What happened to PWR this year?

IF Cornell wins game one and loses the finals you would have to go back over 20 yrs to find the one team that didn't make it with a PWR as high as Cornells would be. And that is the year Cornell was #1 in PWR? Thats as far back as the CHN site goes. Was that year 1 of it?

A few of those years the PWR could have gotten us a 2-3 seed.

Did parity cause this?

did the effect of the ties cause this? We had 6 of them, anyone of which puts us over the top.

Is it more teams around to spread the RPI out?

It's been a really weird year. Our RPI would have us in comfortably any other year.

RPI or PWR? We lose 14 comparisons, and are in 15th, so that's where the PWR would always have us.

upprdeck
IF Cornell wins game one and loses the finals you would have to go back over 20 yrs to find the one team that didn't make it with a PWR as high as Cornells would be. And that is the year Cornell was #1 in PWR? Thats as far back as the CHN site goes. Was that year 1 of it?

A few of those years the PWR could have gotten us a 2-3 seed.

Did parity cause this?

did the effect of the ties cause this? We had 6 of them, anyone of which puts us over the top.

Is it more teams around to spread the RPI out?

I'm not really understanding this comment. Can you explain? "Pairwise" or "RPI"?

Also RPI is generally higher at the top end this year, because there's so many new programs and other dreck at the bottom.

adamw

upprdeck
IF Cornell wins game one and loses the finals you would have to go back over 20 yrs to find the one team that didn't make it with a PWR as high as Cornells would be. And that is the year Cornell was #1 in PWR? Thats as far back as the CHN site goes. Was that year 1 of it?

A few of those years the PWR could have gotten us a 2-3 seed.

Did parity cause this?

did the effect of the ties cause this? We had 6 of them, anyone of which puts us over the top.

Is it more teams around to spread the RPI out?

I'm not really understanding this comment. Can you explain? "Pairwise" or "RPI"?

Also RPI is generally higher at the top end this year, because there's so many new programs and other dreck at the bottom.

That makes sense as to an explanation why the top end of RPI is so high this year.

Although the good folks of Augustana University will have you know that they finished ahead of six ECAC teams in RPI this year.

Also didn't help that UMD had a rough year. It was assumed, at least by me, that UMD on the schedule would help our OOC and thus our RPI/PWR. Not so much

arugula
Also didn't help that UMD had a rough year. It was assumed, at least by me, that UMD on the schedule would help our OOC and thus our RPI/PWR. Not so much

Their top player was out most of the year - another good player was ruled academically ineligible - and their No. 1 goalie also got injured. They were definitely not helpful

Didn't the ECAC also do poorly OOC this year? That's going to hurt too. We did well in conference but we would have needed a much better conference record to breeze into the NCAAs with that going against us.

French Rage
Didn't the ECAC also do poorly OOC this year? That's going to hurt too. We did well in conference but we would have needed a much better conference record to breeze into the NCAAs with that going against us.

The ECAC does poorly OOC just about every year.

This year, they did really really poorly.

This isn't so much about the ECAC doing poorly. It's about so many teams have such a higher RPI that something that hasn't happened in 20 yrs. is the reason Cornell has to win to get in.

It really comes down to the top of the NCHC. Omaha a 19-14 team played an 8-8 league season into a bid

they beat CC 4 of 5 and ND twice.

so they earned it, but the odds of going 6-1 against that schedule is pretty stacked. even 4 wins and they are out.

If lots of teams have much higher RPI does that mean lots have much lower RPI? Are we just at record dispersion?

Is the net RPI of all teams always the same? Does it self-normalize?

arugula
Also didn't help that UMD had a rough year. It was assumed, at least by me, that UMD on the schedule would help our OOC and thus our RPI/PWR. Not so much

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest? If so, then we got unlucky. If not, and the Yales and Duluths and the other opponents who had disappointing seasons actually were as bad as their record, then our RPI (and therefore our PWR) accurately reflects our accomplishments this season, and we have nothing to complain about.

