Opponents and Others 2023-24

abmarks

Trotsky

scoop85

dbilmes
If we think our freshmen are good, BC has an all-freshman line which has combined for 38 goals this season.

If we had 3 1st rounders on a line they’d have the same type of production

And they'd leave after 2 years.

If you can reload with 3.more every two years, who cares?

I guess that's true, but I think there are symbiotic effects with guys who play a long time together. And patriots are more romantic than mercenaries.

Schafer's success has been an expression of the advantages of team culture and experience over atomistic individuals, however talented.

Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Oh, Stonehill...

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Awesome job, thank you! One note—I think the correlation doesn’t jump off the page as much as it would if the scale of the Y-axis were adjusted for the fact that RPI ranges from 42% to 62% (excluding Stonehill). Which is to say, there is an EXTREMELY positive correlation this year between draft picks and RPI. Obviously, correlation=/=causation. Better programs attract better talent, etc. etc. But maybe the people on this forum will reconsider their refusal to judge a team’s quality in part by its number of drafted players.

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

I pulled it from CHN quickly. So any errors are likely mine first and CHN's second to the extent any of their data is incomplete.

I think one issue driving the data is that about half the teams are at 0. When I limit the graph to looking only at teams with 2-10 picks, the relationship is less pronounced.

Here's that: [imgur.com]

If you adjust the y axis to emphasize the slope of the line, you get this: [imgur.com]

For anyone curious as to ECAC specifically: [imgur.com]

I'm a lawyer, not a stats guy by any means. So do with what you will with this.

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Awesome job, thank you! One note—I think the correlation doesn’t jump off the page as much as it would if the scale of the Y-axis were adjusted for the fact that RPI ranges from 42% to 62% (excluding Stonehill). Which is to say, there is an EXTREMELY positive correlation this year between draft picks and RPI. Obviously, correlation=/=causation. Better programs attract better talent, etc. etc. But maybe the people on this forum will reconsider their refusal to judge a team’s quality in part by its number of drafted players.

I'm not sure anyone refuses to consider draft picks, in part, as a tool for evaluating quality of a team. I think the general sentiment is that you overvalue it by a large margin.

Its just like the star ranking in college fball. Yeah you miss on the star rankings a decent amount..

But if one team has 20 4stars and one team has 3, you dont have be near as good as spotting the talent. You go 30% and you have 6 Ohio state players and the other team goes 100% still only has 3..

You do that over 2-3 years and now its 18 vs 9.. It just adds up. If both teams go at 50% its even worse 30 vs 4..

Chris '03

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Awesome job, thank you! One note—I think the correlation doesn’t jump off the page as much as it would if the scale of the Y-axis were adjusted for the fact that RPI ranges from 42% to 62% (excluding Stonehill). Which is to say, there is an EXTREMELY positive correlation this year between draft picks and RPI. Obviously, correlation=/=causation. Better programs attract better talent, etc. etc. But maybe the people on this forum will reconsider their refusal to judge a team’s quality in part by its number of drafted players.

I'm not sure anyone refuses to consider draft picks, in part, as a tool for evaluating quality of a team. I think the general sentiment is that you overvalue it by a large margin.

Yes, I should have said: “in significant part.” I feel pretty strongly about my position but not interested in rehashing this argument now. Thanks for the graphs.

Chris '03

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

I pulled it from CHN quickly. So any errors are likely mine first and CHN's second to the extent any of their data is incomplete.

I think one issue driving the data is that about half the teams are at 0. When I limit the graph to looking only at teams with 2-10 picks, the relationship is less pronounced.

Here's that: [imgur.com]

If you adjust the y axis to emphasize the slope of the line, you get this: [imgur.com]

For anyone curious as to ECAC specifically: [imgur.com]

I'm a lawyer, not a stats guy by any means. So do with what you will with this.

That's all very useful stuff. I'd say there are three types of teams: good teams loaded with picks, good teams not loaded with picks, and bad teams not loaded with picks.

And then Harvard.

Dafatone

Chris '03

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

I pulled it from CHN quickly. So any errors are likely mine first and CHN's second to the extent any of their data is incomplete.

I think one issue driving the data is that about half the teams are at 0. When I limit the graph to looking only at teams with 2-10 picks, the relationship is less pronounced.

Here's that: [imgur.com]

If you adjust the y axis to emphasize the slope of the line, you get this: [imgur.com]

For anyone curious as to ECAC specifically: [imgur.com]

I'm a lawyer, not a stats guy by any means. So do with what you will with this.

That's all very useful stuff. I'd say there are three types of teams: good teams loaded with picks, good teams not loaded with picks, and bad teams not loaded with picks.

And then Harvard.

You can't count!
You can't count!

Our boy jack Malone helps us out adding to BCs lead over UNH which is now at 3-0

Wow, that was just unconscienably lazy by RPI.

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

for the love of all that's holy, please tell me who they are

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Awesome job, thank you! One note—I think the correlation doesn’t jump off the page as much as it would if the scale of the Y-axis were adjusted for the fact that RPI ranges from 42% to 62% (excluding Stonehill). Which is to say, there is an EXTREMELY positive correlation this year between draft picks and RPI. Obviously, correlation=/=causation. Better programs attract better talent, etc. etc. But maybe the people on this forum will reconsider their refusal to judge a team’s quality in part by its number of drafted players.

I'm not sure anyone refuses to consider draft picks, in part, as a tool for evaluating quality of a team. I think the general sentiment is that you overvalue it by a large margin.

