2019-03-02: Cornell 2 Clarkson 2 (ot)

We have somehow managed to go just 1-5-3 in our last 9 RS-enders. That sole win was rather marvelous.

Playoffstatus' odds for the final standing:

       1   2   3   4
Cor  .46 .08 .26 .20
Qpc  .36 .37 .16 .10
Hvd  .10 .28 .37 .24
Clk  .08 .26 .20 .46

In this kind of road game, all one can reasonably hope for is a tie. A win would be icing on the cake.

A tie gets us a share of the regular-season "title" (if you care about those sorts of things) and at least the second seed in all permutations. I'd be very happy with that, considering.

What’s the tie breaker with clarkson if we lose?

I believe the tiebreaker would be league wins--someone correct me if I'm wrong. I also think a tie would be above expectation, but we could really use a win.

BearLover
I believe the tiebreaker would be league wins--someone correct me if I'm wrong. I also think a tie would be above expectation, but we could really use a win.

It's head to head (we'd tie them) and then league wins (they'd win).

We have the tiebreaker over Harvard and lose it over Clarkson and Q. Long story short, Q wins any tiebreak they wind up in that we're also in. If we tie Harvard and Clarkson, we win that.

1. 30 Qpc
2. 30 Cor
3. 28 Clk
4. 28 Hvd

Chalk would mean an early game SF rematch in Placid.

1.  30 Quinnipiac
    30 Cornell
3.  28 Clarkson
    28 Harvard
5.  23 Dartmouth
    23 Yale
7.  22 Union
8.  21 Brown
9.  18 Princeton
10. 17 Colgate
11. 16 RPI
12.  8 SLU

Chalk in the first round would also mean we're the recipients of the Union shit sandwich in the second round.

Trotsky
1. 30 Qpc
2. 30 Cor
3. 28 Clk
4. 28 Hvd

Chalk would mean an early game SF rematch in Placid.

Wouldn't it be a late game rematch? Quinnipiac would play Harvard in the early game, no?

So, final standings and 1R matchups, according to ECAC site.

01 Qpc
02 Cor
03 Clk
04 Hvd

05 Drt
06 Yal
07 Uni
08 Brn

09 Prn
10 Cgt
11 RPI
12 SLU

12 SLU @ 05 Drt
11 RPI @ 06 Yal
10 Cgt @ 07 Uni
09 Prn @ 08 Brn

Not sure I trust them.

andyw2100

Trotsky
1. 30 Qpc
2. 30 Cor
3. 28 Clk
4. 28 Hvd

Chalk would mean an early game SF rematch in Placid.

Wouldn't it be a late game rematch? Quinnipiac would play Harvard in the early game, no?

Yes. I am an idiot.

Trotsky
Not sure I trust them.

John's script verifies, and I trust him.

Another game against Clarkson wouldn't be bad, because this tie flipped our comparison with Arizona State (flipping common opponents), and maybe another win against Clarkson would flip it back.

However, I'm looking at the pairwise before tonight, and I swear we shouldn't have ever won it in the first place. We were behind in common opponents going into tonight. So, uh, yeah.

Dafatone
Another game against Clarkson wouldn't be bad, because this tie flipped our comparison with Arizona State (flipping common opponents), and maybe another win against Clarkson would flip it back.

However, I'm looking at the pairwise before tonight, and I swear we shouldn't have ever won it in the first place. We were behind in common opponents going into tonight. So, uh, yeah.

No, we were ahead of ASU on common opponents until tonight. The formula is taking an average of the winning percentage against each of the common opponents, not adding all the wins, losses and ties and figuring a percentage, It used to be the other way but was changed a few years ago.

jkahn

Dafatone
Another game against Clarkson wouldn't be bad, because this tie flipped our comparison with Arizona State (flipping common opponents), and maybe another win against Clarkson would flip it back.

However, I'm looking at the pairwise before tonight, and I swear we shouldn't have ever won it in the first place. We were behind in common opponents going into tonight. So, uh, yeah.

No, we were ahead of ASU on common opponents until tonight. The formula is taking an average of the winning percentage against each of the common opponents, not adding all the wins, losses and ties and figuring a percentage, It used to be the other way but was changed a few years ago.

That's silly. Maybe it's silly either way. But we were 5-3 against common opponents, ASU was 5-2, and we were ahead.

Thanks for the explanation.

Is the Cleary Cup "shared?" Cornell Sports seems to think we won it, so sharing it would be the only way the following is correct:

[www.facebook.com]

"Cornell Men’s Hockey locked up its second straight Cleary Cup with a 2-2 tie at Clarkson."

andyw2100
Is the Cleary Cup "shared?" Cornell Sports seems to think we won it, so sharing it would be the only way the following is correct:

[www.facebook.com]

"Cornell Men’s Hockey locked up its second straight Cleary Cup with a 2-2 tie at Clarkson."

