2023-2024 Predictions

My only real predictions are that:
—Quinnipiac is going to be by far the best team in the conference. They lost a lot of very good players to graduation/pro signings but reloaded with very good transfers/grad students.
—Harvard and Cornell will be 2 and 3. They both lost most of their best players but have enough talent coming in/remaining.
—Clarkson should be 4 mostly by virtue of the rest of the conference being bad.
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

Cornell has 5 seniors, including a backup goalie.
The team has 10 players who recently participated in NHL development camps, including 6 draft picks.

CAS
Cornell has 5 seniors, including a backup goalie.
The team has 10 players who recently participated in NHL development camps, including 6 draft picks.

I suspect Bearlover is counting 2 seniors aince O'Leary, Rego and Penney are only 3rd year players, though academic seniors, having sat out their freshmen Covid year.

Somebody will severely underperform. Let's not be them.

Somebody will severely overperform. People who know things already know who this will be, so none of us do.

Eventually to be indicted on RICO and have their last 10 seasons wiped: Qpc
Always good: Hvd, Cor
Good now: Cgt, SLU
Bad now but never for long: Clk
Bad and still bad except somebody will emerge to become good: RPI, Uni, Prn, Yal
Hot garbage baking under the noonday sun: Brn, Drt (not too late to replace with Cal and Stanford).

Trotsky
Somebody will severely underperform. Let's not be them.

Somebody will severely overperform. People who know things already know who this will be, so none of us do.

Eventually to be indicted on RICO and have their last 10 seasons wiped: Qpc
Always good: Hvd, Cor
Good now: Cgt, SLU
Bad now but never for long: Clk
Bad and still bad except somebody will emerge to become good: RPI, Uni, Prn, Yal
Hot garbage baking under the noonday sun: Brn, Drt (not too late to replace with Cal and Stanford).

For how hilariously terrible their record was last year, I believe Dartmouth played a lot of close games and had a better goal differential than you'd expect. Wouldn't shock me if they crept up like a tier.

I take no pleasure in saying this, as someone who hates Dartmouth more than any other team in the conference.

An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

Huh, this is what I have been trying to with Predictions for 20 years.

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

Sorry if my post came off as overly critical. I do appreciate people trying to quantify this stuff, as I said. And I enjoyed reading your findings and write-up. I also certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were putting your thumb on the scale. I understand these metrics are objective and that Harvard’s returning points per game number is what it is.

However, the fact you chose to base offensive ranking entirely (mostly?) off of returning points per game is not objective. While the inputs themselves may be objective metrics, choosing which inputs to use is necessarily subjective. I don’t deny that you are limited in your data and maybe this is the best you can do; but it’s very clear if you look past this one statistic that Harvard is once again going to be very talented this season. They still have by far the most draft picks in the ECAC, by the far most players who were in the central scouting rankings, etc. These are imperfect metrics, but they’re other metrics that you could consider factoring into your analysis.

By the way, how do you measure incoming class rank? I may have missed that, but I didn’t see it in your post. Cornell’s incoming class consists of five draft picks, which I believe is easily the most in the ECAC, but its incoming class is ranked #7.

BearLover
By the way, how do you measure incoming class rank? I may have missed that, but I didn’t see it in your post. Cornell’s incoming class consists of five draft picks, which I believe is easily the most in the ECAC, but its incoming class is ranked #7.

While I thought the overall analysis was good, the recruiting ranking made no sense. Neutral Zone ranked Cornell’s recruiting class #1 in the ECAC and #7 nationally.

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12.

Certainly more likely than Quinnipiac.

TBRW Predictions:

 1  Quinnipiac	 
 2  Cornell	 
 3  Harvard	 
 4  Clarkson	 
 5  Colgate	 
 6  St. Lawrence	 
 7  Yale	 
 8  Union	 
 9  RPI	 
10  Princeton	 
11  Brown	 
    Dartmouth

BearLover

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

Sorry if my post came off as overly critical. I do appreciate people trying to quantify this stuff, as I said. And I enjoyed reading your findings and write-up. I also certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were putting your thumb on the scale. I understand these metrics are objective and that Harvard’s returning points per game number is what it is.

However, the fact you chose to base offensive ranking entirely (mostly?) off of returning points per game is not objective. While the inputs themselves may be objective metrics, choosing which inputs to use is necessarily subjective. I don’t deny that you are limited in your data and maybe this is the best you can do; but it’s very clear if you look past this one statistic that Harvard is once again going to be very talented this season. They still have by far the most draft picks in the ECAC, by the far most players who were in the central scouting rankings, etc. These are imperfect metrics, but they’re other metrics that you could consider factoring into your analysis.

By the way, how do you measure incoming class rank? I may have missed that, but I didn’t see it in your post. Cornell’s incoming class consists of five draft picks, which I believe is easily the most in the ECAC, but its incoming class is ranked #7.

It didn't come off overly critical; it just seemed like you thought returning scoring was a subjective metric so wanted to make sure you knew it wasn't.

All good points and questions here! I'll do my best to address them all.

Offensive ranking isn't based on mostly returning scoring. Offensive projections are done by essentially taking the best 12 forwards and 7 best dmen projected by the model and adding up their offensive projections. If that means it's the entire recruiting class, that's what is used. If the recruits are bad (SLU), it's all returners used.

