Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017
Who is this season's most improved player?
Matt Buckles
Jeff Kubiak
Alex Rauter
Trevor Yates
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Bedpan
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

Bracketology 2016-17 Style

Posted by Jim Hyla 
Page: Previous123 4 5Next
Current Page: 4 of 5
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.sub-70-209-137.myvzw.com)
Date: March 15, 2017 06:27PM

Trotsky
To be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents. Q and Union, certainly.

Agree

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 15, 2017 06:42PM

Cl>RPI>B>P>StL>Colg>>>>>>U>Q>D>Y>H
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-70-198-35.myvzw.com)
Date: March 15, 2017 06:56PM

BearLover
Cl>RPI>B>P>StL>Colg>>>>>>U>Q>D>Y>H

That's about where I am at. Put Y at the front of that group and put D at the very back.

God I hate Dartmouth.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: RichH (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 15, 2017 08:54PM

Trotsky
To be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents. Q and Union, certainly.

Just to clear my conscious, I believe there's a difference between "would root for" and "won't commit seppuku if they win."
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 09:16AM

Dafatone
BearLover
Cl>RPI>B>P>StL>Colg>>>>>>U>Q>D>Y>H

That's about where I am at. Put Y at the front of that group and put D at the very back.

God I hate Dartmouth.
Mike needs to pay my way to Hanover every year. Last time I checked I'm 9-1-1 there.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 09:17AM

RichH
Trotsky
To be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents. Q and Union, certainly.

Just to clear my conscious, I believe there's a difference between "would root for" and "won't commit seppuku if they win."
Fair point.

Even during The Drought when we went 0-18-2 against Harvard in RS games, I still rooted hard for them in the NC$$s. The wogs begin at Calais.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 12:51PM

Trotsky
RichH
Trotsky
To be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents. Q and Union, certainly.

Just to clear my conscious, I believe there's a difference between "would root for" and "won't commit seppuku if they win."
Fair point.

Even during The Drought when we went 0-18-2 against Harvard in RS games, I still rooted hard for them in the NC$$s.
No
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: wakester2468 (---.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 01:49PM

Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-70-198-3.myvzw.com)
Date: March 16, 2017 02:09PM

wakester2468
Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

We want air force in the AH. Last I checked, they can rise as high as tenth.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: nshapiro (192.148.195.---)
Date: March 16, 2017 02:56PM

Dafatone
wakester2468
Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

We want air force in the AH. Last I checked, they can rise as high as tenth.

Wouldn't we want an AH team that cannot be above us no matter what?...assuming AF with a loss (or win and loss) cannot be above us
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 02:57PM by nshapiro.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 02:59PM

nshapiro
Dafatone
wakester2468
Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

We want air force in the AH. Last I checked, they can rise as high as tenth.

Wouldn't we want an AH team that cannot be above us no matter what?...assuming AF with a loss (or win and loss) cannot be above us

For seeding, yes. In terms of pure odds to get in, we probably want the highest AH team if they are gonna be in the top 16. It doesn't really matter though, since I think there's no way for AF to wind up with an at-large bid if they don't win their conference.

And given that, maybe we want an AH team that doesn't outseed us after all.

Edit: Two AH teams is possible, if everything goes just right. Canisius takes the autobid and Air Force squeaks in with the last at large bid at 13. How absurd would that be?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 03:03PM by Dafatone.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.177.169.163.ipyx-102276-zyo.zip.zayo.com)
Date: March 16, 2017 03:57PM

Dafatone
Edit: Two AH teams is possible, if everything goes just right. Canisius takes the autobid and Air Force squeaks in with the last at large bid at 13. How absurd would that be?
They wouldn't be the first, right? Didn't Niagara grab an at-large once?

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 04:25PM

osu/mich/msu all would steal bids if they win out if they lose OSU probably falls out.. PSU/wisc are in the same boat or close to it.

we are better off if mich/mich st both win and knock psu/osu out. that way only only 1 gets in and thats only if they beat Minn and wisc. if psu/osu both get to the finals they could both get a bid and hurt us even more

BC/ND are the real worry, once BC loses our chances get much better
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 04:29PM by upprdeck.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 16, 2017 05:15PM

upprdeck
osu/mich/msu all would steal bids if they win out if they lose OSU probably falls out.. PSU/wisc are in the same boat or close to it.

we are better off if mich/mich st both win and knock psu/osu out. that way only only 1 gets in and thats only if they beat Minn and wisc. if psu/osu both get to the finals they could both get a bid and hurt us even more

BC/ND are the real worry, once BC loses our chances get much better

Michigan State up 3-2 after 1. The game is on the Big Ten Network, which, if you have Time Warner cable, can be added, along with a bunch of other channels, for 33 cents a day. (I just added it.)
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.129.41.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 16, 2017 07:12PM

MSU loses to OSU, 6-3.