Yes, I should have said: “in significant part.” I feel pretty strongly about my position but not interested in rehashing this argument now. Thanks for the graphs.

I realize you may not be a fan of nuanced arguments -- but this is really a recent trend, and not nearly in your favor as you think it is.

Certainly top blue blood programs have always gotten more draft picks. But since college hockey has started to attract more high end players, those players also leave early. This means that over the last 10-15 years, many of those blue blood programs have struggled, despite the large number of draft picks.

This has changed basically over the last 3 years or so ... The main reason for this is because they've learned to augment their high-end talent with four-year players. ALSO - they have learned just in the last year or two that they can use the transfer portal to effectively plug in for the players who left - using smaller schools as farm systems.

Point being, this is a very recent correlation, to the extent that it's bigger now. Historically, it's not nearly as true as you think. The 1999 Maine team, for example, famously won a national title with all but zero future NHL players. Certainly there are others if we want to go through the entire history. And no Big Ten school has won a national title in 17 years.

It all may be changing, but again, that's a very recent thing. And it's unfortunate where the NCAA has headed.

adamw

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

for the love of all that's holy, please tell me who they are

BU—Shane Lachance
BC—Andre Gasseau

(Other teams are missing some too but I only went through BU/BC because those were the teams I mentioned above.)

adamw

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Awesome job, thank you! One note—I think the correlation doesn’t jump off the page as much as it would if the scale of the Y-axis were adjusted for the fact that RPI ranges from 42% to 62% (excluding Stonehill). Which is to say, there is an EXTREMELY positive correlation this year between draft picks and RPI. Obviously, correlation=/=causation. Better programs attract better talent, etc. etc. But maybe the people on this forum will reconsider their refusal to judge a team’s quality in part by its number of drafted players.

I'm not sure anyone refuses to consider draft picks, in part, as a tool for evaluating quality of a team. I think the general sentiment is that you overvalue it by a large margin.

Yes, I should have said: “in significant part.” I feel pretty strongly about my position but not interested in rehashing this argument now. Thanks for the graphs.

I realize you may not be a fan of nuanced arguments -- but this is really a recent trend, and not nearly in your favor as you think it is.

Certainly top blue blood programs have always gotten more draft picks. But since college hockey has started to attract more high end players, those players also leave early. This means that over the last 10-15 years, many of those blue blood programs have struggled, despite the large number of draft picks.

This has changed basically over the last 3 years or so ... The main reason for this is because they've learned to augment their high-end talent with four-year players. ALSO - they have learned just in the last year or two that they can use the transfer portal to effectively plug in for the players who left - using smaller schools as farm systems.

Point being, this is a very recent correlation, to the extent that it's bigger now. Historically, it's not nearly as true as you think. The 1999 Maine team, for example, famously won a national title with all but zero future NHL players. Certainly there are others if we want to go through the entire history. And no Big Ten school has won a national title in 17 years.

It all may be changing, but again, that's a very recent thing. And it's unfortunate where the NCAA has headed.

Who said I’m not a fan of nuanced arguments? I enjoy all arguments, nuanced or otherwise. Anyway, I agree. The transfer portal has eliminated the one disadvantage the blue bloods had. I am hopeful things will be better once the fifth year of eligibility goes away.

BearLover

adamw

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover
Can somebody please plot a graph with # of draft picks on the X axis and that team’s PWR on the Y axis, to test the correlation?

Current RPI vs Picks: [imgur.com]

Also, quick question: from where did you derive the number of picks on each team? I know BU and BC each have 14, but the graph stops at 13. The CHN rosters are missing some drafted players, if that’s where you got the data.

for the love of all that's holy, please tell me who they are

BU—Shane Lachance
BC—Andre Gasseau

(Other teams are missing some too but I only went through BU/BC because those were the teams I mentioned above.)

Thank you - if you know of others - feel free to send. I usually try to get them all each summer when the draft happens. Unfortunately this happens when the player wasn't committed at the time of the draft - and then commits a year later or something - which was the case with both these guys, since they were drafted in 2021.

in the CCHA if St thomas loses to Augustana they could end up in first play in the league and be under .500

Minn st is the only team really over .500 by more than a game.

BearLover
There are some YouTube videos with yours of college hockey facilities. For example, UMass, which provides its players 24-hour access to a rink and gym exclusive to the hockey team:
[youtu.be]
Contrast with the Cornell men’s team, which shares its ice with the women’s team, figure skating team, club team, intramurals, and recreational skaters, and which has a couple exclusive bikes and treadmills.

Like a normal university where students and student athletes share some facilities.

Although it has been decades since you could play touch football or Frisbee on Schoellkopf. Or pickup anything on Upper Alumni Fields.

billhoward

BearLover
There are some YouTube videos with yours of college hockey facilities. For example, UMass, which provides its players 24-hour access to a rink and gym exclusive to the hockey team:
[youtu.be]
Contrast with the Cornell men’s team, which shares its ice with the women’s team, figure skating team, club team, intramurals, and recreational skaters, and which has a couple exclusive bikes and treadmills.

Like a normal university where students and student athletes share some facilities.

Although it has been decades since you could play touch football or Frisbee on Schoellkopf. Or pickup anything on Upper Alumni Fields.

Did they really stop letting people play on the fball field. It doesnt seem that long that I was there during lunch and kids were playing on it?

