Polls 2/28

USCHO poll...so close!

February 28, 2005

   Team        (First Place)    Record  Pts   Last Week
 1 Colorado College     (12)    25-6-3  556     2
 2 Cornell              (21)    22-4-3  553     2
 3 Denver                (4)    23-8-2  523     1
 4 Michigan              (3)    24-7-3  488     4
 5 Boston College               20-6-6  470     5
 6 Wisconsin                   21-10-3  339     6
 7 New Hampshire                22-8-4  334     7
 8 Ohio State                   23-8-3  319     8
 9 Minnesota                   22-12-1  274    12
10 Boston University           20-11-3  212     9
11 Harvard                      18-8-3  186    11
12 Maine                       18-10-6  171    14
13 Mass.-Lowell                 19-9-4  117    10
14 Northern Michigan            18-9-7   91    15
15 Dartmouth                   17-10-2   55    NR

Others Receiving Votes: North Dakota 54, Colgate 48, 
Vermont 7, Nebraska-Omaha 3

it looks like the eastern voters like the Red and the western voters like all but ... although IMO CC is the best team in the country regardless of our 13-0-1 streak. if we take care of our business we'll end up right where we belong, #2 ... and we should all know by now these things are absolutely meaningless

And USA Today's:

(as of February 28)

    TEAM                        PTS    Record    Last week
    ----                        ---    ------    ---------
t1. Colorado (15)               483    25-6-3         1
t1. Cornell (12)                483    22-4-3         3
3.  Denver (2)                  429    23-8-2         2
4.  Michigan                    411    24-7-3         4
5.  Boston College              396    20-6-6         5
6.  Ohio State                  301    23-8-3         8
7.  Wisconsin                   290    21-10-3        6
8.  New Hampshire               287    22-8-4         7
9.  Minnesota                   246    22-12-1       12
10. Boston University           191    20-11-3       10
11. Harvard                     151    18-8-3        11
12. Maine                       146    18-10-6       14
13. Massachusetts-Lowell        104    19-9-4         9
14. Northern Michigan            76    18-9-7        15  
t15. Dartmouth                   29    17-10-2       NR
t15. North Dakota                29    17-13-4       NR

Others receiving votes: Colgate, 25; Nebraska Omaha 2; 
Quinnipiac.

Poll history through 2004-05: [www.tbrw.info]

 1 Colorado College                483 (15)   1   25-6-3   22
   Cornell University              483 (17)   3   22-4-3   20
 3 University of Denver            429 (2)    2   23-8-2   22
 4 University of Michigan          411        4   24-7-3   22
 5 Boston College                  396        5   20-6-6   22
 6 The Ohio State University       301        8   23-8-3   20
 7 University of Wisconsin         290        6  21-10-3   22
 8 University of New Hampshire     287        7   22-8-4   22
 9 University of Minnesota         246       12  22-12-1   22
10 Boston University               191       10  20-11-3   14
11 Harvard University              151       11   18-8-3   11
12 University of Maine             146       14  18-10-6   21
13 Univ. of Massachusetts Lowell   104        9   19-9-4   10
14 Northern Michigan University     76       15   18-9-7    5
15 Dartmouth College                29       NR  17-10-2    7
   University of North Dakota       29       NR  17-13-4   21

Looks like USA Today made a mistake when they posted on their website...this is from USCHO. Back on top with the most #1 votes.

We don't want the target. We don't want the target. We don't want the target.

And if you look at the Individual Comparisons Table of the PWR, without throwing in any bonus points, no one of the top 5 teams comes out ahead of all the others. Take any one and you can come up with a path that makes them the winner:

Cornell tops BC, which tops Colorado College, which tops Denver, which tops Minnesota, which tops Cornell...

Looks like anyone's game to me.

[q] We don't want the target. We don't want the target. We don't want the target.[/q]Sure we do. The target is good for you. Good publcity. Was it a bad thing that we were #1 going into the tournament in 2003? (Well, that was PWR IIRC and only #2 in polls I think.) Did that have anything to do with us losing in Buffalo? No. I'll take all the good press the program can get. Just don't be too quick to believe the publicity.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Was it a bad thing that we were #1 going into the tournament in 2003? (Well, that was PWR IIRC and only #2 in polls I think.) [/q]

I am almost positive that we were number 1 in the polls going into the NCAA tourney. Or in the very least number 1 in the polls going into the Frozen Four. I recall hearing that that was the first time in our history that we were ever ranked number 1, including National Championship years.
Andy W.