I saw the third period. The Joe looked extremely empty.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 07:09AM

I haven't plugged the numbers, but after last night's Big Ten games, Jason Moy now states Air Force cannot get an At Large bid. Only 1 AH team can get in.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 09:13AM

i couldnt find a way for airforce to get in which is good for us if its true.

rooting for BU/minn tonight pretty much locks us in no matter how we do.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 01:01PM

Teams come and teams go, but Dartmouth faithfully reminds us that winning is the product of something more than personnel and statistics. The Big Green is doing us a favor if we would pay attention.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 04:27PM

upprdeck
i couldnt find a way for airforce to get in which is good for us if its true.

rooting for BU/minn tonight pretty much locks us in no matter how we do.

See posts 206 - 209 [board.uscho.com].
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 05:36PM

USCHO's scoreboard has Q over sucks, 2-1, after 2.

ECAC's scoreboard has it 2-1 in favor of sucks. I think that's right.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 05:52PM

Dafatone
USCHO's scoreboard has Q over sucks, 2-1, after 2.

ECAC's scoreboard has it 2-1 in favor of sucks. I think that's right.
Harvard 2-1 early 3rd

Now 3-1 H, Sean Malone hat trick

4-1 eng 2 min to go; bye bye Q

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 06:21PM by Al DeFlorio.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 06:40PM

UML 4-1 over Irish after two

Cornell now .0002 ahead of NoDak and .0003 ahead of Notre Dame pending outcome of remaining games

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 07:10PM

wisc/lowell/harvard winning is good for us.

even PSU/Ndak/BC winning we still get in.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: dsk1 (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 07:48PM

I'm pretty sure we are in with Quinnipiac and OSU losses. No teams below #17 in current pairwise can get in (other than Robert Morris which would push Air Force out). In other words, 16 of the current top 17 teams will be in. I do not think our RPI can fall below OSU's so we should be in.

edit: forgot WCHA autobid since they are not playing tonight.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 10:25PM by dsk1.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Iceberg (---.prod-infinitum.com.mx)
Date: March 17, 2017 08:28PM

Penn State just lost, so that can be now factored in.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 08:31PM

There's still a configuration in which we miss out: [goo.gl]

Looks like there are three of them. Either the AH final and the NCHC consolation can be flipped, but not both of them.

Edit: I think we're in the clear with Penn State's loss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 08:41PM by Dafatone.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 09:58PM

{Hooking voice]How do you factor in Cornell's win over Union?[/Hooking voice]

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 10:06PM

The you are the committee tool seems to be not working at the moment, but I think we're gonna fall somewhere between 7th and 10th or so. Might not be able to do any better than 8th or 9th.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 10:15PM

Dafatone
The you are the committee tool seems to be not working at the moment, but I think we're gonna fall somewhere between 7th and 10th or so. Might not be able to do any better than 8th or 9th.

USCHO has us at #9 in RPI, about 0.005 above those Nodak characters. We're still 0.003 behind Onion, and the distance we're ahead of ND is just a bit less than we're behind #7 UML. Of course RPI is probably not a linear scale, so this kind of interpolation is not very meaningful.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Iceberg (---.prod-infinitum.com.mx)
Date: March 17, 2017 10:21PM

Bah. Ignore my last post as the USCHO scoreboard was incorrect. PSU/Minnesota are in overtime.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 10:22PM

I can get us to 7 with denver/minn/cornell/bc/air force winning
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.mcneilandcompany.com)
Date: March 17, 2017 11:40PM

upprdeck
I can get us to 7 with denver/minn/cornell/bc/air force winning

And the lowest I came up with was 11.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 11:44PM

Iceberg
Penn State just lost, so that can be now factored in.
Am I insane or is this wrong? Penn State is still playing in the second OT.