Nah they don’t kick people off of the football field unless there is a practice. It is very hard to find room in any of the indoor facilities these days though.

Maine blew a late lead and refused to stay out of the box in falling in OT.

Merrimack helps keep UNH below us
Omaha wins on IT over WMU to help a little

Minn ST is now the only team over .500 in the CCHA.

MSU the big game left tonight

upprdeck
Maine blew a late lead and refused to stay out of the box in falling in OT.

Merrimack helps keep UNH below us
Omaha wins on IT over WMU to help a little

Minn ST is now the only team over .500 in the CCHA.

MSU the big game left tonight

UNH is so far behind at this point that if they catch us, we have other problems. We need to root for the following teams to lose:
—Michigan
—SCSU
—Providence
—Western Michigan
—UMass

And we want ASU to win out.

Another example of how the system plays out is Cornell vs Prov
They dont play but they have played 6 games vs COP.

Cornell 4-0-2 no losses. Prov 3-3 three losses and it means nothing

Playing a harder schedule I get, but when you play past a certain number of COP and have a much higher result that should count for something.

Mich loses so up to 13.

Win next week and Hope BU takes card of Prov and BC does the same to Umass

upprdeck
Mich loses so up to 13.

Win next week and Hope BU takes card of Prov and BC does the same to Umass

Actually, we were up to 13 before the UM v MSU game went final. In fact, that final actually narrowed the gap between us and St. Cloud.

Jeff Hopkins '82

upprdeck
Mich loses so up to 13.

Win next week and Hope BU takes card of Prov and BC does the same to Umass

Actually, we were up to 13 before the UM v MSU game went final. In fact, that final actually narrowed the gap between us and St. Cloud.

Per CHN we are now exactly tied with SCSU (in RPI and therefore in PWR).

BearLover

Jeff Hopkins '82

upprdeck
Mich loses so up to 13.

Win next week and Hope BU takes card of Prov and BC does the same to Umass

Actually, we were up to 13 before the UM v MSU game went final. In fact, that final actually narrowed the gap between us and St. Cloud.

Per CHN we are now exactly tied with SCSU (in RPI and therefore in PWR).

And when I say we were up on SCSU, we were ahead by 0.0001 RPI point.

It remains a weird year for RPI. We are at .5590, which would have us around 8th most years.

Even last yr a PWR of .5800 gets you 3rd and this yr its ninth..

Non of it matters until the end. Hard to know where it was last yr at this time.

There have been almost no upsets the last few weekends. We need WMU/SCSU/Prov/UMass/Mich to lose to a bad team, but that hasn’t been happening. It would also probably be good if, when these teams happen to play each other (eg. SCSU plays WMU for two games in a couple weeks), one team sweeps rather than the teams splitting.

It doesn't help to have almost the whole ECAC be pretty poor. Better play brings them up and that helps Cornell and brings down all the teams OC that they lost to.

Its hard to have a 4-5-6 loss season no matter what teams you play.

upprdeck
It doesn't help to have almost the whole ECAC be pretty poor. Better play brings them up and that helps Cornell and brings down all the teams OC that they lost to.

Its hard to have a 4-5-6 loss season no matter what teams you play.

RPI is meant to adjust for this, so I still don’t really buy these arguments. But yes, I think that, in the case where there are only one or two good teams in our league (as is the case this year), there is added importance for the ECAC to do well out of conference. For example, if Harvard were to do the impossible and beat BC on Monday, then all the ECAC teams would benefit in SOS and all the HE teams would suffer. The difference being that there are two HE teams directly ahead of us that we are trying to catch, but no ECAC teams.

In short: RPI is meant to adjust for SOS, so how good our league is or isn’t shouldn’t really affect RPI. Whether Harvard is good or bad, that should be a wash from our perspective.* Remember, our league being better = we are more likely to lose when we play in-league games. However, what we DO want to happen is for Harvard to get lucky in out of conference games, even if overall they are bad.

*actually, we do benefit from Harvard and the rest of our league sucking, once we are outside the context of RPI/PWR, because it increases our odds of winning the ECAC tournament.

Unless I am grossly misunderstanding your argument or RPI, you have it exactly backwards. RPI's adjustment for SoS is what brings it into consideration. Far from diminishing it, it quantifies it. That is indeed the whole point of RPI: to compare members of different sets which do not have direct common games.

Without something like RPI we would go by winning percentage and then you would be correct: beating on the Little Sisters of the Poor would be optimal. But with RPI, and quite rightly, a great record against bum opponents is discounted, and surviving with a mediocre record against great opponents is rewarded.

As in society, a rising tide raises all boats. As in society, gross inequality damages even those on top. We need a stronger ECAC to support a stronger Cornell. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

Trotsky
As in society, a rising tide raises all boats. As in society, gross inequality damages even those on top. We need a stronger ECAC to support a stronger Cornell. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

As you've said in other places, these things are cyclical. There has been, at least for the ECAC, quite a bit of coaching turnover lately, if you count lately as "in the last 10 years." The long-termers, with the exception of Whittet, who has never been good at anything except keeping in the good graces of the administration it seems, and Allain, who seems to have lost the plot entirely, have either stabilized or raised the profiles of their programs. (I have to believe Teddy's year this year is a blip, but we shall see.) I think Brekke will eventually right the ship at St. Lawrence; I think Casey has Clarkson back on an even keel, but there are institutional and wider college hockey reasons that are making it difficult to keep a team together; and I feel for Ron Fogarty at Princeton, the purgatory of coaches. The new hires are good, particularly Harder at Colgate (no surprise considering how he played) and Cashman at Dartmouth. Whoever coaches at RPI has a tough road, it seems, but at least the institution itself is turning around.

