did better on the road than at home, are the teams that benefitted most. This stood to reason logically, and certainly bears itself out in the numbers.

The order of teams based on last year's Pairwise:

Minnesota
Union
Boston College
Mass.-Lowell
Quinnipiac
Providence
St. Cloud State
Wisconsin
Ferris State
North Dakota
Notre Dame
Colgate
Minnesota State
Cornell
Vermont
Michigan

The only team that failed to make the NCAAs that would've made it otherwise is Cornell; which is a bit ironic given that, much of the push to include a home-road weighting was from ECAC teams that have a hard time scheduling non-conference games at their arenas. Cornell's issue wasn't that, however; it had very few "good wins" and its QWB was low compared to other teams.

Michigan still would've been out, and Vermont and Cornell would've swapped.

The biggest drops are from Wisconsin and Notre Dame. In Wisconsin's case, it won many more home games than road. In Notre Dame's case, it benefitted this year from a huge QWB. Providence, North Dakota and Lowell would've been better off.

The biggest issue, however, would've been the myriad of bracket problems the Committee would've faced with this order of teams. This year's bracket, just by luck, basically, broke down in such a way that no tinkering was necessary.

But nevermind the comparison to last year's Pairwise. The most interesting part, however, of the new Pairwise is how closely it matched KRACH.

KRACH is the rating system that is considered the most "mathematically pure," and has long been endorsed by CHN as a replacement for the RPI. KRACH is usually a much better indicator of a team's relative strength. The Pairwise has always been a patchwork of ideas. The two often match somewhat, but not that closely.

With the changes to the Pairwise, however, the ratings — however roundabout the algorithm may have been to come to that point — are almost directly in line with each other.

This means that fans and teams can feel very comfortable about the new Pairwise. No system with such a small sample size as 35-or-so games will ever be good enough to be perfectly precise. But this is as good as we can ask for.

jeff '84
Just to add salt.....


From Adam on CHN:


March 27, 2014

New Pairwise System Worked Well
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor
...
No system with such a small sample size as 35-or-so games will ever be good enough to be perfectly precise. But this is as good as we can ask for.

Why can't we ask for KRACH?

David Harding
Why can't we ask for KRACH?

Adam has.

cbuckser

David Harding
Why can't we ask for KRACH?

Adam has.

See also [www.elynah.com]

IIRC we actually sent that to the NCAA.

jeff '84
Just to add salt.....


From Adam on CHN:


March 27, 2014

New Pairwise System Worked Well
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor

A few days removed from the NCAA tournament selectionsm it's interesting to note how different it would've been under last year's Pairwise formula.

This year, the Ice Hockey Committee removed the "Record vs. Teams Under Consideration" criteria from the selection process. It was replaced by the "Quality Win Bonus," a different way of handling "good wins." The bonus gave teams extra percentage points on its RPI based on which teams they defeated in the Top 20, on a sliding scale.

Also added to the Pairwise this year was a home-road weighting system.

Looking at it, it's obvious to see that the teams which beat more top teams, and the teams that did better on the road than at home, are the teams that benefitted most. This stood to reason logically, and certainly bears itself out in the numbers.

The order of teams based on last year's Pairwise:

Minnesota
Union
Boston College
Mass.-Lowell
Quinnipiac
Providence
St. Cloud State
Wisconsin
Ferris State
North Dakota
Notre Dame
Colgate
Minnesota State
Cornell
Vermont
Michigan

The only team that failed to make the NCAAs that would've made it otherwise is Cornell; which is a bit ironic given that, much of the push to include a home-road weighting was from ECAC teams that have a hard time scheduling non-conference games at their arenas. Cornell's issue wasn't that, however; it had very few "good wins" and its QWB was low compared to other teams.

Michigan still would've been out, and Vermont and Cornell would've swapped.

The biggest drops are from Wisconsin and Notre Dame. In Wisconsin's case, it won many more home games than road. In Notre Dame's case, it benefitted this year from a huge QWB. Providence, North Dakota and Lowell would've been better off.

The biggest issue, however, would've been the myriad of bracket problems the Committee would've faced with this order of teams. This year's bracket, just by luck, basically, broke down in such a way that no tinkering was necessary.

But nevermind the comparison to last year's Pairwise. The most interesting part, however, of the new Pairwise is how closely it matched KRACH.

KRACH is the rating system that is considered the most "mathematically pure," and has long been endorsed by CHN as a replacement for the RPI. KRACH is usually a much better indicator of a team's relative strength. The Pairwise has always been a patchwork of ideas. The two often match somewhat, but not that closely.

With the changes to the Pairwise, however, the ratings — however roundabout the algorithm may have been to come to that point — are almost directly in line with each other.