EDIT: within seconds of typing this, Penn State won.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 11:48PM by ugarte.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 17, 2017 11:48PM

ugarte
Iceberg
Penn State just lost, so that can be now factored in.
Am I insane or is this wrong? Penn State is still playing in the second OT.

Since Penn state just won....

 
___________________________
"Mark Mazzoleni looks like a guy whose dog just died out there..."
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 12:10AM

Feels less urgent now but Penn State's win dropped us into 10th behind North Dakota.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: RichH (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 18, 2017 05:39AM

Adam has a interesting and probably true take. However with a lot of the outside-the-bubble teams getting autobids, I found a way where we're 7 and UND is 8.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2017 05:42AM by RichH.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 09:23AM

from what i tried we finish 7 in most cases as long as BC win. you can flip wisc/psu and ndak/duluth all sorts of ways and we still end up 7th

as to whether 7th is good or bad?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 12:29PM

RichH
Adam has a interesting and probably true take. However with a lot of the outside-the-bubble teams getting autobids, I found a way where we're 7 and UND is 8.


Depends on how much value they're putting on attendance vs. bracket integrity. Fargo is sold out. Send Harvard's 6 fans there.

Also, I'd like to plan a weekend trip, so I'm being selfish.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 12:31PM

I'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo. Sold out? Then screw it, let's stay east.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 12:38PM

Dafatone
I'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo. Sold out? Then screw it, let's stay east.

Tickets will become available once the field is announced, either through school allotments or on the secondary market as people scramble to change plans.

Also, before someone jumps on my post above, I know Harvard won't go west as a top 4 team.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 01:00PM

Greenberg '97
Dafatone
I'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo. Sold out? Then screw it, let's stay east.

Tickets will become available once the field is announced, either through school allotments or on the secondary market as people scramble to change plans.

Also, before someone jumps on my post above, I know Harvard won't go west as a top 4 team.

Yes, but if they lose tonight, will they still be a top 4 team?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (---.sub-70-214-110.myvzw.com)
Date: March 18, 2017 01:38PM

Swampy
Greenberg '97
Dafatone
I'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo. Sold out? Then screw it, let's stay east.

Tickets will become available once the field is announced, either through school allotments or on the secondary market as people scramble to change plans.

Also, before someone jumps on my post above, I know Harvard won't go west as a top 4 team.

Yes, but if they lose tonight, will they still be a top 4 team?

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Yes.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Robb (---.se.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 18, 2017 03:48PM

adamw
Tom Lento
The second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

As I allude to in our explainer article on the site, I feel like a valid argument can be made to keep KRACH as a snapshot from when the simulation starts. But I can't articulate the reason very well.

On the other hand, I do know that re-calculating KRACH on the fly after every game would be all but impossible. As it is, running 20,000 simulations takes like 4 hours. And each simulation contains a few dozen games or so. At least. If KRACH were re-calculated after each simulated game within each simulation, I think it might take a week to run. Of course, I allow for the fact that I might be doing it wrong.

I could run fewer simulations. The whole thing seems to stabilize at around 3,000 or less. 20,000 is probably overkill. But it does allow for picking up on some outlier possibilities.

You'd also have to consider the definition of "after." If Cornell beats Harvard at 10:07 pm, that doesn't affect just their ratings - it would affect the ratings of every other team, too. Should that update be taken into account for 2 teams who already have a game in progress just because it won't finish until 10:13?

I think the logical thing to do would be only to update KRACH once per day, after all results are "in." That would drastically reduce the amount of computing required and reduce the inherent arbitrariness of deciding in which order to flip the coins.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: GBR1234 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 04:00PM

If CU plays in Providence or Manchester, I am close enough to attend. Can someone please advise me of the best way to get tickets after the venues are announced? Should I jump right on and buy tickets from the NCAA site or try to get them through Cornell ticket office from school allotment?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: JasonN95 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 05:25PM

I went to check out the latest blog posts on CHN and appears as though the site is down. To much traffic?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 06:01PM

GBR1234
If CU plays in Providence or Manchester, I am close enough to attend. Can someone please advise me of the best way to get tickets after the venues are announced? Should I jump right on and buy tickets from the NCAA site or try to get them through Cornell ticket office from school allotment?

Walk up to box office. Buy ticket.