What bothers me more is that Pandolfo and Greg Brown seem to be very, very good. And we already know Carvel and Leaman are good. And now a sleeping giant has been awoken by Ben Barr. We're at a coaching disadvantage to Hockey East for the first time in a while, and that's a tough row to hoe. In order to have a chance of winning nationally, we need to be the best in the East. And, since our relative stature depends on so few games that we tend to play against the West, we desperately need the rest of the league, particularly Harvard and Quinnipiac, to take care of business vs. Hockey East.

It's tough to "go it alone," but that's where we (and Quinnipiac) are this year. I hope this situation plays out better in the future, and I hope we can stay on top of that rising tide.

Trotsky
Unless I am grossly misunderstanding your argument or RPI, you have it exactly backwards. RPI's adjustment for SoS is what brings it into consideration. Far from diminishing it, it quantifies it. That is indeed the whole point of RPI: to compare members of different sets which do not have direct common games.

Without something like RPI we would go by winning percentage and then you would be correct: beating on the Little Sisters of the Poor would be optimal. But with RPI, and quite rightly, a great record against bum opponents is discounted, and surviving with a mediocre record against great opponents is rewarded.

As in society, a rising tide raises all boats. As in society, gross inequality damages even those on top. We need a stronger ECAC to support a stronger Cornell. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

You’re misunderstanding (or I’m not being clear enough). My argument is as follows: the reason RPI exists is because we need a way to compare teams who play different schedules of varying degrees of difficulty. RPI (if it works correctly) bakes in the disparity in difficulty of schedule. It is supposed to tell you the “true” strength of a team, accounting for the schedule it plays.

Let’s take two teams as an example: Cornell and Providence. Currently RPI judges those teams to be about equal, i.e. their “true” strength is about equal. If RPI is correctly adjudicating teams, then, if Cornell and Providence swapped conferences for a year, their RPI would be UNCHANGED. Cornell (or Providence) should have the same RPI whether they are in the ECAC, HE, the CCHA, or are independent.

Because a team’s “true” strength is not a function of its conference (it exists independently of its conference), RPI will not change based on the conference of a team.

Remember, if Cornell were to play in HE, or the ECAC were to be better, then Cornell’s SOS would improve, but it’s win% would go down. Its RPI, which, again, judges the “true” strength of Cornell, would be UNCHANGED. Therefore, being in a stronger conference would not benefit Cornell (or any team).

BearLover
Remember, if Cornell were to play in HE, or the ECAC were to be better, then Cornell’s SOS would improve, but it’s win% would go down. Its RPI, which, again, judges the “true” strength of Cornell, would be UNCHANGED. Therefore, being in a stronger conference would not benefit Cornell (or any team).

Basically, you're forgetting about the effects of small sample spaces. We can play lights out for the rest of the year, the kind of hockey that would put us just behind BU and BC, and it just doesn't matter. I think our absolute ceiling is a 2-seed. In this climate, that also means we have an infinitesimal margin for error, and any hiccup vs. a lower-ranked team really hurts.

We'd be better off in a better conference, particularly with our young team, because not every night is the season. Frankly, I think it would allow us to make further progress toward the freer but still defensively responsible kind of hockey we've been playing for the last ten years. So too would 36 games instead of 29, but I digress.

Scersk '97

Trotsky
As in society, a rising tide raises all boats. As in society, gross inequality damages even those on top. We need a stronger ECAC to support a stronger Cornell. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

As you've said in other places, these things are cyclical. There has been, at least for the ECAC, quite a bit of coaching turnover lately, if you count lately as "in the last 10 years." The long-termers, with the exception of Whittet, who has never been good at anything except keeping in the good graces of the administration it seems, and Allain, who seems to have lost the plot entirely, have either stabilized or raised the profiles of their programs. (I have to believe Teddy's year this year is a blip, but we shall see.) I think Brekke will eventually right the ship at St. Lawrence; I think Casey has Clarkson back on an even keel, but there are institutional and wider college hockey reasons that are making it difficult to keep a team together; and I feel for Ron Fogarty at Princeton, the purgatory of coaches. The new hires are good, particularly Harder at Colgate (no surprise considering how he played) and Cashman at Dartmouth. Whoever coaches at RPI has a tough road, it seems, but at least the institution itself is turning around.

What bothers me more is that Pandolfo and Greg Brown seem to be very, very good. And we already know Carvel and Leaman are good. And now a sleeping giant has been awoken by Ben Barr. We're at a coaching disadvantage to Hockey East for the first time in a while, and that's a tough row to hoe. In order to have a chance of winning nationally, we need to be the best in the East. And, since our relative stature depends on so few games that we tend to play against the West, we desperately need the rest of the league, particularly Harvard and Quinnipiac, to take care of business vs. Hockey East.

It's tough to "go it alone," but that's where we (and Quinnipiac) are this year. I hope this situation plays out better in the future, and I hope we can stay on top of that rising tide.