I agree Harvard will be talented but talent doesn't always equal wins. Quinnipiac had one draft pick last year and won the natty. For all of Harvard's draft picks, they have been finishing behind Quinnipiac and sometimes Cornell and Clarkson as well. I also don't think all draft picks are created equal. Huge difference between someone like Sean Farrell and Zakary Karpa. For what it's worth, I did consider including draft picks as part of it, and I felt like it made the projections worse. There are too many nepotism picks and picks that are clearly just bad like Misha Song that dilutes the value they could add. The really talented players will show it with their play, which the model will factor in.

As for the recruiting questions, I tried to address this a bit in the article, but I wouldn't think of that like a true recruiting class ranking. It's not rating the total talent of the recruiting class. It is strictly based on offensive projections, and it is not total offense but average offensive projection for the incoming skaters. So for Cornell, they get hurt in the rankings due to bringing more defensemen since defensemen get projected for less offense than forwards.

Overall differences from Neutral Zone: only offense not overall talent, averaged to account for size of class (Neutral Zone doesn't go by average), includes transfer portal additions unlike Neutral Zone

I also want to make it clear that the recruiting ranking doesn't directly go into the total projections; it's just cosmetic to add some context to the projections. The overall offensive projections work as I said above by creating a team's best lineup based on the projections, so Cornell's strong recruiting class with mostly defensemen gets factored in properly overall.

Trotsky
TBRW Predictions:

 1  Quinnipiac	 
 2  Cornell	 
 3  Harvard	 
 4  Clarkson	 
 5  Colgate	 
 6  St. Lawrence	 
 7  Yale	 
 8  Union	 
 9  RPI	 
10  Princeton	 
11  Brown	 
    Dartmouth

I'll declare Keith Allain the second coming of Christ if Yale finishes 7th in the league

BearLover

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

Sorry if my post came off as overly critical. I do appreciate people trying to quantify this stuff, as I said. And I enjoyed reading your findings and write-up. I also certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were putting your thumb on the scale. I understand these metrics are objective and that Harvard’s returning points per game number is what it is.

However, the fact you chose to base offensive ranking entirely (mostly?) off of returning points per game is not objective. While the inputs themselves may be objective metrics, choosing which inputs to use is necessarily subjective. I don’t deny that you are limited in your data and maybe this is the best you can do; but it’s very clear if you look past this one statistic that Harvard is once again going to be very talented this season. They still have by far the most draft picks in the ECAC, by the far most players who were in the central scouting rankings, etc. These are imperfect metrics, but they’re other metrics that you could consider factoring into your analysis.

By the way, how do you measure incoming class rank? I may have missed that, but I didn’t see it in your post. Cornell’s incoming class consists of five draft picks, which I believe is easily the most in the ECAC, but its incoming class is ranked #7.

Looking only at the bold statement, my response is ... so what? Judge the model at the end of the year, not now. You're obviously free to have and share an opinion but he's not being more or less subjective than you are. You make good points, BL, about the hidden skill of last year's backups and the incoming class for Harvard but that doesn't make you less subjective than sezenack (yet). It's an interesting discussion, and i like hearing people poke at the assumptions underlying a prediction, but have some sense of when you're sharing your own subjective metrics too.

BearLover

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

Sorry if my post came off as overly critical. I do appreciate people trying to quantify this stuff, as I said. And I enjoyed reading your findings and write-up. I also certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were putting your thumb on the scale. I understand these metrics are objective and that Harvard’s returning points per game number is what it is.

However, the fact you chose to base offensive ranking entirely (mostly?) off of returning points per game is not objective. While the inputs themselves may be objective metrics, choosing which inputs to use is necessarily subjective. I don’t deny that you are limited in your data and maybe this is the best you can do; but it’s very clear if you look past this one statistic that Harvard is once again going to be very talented this season. They still have by far the most draft picks in the ECAC, by the far most players who were in the central scouting rankings, etc. These are imperfect metrics, but they’re other metrics that you could consider factoring into your analysis.

By the way, how do you measure incoming class rank? I may have missed that, but I didn’t see it in your post. Cornell’s incoming class consists of five draft picks, which I believe is easily the most in the ECAC, but its incoming class is ranked #7.

Looking only at the bold statement, my response is ... so what? Judge the model at the end of the year, not now. You're obviously free to have and share an opinion but he's not being more or less subjective than you are. You make good points, BL, about the hidden skill of last year's backups and the incoming class for Harvard but that doesn't make you less subjective than sezenack (yet). It's an interesting discussion, and i like hearing people poke at the assumptions underlying a prediction, but have some sense of when you're sharing your own subjective metrics too.

ugarte

BearLover

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

Sorry if my post came off as overly critical. I do appreciate people trying to quantify this stuff, as I said. And I enjoyed reading your findings and write-up. I also certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were putting your thumb on the scale. I understand these metrics are objective and that Harvard’s returning points per game number is what it is.

However, the fact you chose to base offensive ranking entirely (mostly?) off of returning points per game is not objective. While the inputs themselves may be objective metrics, choosing which inputs to use is necessarily subjective. I don’t deny that you are limited in your data and maybe this is the best you can do; but it’s very clear if you look past this one statistic that Harvard is once again going to be very talented this season. They still have by far the most draft picks in the ECAC, by the far most players who were in the central scouting rankings, etc. These are imperfect metrics, but they’re other metrics that you could consider factoring into your analysis.

By the way, how do you measure incoming class rank? I may have missed that, but I didn’t see it in your post. Cornell’s incoming class consists of five draft picks, which I believe is easily the most in the ECAC, but its incoming class is ranked #7.