If they win, buy tickets for game 2 from dejected losing fans for half price. Preferably from the other regional semi.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.sub-70-209-134.myvzw.com)
Date: March 18, 2017 06:18PM

Greenberg '97
GBR1234
If CU plays in Providence or Manchester, I am close enough to attend. Can someone please advise me of the best way to get tickets after the venues are announced? Should I jump right on and buy tickets from the NCAA site or try to get them through Cornell ticket office from school allotment?

Walk up to box office. Buy ticket.

If they win, buy tickets for game 2 from dejected losing fans for half price. Preferably from the other regional semi.

Correct, the regionals don't come close to selling out and you can easily move around.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.sub-70-209-134.myvzw.com)
Date: March 18, 2017 06:24PM

So win or lose, who do we want in other games?

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: nshapiro (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 18, 2017 10:33PM

Looks like last spot goes to Ohio State if Penn State wins, otherwise Wisconsin
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 19, 2017 02:28AM

Can't sleep so might as well post the projected brackets.

Adam Wodon's
Fargo
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union  vs. 10. North Dakota

Cincinnati
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
6. WMU vs. 12. Air Force

Providence
3. Harvard vs. 13. Notre Dame
7. BU vs. 9. Penn State

Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 14. Providence
5. Lowell vs. 11. Cornell
His biggest question is whether they will move Providence to Providence?

Jayson Moy's
Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
15 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
9 Penn State vs. 6 Western Michigan

West Regional (Fargo):
16 Michigan Tech vs. 1 Denver
10 North Dakota vs. 7 Boston University

East Regional (Providence):
14 Providence vs. 3 Harvard
12 Air Force vs. 8 Union

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Notre Dame vs. 4 Minnesota
11 Cornell vs. 5 Massachusetts-Lowell

Read more: [www.uscho.com]
In the end he talks about switching BU and Union and says he doesn't see a benefit from doing that. But I do. Why should #7 BU get a worse draw than #8 Union?

So what's your prediction?

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 19, 2017 02:38AM

FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen. As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence. I just don't think they should.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: French Rage (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 03:42AM

Hopefully Harvard drawing a HE team leads to history repeating itself.

|
|
|
V

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: marty (---.sub-70-209-133.myvzw.com)
Date: March 19, 2017 08:45AM

I've got it differently:

Fargo
Denver - MichTech
Union - North Dakota

Cincinnati
MinnDuluth - TOSU
WMich - Cornell

Providence
Harvard - Providence
BU - PSU

Manchester
Minnesota - Notre Dame
Mass Lowell - Air Force

The only flip I made for attendance was moving BU to Providence and Western Michigan to Cincinnati. This makes sense historically because it gives the committee a chance to screw us.

So I'm hoping for the above without the flip. RW.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: wakester2468 (---.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 08:58AM

Tickets for Manchester can be obtained directly on ticketmaster, not a scalping site. Not to be confused, it is no longer Verizon Wireless Arena. It is now SNHU Arena. As of this morning there were great tickets some even center ice. Without UNH in the tourney, the host school I can't imagine that the place will be full although Manchester historically is a good hockey town
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 19, 2017 09:58AM

adamw
FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen. As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence. I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: abmarks (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 01:09PM

Looking at the final brackets from the NCAA they went almost entirely for bracket integrity. The only swap outside bracket integrity was flipping CU and AirForce, which puts us in Manch and AFA in Providence. So instead of 5-12 and 6-11 matchups it's going to be 5-11 and 6-12. WOnder why they did that- does moving us to Manch from Providence really make that much attendance difference?

Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State

Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota

Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force

Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 01:12PM

abmarks
Looking at the final brackets from the NCAA they went almost entirely for bracket integrity. The only swap outside bracket integrity was flipping CU and AirForce, which puts us in Manch and AFA in Providence. So instead of 5-12 and 6-11 matchups it's going to be 5-11 and 6-12. WOnder why they did that- does moving us to Manch from Providence really make that much attendance difference?

Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State

Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota

Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force

Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell

Is keeping us out of Harvard's region a goal of theirs? Looks like they've done a decent job of distributing conferences across regions (UMD and NoDak in the same region is the only exception, I think).
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: abmarks (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 02:25PM

Dafatone


Is keeping us out of Harvard's region a goal of theirs? Looks like they've done a decent job of distributing conferences across regions (UMD and NoDak in the same region is the only exception, I think).