The real problem is that the blue bloods now take advantage of the transfer portal to plug holes left by early departures. In the past, BU, BC, etc. would get the best recruits, but they would leave early, so teams with solid four-year players like Cornell could beat them with size and experience, and without having to deal with gaping holes in their roster. That has changed. Continuing to take BU, and BC
examples:
—In the past, BU would not have had a goalie this year. They have an extremely talented set of forwards and defensemen, but they would have had a big problem in goal. But they were able to poach Caron from Brown, so now instead of a major weakness they have a highly serviceable goalie.
—In the past, BC would have struggled with size and experience, despite the most talented freshman class in the country. Sure, they’d be bringing in an entire forward line of first round draft picks, including the 4th and 8th overall picks. But what about the PK, what about going up against a bigger, stronger, more experienced team? Well, now they can just add players from the portal like our own Jack Malone, a graduate transfer who plays on their PK/third line, to plug that hole.

BearLover
—In the past, BU would not have had a goalie this year. They have an extremely talented set of forwards and defensemen, but they would have had a big problem in goal. But they were able to poach Caron from Brown, so now instead of a major weakness they have a highly serviceable goalie.
—In the past, BC would have struggled with size and experience, despite the most talented freshman class in the country. Sure, they’d be bringing in an entire forward line of first round draft picks, including the 4th and 8th overall picks. But what about the PK, what about going up against a bigger, stronger, more experienced team? Well, now they can just add players from the portal like our own Jack Malone, a graduate transfer who plays on their PK/third line, to plug that hole.

Oh, you're super right about that, and I hope, as you've hoped elsewhere, that the end of the COVID extra eligibility will smooth this out a bit.

While I don't hold it against the guys, it's beyond frustrating to see our guys playing for other teams instead of finishing out four years on the Hill.

Scersk '97

BearLover
Remember, if Cornell were to play in HE, or the ECAC were to be better, then Cornell’s SOS would improve, but it’s win% would go down. Its RPI, which, again, judges the “true” strength of Cornell, would be UNCHANGED. Therefore, being in a stronger conference would not benefit Cornell (or any team).

Basically, you're forgetting about the effects of small sample spaces. We can play lights out for the rest of the year, the kind of hockey that would put us just behind BU and BC, and it just doesn't matter. I think our absolute ceiling is a 2-seed. In this climate, that also means we have an infinitesimal margin for error, and any hiccup vs. a lower-ranked team really hurts.

We'd be better off in a better conference, particularly with our young team, because not every night is the season. Frankly, I think it would allow us to make further progress toward the freer but still defensively responsible kind of hockey we've been playing for the last ten years. So too would 36 games instead of 29, but I digress.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that if you changed a bunch of variables (such as conference), RPI would literally be the exact same in a small sample. I’m making simplistic assumptions to demonstrate my point. But if you want me to edit my point to cover sample size, then I revise my point as follows (which has no effect on my ultimate conclusion):
If Cornell plays one million games in the ECAC, and Providence plays one million games in HE, and then they swapped conferences and each played one million more games, their RPI would be UNCHANGED.

The rest of your post is kind of beside the point. This is purely a discussion about RPI, not benefits of a stronger/weaker schedule outside of that context. Yeah, the experience of getting to play vs strong teams every night could benefit us. But that’s not an RPI question. Also, your general premise is kind of invalidated by the success of Quinnipiac over the past decade. They’ve been wildly successful while playing the same (or an ever easier) schedule as us. We have also had the 1-seed multiple times over the past few years playing in an easy conference.

Just because RPI accounts for SOS doesn’t mean that it does it accurately. Right now I think that winning percentage should hold more weight in the formula but I’m sure if cornell was having a 13-10 season in hockey east I would think otherwise.

BearLover
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that if you changed a bunch of variables (such as conference), RPI would literally be the exact same in a small sample. I’m making simplistic assumptions to demonstrate my point. But if you want me to edit my point to cover sample size, then I revise my point as follows (which has no effect on my ultimate conclusion):
If Cornell plays one million games in the ECAC, and Providence plays one million games in HE, and then they swapped conferences and each played one million more games, their RPI would be UNCHANGED.

Thanks? Believe me when I say the math isn't beyond me.

The quote of yours I have issue with is as above:

BearLover
Remember, if Cornell were to play in HE, or the ECAC were to be better, then Cornell’s SOS would improve, but it’s win% would go down. Its RPI, which, again, judges the “true” strength of Cornell, would be UNCHANGED. Therefore, being in a stronger conference would not benefit Cornell (or any team).

I disagree, which has been my point, but perhaps we're talking past each other. This year, sure, our RPI is whatever it is, and it'd be the same in Hockey East. Yes, I get math.

Yet, over the long term, I'm not so sure. We've got a great coach who would find a way to succeed with us in whatever league we were in. I think having to live with the ECAC's general decrepitude in the early 2000s was detrimental to our development, and that situation only worked its way out over a ten-year swing into the 2010s. Our margin for error necessitates our play, whether our coach has the preference for sacrificing some offense for shutdown defense or not. (News bulletin, I think he does but he's light years ahead of where we used to be.) I contend that Yale, Union, and QU (why pick those?) benefitted from being able to have a bit more of a margin for error because the ECAC was better. I think we did too during that time, and continue to.

I weep for 2020, but I otherwise don't want to go down that hole. I like where we are, and if we can just fix the special teams we're going to be an exceedingly dangerous team, whether that's this year or next year.

chimpfood
Just because RPI accounts for SOS doesn’t mean that it does it accurately. Right now I think that winning percentage should hold more weight in the formula but I’m sure if cornell was having a 13-10 season in hockey east I would think otherwise.