Looking only at the bold statement, my response is ... so what? Judge the model at the end of the year, not now. You're obviously free to have and share an opinion but he's not being more or less subjective than you are. You make good points, BL, about the hidden skill of last year's backups and the incoming class for Harvard but that doesn't make you less subjective than sezenack (yet). It's an interesting discussion, and i like hearing people poke at the assumptions underlying a prediction, but have some sense of when you're sharing your own subjective metrics too.

No arguments there.

Is it possible to benchmark the model and possibly improve it, for example by applying it to last year’s data and introducing other factors such as each team’s average age and class composition?

Swampy
Is it possible to benchmark the model and possibly improve it, for example by applying it to last year’s data and introducing other factors such as each team’s average age and class composition?

I'm sure others have tried ChatGPT.

User
In what order will the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL finish the 2023-2024 season?
ChatGPT

I'm sorry, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including the outcomes of specific sports seasons or events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find out how the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL (East Coast Amateur Hockey League) finished the 2023-2024 season, I recommend checking sports news websites, official league websites, or other reliable sources for the most up-to-date information on the league standings and team performance.

User
What are the odds that Cornell will finish the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season in fiort place.
ChatGPT

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including odds for specific events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find the odds for Cornell finishing in fourth place in the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season, you should consult sports betting websites, sportsbooks, or other sources that provide up-to-date betting odds and predictions for college ice hockey or specifically for ECACHL. Keep in mind that odds can change frequently based on various factors, so it's important to check with a reliable source for the most current information.

David Harding

Swampy
Is it possible to benchmark the model and possibly improve it, for example by applying it to last year’s data and introducing other factors such as each team’s average age and class composition?

I'm sure others have tried ChatGPT.

User
In what order will the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL finish the 2023-2024 season?
ChatGPT

I'm sorry, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including the outcomes of specific sports seasons or events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find out how the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL (East Coast Amateur Hockey League) finished the 2023-2024 season, I recommend checking sports news websites, official league websites, or other reliable sources for the most up-to-date information on the league standings and team performance.

User
What are the odds that Cornell will finish the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season in fiort place.
ChatGPT

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including odds for specific events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find the odds for Cornell finishing in fourth place in the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season, you should consult sports betting websites, sportsbooks, or other sources that provide up-to-date betting odds and predictions for college ice hockey or specifically for ECACHL. Keep in mind that odds can change frequently based on various factors, so it's important to check with a reliable source for the most current information.

Does fiort place make the playoffs?

Al DeFlorio

David Harding

Swampy
Is it possible to benchmark the model and possibly improve it, for example by applying it to last year’s data and introducing other factors such as each team’s average age and class composition?

I'm sure others have tried ChatGPT.

User
In what order will the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL finish the 2023-2024 season?
ChatGPT

I'm sorry, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including the outcomes of specific sports seasons or events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find out how the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL (East Coast Amateur Hockey League) finished the 2023-2024 season, I recommend checking sports news websites, official league websites, or other reliable sources for the most up-to-date information on the league standings and team performance.

User
What are the odds that Cornell will finish the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season in fiort place.
ChatGPT

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including odds for specific events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find the odds for Cornell finishing in fourth place in the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season, you should consult sports betting websites, sportsbooks, or other sources that provide up-to-date betting odds and predictions for college ice hockey or specifically for ECACHL. Keep in mind that odds can change frequently based on various factors, so it's important to check with a reliable source for the most current information.

Does fiort place make the playoffs?

Maybe it does in the EACAHL.

I was trying to see if I could build out secondary information on cars, such as specs comparisons, and that was the stumbling block if one wanted to go forward: ChatGPT info looked two years in the rear view mirror. But that's going to change.

Will

Al DeFlorio

David Harding

Swampy
Is it possible to benchmark the model and possibly improve it, for example by applying it to last year’s data and introducing other factors such as each team’s average age and class composition?

I'm sure others have tried ChatGPT.

User
In what order will the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL finish the 2023-2024 season?
ChatGPT

I'm sorry, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including the outcomes of specific sports seasons or events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find out how the men's ice hockey teams in the EACAHL (East Coast Amateur Hockey League) finished the 2023-2024 season, I recommend checking sports news websites, official league websites, or other reliable sources for the most up-to-date information on the league standings and team performance.

User
What are the odds that Cornell will finish the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season in fiort place.
ChatGPT

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do not have access to real-time or future sports data, including odds for specific events that occurred after my last knowledge update in September 2021. To find the odds for Cornell finishing in fourth place in the 2023-2024 ECACHL ice hockey season, you should consult sports betting websites, sportsbooks, or other sources that provide up-to-date betting odds and predictions for college ice hockey or specifically for ECACHL. Keep in mind that odds can change frequently based on various factors, so it's important to check with a reliable source for the most current information.

Does fiort place make the playoffs?

Maybe it does in the EACAHL.

Didn't Darmouth finish in fiort place last year, just ahead of Brom?

Interesting. USCHO has us at 11, Sucks at 15. Sounds about right at least to start and based on last year to some extent. However chn has neither in the top 15.

USCHO

CHN

Trotsky
USCHO

CHN

Which is which?

Starting at 11. Getting there.

Felt like we spent all of last season digging out of the early season hole.

arugula
Felt like we spent all of last season digging out of the early season hole.