That doesn't make sense to me- the guidelines only worry about intra-conference in the first game. Manchester has two HE teams (Notre Dame and UML, for example.)
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.129.41.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 04:36PM

If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact, They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester. I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 19, 2017 04:57PM

Jeff Hopkins '82
If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact, They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester. I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

I think they always give #1 the 16 seed, as they should.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: toddlose (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 05:07PM

Jim Hyla
Jeff Hopkins '82
If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact, They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester. I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

I think they always give #1 the 16 seed, as they should.

IIRC, that wasn't the case for us in 2003. We got stuck with minn state(I believe), while Wayne state was worst seeded team in the NCAA. Think I remember our coaching staff really irritated by the draw. Not completely sure tho.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: dbilmes (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 05:14PM

According to this interview with the committee chair, we were swapped with Air Force because there were already two Eastern teams in the Providence regional.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.129.41.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 05:21PM

dbilmes
According to this interview with the committee chair, we were swapped with Air Force because there were already two Eastern teams in the Providence regional.

Or to put it a different way, if there was only 1 eastern team and they lost in the semis, then nobody would be there Sunday.

And toddlose, yes, we played MSU Mankato in 2003.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2017 08:42PM by Jeff Hopkins '82.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 19, 2017 05:36PM

Jeff Hopkins
And toddlose, yes, we played MSU MAnkato in 2003.
that weekend was fun

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: jkahn (---.73.146.216.biz.sta.networkgci.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 09:43AM

toddlose
Jim Hyla
Jeff Hopkins '82
If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact, They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester. I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

I think they always give #1 the 16 seed, as they should.

IIRC, that wasn't the case for us in 2003. We got stuck with minn state(I believe), while Wayne state was worst seeded team in the NCAA. Think I remember our coaching staff really irritated by the draw. Not completely sure tho.
There were two #1 seeds from the WCHA and two #4 seeds from the WCHA, so the rule of avoiding inter-conference first round match-ups caused us to have to play a WCHA team.

 
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 11:25AM

Statistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: CU2007 (160.254.108.---)
Date: March 20, 2017 11:36AM

Hooking
Statistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?


One spot in the pairwise? I think WMU would have been a significantly better matchup for us (though obviously not easy). Lowell is GOOD and was really hot down the stretch.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: LGR14 (---.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 11:42AM

CU2007
Hooking
Statistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?


One spot in the pairwise? I think WMU would have been a significantly better matchup for us (though obviously not easy). Lowell is GOOD and was really hot down the stretch.

Though I agree with this, I am much happier with a potential second round of Minnesota than I am of Harvard. Obviously have to win the first game to get to the second, but we're not here to win one game. A second round against Harvard would have been almost a sure-thing loss (they know how to play us, they have owned us this year, etc.), but at least in this region we'll be going against (hopefully) two teams that haven't been on the same ice and are more likely to underestimate the game.

Also keep in mind that 7 of WMU's 12 losses were to Duluth and Denver.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2017 11:44AM by LGR14.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 12:13PM

Jeff Hopkins '82

And toddlose, yes, we played MSU Mankato in 2003.

Here are all the playoff games.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 12:32PM

scoop85
adamw
FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen. As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence. I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

I think Wisconsin would've been right where OSU is and nothing else would change.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 12:33PM

Hooking
Statistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?

WMU is missing two of their best players, who are questionable - at best - for Saturday. So - in that sense, Cornell had a better chance against WMU. Lowell is real tough to play against.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nyc.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 20, 2017 12:49PM

adamw
scoop85
adamw
FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen. As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence. I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

I think Wisconsin would've been right where OSU is and nothing else would change.

But I thought I'd seen somewhere that if Wisconsin won, we would've been 9th in PWR rather than 11th--is that not true?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: RichH (---.northgrum.com)
Date: March 20, 2017 02:25PM

scoop85
adamw
scoop85
adamw
FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen. As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence. I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

I think Wisconsin would've been right where OSU is and nothing else would change.

But I thought I'd seen somewhere that if Wisconsin won, we would've been 9th in PWR rather than 11th--is that not true?

Not true. Using the "customize" tab on the CHN PWR page, you can change that result and see that we would have gotten 10th and more significantly, UMass-Lowell would have gotten a #1 seed (4th overall PWR) instead of Minnesota, who would have dropped past WMU to 6th.