I answered my own question. As per Wikipedia, it is shared:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Oh, that’s nice to know.

One more banner at Lynah, I guess.

BMac
Oh, that’s nice to know.

One more banner at Lynah, I guess.

I don't think we hang banners for that in Lynah. The "ECAC Champions" banners you see are for years where Cornell wins the ECAC Championship.

Certainly not on the front page of tbrw, and Age hasn't updated that box in this forum in years.

Scersk '97

1.  30 Quinnipiac
    30 Cornell
3.  28 Clarkson
    28 Harvard
5.  23 Dartmouth
    23 Yale
7.  22 Union
8.  21 Brown
9.  18 Princeton
10. 17 Colgate
11. 16 RPI
12.  8 SLU

Chalk in the first round would also mean we're the recipients of the Union shit sandwich in the second round.

I saw someone post this week saying it would be good to avoid Brown, and I tend to agree. Yes, Union is also strong. But Brown looks like they're finding something in a similar way Princeton did last year. Maybe we had a letdown in Providence, but give them a little credit for scoring 3x to tie a game in 1 minute...that's just impressive no matter who you are.

Hmm fair enough! God, I haven’t been physically in Lynah in way too long...

PWR after the dust settles:

 5. Qpc
10. Clk
12. Cor
13. Hvd

RichH

Scersk '97

Chalk in the first round would also mean we're the recipients of the Union shit sandwich in the second round.

I saw someone post this week saying it would be good to avoid Brown, and I tend to agree. Yes, Union is also strong. But Brown looks like they're finding something in a similar way Princeton did last year. Maybe we had a letdown in Providence, but give them a little credit for scoring 3x to tie a game in 1 minute...that's just impressive no matter who you are.

Oh, if I got to choose who we'd play, I'd go for (in order) SLU, Princeton, Colgate, Dartmouth, RPI, Yale, Brown, Union.

I was also really impressed with Brown this year; it's all a land of "be careful what you wish for."

it's fine

RichH

Scersk '97

1.  30 Quinnipiac
    30 Cornell
3.  28 Clarkson
    28 Harvard
5.  23 Dartmouth
    23 Yale
7.  22 Union
8.  21 Brown
9.  18 Princeton
10. 17 Colgate
11. 16 RPI
12.  8 SLU

Chalk in the first round would also mean we're the recipients of the Union shit sandwich in the second round.

I saw someone post this week saying it would be good to avoid Brown, and I tend to agree. Yes, Union is also strong. But Brown looks like they're finding something in a similar way Princeton did last year. Maybe we had a letdown in Providence, but give them a little credit for scoring 3x to tie a game in 1 minute...that's just impressive no matter who you are.

That's been me. It's so bewildering to see a hot Brown team that I'm scared of it. Plus, while Union's very good, at least playing them will be good for our RPI. Brown, we face a tough team that isn't going to help us in RPI as much.

In addition to Barron failing to clear the puck on the tying goal, Schafer's postgame comments also suggest he made a mistake by going down to block an ensuing shot:

Schafer
“The guys up top are supposed to be blocking shots. The guys underneath aren’t, [and] we didn’t pick guys up,” Schafer said, adding that the winning goal resembled a drill Cornell often runs in practice. “The puck came down, hit someone and landed right on their kid’s stick.”

Highlights

Cornell lost the vast majority of "50-50" battles in this game. I have a hard time believing Clarkson was competing harder, so I guess it was injuries/exhaustion? As has mostly been the case lately, Galajda was solid.

BearLover
In addition to Barron failing to clear the puck on the tying goal, Schafer's postgame comments also suggest he made a mistake by going down to block an ensuing shot:

Schafer
“The guys up top are supposed to be blocking shots. The guys underneath aren’t, [and] we didn’t pick guys up,” Schafer said, adding that the winning goal resembled a drill Cornell often runs in practice. “The puck came down, hit someone and landed right on their kid’s stick.”

Highlights

Cornell lost the vast majority of "50-50" battles in this game. I have a hard time believing Clarkson was competing harder, so I guess it was injuries/exhaustion? As has mostly been the case lately, Galajda was solid.

I don't know, Barron got his glove on the puck. There were 2 Clarkson players down low, Betts had his player covered well, but Smith coming back was more interested in the shooter in the high slot, than the Clarkson player down low. The goal scorer was completely uncovered. I think that was the major defensive mistake on the goal.