I can dig another season like 2022.

arugula
Felt like we spent all of last season digging out of the early season hole.

Hard to believe we'll be ready for UMD's 6th game, but... we'll see.

lets just hope they avoid covid issues.. hitting pretty hard around town and campus right now.

those dalmatians are cooler than anyone gives them credit for being

jtwcornell91

Trotsky
USCHO

CHN

BOXERdalmatamedioa4232f3f92edd5d55e9c4ca3b2d142be6940df6b.jpg

Which is which?

Since I like Adam, I'll say the one sniffing the butt is USCHO.

There does not appear to be a Rule 34 with ceramic Dalmatians. And I looked.

upprdeck
lets just hope they avoid covid issues.. hitting pretty hard around town and campus right now.

The recent wave as seemingly peaked, as wastewater samples over the past several weeks is showing a decline throughout the country

scoop85

upprdeck
lets just hope they avoid covid issues.. hitting pretty hard around town and campus right now.

The recent wave as seemingly peaked, as wastewater samples over the past several weeks is showing a decline throughout the country

Do you have any wastewater data for Central/Western NY? The last time I checked I could only find it for NYC.

nope.. Just going by the stories I am hearing of classes having kids out, so many locals being sick, and many of the teams having issues..

I know my kid in college up in Roch they had 1/3 of the class out last week with Covid.

jtwcornell91

scoop85

upprdeck
lets just hope they avoid covid issues.. hitting pretty hard around town and campus right now.

The recent wave as seemingly peaked, as wastewater samples over the past several weeks is showing a decline throughout the country

Do you have any wastewater data for Central/Western NY? The last time I checked I could only find it for NYC.

I didn’t see any regional data, just the national trend

scoop85

jtwcornell91

scoop85

upprdeck
lets just hope they avoid covid issues.. hitting pretty hard around town and campus right now.

The recent wave as seemingly peaked, as wastewater samples over the past several weeks is showing a decline throughout the country

Do you have any wastewater data for Central/Western NY? The last time I checked I could only find it for NYC.

I didn’t see any regional data, just the national trend

Seems to be leveling off in Tompkins County as well: [x.com]

the big variable there is many people went and got tested in the spring.. at least those results got counted.. people testing at home are not included in any great degree so to see these numbers would point to it being even higher

upprdeck
the big variable there is many people went and got tested in the spring.. at least those results got counted.. people testing at home are not included in any great degree so to see these numbers would point to it being even higher

The article states that the wastewater samples shows a leveling off of cases, so it’s not testing dependent.

I do agree that the level is probably going down.. which is good. last i knew though the tompkins waste water was not really being tested for campus water. Maybe that has changed.

I know of 10 people sick in the last week.. I never had a single time during this where I actually knew more than 2-3 sick at a time.. When a single class has 15 kids out sick thats a bunch. Of course less people are taking any precautions now so that adds up.

upprdeck
I do agree that the level is probably going down.. which is good. last i knew though the tompkins waste water was not really being tested for campus water. Maybe that has changed.

I know of 10 people sick in the last week.. I never had a single time during this where I actually knew more than 2-3 sick at a time.. When a single class has 15 kids out sick thats a bunch. Of course less people are taking any precautions now so that adds up.

Sure, there’s a fair amount of COVID going around, but it seemed more prevalent a few weeks ago (I myself got it the 1st week of August).

scoop85

upprdeck
I do agree that the level is probably going down.. which is good. last i knew though the tompkins waste water was not really being tested for campus water. Maybe that has changed.

I know of 10 people sick in the last week.. I never had a single time during this where I actually knew more than 2-3 sick at a time.. When a single class has 15 kids out sick thats a bunch. Of course less people are taking any precautions now so that adds up.

Sure, there’s a fair amount of COVID going around, but it seemed more prevalent a few weeks ago (I myself got it the 1st week of August).

i feel like i may have had it then. didn't test positive but i've also heard the old tests are not as reliable with the new variants so idk. got the new vax yesterday though. it knocked a couple of people i know on their ass for a day or two but so far no ill effects for me.

ugarte

scoop85

upprdeck
I do agree that the level is probably going down.. which is good. last i knew though the tompkins waste water was not really being tested for campus water. Maybe that has changed.

I know of 10 people sick in the last week.. I never had a single time during this where I actually knew more than 2-3 sick at a time.. When a single class has 15 kids out sick thats a bunch. Of course less people are taking any precautions now so that adds up.

Sure, there’s a fair amount of COVID going around, but it seemed more prevalent a few weeks ago (I myself got it the 1st week of August).

i feel like i may have had it then. didn't test positive but i've also heard the old tests are not as reliable with the new variants so idk. got the new vax yesterday though. it knocked a couple of people i know on their ass for a day or two but so far no ill effects for me.

I got the new vax (together with my annual flu shot) last Friday midday, and ended up spending a good chunk of Saturday in bed, but was basically good as new on Sunday. I think this is the first time since my original J&J shot that I've really been knocked out by a COVID vaccination.

They keep extending the expiration date on the old tests, but since the "end of emergency" pronouncement in May, it's a lot harder to get tests through insurance (assuming you need more than the four tests per household the govt occasionally sends out).

jtwcornell91

ugarte

scoop85

upprdeck
I do agree that the level is probably going down.. which is good. last i knew though the tompkins waste water was not really being tested for campus water. Maybe that has changed.