Going into Saturday's ECAC final, from that other probability site we were watching (playoffstatus.com), we would have been 7/8 with a win OR 10/11 with a loss. Interestingly, #9 was not possible.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2017 02:29PM by RichH.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: RichH (---.northgrum.com)
Date: March 20, 2017 02:53PM

scoop85
adamw
FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen. As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence. I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

Since I just did that on CHN, let's take a look. The alternate-reality PWR with a UW win looks like this:

1  Denver 	
2  Minnesota-Duluth 
3  One and Done U 	
4  Mass.-Lowell 	
5  Western Michigan 	
6  Minnesota 	
7  Boston University 	
8  Union 	
9  North Dakota 	
10 Cornell 	
11 Penn State 	
12 Air Force 	
13 Notre Dame 	
14 Providence 	
15 Ohio State 	
16 Wisconsin

Michigan Tech and Wisconsin get autobids and bump out Ohio State.

Bracket integrity gives these pairings:

(1) Denver - (16) MTU
(8) Union - (9) NoDak

(2) UMD - (15) Wisc
(7) BU - (10) Cornell

(3) Sucks - (14) Providence
(6) Minn - (11) PSU

(4) UML - (13) Notre Dame
(5) WMU - (12) AFA

They would place the Denver bracket in Fargo, thanks to North Dakota. This would be a test to see if "protect the #1" actually would come into play as they could swap Denver and UMD. The UMD bracket (includes Cornell) goes to Cincinnati, put Providence in Providence and UML in Manchester. Then, as they did in our reality, they could swap 11 AFA and 12 PSU to get a more "eastern" field in Manchester, if they feel that some new Penn State fans would travel. EDIT: They would have to make that 11-12 swap to avoid the B1G matchup between Minn and PSU. In fact, I'm wondering if they had this scenario already worked out before the end of the UW-PSU game and decided to keep the 11-12 swap.

Either way, with BU, Cornell, and Wisconsin in Cincinnati, that's (A) a huge amount of red & white and (B) very solid traveling fan-bases. Would have been fun at the bars, too.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2017 03:03PM by RichH.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 05:40PM

Cornell will crush Harvard if and when Harvard wins enough games to face the Big Red. That's how I figure it, and how Cornell skaters figure it. Damn the fee-splitters! Full speed ahead!
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nyc.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 20, 2017 05:48PM

Hooking
Cornell will crush Harvard if and when Harvard wins enough games to face the Big Red. That's how I figure it, and how Cornell skaters figure it. Damn the fee-splitters! Full speed ahead!

screwy
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 20, 2017 06:38PM

All things considered, Cornell got screwed by the committee's prioritizing attendance over "bracket integrity." WMich would have been a far easier matchup than Lowell, and the arena would have been entirely Cornell fans rather than majority Lowell fans. I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year. Plus, Harvard could easily lose round 1. But that's beside the point, because the committee could have just swapped Lowell and WMich while keeping us in the Northeast, no? At least we didn't get screwed as much as Harvard.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 12:36AM

First off, Rich is right - I'd forgotten about how the Wisconsin game affected Lowell moving up to 1 seed - so yeah, the bracket would've been different.

Two - the idea that Cornell got screwed is somewhat comical. Also, the idea that Providence would be "filled" with Cornell fans if Cornell were there, is also comical.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 01:28AM

adamw
Two - the idea that Cornell got screwed is somewhat comical. Also, the idea that Providence would be "filled" with Cornell fans if Cornell were there, is also comical.
I didn't say anything about it being "filled," so I don't understand the quotes--I just meant that, relative to the other team's fans, Cornell would have had a far greater representation (whereas now it'll be closer to even). And sure, "screwed" is too strong a word--it just feels somewhat unfair, given that every matchup except ours (and ofc WMich-AF) is perfectly in line with the PWR. Taking into account things like injuries, fan turnout, and style of play, Cornell would have had an easier matchup if the committee chose entirely based on "bracket integrity" (since that phrase gets thrown around a lot on the college hockey sites).