This means that fans and teams can feel very comfortable about the new Pairwise. No system with such a small sample size as 35-or-so games will ever be good enough to be perfectly precise. But this is as good as we can ask for.

After careful analysis I have concluded that last year's PWR was better.

Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

Trotsky
Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

We don't need high-powered mathematicians on the rules committee - just for the members to be self-aware enough to know that they aren't.

Robb

Trotsky
Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

We don't need high-powered mathematicians on the rules committee - just for the members to be self-aware enough to know that they aren't.

Probably not a lot of self-awareness on the NCAA Rules Committee.

In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs. Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses. So that series didn't help our RPI. Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses. I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

jkahn
In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs. Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses. So that series didn't help our RPI. Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses. I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

As close as that third game was, it seems unrealistic to assume we necessarily would've won the series on the road.

Robb

Trotsky
Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

We don't need high-powered mathematicians on the rules committee - just for the members to be self-aware enough to know that they aren't.

But if you to KRACH the selection committee no longer the ability to tweak the criteria from year to year and that's a power that they probably enjpy. (One could probably tweak KRACH in various meaningful ways, but the rules committee folks couldn't.)

jkahn
In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs. Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses. So that series didn't help our RPI. Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses. I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

OK, so under last year's selection formulas we make the tournament. And as per the above, in all likelihood had we played the Clarkson series in Potsdam with the same result, we also would have made the tournament. I know someone somewhere on eLynah said they absolutely did not want to know, but I do: had we played that canceled game against UMasss and won it, would we have made the tournament?

andyw2100

jkahn
In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs. Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses. So that series didn't help our RPI. Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses. I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

OK, so under last year's selection formulas we make the tournament. And as per the above, in all likelihood had we played the Clarkson series in Potsdam with the same result, we also would have made the tournament. I know someone somewhere on eLynah said they absolutely did not want to know, but I do: had we played that canceled game against UMasss and won it, would we have made the tournament?

or if they had not eliminated the consolation game ....

jkahn

andyw2100

jkahn
In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs. Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses. So that series didn't help our RPI. Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses. I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

OK, so under last year's selection formulas we make the tournament. And as per the above, in all likelihood had we played the Clarkson series in Potsdam with the same result, we also would have made the tournament. I know someone somewhere on eLynah said they absolutely did not want to know, but I do: had we played that canceled game against UMasss and won it, would we have made the tournament?

or if they had not eliminated the consolation game ....

I have to figure a win over Q in the consolation game would have had us in pretty easily.

Of course, we'd have to win the game, which is no easy feat.

Long story short: give us back the consolation game.

Dafatone
Long story short: give us back the consolation game.

Yes, please.

You know what else would have gotten CU into the tourney? Winning the ECAC.

MattS
You know what else would have gotten CU into the tourney? Winning the ECAC.

It hard to win the conference when you're not the best team. This year, Cornell was nowhere near the best team.

They got as far as their talent could take them.

Maybe an unconscious goaltending performance in LP would do it. But, I think Union left no doubt that they,

not Cornell, deserved to move on to the next round. It's just the reality of this era....

Perhaps a minority opinion here - I'm not a fan of consolation games. We had to beat Union, period. If you have to win a consolation game to get into the NCAAs you don't deserve to go IMO.

It cuts both ways - in another year, someone could bump us from the tourney by winning a consolation game. And a meaningless consolation game is an awful sight to see.

MattS
You know what else would have gotten CU into the tourney? Winning the ECAC.

I don't feel like calculating it but isn't the biggest reason we didn't make it the fact we got one point in two games against a bad Dartmouth team? I imagine the BU loss kept us out too but at least we played pretty well in that game and just every bounce went against us. Which can happen in one isolated game. But we played completely awfully both times against Dartmouth.

redice
They got as far as their talent could take them.

Just so the point is not lost in the hand-wringing over the early end to Cornell's season, I will again point out that there is no evidence that a talent deficit has anything to do with it. Cornell has a hockey skill deficit, and the available evidence points not to talent as a cause but to environment.

Repeating the talent gap mantra over and over will not make it true, even if it makes you feel better.

RatushnyFan
Perhaps a minority opinion here - I'm not a fan of consolation games. We had to beat Union, period. If you have to win a consolation game to get into the NCAAs you don't deserve to go IMO.

It cuts both ways - in another year, someone could bump us from the tourney by winning a consolation game. And a meaningless consolation game is an awful sight to see.

As long as we're giving opinions.... If I'm going to make the trip to a remote location, I want to watch my favorite team play two games. If the second one has to be a consolation game, so be it. But, I want that second game. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who has attended nearly every home game, some road games, lots of tourney games, all red/white scrimmages, all alumni games>>> for decades.

