Yale game postponed

Due to Covid protocols within Yale program.

Has the league said what happens if a game can’t be rescheduled?

i wonder if PWR wise playing a road game against a bad team and winning is better than not playing at all? There has to be some benefit to winning games.

Canceled my hotel in Providence. Not driving out for a single game against Brown. This year looks like the fewest road trips in I don't know how long.

dbilmes
Due to Covid protocols within Yale program.

This is interesting, Sunday?

ECAC Hockey and the affected programs are continuing to explore alternative possibilities for contesting the game at a different point of the weekend.

some school have moved games to tues.. i suppose you could move yale to a tues and then move a following weekend to sat-sun or something?

upprdeck
some school have moved games to tues.. i suppose you could move yale to a tues and then move a following weekend to sat-sun or something?

Now the Yale game is on for Saturday, and the Brown game is postponed. It’s hard to keep up with this.

[cornellbigred.com]

This is all starting to remind me of an old Peanuts cartoon in which Lucy reveals her strategy for winning a baseball game: "Tell the other team we will play them at a certain place, but that won't be the real place. Then, when we go to the real place and they don't show up, we win by forfeit."

Colgate gonna have a fun trip back home given the current forecast.. Cornell has a chance to now get out of Dodge before it hits.

Jim Hyla
Canceled my hotel in Providence. Not driving out for a single game against Brown. This year looks like the fewest road trips in I don't know how long.

Good thing you cancelled your Providence hotel since Cornell won't be playing there this weekend! There are plenty of rooms in New Haven, but Yale isn't allowing spectators who aren't part of the Yale community.

Give My Regards
This is all starting to remind me of an old Peanuts cartoon in which Lucy reveals her strategy for winning a baseball game: "Tell the other team we will play them at a certain place, but that won't be the real place. Then, when we go to the real place and they don't show up, we win by forfeit."

This is also how Republicans do elections.

I don't understand the chronology on this at all.

It appears:

1. Yale postpones 11/14 Cornell
2. Brown postpones both 11/14 Colgate and 11/15 Cornell
3. Yale schedules 11/15 Cornell

But something is missing. Either Yale also postponed its 11/15 Colgate but then changed its mind, or when Colgate learned 11/15 Brown was canceled they said fuck it and pulled out of the whole weekend. And thus Cornell was able to take the now available 11/15 Yale slot.

None of that really makes sense though.

Yale pulled out. i would think Cornell had to change plans last min as did colgate.. Colgate was not prepared to play Yale and needed to move around anyway and perhaps colgate/cornell talked and with the game moving to sat Colg wanted to play the 2nd game vs yale to have time to prep as well take advantage of Yale playing a 2nd game.

Cornell might have wanted to travel back on Sunday and not Sunday night?

Maybe Colgate was always gonna leave Sunday after the Yale game so now they had a Hotel already to go and could show up Sat and prep and leave after the game Sunday. Cornell might have cancelled for Fri and then cancelled for Sat and then had to refind hotels and doing on a sat was easier?

All possible. I was thinking Colgate is a shorter trip so maybe they did Cornell a solid and gave them the early date. But at least here Sunday night is supposed to be a killer snowstorm, so I think Colgate is going to get stranded anyway.

This all sounds quite weird. Yale postpones Friday’s game ostensibly because of Covid, but not Saturday's game. Then Brown cancels games on both nights even though (at least up until then) Brown had kept both nights’ games on the schedule. But now that Brown no longer is in the picture, Yale reschedules the games formerly known as Friday’s and Saturday’s to Saturday and Sunday, Covid not withstanding.

Maybe we’ll have an open date coupled with when we play at Brown. If so, I suggest we see if we can fit Michigan in as the opponent on the complementary date. Where’s AdamW when we need him?

BTW, a recent USCHO podcast predicted that college schedules are going to resemble NHL schedules this spring, with games both on weekdays and weekends. Imagine what will happen if there aren’t two weekends with open dates, and Brown has to fit in both Colgate and Cornell for games midweek.

Trotsky
I don't understand the chronology on this at all.