I know of 10 people sick in the last week.. I never had a single time during this where I actually knew more than 2-3 sick at a time.. When a single class has 15 kids out sick thats a bunch. Of course less people are taking any precautions now so that adds up.

Sure, there’s a fair amount of COVID going around, but it seemed more prevalent a few weeks ago (I myself got it the 1st week of August).

i feel like i may have had it then. didn't test positive but i've also heard the old tests are not as reliable with the new variants so idk. got the new vax yesterday though. it knocked a couple of people i know on their ass for a day or two but so far no ill effects for me.

I got the new vax (together with my annual flu shot) last Friday midday, and ended up spending a good chunk of Saturday in bed, but was basically good as new on Sunday. I think this is the first time since my original J&J shot that I've really been knocked out by a COVID vaccination.

They keep extending the expiration date on the old tests, but since the "end of emergency" pronouncement in May, it's a lot harder to get tests through insurance (assuming you need more than the four tests per household the govt occasionally sends out).

fyi, you can get 4 more right now check the USPS site

ugarte

jtwcornell91

ugarte

scoop85

upprdeck
I do agree that the level is probably going down.. which is good. last i knew though the tompkins waste water was not really being tested for campus water. Maybe that has changed.

I know of 10 people sick in the last week.. I never had a single time during this where I actually knew more than 2-3 sick at a time.. When a single class has 15 kids out sick thats a bunch. Of course less people are taking any precautions now so that adds up.

Sure, there’s a fair amount of COVID going around, but it seemed more prevalent a few weeks ago (I myself got it the 1st week of August).

i feel like i may have had it then. didn't test positive but i've also heard the old tests are not as reliable with the new variants so idk. got the new vax yesterday though. it knocked a couple of people i know on their ass for a day or two but so far no ill effects for me.

I got the new vax (together with my annual flu shot) last Friday midday, and ended up spending a good chunk of Saturday in bed, but was basically good as new on Sunday. I think this is the first time since my original J&J shot that I've really been knocked out by a COVID vaccination.

They keep extending the expiration date on the old tests, but since the "end of emergency" pronouncement in May, it's a lot harder to get tests through insurance (assuming you need more than the four tests per household the govt occasionally sends out).

fyi, you can get 4 more right now check the USPS site

Already ordered!

Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Trotsky
Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Ian Shane also made the preseason all-league team.

They called Shane a freshman.

Trotsky
Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Oh, I wonder so who those votes for Harvard and Clarkson came from!

Scersk '97

Trotsky
Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Oh, I wonder so who those votes for Harvard and Clarkson came from!

One has to be Peckerhead but do we think the other is Schafer?

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Trotsky
Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Oh, I wonder so who those votes for Harvard and Clarkson came from!

One has to be Peckerhead but do we think the other is Schafer?

I doubt any of the coaches vote in the coaches poll. More likely the AD intern.

NEHJ preview, if any of us has an account (I had never heard of it).

Trotsky

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Trotsky
Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Oh, I wonder so who those votes for Harvard and Clarkson came from!

One has to be Peckerhead but do we think the other is Schafer?

I doubt any of the coaches vote in the coaches poll. More likely the AD intern.

Perhaps true, but I wouldn’t be surprised that Schafer refuses to vote for Q-pac and vice versa.

Wonder how Tupker ended up at Q if the coaches so hate each other

Chn has Harvard 6th. As long as beat them, I don’t care.

arugula
Wonder how Tupker ended up at Q if the coaches so hate each other

Perhaps because Schafer and Pecknold have taught camps together over the years, don't hate each other at all, and fans are silly billies.

To paraphrase Mr. Chow, "CHN, muthafuckaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas."

01. Quinnipiac
02. Cornell
03. SLU
04. Clarkson
05. Colgate
06. Harvard
07. Princeton
08. Yale
09. RPI
09. Union
11. Brown
11. Dartmouth 

CHN "ECAC Watch List."

Is Cornell Cornell Again?
Speaking of recovering Ivies, Cornell making it to the NCAA Regional final last season was some nice retribution for long-time coach Mike Schafer, as the COVID pause abrupted what was Cornell's best chance at a Frozen Four in some time. Like everyone else among the Ivies, Cornell lost some players because of COVID who went elsewhere, but the ones that stayed and stuck it out gave Cornell a big foundation last year, and Schafer was emotional following the last loss to BU in recounting their loyalty, especially given the health struggles he also went through recently.

"It was huge," said Schafer of the regional final experience. "The year before, when we came off of COVID, we had like four guys that had any type of playoff experience. So we didn't have a lot of experience, it was nice to see the growth. We learned from the many experiences because we can build upon it."

This year, the experience gained should be huge as a strong sophomore class will get a boost from a very strong group of freshmen. Scorers like Dalton Bancroft and Nick Desantis had breakout freshmen years last season. One has to like the mix of experience and talent that Cornell has this season. They also, arguably, return the best goalie in the ECAC in Ian Shane, who was inconsistent at times early in his career, but was lights out down the stretch and into the postseason.

Cornell hasn't won an ECAC Tournament title since 2009, which is a thorn in the side for the program, which has the most championships in conference history.

Grand Forks Herald

ECAC
Herald predicted finish
1. Quinnipiac
2. Clarkson
3. Cornell
4. Harvard
5. St. Lawrence
6. Colgate
7. Union
8. RPI
9. Brown
10. Yale
11. Princeton
12. Dartmouth

Top forward
Collin Graf, Quinnipiac: Graf is the nation’s top-returning scorer with 59 points in 41 games last season.

