2004 frozen four

I was just wondering what you all think about cornells chances of going back to th frozen next year. I think they have a chance with the recruites they have coming back and the best goalie in the nation. let me know what you think

just a few corrections I must have typed it to fast. when it says frozen make that frozen four, add a e to th (the) and it says what recruites are coming back, supposed to say comming in.

Is Lenny coming back? That is the key question...
They have a shot, although Harvard will be tough again.

I think we'll be more of a darkhorse this coming year. Granted at the beginning of the just completed season, no one regarded us quite as highly as the end. But with all the experience gained by this team and the wonderful leadership this team had, there are going to be some surprises next year I think!

Speaking of the Frozen Four, have other past ticketholders received their 2004 applications yet? The NCAA site says they were to be mailed mid-April.

I didn't receive anything in the mail.

Even though I have been at three since 1998 I was only listed as the buyer this year. I am assuming I will have to print out the application from the NCAA web site in May when the lottery applications are taken.

Notyhing yet.

Applications are now available on the NC$$ site:

[www.ncaasports.com]

and it's RED!

And I got my priority app. in the mail today.

If LeNeveu comes back he's always a threat to run a couple shut-outs back-to-back and get Cornell through a Regional. Cornell would probably have to win both of those games wearing road jerseys, but hey -- possible.

That's provided they make the NCAA field at all, of course. And that would probably require another great weekend from Lenny in Albany, and again, probably wearing the road unis in at least one and likely both games.

So. Four straight upset wins in no tomorrow situations. Not at all likely, but hey -- possible.

I don't know if I'd rule out our shot at finishing in the top 14 and getting an at-large bid, even if we don't win in Albany. I mean if Harvard did it this year...

I agree -- with all we are losing the Frozen Four is highly unlikely. I think making the NCAA tournament will be a very successful season. And ieven if we don't, I'm still very positive about the direction of Cornell hockey. Before the last two years I had begun to doubt that it was possible for Cornell to ever again be a major national hockey power. We had a great run in the last two years, and i'm confident that the future is bright and I Schafer will have us back near the top before too long.

Should be interesting to see if we can make top 14. Looking WAY too far ahead, let's say we:

- split with WMU (they'll have some games under their belts, but both at Lynah)
- beat BG and Mercyhurst (please?)
- lose to OSU (assume Umberger stays for now)
- beat ND, but lose the final of Everblades to Maine (doubling our win total in FL!)

4-3 OOC record - eh, not horrible, but picking up the Everblades final or the OSU game would be huge (especially if it's Maine, our only potential HE game of the year - a win there would go a LONG way towards helping our comparisons against HE teams).

In conference, assume we get swept by Harvard ( ), split with Dartmouth ( ), Yale ( ), and Brown ( ), and then drop a couple that we shouldn't. That'd be 15-7 in conference, which should be good for 3rd or 4th place.

Final RS record: 19-10.

We really shouldn't lose 2 of 3 at Lynah in the ECACs (yes, I know all about UVM and Clarkson, but well, hey - that was CLARKSON). Anyway, in my scenario, we sweep the #6 ECAC team on our way into Albany.

That leaves "road" games in Albany for the title. The good news is that we should be getting stronger and stronger as the season goes on and those highly touted freshman become solid college players who know Schafer's system. Say we gack one up in Albany anyway, beating #2 and then losing to #1 in the final.

Final record for NCAA selection: 22-11.

Since I'm really bored, if all our (next years') opponents' win % and their ops' win % are the same as they were this year, then our opponents' % will be approximately .473 (compared with .508 this year) and our opponents' opponents' % will be ~.496 (vs. .504 this year). This includes 2 games against ECAC team #6 (Union) for the QFs, and games against Yale and Harvard at Albany. This is a significantly weaker schedule (hopefully Harvard will be better, but some will likely be worse, too) than this year. With my hypothetical 22-11 record, our RPI would finish at ~.527, which would have only ranked 20th this year.

Last year, the 14th best RPI was OSU at .5497. For us to end up with an RPI of .55, we'd need to post at least a .78 record against that schedule, which would correspond to about 26-7. Yikes. Basically, our schedule strength will be SO weak we'll have to put up a heck of a record just to crack the top 14 in RPI. To get back to where we finished this year (#1 in RPI at .5958), we'd have to go 31-1!

Of course, RPI is only one component of PWR, but it's a pretty good predictor of final PWR, too. If we beat Mercyhurst and they win their tourney, that would help, etc. Based on all this, I'm really not holding my breath for an at-large bid next year. 26-7 would be an amazing achievement – my gut tells me we have a better shot at "one for the big toe" than a 26-7 record.

That was one of the most impressive displays of proactive geekiness I've ever seen here, and that includes the efforts of Mr. Whelan, myself, and others. Bravo.

A 30-point ECAC season seems unlikely.