[Q]andyw2100 Wrote:
I am almost positive that we were number 1 in the polls going into the NCAA tourney. Or in the very least number 1 in the polls going into the Frozen Four. I recall hearing that that was the first time in our history that we were ever ranked number 1, including National Championship years.[/q]In the March 17th, 2003 USCHO poll (before conference tournaments), CC was #1 with 35 of 40 first place votes, Cornell was #2 with the remaining 5.
[www.uscho.com]

In the March 25, 2003 ("Final" USCHO poll (between conference tournaments and regionals), Cornell was #1 with 28 first place votes, CC was #2 with the remaining 12.
[www.uscho.com]

Yeah, in the final USCHO and USA today polls (post-ECAC tournament), the Monday after selection Sunday, we were #1

[www.tbrw.info]

I stand corrected. My point holds regardless. That #1 ranking was nothing but positive for Cornell and it would be the same this year.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the polls this week since Cornell is off and Denver and CC play each other. If either team manages to sweep I expect that team to be the consensus #1 (and deservedly so). If the series is split, then it's an open question. Cornell could sneak up to #1 or drop to #3 if the two games were close and competitive.

Forgive me, but I'm going to sound like an idiot here...

I'm confused. It looks to me as though we had more first place votes than did CC... yet we're #2? And I know, arguments can be made "well, we didn't want to be #1 anyway" or "well, we're #1 anyway" or "well, another poll has us at #1" or "well, another poll doesn't have us at #1" or "well, the PWR is all that matters now" or... ad nauseum...

But can someone at least explain the 21 vs 12 first place votes thing to me?

does anyone else find it the least bit interesting the same two teams are atop both polls splitting votes as was the case at the end of the '02-03 season? it's been mentioned above and i echo the sentiment any exposure for the program (deserved or not) is good exposure ... and noting it's happening on a consistant basis should be telling to those who think the Red are a fluke.

In theory, you get 15 points for a first-place vote, 14 for a second place vote, etc.

So if we got 21 first place votes and all our other votes were for eleventh place, for instance, we'd come in lower than a team with 12 first place votes all of whose other votes were for second place.

Obviously that's an extreme case, but it illustrates the point. We probably got a bunch of third and fourth place votes, where Colorado College got mostly second place votes.

Beeeej

Overall poll rank depends on the summation of all votes, not just first place votes. #1 is 15 points, #2 is 14 points, etc. So even though more voters voted Cornell #1 than CC, the Tigers must've been ranked higher on the ballots that didn't put them #1.

Ah, thank you.

One of these days I really am going to read up on the methods for all these ranking systems... until then, I thank you.

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

does anyone else find it the least bit interesting the same two teams are atop both polls splitting votes as was the case at the end of the '02-03 season? it's been mentioned above and i echo the sentiment any exposure for the program (deserved or not) is good exposure ... and noting it's happening on a consistant basis should be telling to those who think the Red are a fluke.[/q]

I don't think anybody's claiming Cornell is a fluke. I think the (ignorant, SOB, camel's breath) doubters are claiming Cornell is overrated due to running up their record against cupcakes (c.f., Nebraska football). You can be overrated for years. Decades. Look at Harvard's academic reputation.

Personally, I'd like to see Cornell as a highly overrated national champion.

Cornell's been a target all year, according to Mike. This is just more of the same.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in the polls this week since Cornell is off and Denver and CC play each other. If either team manages to sweep I expect that team to be the consensus #1 (and deservedly so). If the series is split, then it's an open question. Cornell could sneak up to #1 or drop to #3 if the two games were close and competitive.[/q]Given how the poll votes have trended in the past couple of weeks, I'm going to guess that if it's a split, CC will stay at #1 and Cornell will stay at #2. The Western voters will continue to believe that CC is #1 and DU is #2 and Cornell is #11 or whatever.

someone please correct my math ... [553 - (21*15)] / 19 = 12.53 ???
do we really get that little respect from the western voters?