OP is correct that something weird happened in the PWR this year. In every past season on record our RPI would have gotten us into the NCAAs. It’s a shame because we had a really nice year. And yet, none of that ended up mattering. We need to beat Dartmouth and probably Quinnipiac to get in. We could have lost all our games 10-0 and still ended up in this exact spot. That’s why the PWR situation is so frustrating: we played well, but it all amounted to nothing.

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

upprdeck
This isn't so much about the ECAC doing poorly. It's about so many teams have such a higher RPI that something that hasn't happened in 20 yrs. is the reason Cornell has to win to get in.

It’s really all relative though. The ECAC is super weak this year. The next team after Cornell is Dartmouth and they are 30. The other teams start to slot in around the mid 30s. Last year Quinnipiac Harvard and Cornell were all top 13 and then Colgate was 25. When there are more ECAC teams up higher, the lower ones really benefit from playing and beating or tying the higher ones. This year Cornell pretty much was just playing all teams in the bottom 30, and had a slew of losses and ties to those teams - understandable because it’s tough to always win. They are a super young team so what they’ve done is impressive but sweeping Harvard this year just doesn’t help much. Weak schedule.

The issue isnt how the league played. The question is why were RPIs as whole so much higher that at good one didnt get us in already.

Is it a function of parity
Is it a function of teams getting more quality win bonus

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…

BearLover gets a lot of static here, and often deserves it, but this is dead solid perfect unless we beat UMD before they were decimated. OTOH, if we did, UMD later got this and we got some splattered on us.

UMD coach pregame interviews said they were down several players when the came to play us.

upprdeck
UMD coach pregame interviews said they were down several players when the came to play us.

In that case BearLover is right on the mark. Now if we could just work on his manners...

Trotsky

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…

BearLover gets a lot of static here, and often deserves it, but this is dead solid perfect unless we beat UMD before they were decimated. OTOH, if we did, UMD later got this and we got some splattered on us.

Two of the players I was referring to, did play vs. Cornell -- Cole Spicer and Zach Stejskal. Dominic James did not - he had been hurt in their second game and was lost for the season.

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

We had 2 goal leads vs ASU 3 times and didnt hold them.
We had lead vs Umass
We had lead vs Clarkson

anyone of those probably is enough to get us in

Young team that didnt hold leads. Who knew.

We almost blew a 4 goal lead vs a Harvard team that cant score at all for some weird reason given they talent they have.

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus. RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS. Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus. RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS. Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

Fair point. The QWB is usually so small that I discount it. You’re right though that Omaha’s is substantial. Unfortunately, CC’s is even more substantial, and they’re team we’re closest to catching. If QWB didn’t exist, would we catch them by losing in the ECAC final versus Quinnipiac? It sure looks like it: we would net .0049 RPI if QWB didn’t exist, and if we lose ECAC final vs Quinnipiac we will be within .0049 RPI of CC. I think we would pass UMass as well, if they lose next round. So, to make this situation even more frustrating, the quality win bonus will cost us the NCAAs if we lose the ECAC final to Quinnipiac.

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus. RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS. Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

Fair point. The QWB is usually so small that I discount it. You’re right though that Omaha’s is substantial. Unfortunately, CC’s is even more substantial, and they’re team we’re closest to catching. If QWB didn’t exist, would we catch them by losing in the ECAC final versus Quinnipiac? It sure looks like it: we would net .0049 RPI if QWB didn’t exist, and if we lose ECAC final vs Quinnipiac we will be within .0049 RPI of CC. I think we would pass UMass as well, if they lose next round. So, to make this situation even more frustrating, the quality win bonus will cost us the NCAAs if we lose the ECAC final to Quinnipiac.

Then again, maybe the QWB is necessary because RPI alone doesn't adjust enough. For what it's worth, we tend to do better in RPI than KRACH.

upprdeck
The issue isnt how the league played. The question is why were RPIs as whole so much higher that at good one didnt get us in already.