Yeah, whether the RPI is an accurate measurement is a different topic. Obviously, nobody really knows. We can see how teams from weak conferences perform in the NCAA tournament, but that is a tiny and noisy sample size. I think most HE/NCHC/Big 10 fans would say the current formula benefits teams like Cornell.

Scersk '97

BearLover
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that if you changed a bunch of variables (such as conference), RPI would literally be the exact same in a small sample. I’m making simplistic assumptions to demonstrate my point. But if you want me to edit my point to cover sample size, then I revise my point as follows (which has no effect on my ultimate conclusion):
If Cornell plays one million games in the ECAC, and Providence plays one million games in HE, and then they swapped conferences and each played one million more games, their RPI would be UNCHANGED.

Thanks? Believe me when I say the math isn't beyond me.

The quote of yours I have issue with is as above:

BearLover
Remember, if Cornell were to play in HE, or the ECAC were to be better, then Cornell’s SOS would improve, but it’s win% would go down. Its RPI, which, again, judges the “true” strength of Cornell, would be UNCHANGED. Therefore, being in a stronger conference would not benefit Cornell (or any team).

I disagree, which has been my point, but perhaps we're talking past each other. This year, sure, our RPI is whatever it is, and it'd be the same in Hockey East. Yes, I get math.

Yet, over the long term, I'm not so sure. We've got a great coach who would find a way to succeed with us in whatever league we were in. I think having to live with the ECAC's general decrepitude in the early 2000s was detrimental to our development, and that situation only worked its way out over a ten-year swing into the 2010s. Our margin for error necessitates our play, whether our coach has the preference for sacrificing some offense for shutdown defense or not. (News bulletin, I think he does but he's light years ahead of where we used to be.) I contend that Yale, Union, and QU (why pick those?) benefitted from being able to have a bit more of a margin for error because the ECAC was better. I think we did too during that time, and continue to.

I weep for 2020, but I otherwise don't want to go down that hole. I like where we are, and if we can just fix the special teams we're going to be an exceedingly dangerous team, whether that's this year or next year.

Yeah, I think we’re talking past each other. It sounds like we are in agreement that, purely from the perspective of our RPI in a given season, it doesn’t matter how good our conference is. Your point is that our weak league has hindered our development across seasons, whether due to recruiting or style of play or something else. I honestly don’t know, but I think that’s a different topic.

I do think that, while Schafer is a great coach, we will never have the resources/freedom to do what the very top programs do. I see no reason to believe that the peak we’re capable of reaching in the ECAC would be higher if we played in a different conference. Frankly, we’ve reached really impressive heights under our current situation.

well sometime in the next 2-10 yrs we will have to find out what a diff coach can.. I doubt he will be here when he is 70 so the window is probably even smaller.

Well if Whelan isn’t going to login here, I’ll be that guy:

Can we just use KRACH already?

upprdeck
well sometime in the next 2-10 yrs we will have to find out what a diff coach can.. I doubt he will be here when he is 70 so the window is probably even smaller.

I'm going to go out on a really short limb and say that the odds of finding another coach that does as good a job, are about 5%.

The limitations to the program by the athletic dept are staggering..

adamw

upprdeck
well sometime in the next 2-10 yrs we will have to find out what a diff coach can.. I doubt he will be here when he is 70 so the window is probably even smaller.

I'm going to go out on a really short limb and say that the odds of finding another coach that does as good a job, are about 5%.

And that may be generous

adamw

upprdeck
well sometime in the next 2-10 yrs we will have to find out what a diff coach can.. I doubt he will be here when he is 70 so the window is probably even smaller.

I'm going to go out on a really short limb and say that the odds of finding another coach that does as good a job, are about 5%.

Umm, considering it’s probably going to be Syer, it will be much higher than 5%.

RichH
Well if Whelan isn’t going to login here, I’ll be that guy:

Can we just use KRACH already?

Cornell ranks in NC$$, per CHN:

PWR      13
RPI      13
KRACH    12
Record    7
SoS      28

BearLover

adamw

upprdeck
well sometime in the next 2-10 yrs we will have to find out what a diff coach can.. I doubt he will be here when he is 70 so the window is probably even smaller.

I'm going to go out on a really short limb and say that the odds of finding another coach that does as good a job, are about 5%.

Umm, considering it’s probably going to be Syer, it will be much higher than 5%.

We can hope but Mike is a one off. He loves Cornell hockey as much as anyone can. His ability to change and his love of his players is something we have to hope that Ben can duplicate.

BearLover

adamw

upprdeck
well sometime in the next 2-10 yrs we will have to find out what a diff coach can.. I doubt he will be here when he is 70 so the window is probably even smaller.

I'm going to go out on a really short limb and say that the odds of finding another coach that does as good a job, are about 5%.

Umm, considering it’s probably going to be Syer, it will be much higher than 5%.

I hope it’s not for a long time but also wondered if topher would come back behind the bench for the job.

We had a spate of guys who went into coaching but I think it has dried up:

* 90 Casey Jones
* 91 Shaun Hannah
* 91 Tim Vanini
* 92 Karl Williams
* 08 Topher Scott

Did Justin Krueger follow his dad into coaching after retiring in 2022?

Trotsky
We had a spate of guys who went into coaching but I think it has dried up:

* 90 Casey Jones
* 91 Shaun Hannah
* 91 Tim Vanini
* 92 Karl Williams
* 08 Topher Scott

Did Justin Krueger follow his dad into coaching after retiring in 2022?