Top defenseman
Nick Anderson, Colgate: The 5-foot-10 blue liner from Independence, Minn., was among the top-scoring defensemen in the country last season with 29 points.

Top goaltender
Carter Gylander, Colgate: The 6-foot-5 Detroit Red Wings pick was a big reason the Raiders reached the NCAA tournament last season.

Top recruit
Ryan Walsh, F, Cornell: Walsh finished second in the USHL in scoring last season with 79 points in 61 games.

Top transfer
Eric Ciccolini, F, Clarkson (Michigan): The New York Rangers draft pick sat behind first-rounders at Michigan, but will have a more central role in Potsdam.

Trotsky

arugula
Wonder how Tupker ended up at Q if the coaches so hate each other

Perhaps because Schafer and Pecknold have taught camps together over the years, don't hate each other at all, and fans are silly billies.

Precisely

Trotsky
Coaches Poll:

 1 Qpc (10)
 2 Cor
 3 Hvd (1)
 4 Clk (1)
 5 SLU
 6 Cgt
 7 RPI
 8 Uni
 9 Prn
10 Yal
11 Drt
12 Brn

Deciphering how the coaches think about Cornell: Other than Q and H, we're most likely to lose to Brown, Dartmouth, Yale.

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

I hope you are right. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to predict a team which finished 13 in the pairwise last year, and which lost most of its best players, and which has only one senior, to finish in the 20s in the pairwise.

"You're never as good as you look when you win or as bad as you look when you lose."

There is really nothing we will be able to say about this team's overall chances until after New Year's, so let's just enjoying dating before making a commitment.

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

I hope you are right. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to predict a team which finished 13 in the pairwise last year, and which lost most of its best players, and which has only one senior, to finish in the 20s in the pairwise.

You realize almost every other good team goes through the same exact thing, right? But you are exactly the type of person that enables my prediction to sound bolder than it is.

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

I hope you are right. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to predict a team which finished 13 in the pairwise last year, and which lost most of its best players, and which has only one senior, to finish in the 20s in the pairwise.

You realize almost every other good team goes through the same exact thing, right? But you are exactly the type of person that enables my prediction to sound bolder than it is.

One reason Cornell’s success in 2022-23 was foreseeable was that the 2021-22 team (which finished in the low 20s in the PWR) lost only a few key players. Betts, Locke, and Haiskanen graduated, and while each was an important player, all of the top six scorers on the team returned for 2022-23. Andreev came back for a 5th year, Stienburg turned down a pro deal, Malinski was already a star, etc. And one of Union’s leading scorers, Seger, transferred in. Last year’s team had 9 seniors, all of whom played huge roles.

Contrast with this year: six of the top ten scorers (on a PPG basis) gone, one senior on the team. The only way to predict Cornell to be an elite team this year would be to predict the ten freshmen would heavily contribute in both playing time and scoring. This was/is difficult to predict despite the class being talented on paper (five draft picks, good production in junior hockey). Obviously, the opening weekend bodes well for both Cornell being an elite team and the freshmen contributing heavily. But there is still way too much hockey to be played for me to confidently revise my predictions. I’ll check out your podcast in any event.

BearLover
The only way to predict Cornell to be an elite team this year would be to predict the ten freshmen would heavily contribute in both playing time and scoring. This was/is difficult to predict despite the class being talented on paper (five draft picks, good production in junior hockey). Obviously, the opening weekend bodes well for both Cornell being an elite team and the freshmen contributing heavily. But there is still way too much hockey to be played for me to confidently revise my predictions.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Then freshmen are critical to the team's success and while their performance before arriving in D1 is hopeful, "hope is not a strategy."

Sandolin was unhappy with UMD's performance, at least after Friday, and Grady and Tim pointed out many situations where the Bulldogs were not playing good hockey. So it is possible we took advantage of them on a bad weekend and what we saw won't translate to future games. We simply don't know and won't until the sample size grows.

I was particularly heartened by the 2-man kill to close out the shutout Saturday. At that point UMD had been playing well, and they were certainly focused on "now or never," and yet we still played beautiful defense and saved Shane's clean sheet. That tells me something about this team's intensity and conditioning )although on the latter I thought we looked very tired -- the Bulldogs just did, too.

UMD has some serious injury stuff to deal with. it would be great for us if they got better

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

sezenack

BearLover

ursusminor
An RPI fan and his computer program's ECAC predictions. [thefieldhouse.substack.com]

Cornell is #2, and Harvard is #7 below #4 Princeton.

I appreciate that someone is trying to quantify these things rather than making prediction based on feel, but the fact this model ranks Harvard’s returning offense as 12th in the league evidences a clear flaw in its methodology, in my opinion. I would guess the issue is that Harvard’s top players last year were SO good that they got all the PP time and played a crazy amount of minutes, especially when Harvard needed a goal. So yeah, nearly all the offensive production came from those players, who are gone now. But that doesn’t mean the players who played behind them, and will now take on a larger role, are not good players—it just means they didn’t add much offensively last year, because they didn’t need to.

And though I wish it were true, I just don’t see Cornell as an elite team this season. We could compete for an NCAA spot, but if that happens it is most likely as one of the final at-large bids. We have a ton of freshmen, no one who has played more than two years for Cornell (and no one aside from Seger who has played more than two years of college hockey at all). We are still going up against much older and more experienced teams whenever we play a non-Ivy. I like our trajectory but don’t expect us to be elite until the fifth-year eligibility rule finally goes away in a couple seasons.

ursusminor told me he posted this here, and I saw this and wanted to reply.