Is it a function of parity
Is it a function of teams getting more quality win bonus

You're correct, but since this is a down year in the ECAC, parity exists at the expense of the QWB. If you play in a weaker overall division you have to win that division to qualify. Cornell's strength of schedule is 30th in the country, mostly because the ECAC is so weak, and that has an impact as well.

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

Just want to say, BearLover is 100% correct on this point. It's a point that's lost on so many people - not just fans, but coaches around the country. Everything thinks they can game the Pairwise -- or complain because X team has a soft schedule and thus is beating up on everyone. I've heard the complaints in both directions -- "our sked is soft, so it hurt us!" - "their sked is soft, so they gamed the Pairwise in their favor!!" ... Neither is true. There really is no way to game the system. For example, Arizona State people complained their Pairwise was hurt because of their soft schedule - and that this will be rectified next year in the NCHC. And um yeah, you also will lose a lot more and probably be right back at No. 20 again. i.e. Arizona State is not 20 because of their soft schedule. They are 20 because that's who they are.

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus. RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS. Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

While true - Omaha's QWB is .0070 ... and teams like Cornell and UMass are .0030 ... If you took away .0040 from Omaha - it would still be in the same spot in the RPI it is now.

adamw

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus. RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS. Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

While true - Omaha's QWB is .0070 ... and teams like Cornell and UMass are .0030 ... If you took away .0040 from Omaha - it would still be in the same spot in the RPI it is now.

Fair, but how is their record against top 20 teams, I ask, too lazy to look it up myself. I know they did really well against two of the top teams, but what about the rest. Meanwhile, we put up an extremely good record against top 20 teams. It feels vaguely unfair that a .500 record in 10 games against top teams is the same as a 1.000 record in 5 games against top teams.

I made those numbers up, and I'm not saying they're the same as Omaha and Cornell.

I'm fully on board that there's no good way to game it, and I'm not even saying it's unfair as is. Just sort of feeling my way through the numbers.

Dafatone
Fair, but how is their record against top 20 teams, I ask, too lazy to look it up myself. I know they did really well against two of the top teams, but what about the rest. Meanwhile, we put up an extremely good record against top 20 teams. It feels vaguely unfair that a .500 record in 10 games against top teams is the same as a 1.000 record in 5 games against top teams.

I made those numbers up, and I'm not saying they're the same as Omaha and Cornell.

I'm fully on board that there's no good way to game it, and I'm not even saying it's unfair as is. Just sort of feeling my way through the numbers.

Omaha - record vs.

top 10 4-4 (1 OTW)
top 20 10-9-3 (3 OTW, 1 OTL)

Cornell ...

top 10 1-1
top 20 4-1-2 (2 OTW)

It's possible I missed some.
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

adamw

Dafatone
Fair, but how is their record against top 20 teams, I ask, too lazy to look it up myself. I know they did really well against two of the top teams, but what about the rest. Meanwhile, we put up an extremely good record against top 20 teams. It feels vaguely unfair that a .500 record in 10 games against top teams is the same as a 1.000 record in 5 games against top teams.

I made those numbers up, and I'm not saying they're the same as Omaha and Cornell.

I'm fully on board that there's no good way to game it, and I'm not even saying it's unfair as is. Just sort of feeling my way through the numbers.

Omaha - record vs.

top 10 4-4 (1 OTW)
top 20 10-9-3 (3 OTW, 1 OTL)

Cornell ...

top 10 1-1
top 20 4-1-2 (2 OTW)

It's possible I missed some.
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Thanks! I appreciate the work.

upprdeck
We had 2 goal leads vs ASU 3 times and didnt hold them.
We had lead vs Umass
We had lead vs Clarkson

anyone of those probably is enough to get us in

Young team that didnt hold leads. Who knew.

We almost blew a 4 goal lead vs a Harvard team that cant score at all for some weird reason given they talent they have.

Does the reason rhyme with Schmonato?