In terms of pro leagues, Cam Abbott is coaching in Sweden (with Chris as the GM of the team). And Jessica Campbell is coaching in the AHL. They seem focused on pro hockey, but maybe they might be interested in the ol' alma mater?

Weder

Trotsky
We had a spate of guys who went into coaching but I think it has dried up:

* 90 Casey Jones
* 91 Shaun Hannah
* 91 Tim Vanini
* 92 Karl Williams
* 08 Topher Scott

Did Justin Krueger follow his dad into coaching after retiring in 2022?

In terms of pro leagues, Cam Abbott is coaching in Sweden (with Chris as the GM of the team). And Jessica Campbell is coaching in the AHL. They seem focused on pro hockey, but maybe they might be interested in the ol' alma mater?

I feel like Cam was a dark horse candidate for a recent NHL coaching gig.

I thought they left this season.

There are only two realistic candidates to take over when Schafer finally decides to call it quits: Casey Jones and Ben Syer. Casey has had some decent success at Clarkson, but I think it’s very likely to be Syer, assuming he doesn’t take a job elsewhere in the interim. Syer is young and has been top assistant for many years during some of the best times for the program. It’s not going to be Topher. Topher has never been top assistant anywhere and currently he appears to be out of coaching entirely. Last year he was Director of Hockey Operations for Michigan. At the moment I’d say it’s over 50% likely to be Syer, maybe 15% Jones, and otherwise someone totally out of the blue.

BearLover
There are only two realistic candidates to take over when Schafer finally decides to call it quits: Casey Jones and Ben Syer. Casey has had some decent success at Clarkson, but I think it’s very likely to be Syer, assuming he doesn’t take a job elsewhere in the interim. Syer is young and has been top assistant for many years during some of the best times for the program. It’s not going to be Topher. Topher has never been top assistant anywhere and currently he appears to be out of coaching entirely. Last year he was Director of Hockey Operations for Michigan. At the moment I’d say it’s over 50% likely to be Syer, maybe 15% Jones, and otherwise someone totally out of the blue.

While Syer would be the logical option, to say there would be “only two realistic candidates” is an overstatement.

BearLover
There are only two realistic candidates to take over when Schafer finally decides to call it quits: Casey Jones and Ben Syer. Casey has had some decent success at Clarkson, but I think it’s very likely to be Syer, assuming he doesn’t take a job elsewhere in the interim. Syer is young and has been top assistant for many years during some of the best times for the program. It’s not going to be Topher. Topher has never been top assistant anywhere and currently he appears to be out of coaching entirely. Last year he was Director of Hockey Operations for Michigan. At the moment I’d say it’s over 50% likely to be Syer, maybe 15% Jones, and otherwise someone totally out of the blue.

Topher is still listed as such on the Michigan web site. [mgoblue.com]

David Harding

BearLover
There are only two realistic candidates to take over when Schafer finally decides to call it quits: Casey Jones and Ben Syer. Casey has had some decent success at Clarkson, but I think it’s very likely to be Syer, assuming he doesn’t take a job elsewhere in the interim. Syer is young and has been top assistant for many years during some of the best times for the program. It’s not going to be Topher. Topher has never been top assistant anywhere and currently he appears to be out of coaching entirely. Last year he was Director of Hockey Operations for Michigan. At the moment I’d say it’s over 50% likely to be Syer, maybe 15% Jones, and otherwise someone totally out of the blue.

Topher is still listed as such on the Michigan web site. [mgoblue.com]

Thanks. My Internet ADD apparently interrupted my own fact checking here. For those not paying attention, Topher seems to have been brought in to help Michigan out of the "cultural" mess that Mel Pearson helped to orchestrate.

I predict success as Topher doesn't walk around with a dyed wolverine on his head.

underskill
I thought they left this season.

Oh, it looks like the Abbotts were let go in December.

underskill
I thought they left this season.

Oh, it looks like the Abbotts were let go in December.

I hear Mark Morris is available...

Small pWR bump if Harv wins tonight.. Barely any drop if they lose.

David Harding

BearLover
There are only two realistic candidates to take over when Schafer finally decides to call it quits: Casey Jones and Ben Syer. Casey has had some decent success at Clarkson, but I think it’s very likely to be Syer, assuming he doesn’t take a job elsewhere in the interim. Syer is young and has been top assistant for many years during some of the best times for the program. It’s not going to be Topher. Topher has never been top assistant anywhere and currently he appears to be out of coaching entirely. Last year he was Director of Hockey Operations for Michigan. At the moment I’d say it’s over 50% likely to be Syer, maybe 15% Jones, and otherwise someone totally out of the blue.

Topher is still listed as such on the Michigan web site. [mgoblue.com]

[thehockeythinktank.com]

Looks like Topher decided to move on.

I'm glad he extricated himself. That was and maybe still is a toxic program.

Does Director of Hockey Operations indicate he has decided to move from behind the bench to go in the Athletic Director direction?

Trotsky
I'm glad he extricated himself. That was and maybe still is a toxic program.

Does Director of Hockey Operations indicate he has decided to move from behind the bench to go in the Athletic Director direction?

Reading his goodbye message, he's silent about anything pushing him away from Michigan and identifies the attraction of family ties in Chicago as the cause of his leaving. He also identifies "Hockey Think Tank" (his own company) as his future occupation. If he can make HTT sufficiently successful, that seems to be where he wants to end up.