Harvard's 12th ranked returning offense isn't an opinion; it's a fact. They return 122 points and played 34 games, so they return 3.59 points per game, which is last in the league. It's an entirely objective metric. I disagree that it's a flaw in the methodology and think it's much more of a symptom of the lack of college hockey data available to the public (mainly time on ice).

However, I do agree with your points about PP time and general time on ice. Harvard does have good talent that played lower in the lineup that will likely step up. It's entirely possible they beat the projection, and I'd say they are the likeliest team to do that of the 12. Anyone expecting them to maintain their level of last season is mistaken though. Looking at the roster, the only player I see surpassing 30 points is Joe Miller. None of the players that remain are at the level of Coronato, Farrell, or Laferriere. None of the defensemen are at the level of Thrun even though Ian Moore is very good. Those are the players they have to replace, and Harvard isn't equipped to do it regardless of ice time. The players they have are not that caliber, where they put up big numbers and get an NHL deal following the season (with the exception of Miller and Moore).

sezenack called it (Cornell being good and Harvard being bad)!

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did. Just who those folks are, I'm not sure. I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

Didn’t I just do that above? If you want me to go back and apologize for everything I’ve ever gotten wrong, you’re gonna have to wait in line. But since you’ve put me on the spot, I’ll say this—I appreciate sereznack showing his work. For that, I give him full credit for his prediction. On the other hand, while you seem to have gotten the right answer (let’s hope Cornell doesn’t crash and burn the rest of the season), you didn’t really give any basis for it other than “every program always loses a ton of talent, that’s no reason to pick against a team.” As I said earlier in this thread, that just isn’t true—compare the Cornell players who graduated in 2022 to the ones who graduated last season and you’ll see why I was bullish on the team going into last year while (relatively) bearish going into this year.

marty

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did. Just who those folks are, I'm not sure. I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

Huh? When did I claim to speak for or represent the views of anybody else? What are you even talking about? I do enjoy that there are a few posters on here who are very dedicated to painting caricatures of me.

BearLover

marty

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did. Just who those folks are, I'm not sure. I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

Huh? When did I claim to speak for or represent the views of anybody else? What are you even talking about? I do enjoy that there are a few posters on here who are very dedicated to painting caricatures of me.

That would be here!

BearLover

marty

BearLover

chimpfood
The announcers have been repeating the same exact thing for about 5 minutes now.

They spent way too much time talking about the PWR. Though, it was refreshing to hear a focus on the PWR rather than the conference standings. The Cornell announcers spend way too much time on the ECAC standings when it’s the PWR ranking that really matters. The Harvard announcers were also wrong that Cornell needs to win out for an at-large bid. Cornell has little margin for error but they definitely don’t need to literally win out.

But to even go to the Pairwise topic when it's your opponent's important storyline is admirable. And what they said about winning out works for me. It is close enough to the truth that it's ok.

It might be wrong but certainly all of this is speculation. I seem to remember people speculating that we'd be below 20. Or was that just one guy?

A lot of smart people thought that

marty

BearLover

marty

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did. Just who those folks are, I'm not sure. I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

Huh? When did I claim to speak for or represent the views of anybody else? What are you even talking about? I do enjoy that there are a few posters on here who are very dedicated to painting caricatures of me.

That would be here!

BearLover

marty

BearLover

chimpfood
The announcers have been repeating the same exact thing for about 5 minutes now.

They spent way too much time talking about the PWR. Though, it was refreshing to hear a focus on the PWR rather than the conference standings. The Cornell announcers spend way too much time on the ECAC standings when it’s the PWR ranking that really matters. The Harvard announcers were also wrong that Cornell needs to win out for an at-large bid. Cornell has little margin for error but they definitely don’t need to literally win out.

But to even go to the Pairwise topic when it's your opponent's important storyline is admirable. And what they said about winning out works for me. It is close enough to the truth that it's ok.

It might be wrong but certainly all of this is speculation. I seem to remember people speculating that we'd be below 20. Or was that just one guy?

A lot of smart people thought that

That was me poking fun at myself and trying to make a joke

BearLover

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

Didn’t I just do that above? If you want me to go back and apologize for everything I’ve ever gotten wrong, you’re gonna have to wait in line. But since you’ve put me on the spot, I’ll say this—I appreciate sereznack showing his work. For that, I give him full credit for his prediction. On the other hand, while you seem to have gotten the right answer (let’s hope Cornell doesn’t crash and burn the rest of the season), you didn’t really give any basis for it other than “every program always loses a ton of talent, that’s no reason to pick against a team.” As I said earlier in this thread, that just isn’t true—compare the Cornell players who graduated in 2022 to the ones who graduated last season and you’ll see why I was bullish on the team going into last year while (relatively) bearish going into this year.

yer funny.

You expect a statistical analysis to "prove" or "disprove" whether a team that lost a lot to graduation, would actually be fine?

It's called an opinion -- an educated one, I believe.

Why do you feel the world owes you detailed explanations of everything? You called me out the same way when I spoke about future coach. Believe me or don't believe me - I don't care. I like my track record. But I don't owe you a detailed thesis.

The explanation you quoted was sufficient. I knew the players they had coming in. I know Mike Schafer's ability to coach. I don't believe the lost players were that concerning, given that everyone else loses them. And I thought Shane had improved last year to the point where he could be relied upon every night.