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover
If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us…same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it’s a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team’s weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn’t have won as many games! If our opponents didn’t largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn’t have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn’t have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn’t our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus. RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS. Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

Fair point. The QWB is usually so small that I discount it. You’re right though that Omaha’s is substantial. Unfortunately, CC’s is even more substantial, and they’re team we’re closest to catching. If QWB didn’t exist, would we catch them by losing in the ECAC final versus Quinnipiac? It sure looks like it: we would net .0049 RPI if QWB didn’t exist, and if we lose ECAC final vs Quinnipiac we will be within .0049 RPI of CC. I think we would pass UMass as well, if they lose next round. So, to make this situation even more frustrating, the quality win bonus will cost us the NCAAs if we lose the ECAC final to Quinnipiac.

But if we do beat Quinnipiac it will be great for our QWB.

Wins by BC, RIT, Denver and Michigan State will put Cornell at #12 in PWR.

What if we had lost tonight?

ER
What if we had lost tonight?

From what I've read there would've been no shot at an at-large as 14-16 would've been taken up by the AHA, CCHA, and SLU.

And as far as next week, it seems that a re-match with Denver is inevitable, although in the western regional this time

Iceberg

ER
What if we had lost tonight?

From what I've read there would've been no shot at an at-large as 14-16 would've been taken up by the AHA, CCHA, and SLU.

And as far as next week, it seems that a re-match with Denver is inevitable, although in the western regional this time

Better than having to play BU or BC.

Iceberg

ER
What if we had lost tonight?

From what I've read there would've been no shot at an at-large as 14-16 would've been taken up by the AHA, CCHA, and SLU.

And as far as next week, it seems that a re-match with Denver is inevitable, although in the western regional this time

Not necessarily. Cornell could be a 3 seed still.

There are 4 remaining games with a combined number of 16 possible outcomes (2^4). Four of the winning combinations will move Cornell to #12. The remaining twelve will leave Cornell at #13.

The following combinations of wins will move Cornell to #12 in the PWR:

AI, BU, MS, D
RIT, BU, MS, D
AI, BC, MS, D
RIT, BC, MS, D

So wins by Michigan State and Denver are essential.

That would match Cornell up against #5 Maine (not taking into account geography).

Near as I can figure, if Omaha beats Denver, CC gets the last at large. If Denver beats Omaha, UMass gets it.

And if CC gets the last at large, they can't play Denver so we get Denver despite finishing 13th, probably in Sioux Falls. CC goes to St.Louis to play MSU.

Now if UMass gets the last at large, they host in Springfield. So BU gets sent west. I suspect that to maintain bracket integrity, Denver would go to Springfield (that keeps 3 versus 14). Either way we'd play Michigan State if we finish 13th.

I came up with a combination with UMass that had NoDak in 5th and us in 13th, In that case, I think the committee would put the 4-5 match of Michigan State vs NoDak in Sioux Falls (for attendance), which is where we'd end up. In that event they'd send BU to St.Louis to play RIT.

but if a league has 5 teams they are allowed to play to maintain the brackets..

upprdeck
but if a league has 5 teams they are allowed to play to maintain the brackets..

I thought it was 6.

maybe,, I thought they said 5,

BC now up on BU 5-1 with 7 mins left. You can take that one to the bank.

upprdeck
maybe,, I thought they said 5,

From adamw's update this morning:

adamw (at CHN)
Because five NCHC teams will make the NCAA Tournament, the Committee can, according its manual, allow those two teams to meet. But it has never done so before when five teams from the same conference made it. It has only done so once, when six WCHA teams made the field in 2008.

kingpin248

upprdeck
maybe,, I thought they said 5,

From adamw's update this morning:

adamw (at CHN)
Because five NCHC teams will make the NCAA Tournament, the Committee can, according its manual, allow those two teams to meet. But it has never done so before when five teams from the same conference made it. It has only done so once, when six WCHA teams made the field in 2008.

OK, I was mis-remembering that statement by Adam as "they can't do it." My bad.

Of course, after I say BC locks it up, BU goes on a 5 min power play and gets one back.

6-2 BC, final.

B1G final going to OT.

Some more YATC: If Michigan beats MSU, NoDak is 5, Maine is 6. If MSU beats Michigan, Maine is 5 and NoDak is 6.

upprdeck
maybe,, I thought they said 5,

It's 5 -- but they've never done it with five. They've only done it once - when the WCHA had 6.