But you're right that it's not worth moping about. The stats suggest Lowell's offense is mostly the result of one top line. Cornell's generally been successful this season at shutting down a few top players (Union, UNH). And maybe facing a more skilled team on Saturday will leave Cornell less banged up for Sunday than would facing a more physical team.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 08:41AM

BearLover
And maybe facing a more skilled team on Saturday will leave Cornell less banged up for Sunday than would facing a more physical team.

Dear Hockey Gods: we neither know nor endeavor to know the number of poultry. Sincerely, the Lynah Faithful.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: CU2007 (160.254.108.---)
Date: March 21, 2017 08:51AM

I would have thought Cornell would be a slight favorite against a banged-up WMU squad coming east, while probably a slight underdog against Lowell 20 minutes (or whatever) from their campus. That said, I'd rather (potentially) get Minnesota than Harvard, so I'll call it a wash. Just win, baby.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (71.16.172.---)
Date: March 21, 2017 09:33AM

To me the issue is not whether UML or WMU is a better match-up, it's that after calculating RPI out to four decimal places in order to choose the field and determine seedings, they rather arbitrarily rearrange the match-ups as they see fit.

I understand the avoiding of first-round intra-conference games. That's a stated, known rule. If they wanted UML in Manchester, they could have had a UML-AF pairing there with Cornell-WMU in Providence, and left the seedings pure.

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 09:41AM

Al DeFlorio
To me the issue is not whether UML or WMU is a better match-up, it's that after calculating RPI out to four decimal places in order to choose the field and determine seedings, they rather arbitrarily rearrange the match-ups as they see fit.
$$ers gonna $$
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 21, 2017 10:14AM

BearLover
I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.fs.cornell.edu)
Date: March 21, 2017 10:15AM

lowell can score..

they also lost to omaha/northestern/clarkson/maine/uconn/new hampshire and several others

cornell lost to merrimack/harvard/quin/clarkson/dartmouth and the CC

its a very winnable game thats about all you can ask this time of year.

it wont be 90% lowell fans either they didnt travel to albany last year which is only 2.5 hrs compared to 45 min this year to manchester.

the place will have 5-7K cornell will bring its 500-1000 i suspect, minn/nd will have about the same between them, so lowell may have half the tickets in a place that will be half full.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Iceberg (---.wireless.albany.edu)
Date: March 21, 2017 10:25AM

upprdeck
lowell can score..

they also lost to omaha/northestern/clarkson/maine/uconn/new hampshire and several others

cornell lost to merrimack/harvard/quin/clarkson/dartmouth and the CC

its a very winnable game thats about all you can ask this time of year.

it wont be 90% lowell fans either they didnt travel to albany last year which is only 2.5 hrs compared to 45 min this year to manchester.

the place will have 5-7K cornell will bring its 500-1000 i suspect, minn/nd will have about the same between them, so lowell may have half the tickets in a place that will be half full.


To be fair, last year's East regional was during the Easter weekend. And the Lowell fans that did turn out were very vocal and made themselves known. Their (very good) band even made the trip.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 10:33AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Minny has a large group. They and Wisco both travel well, and they're not bothered by long trips.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 11:20AM

Al DeFlorio
To me the issue is not whether UML or WMU is a better match-up, it's that after calculating RPI out to four decimal places in order to choose the field and determine seedings, they rather arbitrarily rearrange the match-ups as they see fit.

I understand the avoiding of first-round intra-conference games. That's a stated, known rule. If they wanted UML in Manchester, they could have had a UML-AF pairing there with Cornell-WMU in Providence, and left the seedings pure.
Right. It really doesn't matter how screwed Cornell got--the fact remains that the committee gave them a draw based on maximizing profits instead of pure merit--and that's unfair.

Beeeej
BearLover
I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.
Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game? Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Schafer
“Our guys are positive...I told them after that I have no regrets for how they played in the game. Zero. They came, they didn’t play poorly, they went after it they played with poise. ... It was just one of those nights where we weren’t good enough.”

Schafer
“The way hockey is sometimes and the course of the game and they have great players that capitalized on their opportunities. We have great players and instead we didn’t capitalize on our opportunities.”

Schafer
“The game can be cruel sometimes. You get a great opportunity, hit a post the back door that we fanned on, [goalie Merrick Madsen] made a couple of great saves and they come down and they fire one in and it hits a stanchion and pops right out to one of their guys and it’s 3-0, game over."