12.53 is a solid average of between third place (13 points) and fourth place (12 points). That's not a heck of a lot of disrespect in my book.

Beeeej

ah ha, my bad ... big ol'brain fart ... thinking ranking not points.

There is a historical bias against Ivy Schools and Ivy athletes in national polling. A most egregious case was the 1971 Heisman Tropy. Pat Sullivan, the eventual winner, was on most everyone's top three ballot among voters, including in the Northeast, even if it was 2nd or 3rd to Ed Marinaro '72. But in the south especially (Sullivan played at Auburn), many voters left Marinaro off the ballot entirely. Some might see bias in that. If it was truly random, then if Sullivan was not cited on 10% of the Northeast's ballots, you'd expect Marinaro would have been omitted from 10% of the South's ballots. He was left a *lot* of them. That I believe was the margin of victory: Marinaro's omission from distant ballots.

Could be the same thing here: Eastern voters respect Cornell and CC, Western voters respect only CC.

[q]Could be the same thing here: Eastern voters respect Cornell and CC, Western voters respect only CC.[/q]I think that would be an exaggeration. I think the math (see posts by Ben and Beeeej above) indicates that we're still ranked 3 or 4 on most non-first place ballots. A more accurate guess might be, eastern voters respect Corenll and CC, western voters respect CC, Denver and then Cornell with BC or Michigan thrown in between on some ballots.

Keith, there you go again, throwing in facts to try to prove your point. That is so unfair.

(But it is one of those bizarre things to see CU almost double CC on first place points and still be in second.)

CC seems like a pretty classy school and with, what, just 2000 students, has some real disadvantages compared to say Denver or Wisconsin. And it also seems academically minded. My dream would have been to have played CC for the title in 2003 ... and for this to be the rematch year when CC tries to get the upper hand to make up for LeNeveu's 2-0 shutout.

[q]CC seems like a pretty classy school and with, what, just 2000 students, has some real disadvantages compared to say Denver or Wisconsin. And it also seems academically minded. My dream would have been to have played CC for the title in 2003 ... and for this to be the rematch year when CC tries to get the upper hand to make up for LeNeveu's 2-0 shutout.[/q]I kind of had the same though about the Tigers, even if Sejna did steal the Hobey two years ago. As for your scenario, how about having the 2006 title game as the rematch, with CC trying to avenge McKee's 2-0 shutout? (Just fantasizing on a boring afternoon at work...)

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I kind of had the same though about the Tigers, even if Sejna did steal the Hobey two years ago. [/q] In retrospect, Lenny was unlucky to have had his great season when he did. (I probably made this same point right about Hobey time last year, but I feel like repeating it. ) If he'd stayed and put up the same numbers last year, he might've won it. In 02-03, Sejna and Chris Kunitz stood head and shoulders above the remaining non-goalies (with 1.95 and 1.88 points per game and nobody else above 1.67) just as we all know Lenny stood head and shoulders above all the other goalies. But in 03-04, no forward topped 1.61 points per game (five players were over that number in 02-03) and no player from a Big Four team topped 1.49 (nine players, including Dominic Moore, beat that in 02-03).

Of course, to play devil's advocate, Jim Howard bettered Lenny's 02-03 GAA and SV% in 03-04 and wasn't even a finalist, possibly because he only played half of Maine's minutes, and (if I'm not mistaken) fewer than half in the regular season. Yann Danis did make it to the final 3 with a SV% that was slightly better than Lenny's in 02-03, although a GAA that was significantly worse.

What does this mean? It means that, IMO, a goalie from the ECAC would need to not split playing time (see: Jim Howard, 03-04; Wade Dubielewicz, 01-02), AND to stand out from all other goalies (see: Yann Danis 03-04, Ryan Miller 99-00), AND for it to be a down year for forwards (see: Dave LeNeveu 02-03), in order to win the Hobey. Oh, and also not have a down year as compared to a previous outstanding season (see: Ryan Miller, 01-02).