Maine first round is my hope, very beatable team.

well MSU won and denver up 2 late

upprdeck
well MSU won and denver up 2 late

Now up 3.

And final.

We're #12 and Maine is #5. Should be fun.

Well today worked out perfectly, I’ll sleep easy tonight.

bc wusc quin mtech
bu minn omaha rit
den dak mich umass
msu maine cornell wmu


den ndak in ndak

but mass needs to move to sprinsagfield and cant play bu

Bu has to go out west because umass bought a home game..

upprdeck
bc wusc quin mtech
bu minn omaha rit
den dak mich umass
msu maine cornell wmu


den ndak in ndak

but mass needs to move to sprinsagfield and cant play bu

Bu has to go out west because umass bought a home game..

Those are the 4 groupings I came up with, too.

I'm guessing our bracket ends up in STL, and the BU/Minny bracket ends up in Sioux Falls.

yeah Omaha has to play there so BU would go there
maybe denver go to St louis and they move Umass around to stay east

early projection has in Mass vs maine and denver vs mass there as well

Sounds like I've been putting together a list of things to do in Sioux Falls for naught.

I like Adam's bracket. He put Cornell / Maine in Springfield with Denver and UMass.

The only other somewhat logical possibility is Cornell vs. North Dakota in Missouri. It's possible there will be other illogical possibilities.

I came up with this:

BC Wisc Quin MTU - Providence
BU Minn Omaha RIT - Sioux Falls
Den UND Mich UMass - Springfield
MSU Maine Cornell WMU - St.Louis

It maintains the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, and 4-5 "integrity" and puts Minnesota in Sioux Falls to help with attendance. There aren't that many tix left in Springfield, so who cares who goes there because UMass (or BU) is buying up the house. And they already wrote off attendance in St. Louis by putting the regional in such a tiny rink, so it doesn't matter who goes there either.

Cynical, I know, but has the NCAA ever earned our trust?

Looks like we’ll get Maine in Springfield with Denver as the 1 seed in the region and Umass as the 4.

chimpfood
Looks like we’ll get Maine in Springfield with Denver as the 1 seed in the region and Umass as the 4.

Yup. It's official.

Whoohoo!

Jeff Hopkins '82

chimpfood
Looks like we’ll get Maine in Springfield with Denver as the 1 seed in the region and Umass as the 4.

Yup. It's official.

Whoohoo!

We should have some good attendance hopefully

Dunc

Jeff Hopkins '82

chimpfood
Looks like we’ll get Maine in Springfield with Denver as the 1 seed in the region and Umass as the 4.

Yup. It's official.

Whoohoo!

We should have some good attendance hopefully

And we play the 5:30 game Thursday

I’m so excited for this, the NCAA is what I live for and this is a very favorable regional IMO.

More important than our opponent is whether Gabe Seger is healthy.

Wow BU got screwed. Overall #2 but sent to grand forks because BC takes Providence as #1 and UMass hosts Springfield.

BMac
Wow BU got screwed. Overall #2 but sent to grand forks because BC takes Providence as #1 and UMass hosts Springfield.

The whole “host school” requirement remains one of the dumbest things to survive the evolution of this tournament.

BMac
Wow BU got screwed. Overall #2 but sent to grand forks because BC takes Providence as #1 and UMass hosts Springfield.

Sioux Falls, but yes, they got hosed.

BMac
Wow BU got screwed. Overall #2 but sent to grand forks because BC takes Providence as #1 and UMass hosts Springfield.

I'm deeply offended that you're mixing up the Dakotas.

Dafatone

BMac
Wow BU got screwed. Overall #2 but sent to grand forks because BC takes Providence as #1 and UMass hosts Springfield.

I'm deeply offended that you're mixing up the Dakotas.

Well, he could have said Sioux City.

Sorry no offense meant to the land of Warren Buffett

BMac
Sorry no offense meant to the land of Warren Buffett

Well played.