10/31 USCHO poll

USCHO.com/CSTV Division I Men's Poll
October 31, 2005

Team (First Place Votes) Record Points Last Poll
1 Colorado College (30) 7-1-0 783 3
2 Maine ( 4) 7-1-0 741 5
3 Michigan ( 5) 5-1-1 691 1
4 Cornell ( 1) 1-1-0 660 2
5 North Dakota 5-2-1 603 6
6 Vermont 6-0-0 515 11
7 Minnesota 3-2-1 514 7
8 Michigan State 3-1-1 510 10
9 Wisconsin 4-1-1 463 12
10 Denver 3-3-0 455 9
11 Boston College 2-2-1 445 8
12 New Hampshire 2-2-1 323 13
13 Ohio State 2-3-1 318 4
14 Northern Michigan 5-1-0 317 14
15 Harvard 1-0-0 217 NR
16 Miami 3-1-0 201 19
17 Alaska-Fairbanks 3-2-1 181 20
18 Bemidji State 5-1-0 140 15
19 Boston University 1-2-0 90 16
20 St. Lawrence 4-2-0 80 18
Others Receiving Votes: Colgate 66, Dartmouth 43, Rensselaer 8, Providence 7, Holy Cross 5, Quinnipiac 5, St. Cloud State 5, Mercyhurst 4, Nebraska-Omaha 4, Brown 2, Clarkson 2, Mass.-Lowell 1, Western Michigan 1

Tough loss against a good team. I feel the Big Red have nowhere to go but up.

MU dropped 2 places like us. In any case, 4th, 2nd, it's all a good ranking and doesn't matter too much this early on.

Also, dont you guys think that the coaches and pollees are overrating UVM?
I mean, I know they are 6-0-0, but 5 of them are against UAA, UM-Duluth, and Niagara (who are a combined 6-13-1). Wait until they get to BC, UNH, and Maine.

And, USA Today. Same top 5...

USA TODAY/American Hockey men's poll

Oct. 31, 2005

Team (first-place votes) Record Points LW
1. Colorado College (27) 7-1-0 499 2
2. Maine (2) 7-1-0 462 5
3. Michigan (4) 5-1-1 432 1
4. Cornell (1) 1-1-0 378 3
5. North Dakota 5-2-1 355 6
6. Minnesota 3-2-1 274 7
7. Vermont 6-0-0 267 11
8. Michigan State 3-1-1 244 8
9. Denver 3-3-0 242 9
10. Wisconsin 4-1-1 238 12
11. Boston College 2-2-1 192 10
12. New Hampshire 2-2-1 130 13
13. Northern Michigan 5-1-0 125 14
14. Ohio State 2-3-1 121 4
15. Miami (Ohio) 3-1-0 44 NR
Others receiving votes: Harvard 34, Bemidji State 14, Alaska-Fairbanks 10, College of the Holy Cross 6, Boston University 5, Mercyhurst 4, Dartmouth 2, St. Lawrence University 2.

[Q]dadeo Wrote:
Also, dont you guys think that the coaches and pollees are overrating UVM?[/q]Yes, and Harvard too. Colgate should be higher.

Vermont over-rated? But they're 6-0-0! And they're a Hockey East team!

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

Vermont over-rated? But they're 6-0-0! And they're a Hockey East team![/q]

Well, I'm sold.

I wish we played Vermont this year.

[Q]I wish we played Vermont this year.[/q]Hopefully we will...

It's true, we might in a regional, right?

Or in the FF.

Beeeej

I was trying not upset the-you-know-which Gods...

I respectfully submit that an expression of hope for success does not offend the Woofing Gods.

[Q]Pace Wrote:
It's true, we might in a regional, right?[/q]
It'd have to be early in one; if UVM makes the tournament, they won't be around in it for long.

.

       +---------------+       +---------------+
       | Vt 100.0 .957 |       | HC 100.0 .957 |
       +---------------+       +---------------+
               |                       |
               v                       v
   +-----------------------------------------------+
   | MS  7436 .884   NH 242.9 .632   AF 27.43 .413 |
   | Cr  7436 .884   NO 240.8 .631   By 23.94 .400 |
   | Mi  5224 .868   Ni 213.3 .619   Pv 21.36 .389 |
   | Wi  2905 .836   RT 204.0 .615   OS 15.26 .358 |    +---------------+
   | Ak  2349 .823   Ck 105.2 .548   Mh 13.97 .351 |    | Ha 100.0 .509 |
   | NM  1446 .789   SH 104.6 .548   Mr 9.770 .320 |    +---------------+
   | SC  1112 .769   MA 101.8 .545   Ct 6.119 .284 |            |
   | Mn 952.7 .756   LS 97.31 .540   MD 5.855 .281 |            v
   | SL 925.1 .754   FS 66.82 .502   RP 5.768 .280 |    +---------------+
   | AA 875.8 .749   Cg 66.49 .501   NE 3.693 .250 |    | Da 100.0 .491 |
   | Qn 865.0 .748   Ca 56.50 .485   MT 3.394 .244 |    +---------------+
   | Me 793.7 .741   Un 44.57 .461   ML 3.292 .243 |
   | Mm 718.2 .732   BS 44.19 .460   BG 2.061 .217 |
   | ND 711.9 .732   BC 33.48 .432   BU 1.960 .215 |
   | CC 323.4 .659   WM 31.87 .428                 |
   | DU 281.0 .646   RM 29.68 .421                 |
   +-----------------------------------------------+
    |       |         |         |         |     |
   /        v         |         v         |     v
  / +---------------+ | +---------------+ | +---------------+
  | | AH 100.0 .086 | | | AI 100.0 .086 | | | WS 100.0 .086 |
  v +---------------+ v +---------------+ v +---------------+
+---------------+ +---------------+  +---------------+
| Ar 100.0 .086 | | Mk 100.0 .086 |  | Nt 100.0 .086 |
+---------------+ +---------------+  | Pn 100.0 .086 |
                                     +---------------+

Translation: we're tied for #3 in KRACH, and tied (with MSU) for #1 among teams with imperfect records.