[Q]What does this mean? It means that, IMO, a goalie from the ECAC would need to not split playing time (see: Jim Howard, 03-04; Wade Dubielewicz, 01-02), AND to stand out from all other goalies (see: Yann Danis 03-04, Ryan Miller 99-00), AND for it to be a down year for forwards (see: Dave LeNeveu 02-03), in order to win the Hobey. Oh, and also not have a down year as compared to a previous outstanding season (see: Ryan Miller, 01-02).[/q]

could that be this year?

[Q]jy3 Wrote:
could that be this year?[/q]Doubt it. I think Sertich has to be the odds-on favorite. Best player in the country (numbers-wise, at any rate) on the best team in the country. McKee's got the great GAA, as we all know, but Hyphen having a better SV% is a mark against him. I wouldn't hold my breath.

(Please note: I'm not saying I don't think McKee deserves recognition, because he's been absolutely amazing this year. I'm just making a prediction.)

It seems that the publicity surrounding LeNeveu was more intense in David's sophomore year than in David II's sophomore year. Maybe because we were (weren't we?) ranked higher sooner in the 2002-03 season ... maybe because the offensive output was a bit lower and so more eyes fell on the defense in '03 ...

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

It seems that the publicity surrounding LeNeveu was more intense in David's sophomore year than in David II's sophomore year. Maybe because we were (weren't we?) ranked higher sooner in the 2002-03 season ... maybe because the offensive output was a bit lower and so more eyes fell on the defense in '03 ...[/q]Probably also because he was coming off a freshman season as the top goalie in the country for a team that made the NCAAs and one of the goalies for Team Canada in the WJC.

Let's hope that Lenny So = McKee Jr. McKee could very well be First Team All-American and Hobey Final 10 this year. With those creds and a great junior year, he ought to be near the top of the Hobey hunt next Spring.

My bad. I forgot the Canadian junior team part. That helped LeNeveu a lot. And secondarily alternating as a freshman with the goalie who won All-America honors in 2001-2002, that helped, too.

I always wonder, thinking of the multi-OT game we lost to Harvard for the ECAC title, if Underhill was really the better goalie then in spring 2002. Odds are Schafer had a better handle on the situation than someone sitting in the stands ... and still you wonder. And OTOOH if Schafer had gone exclusively with LeNeveu, or alternated the two and LeNeveu had lost the game that was our exit from the playoff scene, we'd be second-guessing also.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:I always wonder, thinking of the multi-OT game we lost to Harvard for the ECAC title, if Underhill was really the better goalie then in spring 2002. Odds are Schafer had a better handle on the situation than someone sitting in the stands ... and still you wonder. And OTOOH if Schafer had gone exclusively with LeNeveu, or alternated the two and LeNeveu had lost the game that was our exit from the playoff scene, we'd be second-guessing also. [/q]I've thought a lot about this also. I wanted Schafer to play LeNeveu, but I also don't think it had any impact on the result. Harvard skated circles around us the whole game. We were only in it because Hyphen played a mediocre game (natch).

I don't think there would have been much second guessing if Lenny had been in net - unless he looked like he was crumbling under the pressure. He had such a stellar first year that I would guess more people were disappointed than pleased when the starting lineup was announced.

Although Lenny didn't do a great job on the Canadian Jr. Team, but yeah, it raised his visibility.

The other thing is that you have to pick a goaltender and stick with them for the playoffs. There's no rotation in the playoffs - you need to have your go to guy who knows he'll play every night. In 2002 Schafer picked Underhill and I can't say I disagree. He was good, he was the senior, he earned it.

I don't think Harvard skated circles around us all night, and we had a number of chances to win, but by the 2nd OT, we were tired and showing it, and couldn't keep up, especially on the big ice.

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

Although Lenny didn't do a great job on the Canadian Jr. Team, but yeah, it raised his visibility.

The other thing is that you have to pick a goaltender and stick with them for the playoffs. There's no rotation in the playoffs - you need to have your go to guy who knows he'll play every night. In 2002 Schafer picked Underhill and I can't say I disagree. He was good, he was the senior, he earned it.