[www.spiritone.com] gives an indication of how difficult it is to clean up against teams that finish lower in the standings. You're thinking of a season similar to 1988. That's probably the best possible scenario. I'm thinking that a season like 1989 would be more likely, and a season like 1992 the most likely of all. Then again, in 1992 we had a great goaltender (Duffus) lead us to upset wins in the QF and SF. Kepler's second law can take care of March.

BTW, we got the second big toe in March. We are now working on the Hemmingway toes. Insert polydactyl joke here.



Post Edited (05-02-03 14:16)

Yeah! Whoo-hoo! I'm king of the geeks!



Post Edited (05-02-03 14:52)

I haven't crunched any of the numbers, but I would have to think our ECAC opponents will end up with higher RPIStrs next year than they did this year, so while our non-conference schedule will be considerably weaker, our conference schedule will be somewhat stronger.

Greg wrote:
That was one of the most impressive displays of proactive geekiness I've ever seen here, and that includes the efforts of Mr. Whelan, myself, and others.

That's Professor Whelan to you, buddy!

Or Dr. Whelan, I suppose. None of my students actually calls me Professor Whelan. Mr. Whelan was either my father the Social Studies teacher or my uncle the Math teacher. I think I was out of grad school before anyone felt the need to call me anything other than John or Arthur or Shaggy.



Post Edited (05-02-03 15:20)

I sure as heck HOPE the overall conference RPI of the ECAC rises (how could it fall????), but I'm not counting on a lot of help from those @#$@% slackers.

I like to think our chances next year are better than most people think. Remember, 2 years back, the expectations on the national level were not very high and we came within an inch of making the final 4.

To continue the pattern... Maybe next year, we'll make it to the finals and lose to UNH, then in 2005, we'll win it and UNH won't make the tournament. (The thought of UNH winning makes me sick.)

In reality, this year was our year and we couldn't do it. I feel like if that disallowed goal counts, we're NCAA champs. Any one else feel that way? (maybe wishful thinking.) Depressing.

Addendum: I can't stand the phrase "Frozen Four." Just call it the "Final Four." Who's with me? We can win this fight against gimmicky NCAA marketing.

CUundergrad/MIgrad wrote:
Addendum: I can't stand the phrase "Frozen Four." Just call it the "Final Four." Who's with me? We can win this fight against gimmicky NCAA marketing.

Actually, the phrase was initially popularized on by college hockey fans on the Hockey-L mailing list, as a protest/joke in response to the NC$$ having trademarked the phrase "Final Four" to refer to the men's and women's basketball championship. ("Phinal Phour" was also used for the same reason.) Then, after we'd been using it for three or four years, the NC$$ goes and trademarks "Frozen Four". The unpleasant NC$$ marketing was to co-opt the geeky hockey fan phrase.

The earliest mention I can find of "Frozen Four":

[lists.maine.edu]

A Hockey-L FAQ table of contents containing a "Phinal Phour" question

[lists.maine.edu]

The explanation of "Phinal Phour" from an old Hockey-L FAQ which mentions "Frozen Four" (which I just noticed was posted by me)

[lists.maine.edu]

First use of the term "Phinal Phour":

[lists.maine.edu]

First use of the term "Phrozen Phour"

[lists.maine.edu]

A forwarded newspaper excerpt on the NC$$'s Final Four trademark

[lists.maine.edu]

The beginning of the NC$$'s search for an official name for the hockey tournament

[lists.maine.edu]

I'm still trying to find the link to when the NC$$ officially stol--adopted the "Frozen Four" name. I think it was fall 1998, since it was already official as of the following post from current ECAC Hockey Czar S.Hagwell:

[lists.maine.edu]

geez - I think my title as KOTG only lasted about 4 hours....

Robb Newman wrote:
geez - I think my title as KOTG only lasted about 4 hours....

Hail to the King, baby!

CUundergrad/MIgrad wrote:

>>In reality, this year was our year and we couldn't do it. I feel like if that disallowed goal counts, we're NCAA champs. Any one else feel that way? (maybe wishful thinking.) Depressing.


I agree, although sometimes I also feel like if Palahicky had deflected that shot wide (i.e. the shot never went in), we would never have lost momentum and we very well may have put one in on the next shift or the shift after that.

And damn it, the Flyers just scored.....

Avash '05 wrote:
I agree, although sometimes I also feel like if Palahicky had deflected that shot wide (i.e. the shot never went in), we would never have lost momentum and we very well may have put one in on the next shift or the shift after that.

I feel the same way. Why couldn't that shot have hit Ayers in the helmet?

I agree. It wasn't the fact that it wasn't a goal that turned the tide, it was the fact that the review took so much time.

I'm just being bitter, but...

1) If a goal review takes nearly 10 minutes to decide that it wasn't a goal, to a certain extent, that is some indication that it may have been a goal in the first place.