Not even NESN cares about the Bean Plop consy.

I should probably just shut up - but I'm not good at that.

I think Ben Syer and Topher are great guys. Neither will be the next coach. Casey Jones is one of my favorite people in hockey, and I think he's a great coach. However, he's only 4 years younger than Coach Schafer - and so it won't be him either.

adamw
I should probably just shut up - but I'm not good at that.

I think Ben Syer and Topher are great guys. Neither will be the next coach. Casey Jones is one of my favorite people in hockey, and I think he's a great coach. However, he's only 4 years younger than Coach Schafer - and so it won't be him either.

Why won’t Ben Syer be the next coach?

BearLover

adamw
I should probably just shut up - but I'm not good at that.

I think Ben Syer and Topher are great guys. Neither will be the next coach. Casey Jones is one of my favorite people in hockey, and I think he's a great coach. However, he's only 4 years younger than Coach Schafer - and so it won't be him either.

Why won’t Ben Syer be the next coach?

Perhaps some guys are cut out to be 2nd in command but not top dog?

coaching at Cornell requires a bit of something not everyone has. Going from Assistant to the main job requires more than some want to put in.

We dont know the answer until we do.

Harvard lost to BC. We appear to have gone up in RPI by .0001.

scoop85

BearLover

adamw
I should probably just shut up - but I'm not good at that.

I think Ben Syer and Topher are great guys. Neither will be the next coach. Casey Jones is one of my favorite people in hockey, and I think he's a great coach. However, he's only 4 years younger than Coach Schafer - and so it won't be him either.

Why won’t Ben Syer be the next coach?

Perhaps some guys are cut out to be 2nd in command but not top dog?

Perhaps, but the onus is on adamw to say that. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to assume that a longtime assistant at a successful program would not turn down a big pay increase and an opportunity to lead the program.

Just before NE's Fontaine wins IT in OT I'm yelling "It's a shame this is going to be determined by a shootout!"

I’m a bit worried about northeastern as a team that could sneak into an at large bid or win the HE tourney. Nothing is scarier than the team with the hot goalie.

Topher was a guest on CHN podcast this week.

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ontheair/

BU and Providence tie. BU dominated OT but couldn't pull it out. Shootout coming up.

UNH just beat Maine. Not helpful for Cornell's PWR situation.

3-way tie for 12 right now.

Getting no help from Minn-Duluth. They are already down 2-0 to Denver. (We played UMD twice so we care about them for SOS, plus if they sweep Denver it opens up a very outside chance that Denver goes into a tailspin and drops below us in the rankings.)

BearLover
Getting no help from Minn-Duluth. They are already down 2-0 to Denver. (We played UMD twice so we care about them for SOS, plus if they sweep Denver it opens up a very outside chance that Denver goes into a tailspin and drops below us in the rankings.)

A local bar had that game on one of the televisions and Duluth just looks much slower and less fluid than Cornell. Denver is clearly a better team and I would expect them to sweep

BC > BU AFter that nothing in HE is anything to write home about.. They all score on breakdowns with speed but dont do much else to generate offense.

BC beat UMass tomorrow is good

I think we want WMU or St cloud to sweep maybe?

Now #17 CC up 2-1 on #2 NoDak. Uh-oh.

CC incoming…they have the 16th best RPI and they’re about to beat #2 NoDak. So now we are going to have to contend with them, too.

BearLover
Getting no help from Minn-Duluth. They are already down 2-0 to Denver. (We played UMD twice so we care about them for SOS, plus if they sweep Denver it opens up a very outside chance that Denver goes into a tailspin and drops below us in the rankings.)

Now 4-4

Chris '03

BearLover
Getting no help from Minn-Duluth. They are already down 2-0 to Denver. (We played UMD twice so we care about them for SOS, plus if they sweep Denver it opens up a very outside chance that Denver goes into a tailspin and drops below us in the rankings.)

Now 4-4

And Denver wins in ot

I don’t pretend to understand it, but somehow the late results pushed us UP from 13th to 12th…?!

Beeeej
I don’t pretend to understand it, but somehow the late results pushed us UP from 13th to 12th…?!

An OT loss is still a partial win. Combine that with the strong opponent and we get nudged upwards.

The one that really amused me was us moving up in RPI a tiny bit when Harvard lost the Beanpot consolation round in regulation.

Tied for 11 in PWR.

Separation between PWR 1 and 2, and between PWR 9 and 10.

Just keep winning.

Winning percentage (SoS Rank):

 1.  .7798  BC (2)
 2.  .7667  Quinnipiac (25)
 3.  .7419  Wisconsin (13)
 4.  .7361  Cornell (28)
 5.  .7356  North Dakota (8)
 6.  .7278  Michigan State (9)
 7.  .6667  Denver (5)
 8.  .7011  BU (1)
 9.  .6875  Arizona State (30)
10.  .6845  Western Michigan (24)

CC has tied NoDak 2-2 through two periods despite being badly outshot. Time to !!!!PANIC!!!!

BearLover
CC has tied NoDak 2-2 through two periods despite being badly outshot. Time to !!!!PANIC!!!!

Not sure if I'll panic but if I do I'll PANIC!!. Using six extra exclamation points is inexcusable and I'm considering the same punishment that you meted out in Grady last night.

PANIC is a registered trademark of Mets fandom. Herewith consider this a permanent injunction to prevent infringement of that copyright.