I don't think Harvard skated circles around us all night, and we had a number of chances to win, but by the 2nd OT, we were tired and showing it, and couldn't keep up, especially on the big ice.[/q]

I agree. Need to have a go to guy for the playoffs, and since Underhill was playing great hockey, and was the senior, Schafer had to go with him if for nothing more than his experience.

I remember watching the latter part of the game with a feeling of impending doom, as our players were all dog tired, and Harvard seemed a bit fresher. With the exception of Hornby. He was flying around and clobbering people every shift.

[Q]DisplacedCornellian Wrote:
I remember watching the latter part of the game with a feeling of impending doom, as our players were all dog tired, and Harvard seemed a bit fresher. With the exception of Hornby. He was flying around and clobbering people every shift.[/q]Our guys may have looked tired late in that game, but I continue to believe that we could very well have won had it not been for Dominic Moore winning what seemed like EVERY faceoff late in the third period and in both overtimes.

I am not convinced that a team with two great goaltenders needs to pick one guy to play in the playoffs. I don't think Maine was huirt by the Doyle/Howard rotation in recent years. Harvard did well in 1994 with the Israel//Tracy roation. As Greg alluded to, Harvard won it all in 1989 with a Roy/Hughes rotation.

Moving onto the other subtopic, one amazing thing about the 2002 ECAC Championship Game is that Harvard appeared fresher than Cornell although Harvard's fourth line played only a dozen seconds all game long while Cornell rolled four lines (though Matt McRae did not play during the 2nd ot, which caused Cornell to rotate only three centers while kleeping the pairs of wings intact). Also, Harvard's semifinal win over Clarkson went into overtime, while Cornell won its semifinal against RPI handily.

The big sheet of ice in Lake Placid isn't an excuse for Cornell not beating Harvard but it may have been the reason.

Remember that the UMass/Amherst rink is near-Olympic, 200x95, and that's one of four NCAA regional sites this year.

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
I don't think Harvard skated circles around us all night, and we had a number of chances to win, but by the 2nd OT, we were tired and showing it, and couldn't keep up, especially on the big ice.[/q]Sure, we had chances to win. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a team got outplayed but still won. But that was an off night for us and they played their asses off (except for Dov, who was helped a lot by the post, IIRC.)

I've always wondered about that, too, but more wrt the UNH game in the tourney. I thought Underhill was less than spectacular in that game and that the GWG was a savable shot. He was screened, yes, but who knows.

Of course, I will note that in the 3rd period of that game UNH hit a gear it was pretty clear we didn't have, but we might have managed to win anyway...

or not.

[Q]cbuckser Wrote:
I am not convinced that a team with two great goaltenders needs to pick one guy to play in the playoffs. I don't think Maine was huirt by the Doyle/Howard rotation in recent years.[/q]

I'm not convinced either, and in fact I wonder a bit about the wisdom of using a goaltender who's become used to playing once a weekend in a rotation and having him suddenly take all the minutes come playoff time. Maine started Howard exclusively in the post-season last year after he rotated with Doyle the whole regular season, and Howard wound up playing in a triple-OT game for the Hockey East championship, then followed that up with the infamous first-round NCAA game against Harvard, in which he stunk up the joint. After he was pulled from that one, and Harvard obligingly choked away the lead, he was fine in Maine's remaining NCAA games, but I've wondered whether fatigue from not being used to playing back-to-back games (let alone a triple-OT) was a factor in his awful performance against the Crimson.

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

DisplacedCornellian Wrote:
I remember watching the latter part of the game with a feeling of impending doom, as our players were all dog tired, and Harvard seemed a bit fresher. With the exception of Hornby. He was flying around and clobbering people every shift.[/Q]
Our guys may have looked tired late in that game, but I continue to believe that we could very well have won had it not been for Dominic Moore winning what seemed like EVERY faceoff late in the third period and in both overtimes.[/q]

Of course, in almost every case, Harvard promptly iced the puck to set up another defensive zone faceoff. I remember thinking, eventually we're going to win one of those and then we've got a shot. That has to be the worst game (and not just from a Cornell perspective) to be hailed as a "great game" in recent memory.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]