I think it's safe to say that I can't get enough Cornell Hockey.

If the coaches don't want to play a third place game in the conference tournament, the handwringing about PWR implications will change nothing.

ugarte
If the coaches don't want to play a third place game in the conference tournament, the handwringing about PWR implications will change nothing.

But the PWR implications might change the coaches opinions.

Jim Hyla

ugarte
If the coaches don't want to play a third place game in the conference tournament, the handwringing about PWR implications will change nothing.

But the PWR implications might change the coaches opinions.

I had thought the big impetus was "a consolation game could make us lose a tourney spot." Was it actually just not liking them?

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

ugarte
If the coaches don't want to play a third place game in the conference tournament, the handwringing about PWR implications will change nothing.

But the PWR implications might change the coaches opinions.

I had thought the big impetus was "a consolation game could make us lose a tourney spot." Was it actually just not liking them?

I don't believe we have ever had an official statement. Coaches do not like them (it is difficult to motivate players and there is always a risk of injury). I would assume the venue likes them (that much more revenue). Fans prefer to be guaranteed two games.

The 2013 consy loss nearly cost Yale their bid and by extension the ECAC its first title in 24 seasons. That may have been the league office's cost-benefit analysis, in its entirety. They don't always seem like they're really doing their due diligence.

Kyle Rose

redice
They got as far as their talent could take them.

Just so the point is not lost in the hand-wringing over the early end to Cornell's season, I will again point out that there is no evidence that a talent deficit has anything to do with it. Cornell has a hockey skill deficit, and the available evidence points not to talent as a cause but to environment.

Repeating the talent gap mantra over and over will not make it true, even if it makes you feel better.

Despite your condescending & snarky statement, Kyle, it has nothing do with making me feel better. It is my opinion, based on lot experience iwith the college game. I don't project myself as an expert. I'll leave that to you... I will just say that my opinion is no less valid than yours. I don't see the value in you countering my opinion every time I mention it. My most recent statement was not directed at you. It's just lame, Kyle........

redice

Kyle Rose

redice
They got as far as their talent could take them.

Just so the point is not lost in the hand-wringing over the early end to Cornell's season, I will again point out that there is no evidence that a talent deficit has anything to do with it. Cornell has a hockey skill deficit, and the available evidence points not to talent as a cause but to environment.

Repeating the talent gap mantra over and over will not make it true, even if it makes you feel better.

Despite your condescending & snarky statement, Kyle, it has nothing do with making me feel better. It is my opinion, based on lot experience iwith the college game. I don't project myself as an expert. I'll leave that to you... I will just say that my opinion is no less valid than yours. I don't see the value in you countering my opinion every time I mention it. My most recent statement was not directed at you. It's just lame, Kyle........

I feel obliged to call it out when you post something as fact ("They got as far as their talent could take them" ) that isn't supported by the evidence, especially when an incorrect interpretation of the facts can have a profoundly negative effect on the program long-term. I'm not really interested in your opinion or comprehension, as you've made it perfectly clear you don't feel obligated to allow facts to dissuade you: I am, however, very interested in making clear to everyone else reading your post that what you are saying is not correct and is a clear, demonstrable misinterpretation of the situation.

Your statement is roughly equivalent to "I think it's awful that Joe Biden died in a plane crash last night." Yes, that's an opinion, but the basis of that opinion is a false statement. This is a clear illustration of why not all opinions are equally valid.

My opinion about Cornell's performance, unlike yours, has not yet had any evidence presented contradicting it.

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose

redice
They got as far as their talent could take them.

Just so the point is not lost in the hand-wringing over the early end to Cornell's season, I will again point out that there is no evidence that a talent deficit has anything to do with it. Cornell has a hockey skill deficit, and the available evidence points not to talent as a cause but to environment.

Repeating the talent gap mantra over and over will not make it true, even if it makes you feel better.

Despite your condescending & snarky statement, Kyle, it has nothing do with making me feel better. It is my opinion, based on lot experience iwith the college game. I don't project myself as an expert. I'll leave that to you... I will just say that my opinion is no less valid than yours. I don't see the value in you countering my opinion every time I mention it. My most recent statement was not directed at you. It's just lame, Kyle........

I feel obliged to call it out when you post something as fact ("They got as far as their talent could take them" ) that isn't supported by the evidence, especially when an incorrect interpretation of the facts can have a profoundly negative effect on the program long-term. I'm not really interested in your opinion or comprehension, as you've made it perfectly clear you don't feel obligated to allow facts to dissuade you: I am, however, very interested in making clear to everyone else reading your post that what you are saying is not correct and is a clear, demonstrable misinterpretation of the situation.