1a) That said, what was the dynamic of the review? Did they decide immediately that it wasn't a goal, then take the time to make sure they were correct?

2) Maybe some time limit should be instituted as per the NFL system. After some period of time, if there is not conclusive evidence to overturn a goal, the ruling on the ice should stand.

2a) Without a time limit, no matter what the ruling after a lengthy delay, it likely hurts the team that (may have) scored. It gives the team scored on the opportunity to regroup and make adjustments. (Clearly that is what UNH was able to do.

Wow, I'm more bitter than I thought. I need to stop thinking about this stuff.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard somewhere that there's a 3 minute time limit (or suggested time limit?) for a goal review.

Obviously the review in the UNH game took much longer than that...

It's a suggested time limit:

"The instant-replay official shall communicate a decision to the referee as quickly as possible and will attempt to complete the process within two minutes from the start of the review."

Appendix C - "Procedure (Video Review)"

I've had the rulebook on my desktop all season, am I Price of the Geeks?

here are my predicitions for next years season.
for non conference record i say we go 5-2. sweep uwm, beat bowling green and mercheyhurst, beat nd in everblades, loose to maine in final and loose to ohio state.
as for ecac, i think you guys i thinking that these teams in the ecac are better than they actually are, i mean come on, were talking they have to play against the best fans in all of college hockey i say we go 15-3 at home and we end up with a number 2 seed in the ecac. as for our road record, it wont be as good as are home record but i say we go 7-4 wich gives us a 22-7 record. and in the conference 17-5. for the uscho.com polls i say we maintain a number 7 seed most of the year.

Now for the ncaa tournament i think we will win the first game win the second one in an upset and loose in the frozen four.

You're absolutely right in thinking that Cornell will be a better team than most of the ECAC teams (heck, even I picked us to finish 3rd), but Greg is also right that even when you're better than the other teams, it's darn near impossible to run the table. Being "better" than another team just means that you have greater than a 50% probability of winning - that you would win a best-of-999999 series, not that you win every game of that series. Even if a particular team has a 99% chance of winning every game (say, the Red Wings joined the ECAC), even they would only have a (.99)^22 = 80% chance of going undefeated in a 22 game season.

This is the same effect that caused Cornell to be ranked #1 going into the NCAA tournament even though "we hadn't played anybody." It's pretty unlikely that a merely "good" team can rack up a 29-4-1 record against mediocre competition - it's more likely that a team that can achieve that record is a truly great team.

Robb Newman wrote:

(say, the Red Wings joined the ECAC), even they would only have a (.99)^22 = 80% chance of going undefeated in a 22 game season.

Try telling this to certain WCHA fans over on USCHO.

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

Robb Newman wrote:

(say, the Red Wings joined the ECAC), even they would only have a (.99)^22 = 80% chance of going undefeated in a 22 game season.

Try telling this to certain WCHA fans over on USCHO.

I suspect Mankato fans understand, and perhaps a few of the more intelligent and open-minded others.

As much as we [rightfully] expressed upset at that first-round match-up, in hindsight it was a good thing for Cornell's hockey reputation. Handling the [tied for] #2 WCHA team with relative ease may have been one of the more important statements made by this year's team. Another win over a MAAC team--or CHA--would have proved nothing.



Post Edited (05-06-03 07:33)

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

Try telling this to certain WCHA fans over on USCHO.

I try to avoid trying to tell them ANYTHING. Sometime I'm going to try proclaiming that the WCHA is the only hockey that matters, just to see if their knee-jerk reaction is still to disagree with me because I cheer for an ECAC team....

[q] in hindsight it was a good thing for Cornell's hockey reputation. Handling the [tied for] #2 WCHA team with relative ease may have been one of the more important statements made by this year's team. Another win over a MAAC team--or CHA--would have proved nothing[/q]

You'd think so, and yet I still read on USCHO how the Big Red "played nobody" and "beat BU a couple times before Christmas but that was about it."

I guess it is no surprise that there are and will always be fans who continue to run Cornell and the ECAC down no matter what. Al Davis said it best: just win, Bâby.

On the other hand, I'd give the Red Wings a better than 99% chance of winning every game.

Jim Hyla '67 wrote:

On the other hand, I'd give the Red Wings a better than 99% chance of winning every game.

Right on, Jim. I decided not to post this when I read Robb's post, but I thought it. I would give the Red Wings a better than 99% chance of going undefeated in the ECAC. Someone else can figure out what that means I think the chances of Detroit winning any individual game are.



Post Edited (05-07-03 00:13)

99% chance of sweeping a 22 game season = 99.9543271% (approx ) chance in each game

Come on, gimme a hard one .



Post Edited (05-07-03 00:48)

Well, okay, say the ISLANDERS joined the ECAC.... (Sorry, Greg - couldn't resist!)