It appears:

1. Yale postpones 11/14 Cornell
2. Brown postpones both 11/14 Colgate and 11/15 Cornell
3. Yale schedules 11/15 Cornell

But something is missing. Either Yale also postponed its 11/15 Colgate but then changed its mind, or when Colgate learned 11/15 Brown was canceled they said fuck it and pulled out of the whole weekend. And thus Cornell was able to take the now available 11/15 Yale slot.

None of that really makes sense though.

Does any of this make sense?

its also possible that Yale had some kids out with covid and others just out sick and they were able to field a team now that earlier in the week they were not sure they could. who knows.

when the hell are we going to fit in the brown game? if it's going to be a midweek game i hope it's before union/rpi i guess?

ugarte
when the hell are we going to fit in the brown game? if it's going to be a midweek game i hope it's before union/rpi i guess?

It’s a mess. And each week it seems more games are getting postponed and squeezed into weeknights. I wonder if the ecac has a contingency for using the first playoff weekend for makeup games (possibly only those needed to determine seeds) and converting the first round to one game playoffs on Tuesday night or something.

Chris '03
...and converting the first round to one game playoffs on Tuesday night or something.

That's how it was back in the day.

they could just change to win % I suppose to handle teams with odd numbers of games.

you could move one week to thu-fri to open up a tues game suppose.

How many games they really behind..

They could also play the game at a N site to make travel easier.. Play the Brown game like in Albany or something.

Nothing says Brown couldnt just except a forfeit either

Quin is play fri-sun-tues.. Others can do that.

Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

Meanwhile, the Cornell women are up to 4 games they need to make up -- 3 ECAC and 1 non-conference game against Syracuse (that was the game that was supposed to be played the day there was a manhunt in Cayuga Heights). Plus, they already have a midweek game scheduled against Penn State in February.

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This is the clear and correct answer.

Scersk '97

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This is the clear and correct answer.

Also how it was back in the day.

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

BearLover

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams. It's a wash. And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing. Greater Good.

Al DeFlorio

Scersk '97

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This is the clear and correct answer.

Also how it was back in the day.

Way back in the day, the entire ECAC tournament took one week. QF game Tuesday, semi Friday, final Saturday.

Give My Regards
Way back in the day, the entire ECAC tournament took one week. QF game Tuesday, semi Friday, final Saturday.

1967 post-season:

3/7 ECAC QF
3/9 ECAC SF
3/11 ECAC F
3/16 NCAA SF
3/18 NCAA F

1970 post-season:

3/10 ECAC QF
3/13 ECAC SF
3/14 ECAC F
3/19 NCAA SF
3/21 NCAA F

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams. It's a wash. And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing. Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don’t understand why it’s better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it’s a wash. I like the current format’s added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it’s a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams. It's a wash. And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing. Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don’t understand why it’s better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it’s a wash. I like the current format’s added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it’s a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams. It's a wash. And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing. Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don’t understand why it’s better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it’s a wash. I like the current format’s added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it’s a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

My reaction, exactly. Bottom-third teams stay home. Obvious.

Al DeFlorio

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams. It's a wash. And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing. Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don’t understand why it’s better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it’s a wash. I like the current format’s added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it’s a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

My reaction, exactly. Bottom-third teams stay home. Obvious.

And the incentive for a 1-4 finish is still there in having a home playoff series.

RichH

Al DeFlorio

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky
Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway. There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked. And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams. It's a wash. And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing. Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don’t understand why it’s better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it’s a wash. I like the current format’s added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it’s a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

My reaction, exactly. Bottom-third teams stay home. Obvious.

And the incentive for a 1-4 finish is still there in having a home playoff series.

Under the current format, there is a big incentive for 1-4 (bye week) and a small one for 5-8 (home playoff series). Under Trotsky’s proposed format, there is a small incentive for 1-4 (home playoff series) and a big one for 5-8 (season continues). I prefer the big jump between 4 and 5 rather than between 8 and 9. It’s far more exciting when the teams at the top of the standings are competing for the big reward than the teams at the bottom.

I'm torn between "a rest week is swell" and "the bottom four teams probably should be out."

Swampy
Imagine what will happen if there aren’t two weekends with open dates, and Brown has to fit in both Colgate and Cornell for games midweek.

Princeton and Harvard are currently scheduled to finish the regular season with 3 games in 3 nights - the last one being at 4p Sunday, following 7p games the night before for each. Harvard being the road team.

