Sunday, May 26th, 2024
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Bedpan
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

Cornell at Dartmouth, 1/27

Posted by Iceberg 
Page: Previous1 2 
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Cornell at Dartmouth, 1/27
Posted by: chimpfood (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: February 02, 2024 10:51PM

adamw
BearLover
jkahn
adamw
BearLover
adamw
BearLover
arugula
Appears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn’t as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.

A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I’m confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?

I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.


Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a “bad win.” But Cornell didn’t win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don’t understand why it’s relevant here.

That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...

I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.

I'm well aware they tied.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.

Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.

Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.

Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
makes sense to me now, you kind of just said it in a roundabout way
 
Re: Cornell at Dartmouth, 1/27
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 03, 2024 12:28AM

adamw
BearLover
jkahn
adamw
BearLover
adamw
BearLover
arugula
Appears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn’t as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.

A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I’m confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?

I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.


Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a “bad win.” But Cornell didn’t win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don’t understand why it’s relevant here.

That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...

I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.

I'm well aware they tied.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.

Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.

Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.

Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sorry, but your post was actually very unclear. You said the drop did “not come from the result itself.” You then said “if you win, you’re not allowed to drop from it.” The clear implication is that the latter statement has something to do with the former—otherwise, why bring that part up at all? That’s what caused the confusion.

Even if your post were clear, I don’t understand the point you were trying to make. The statement “Cornell’s RPI went down because they tied Dartmouth” covers the fact they (i) tied and (ii) played Dartmouth. Whether the drop in RPI was due to (i) or (ii) does not alter the reality that Cornell would NOT have dropped had they WON. So yeah, technically Cornell’s win% didn’t drop and their SOS did, but who cares? The point is that their RPI would NOT have dropped had they WON the game. Therefore, a tie against Dartmouth was a bad result.
 
Re: Cornell at Dartmouth, 1/27
Posted by: marty (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: February 03, 2024 07:33AM

BearLover
adamw
BearLover
jkahn
adamw
BearLover
adamw
BearLover
arugula
Appears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn’t as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.

A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I’m confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?

I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.


Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a “bad win.” But Cornell didn’t win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don’t understand why it’s relevant here.

That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...

I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.

I'm well aware they tied.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.

Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.

Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.

Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sorry, but your post was actually very unclear. You said the drop did “not come from the result itself.” You then said “if you win, you’re not allowed to drop from it.” The clear implication is that the latter statement has something to do with the former—otherwise, why bring that part up at all? That’s what caused the confusion.

Even if your post were clear, I don’t understand the point you were trying to make. The statement “Cornell’s RPI went down because they tied Dartmouth” covers the fact they (i) tied and (ii) played Dartmouth. Whether the drop in RPI was due to (i) or (ii) does not alter the reality that Cornell would NOT have dropped had they WON. So yeah, technically Cornell’s win% didn’t drop and their SOS did, but who cares? The point is that their RPI would NOT have dropped had they WON the game. Therefore, a tie against Dartmouth was a bad result.

At this point, I'm hoping BearLover will magically transform into FaceTimer.

If Watterson would only lend me a Transmogrifier.
 
Re: Cornell at Dartmouth, 1/27
Posted by: Give My Regards (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: March 11, 2024 04:55PM

Apropos of nothing, and I suspect y'all already knew this, but I've been trying to figure out why the name Cooper Black sounded so darn familiar. I thought it might be a company that makes power tools -- turns out it's a font.

 
___________________________
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
 
Page: Previous1 2 
Current Page: 2 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login