Schafer
“But I told our guys I was very proud of the way our guys competed in the third period. I thought they did an excellent job as far as continuing to go after it and stay disciplined, kept getting after it and got a goal at the very end as a coach, when the game’s out of reach, you can have a lot of pride in the team for the way they played and stayed the course and that’s what made this group of guys special.”

Schafer
“I thought we played well yesterday but I don’t think we played our best game of the year. I think we still have something left in our tank a little bit. ... It’s tough because you haven't played your best hockey I think as a game yet and you’re always searching for that. And to move onto the Frozen Four, you’re going to have to do that.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2017 11:21AM by BearLover.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 21, 2017 11:30AM

BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.
Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game? Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Schafer
Endless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 11:49AM

Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.
Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game? Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Schafer
Endless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.
It all came from the same article
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 21, 2017 11:50AM

BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.
Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game? Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Schafer
Endless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.
It all came from the same article

Good for you, man. Good for you.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 02:40PM

I wouldn't call the final either close or a blowout. It was just a normal hockey game between two good teams where one of them is noticeably better. A few lucky bounces for us and we're in it to the wire; a few lucky bounces for Harvard and it's a blowout; in the absence of either, a 3-goal game.

I think we will play them closer in Chicago in the final, after beating Union in the semi.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.cws.sco.cisco.com)
Date: March 21, 2017 03:37PM

Trotsky
I wouldn't call the final either close or a blowout. It was just a normal hockey game between two good teams where one of them is noticeably better. A few lucky bounces for us and we're in it to the wire; a few lucky bounces for Harvard and it's a blowout; in the absence of either, a 3-goal game.

I think we will play them closer in Chicago in the final, after beating Union in the semi.

From your mouth, to God's ears. banana
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 21, 2017 05:57PM

Harvard played better but still they had a total fluke goal and we missed a complete open tap in and then its a different game..

the one harvard goal where the pass came from behind and the kid roofed it backhand while covered well by the cornell D is a skill play, i doubt we could score from that spot and maybe only a few of their guys could either just happened one that could was in that spot.

we need to stop their PP and score on ours and that has been the issue that last couple times we played them. that is the biggest difference in the teams and where they really shine over us.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2017 05:10PM

Splitting hairs between .002 percentage points of RPI is hardly a cause to get up in arms about - and pretty difficult to say the Committee dismissed "merit.' How do you determine "merit" when you're talking about such minute differences? So - given that - I have zero problem with them moving things around to "maximize attendance," even if you think that's merely a euphemism for $$$$$$. Who cares? It's splitting hairs between all of these teams. The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable. I would call the Harvard-Providence matchup an example of that - where they did nothing, and it thus created an injustice that was preventable. But I don't expect much sympathy for Harvard here.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 23, 2017 05:11PM

adamw
The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.
End hosts. They are brutally stupid and unfair.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 23, 2017 07:31PM

On
Trotsky
adamw
The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.
End hosts. They are brutally stupid and unfair.

But Providence is getting the benefit of being a host (without spending money or energy hosting) while Brown is (was?) the host. I don't see it as silly this year as it was two years ago. Back then I think they were in a position to go west and were given "home" ice.

This time it makes sense for Harvard to be in Providence and the seed worked for Providence to be there too. So the screw to Harvard was by computer as much as by the committee.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 08:11PM by marty.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 23, 2017 07:32PM

If someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (72.2.237.---)
Date: March 23, 2017 10:17PM

marty
This time it makes sense for Harvard to be in Providence and the seed worked for Providence to be there too. So the screw to Harvard was by computer as much as by the committee.
I agree. Nothing to be whining over. And calling it "egregious" is laughable, frankly.

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Tom Lento (199.201.64.---)
Date: March 24, 2017 07:08PM

BearLover
If someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

Someone tried to do this at some point years back and I think it was a measurable fraction of a goal in the men's game and neutral in the women's game. This was for all games, though, not neutral-site, so it's not clear how much of the advantage has to do with getting the last line change and how much has to do with home crowd effects. The neutrality of home ice for women's games suggests home crowd/home facility effects, because women's games at the time were poorly attended everywhere but Minnesota. However, at the time the women's game was also so top-heavy that most games had highly predictable outcomes, so it's hard to draw much of a conclusion there.

It would be interesting to see this done properly. I'm not about to do it, though. :)
 
Page: Previous123 4 5Next
Current Page: 4 of 5

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login