BearLover
Under the current format, there is a big incentive for 1-4 (bye week) and a small one for 5-8 (home playoff series). Under Trotsky’s proposed format, there is a small incentive for 1-4 (home playoff series) and a big one for 5-8 (season continues). I prefer the big jump between 4 and 5 rather than between 8 and 9. It’s far more exciting when the teams at the top of the standings are competing for the big reward than the teams at the bottom.

As a person who has been calling for an 8-team field for at least 10 years (probably double that given how I judge time passing), I strongly disagree with this. 1) The teams at the top of the standings are usually competing for a big reward of an at-large NCAA bid anyway. 2) Home-ice is more coveted than you suggest (see 1996: five teams slugging for four slots) 3) The criteria for being a playoff team shouldn't be "complete the season," (global health pandemic years excluded). The fact that any every team that goes 2-20 can coast to a playoff bid grinds my gears a bit. If you install a playoff cutoff, More teams will play desperate instead of mailing it in and it will make for a more competitive stretch run.

RichH

BearLover
Under the current format, there is a big incentive for 1-4 (bye week) and a small one for 5-8 (home playoff series). Under Trotsky’s proposed format, there is a small incentive for 1-4 (home playoff series) and a big one for 5-8 (season continues). I prefer the big jump between 4 and 5 rather than between 8 and 9. It’s far more exciting when the teams at the top of the standings are competing for the big reward than the teams at the bottom.

As a person who has been calling for an 8-team field for at least 10 years (probably double that given how I judge time passing), I strongly disagree with this. 1) The teams at the top of the standings are usually competing for a big reward of an at-large NCAA bid anyway. 2) Home-ice is more coveted than you suggest (see 1996: five teams slugging for four slots) 3) The criteria for being a playoff team shouldn't be "complete the season," (global health pandemic years excluded). The fact that any every team that goes 2-20 can coast to a playoff bid grinds my gears a bit. If you install a playoff cutoff, More teams will play desperate instead of mailing it in and it will make for a more competitive stretch run.

Right. Anyone who believes there wasn't much incentive for the top teams to finish as high as possible must not have experienced the years when it was top eight or out.

I will throw in my two cents. In my opinion only the top eight should make the playoffs. That still means that the majority of the teams are included. As someone who grew up watching baseball when there were two leagues, each with eight teams, and there were no playoffs, just a World Series, I feel that a championship should just be for the top teams. I have a hard time accepting that teams with an under .500 record should have a chance to advance to the NCAA tourney. Yes, it has happened, but is it really deserved? I don't think so. Perhaps there should be a reward for teams which improve as the year progresses as there once was for the NCAA tourney where record in last N games was included, but other than that, I find it hard to accept large playoffs.

The ECAC had eight teams in the playoffs before the HEA was founded, and then eight teams was fewer than half. They kept eight when the league was reduced to 12 teams, and that became ten and then everyone. Playoff inflation has been going on for a long time.

Also note that the ECAC women's hockey playoffs only include eight teams.

FWIW, Currently only the top 4 ECAC teams even have winning records.

Trotsky

Give My Regards
Way back in the day, the entire ECAC tournament took one week. QF game Tuesday, semi Friday, final Saturday.

1967 post-season:

3/7 ECAC QF
3/9 ECAC SF
3/11 ECAC F
3/16 NCAA SF
3/18 NCAA F

1970 post-season:

3/10 ECAC QF
3/13 ECAC SF
3/14 ECAC F
3/19 NCAA SF
3/21 NCAA F

1970 was quite a year!
.

George64

Trotsky

Give My Regards
Way back in the day, the entire ECAC tournament took one week. QF game Tuesday, semi Friday, final Saturday.

1967 post-season:

3/7 ECAC QF
3/9 ECAC SF
3/11 ECAC F
3/16 NCAA SF
3/18 NCAA F

1970 post-season:

3/10 ECAC QF
3/13 ECAC SF
3/14 ECAC F
3/19 NCAA SF
3/21 NCAA F

1970 was quite a year!
.

Backed stopped by Ken Dryden, ‘67 wasn’t a bad year either!
.

George64
1970 was quite a year!.

Jesus fuck, Pepperidge farm remembers.