The scary part is, I think I almost understand the non-translated part.

Quick questions:
1) Are we tied with MSU because we split with them and haven't played anyone else, thus leading KRACH to believe we'd have the exact same record against the teams they've played?

2) We are "Cr"...right?

Since we've only played MSU and have split with them, KRACH has no choice but to say that we're exactly even with them. There's no information to say differently.

where did you get the KRACH report from?
Does that also mean that UVM (&HC, whoever that is) is ahead of us at .957 ?

Vermont has not lost yet. So by definition they are better than any team that has lost or tied a game. Likewise the teams that haven't won or tied are worse than anyone who has taken a point.

As for where the KRACH came from, Whelan generated it himself. None of the usual places have it yet because it's so early in the season. Keep in mind that this is a "proto-KRACH" - too early to mean much, but interesting discussion fodder in a polls thread.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

Vermont has not lost yet. So by definition they are better than any team that has lost or tied a game. Likewise the teams that haven't won or tied are worse than anyone who has taken a point.[/q]

The exceptions in this case are Harvard and Dartmouth. There's no grounds to compare them with anyone but each other, so they're off to the side, their KRACH relationships with everyone else unknown. For RRWP purposes, we assume they'd go .500 against everyone but each other, which is why they're in the middle of the pack.

[Q]As for where the KRACH came from, Whelan generated it himself. None of the usual places have it yet because it's so early in the season. Keep in mind that this is a "proto-KRACH" - too early to mean much, but interesting discussion fodder in a polls thread. [/q]

I also posted it on HOCKEY-L:

[lists.maine.edu]

If I still had as much free time as everyone thinks I do, I'd use graphviz to come up with some automated directed-graph image to update this stuff daily on the web.

You left off the disclaimer paragraph that you led your HOCKEY-L post with...

[q]If I still had as much free time as everyone thinks I do, I'd use graphviz to come up with some automated directed-graph image to update this stuff daily on the web.[/q]Or you could just wait until everyone is connected and just use the ordinary table.

I think the day that KRACH becomes well-defined (without any hand-waving) should be celebrated each year. Call it "Anti-Poll Day" or "KRACHmas" or "KRACHivus" or something. There should be feasting and the watching of hockey. There could be a "KRACH King," "Ms. KRACH," and a "Bâby New KRACH." "St. KRACHnik" could be the patron saint of recursion and slide rules...

Fourth in the polls is good, early on. Everyone wants to knock off the No.1 or No. 2 team and MSU did on Saturday. Fourth gives the team - and fans - respect during the year. Even though the seeding is pretty much a cut-and-dry formula, where there's discretion such as who to flip among regions to avoid some undesired matchup, being higher ranked might help. Plus it's the place to stay while we work through some of the theoretically softer parts of the schedule. A sweep of Yale and Brown isn't going to vault Cornell back into second.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
A sweep of Yale and Brown isn't going to vault Cornell back into second. [/q]
A sweep would make me very happy, nonetheless, Bill.

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:

I think the day that KRACH becomes well-defined (without any hand-waving) should be celebrated each year.[/q]

With all the arguments which begin, "But KRACH says...," we'll call it "ButKRACH."

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:

I think the day that KRACH becomes well-defined (without any hand-waving) should be celebrated each year. Call it "Anti-Poll Day" or "KRACHmas" or "KRACHivus" or something. There should be feasting and the watching of hockey. There could be a "KRACH King," "Ms. KRACH," and a "Bâby New KRACH." "St. KRACHnik" could be the patron saint of recursion and slide rules...[/q]

And the official expression of disbelief could be KRACHy (think Croc Hunter if the joke gets lost along the way)... man, these can just go on and on

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:

I think the day that KRACH becomes well-defined (without any hand-waving) should be celebrated each year. Call it "Anti-Poll Day" or "KRACHmas" or "KRACHivus" or something. There should be feasting and the watching of hockey. There could be a "KRACH King," "Ms. KRACH," and a "Bâby New KRACH." "St. KRACHnik" could be the patron saint of recursion and slide rules...[/q]
And we could have a pool on when that would occur.

[Q]dadeo Wrote:

Also, dont you guys think that the coaches and pollees are overrating UVM?
I mean, I know they are 6-0-0, but 5 of them are against UAA, UM-Duluth, and Niagara (who are a combined 6-13-1). Wait until they get to BC, UNH, and Maine.[/q]

i said the same in a uscho uvm thread
uvm beat northeastern wnite

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
And the official expression of disbelief could be KRACHy (think Croc Hunter if the joke gets lost along the way)... man, these can just go on and on [/q]And yet, it seems like it'd be better if they didn't.