Your statement is roughly equivalent to "I think it's awful that Joe Biden died in a plane crash last night." Yes, that's an opinion, but the basis of that opinion is a false statement. This is a clear illustration of why not all opinions are equally valid.

My opinion about Cornell's performance, unlike yours, has not yet had any evidence presented contradicting it.

I'm pretty sure that nothing that's said here is ever going to have an impact on anything.

At the very least, I sure hope that's the case.

Dafatone

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose

redice
They got as far as their talent could take them.

Just so the point is not lost in the hand-wringing over the early end to Cornell's season, I will again point out that there is no evidence that a talent deficit has anything to do with it. Cornell has a hockey skill deficit, and the available evidence points not to talent as a cause but to environment.

Repeating the talent gap mantra over and over will not make it true, even if it makes you feel better.

Despite your condescending & snarky statement, Kyle, it has nothing do with making me feel better. It is my opinion, based on lot experience iwith the college game. I don't project myself as an expert. I'll leave that to you... I will just say that my opinion is no less valid than yours. I don't see the value in you countering my opinion every time I mention it. My most recent statement was not directed at you. It's just lame, Kyle........

I feel obliged to call it out when you post something as fact ("They got as far as their talent could take them" ) that isn't supported by the evidence, especially when an incorrect interpretation of the facts can have a profoundly negative effect on the program long-term. I'm not really interested in your opinion or comprehension, as you've made it perfectly clear you don't feel obligated to allow facts to dissuade you: I am, however, very interested in making clear to everyone else reading your post that what you are saying is not correct and is a clear, demonstrable misinterpretation of the situation.

Your statement is roughly equivalent to "I think it's awful that Joe Biden died in a plane crash last night." Yes, that's an opinion, but the basis of that opinion is a false statement. This is a clear illustration of why not all opinions are equally valid.

My opinion about Cornell's performance, unlike yours, has not yet had any evidence presented contradicting it.

I'm pretty sure that nothing that's said here is ever going to have an impact on anything.

At the very least, I sure hope that's the case.

Believe me, so do I.

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose

redice
They got as far as their talent could take them.

Just so the point is not lost in the hand-wringing over the early end to Cornell's season, I will again point out that there is no evidence that a talent deficit has anything to do with it. Cornell has a hockey skill deficit, and the available evidence points not to talent as a cause but to environment.

Repeating the talent gap mantra over and over will not make it true, even if it makes you feel better.

Despite your condescending & snarky statement, Kyle, it has nothing do with making me feel better. It is my opinion, based on lot experience iwith the college game. I don't project myself as an expert. I'll leave that to you... I will just say that my opinion is no less valid than yours. I don't see the value in you countering my opinion every time I mention it. My most recent statement was not directed at you. It's just lame, Kyle........

I feel obliged to call it out when you post something as fact ("They got as far as their talent could take them" ) that isn't supported by the evidence, especially when an incorrect interpretation of the facts can have a profoundly negative effect on the program long-term. I'm not really interested in your opinion or comprehension, as you've made it perfectly clear you don't feel obligated to allow facts to dissuade you: I am, however, very interested in making clear to everyone else reading your post that what you are saying is not correct and is a clear, demonstrable misinterpretation of the situation.

Your statement is roughly equivalent to "I think it's awful that Joe Biden died in a plane crash last night." Yes, that's an opinion, but the basis of that opinion is a false statement. This is a clear illustration of why not all opinions are equally valid.

My opinion about Cornell's performance, unlike yours, has not yet had any evidence presented contradicting it.

I notice your avatar shows you wearing sunglasses. Perhaps, you not a sighted person. For, if you were, you could WATCH the two teams play and see that Union is more talented than Cornell at this point in time. When I typed: "They got as far as their talent could take them", that was indeed my opinion. I made no claims to the contrary. And, if you're not interested in my opinion, why does it bother you so much? In fact, why, of all the people on this forum, do YOU have to be a dick about me sharing my opinion? I'm not sharing my opinion in hopes that it will please or displease you, Kyle.

You have continually cited facts. Frankly, I don't share your opinion of the relevancy of your, so called, facts. But, they will, in your mind remain facts and the fact that I don't agree with your choices means that I ignore facts. I admire your self-confidence, Kyle. But, there are a great many people in this world who are confident and full of shit!

I am not going to continue this. Assholes like you like to argue. I find it tedious. So take your parting shot & have a good time with it. I'm out. Geez!!

I agree with redice that Kyle is a snarky asshole, and I agree with Kyle that Cornell has no talent deficit.

Long time before October, folks. Pace yourselves.

Trotsky
Long time before October, folks. Pace yourselves.

+1