Of course - you're right - this may all crash and burn and I may still be wrong eventually. And that would suck - for everyone, not just because I don't want to be wrong.

But this is more about how you annoy the pi** out of me (and everyone else).

BL annoys me less than a lot of people on here even when i disagree with him. He's got strong opinions and way too much of the Need To Argue Pedantically about the same issues like he's got a calendar tickler, but the structure of eLF has too many windows for people to be throwing stones around.

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you’re suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

Didn’t I just do that above? If you want me to go back and apologize for everything I’ve ever gotten wrong, you’re gonna have to wait in line. But since you’ve put me on the spot, I’ll say this—I appreciate sereznack showing his work. For that, I give him full credit for his prediction. On the other hand, while you seem to have gotten the right answer (let’s hope Cornell doesn’t crash and burn the rest of the season), you didn’t really give any basis for it other than “every program always loses a ton of talent, that’s no reason to pick against a team.” As I said earlier in this thread, that just isn’t true—compare the Cornell players who graduated in 2022 to the ones who graduated last season and you’ll see why I was bullish on the team going into last year while (relatively) bearish going into this year.

yer funny.

You expect a statistical analysis to "prove" or "disprove" whether a team that lost a lot to graduation, would actually be fine?

It's called an opinion -- an educated one, I believe.

Why do you feel the world owes you detailed explanations of everything? You called me out the same way when I spoke about future coach. Believe me or don't believe me - I don't care. I like my track record. But I don't owe you a detailed thesis.

The explanation you quoted was sufficient. I knew the players they had coming in. I know Mike Schafer's ability to coach. I don't believe the lost players were that concerning, given that everyone else loses them. And I thought Shane had improved last year to the point where he could be relied upon every night.

Of course - you're right - this may all crash and burn and I may still be wrong eventually. And that would suck - for everyone, not just because I don't want to be wrong.

But this is more about how you annoy the pi** out of me (and everyone else).

Actually, I annoy the piss out maybe like four people here, and then there are another four or so posters who like piling on, but on the whole I think this forum enjoys my contributions despite my occasionally combative attitude. That’s what you get when you grow up on the early days of internet fora, as I did, which were cesspools of kids with strong opinions trolling and screaming at each other. Unlike many on here, I am the first person to admit when I’m wrong. Sadly, some people here are so invested in hating on me that clear attempts at self-deprecating humor are misinterpreted as genuine reflections of my horrible personality. (See above marty post which tried to frame my silly joke as a “gotcha” moment.) I think my takes are always reasonable and backed up with some kind of coherent justification, and I call out those takes which aren’t. Unfortunately, yours was one of them.

ugarte
BL annoys me less than a lot of people on here even when i disagree with him. He's got strong opinions and way too much of the Need To Argue Pedantically about the same issues like he's got a calendar tickler, but the structure of eLF has too many windows for people to be throwing stones around.

I clearly suffer from too much Need To Argue Pedantically about stuff, which I acknowledge and have embraced by trying to turn it into a partially serious, partially humorous bit, but unfortunately it seems a lot of people here don’t know I’m doing a bit. But enough about me. Let’s go Red! There are too many big questions we need to get to the bottom of, and we waste precious time dwelling on the antics of one singular forum poster. The importance of draft picks, the accuracy of the pairwise probability matrix, how badly we want our conference opponents to lose in the NCAAs—these are the topics we should turn our attention to—not poor little BearLover.

As I have discovered over the years, bits aren't effective here. And TBH bits are lazy and were old even before social media turned everybody into a wanna-be Oscar Wilde.

Simple, sincere sentences. Let the games be the entertainment.

BearLover
Actually, I annoy the piss out maybe like four people here, and then there are another four or so posters who like piling on, but on the whole I think this forum enjoys my contributions despite my occasionally combative attitude. That’s what you get when you grow up on the early days of internet fora, as I did, which were cesspools of kids with strong opinions trolling and screaming at each other. Unlike many on here, I am the first person to admit when I’m wrong. Sadly, some people here are so invested in hating on me that clear attempts at self-deprecating humor are misinterpreted as genuine reflections of my horrible personality. (See above marty post which tried to frame my silly joke as a “gotcha” moment.) I think my takes are always reasonable and backed up with some kind of coherent justification, and I call out those takes which aren’t. Unfortunately, yours was one of them.

as someone whose humor has definitely been known to be lost on the Webz -- I'll just leave it at this ... kumbaya, brother

BearLover

ugarte
BL annoys me less than a lot of people on here even when i disagree with him. He's got strong opinions and way too much of the Need To Argue Pedantically about the same issues like he's got a calendar tickler, but the structure of eLF has too many windows for people to be throwing stones around.

I clearly suffer from too much Need To Argue Pedantically about stuff, which I acknowledge and have embraced by trying to turn it into a partially serious, partially humorous bit, but unfortunately it seems a lot of people here don’t know I’m doing a bit. But enough about me. Let’s go Red! There are too many big questions we need to get to the bottom of, and we waste precious time dwelling on the antics of one singular forum poster. The importance of draft picks, the accuracy of the pairwise probability matrix, how badly we want our conference opponents to lose in the NCAAs—these are the topics we should turn our attention to—not poor little BearLover.

You've written your own prescription. Much as a lot of smart people here are annoyed by your pedantic need to argue, at least it's obvious you're trying to argue a particular point.


But if you amt manage to