Michigan's premier sports blog (over 1.5M visitors per month) already has a preview up for assumed Michigan vs. Denver match-up.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-denver
In case people are curious, here is their preview for Cornell-Michigan.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-cornell
Quote from: gjk22Michigan's premier sports blog (over 1.5M visitors per month) already has a preview up for assumed Michigan vs. Denver match-up.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-denver
In case people are curious, here is their preview for Cornell-Michigan.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-cornell
That's bad karma
Quote from: gjk22Michigan's premier sports blog (over 1.5M visitors per month) already has a preview up for assumed Michigan vs. Denver match-up.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-denver
In case people are curious, here is their preview for Cornell-Michigan.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-cornell
What if Denver loses the opening game like they did in 2010? ::woot::
Quote from: gjk22In case people are curious, here is their preview for Cornell-Michigan.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-cornell
I've gotta say, that's some really thorough research and analysis.
And I didn't have the impression that they posted a Denver preview because they think they have the Cornell game sewn up - I had the impression they posted it because people are interested in knowing who they might be playing in the second game if they get there. After all, the Denver preview leads off with:
QuoteAh, hell, let's do the whole regional.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one for Ferris State in a few hours.
Quote from: BeeeejI didn't have the impression that they posted a Denver preview because they think they have the Cornell game sewn up - I had the impression they posted it because people are interested in knowing who they might be playing in the second game if they get there.
Shhh. Hurtful slight requires violent reprisal!
(http://outrage.gronkcomics.com/images/outrage.gif)
They used Aaron's video in the Cornell preview. :-)
Quote from: BeeeejI've gotta say, that's some really thorough research and analysis.
Yeah, a few things which I'll gladly not correct them on.
1) They underestimate Iles. The .918 SV% really doesn't speak to how good he's been the majority of this year.
2) Dutchmen weren't a dominant #1 in the ECAC this year. It bothers me when Union fans say it and it bothers me when Michigan fans say it. Union only got 1 point from us this season, we outplayed them both times we played them, and heading into the last day of the season we had the inside track at the #1 seed. Not that I particularly care about the regular season results, but there was clearly a time where Cornell was running away with the league, and we squandered that lead by blowing leads in numerous games. If you assume we hold all games of 2+ goal lead entering the third, like we usually do, we run away with the league. I know I'm using counter-factual history, but if Union were really a dominant #1 in the league all of my "If only's" would be resulting in Cornell maybe having a shot at the one seed, not Cornell running away with it like they clearly could have.
3) Unrelated to the actual preview, but isn't CHN's suggestion to use KRACH to replace the RPI criteria of the PWR, not PWR altogether? To me that makes more sense then when blogs like this talk about replacing PWR with KRACH, because they aren't attempting to measure the same thing, while RPI and KRACH do.
4) Cornell has no real top line per say. In terms of production it has to be the Miller line, but the Collins line is first on the depth chart.
5) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
6) You think it would be unwise for them to do most of their analysis of Cornell based on their worst game all season, the BU game, and two games at altitude, but they do.
7) "Drawing an ECAC team is usually good news" ...unless its Cornell. We all know this. Michigan fans seem not to.
Overall, am I optimistic about us winning, no, but I think we could beat Michigan 3-4 times our of 10. So I'd put my money on Michigan, but I'm not going to be shocked if we win. We have a young, but very talented hockey team that a lot of the country seems to be overlooking. PWR mean very little to me, as changing one result could have made us a 1 seed instead of a 4. For fans of a team that just lost to the 14th ranked team in the PWR they just seem overconfident to me. I see that they admit that they could lose, but it was more along the lines of a, if Cornell wins it will be a lucky win type thing. Truth is we could lose 6-1 again, but we could also come out and just outclass them off the ice. These are two relatively evenly matched teams, not Denver-Huntsville (and even there...). I seriously doubt Red will let his team be unprepared, but if they are, it could be a great Friday night in GB.
I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever. While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3. I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC. In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.
Quote from: snert1288I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever. While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3. I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC. In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.
5 - 2 each for Cornell and RPI, one for Sucks.
The Michigan blogger was prepared; does he go to class? They think they're going to win but they just don't know for sure. There's also uncertainty on how Michigan will fare in OT ... and on the game time. You'd think living one lake over from Wisconsin they'd have it figured out: 8 o'clock in Green Bay is 9 o'clock in Michigan. Some
Quote from: Brian for MBlog on possible outcomePray. Here it comes. Drawing an ECAC team is usually good news. Still... pucks bounce.
Quote from: Feedback: bluetellGod help us all if any games go into OT...
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: gjk22In case people are curious, here is their preview for Cornell-Michigan.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-cornell
I've gotta say, that's some really thorough research and analysis.
And I didn't have the impression that they posted a Denver preview because they think they have the Cornell game sewn up - I had the impression they posted it because people are interested in knowing who they might be playing in the second game if they get there. After all, the Denver preview leads off with:
QuoteAh, hell, let's do the whole regional.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one for Ferris State in a few hours.
The last line of the Cornell preview was "I'll have briefer capsules on Ferris State and Denver later in the week."
Quote from: css2285) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
Hunwick is a senior and was pretty clearly one of the 10 best goalies in the NCAA this season. Does it matter that he was a walk-on four years ago? The comparison was drawn because they're both small workhorse goalies (Hunwick lists at 5'7", 166). Seems apt to me.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: css2285) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
Hunwick is a senior and was pretty clearly one of the 10 best goalies in the NCAA this season. Does it matter that he was a walk-on four years ago? The comparison was drawn because they're both small workhorse goalies (Hunwick lists at 5'7", 166). Seems apt to me.
They also aren't remotely similar in terms of style.Iles flops a lot more than Hunwick. Hunwick, as they noted, is a far more aggressive goaltender, probably due to the fact that he is a bit smaller (isn't Iles 5'9, not the 5'8 the preview lists him as?). Hunwick also handles the puck much better than Iles. Furthermore, Iles is a classic streak goalie who'll steal games for you one night, but eventually have a brutal night here or there. Hunwick seems a lot more of a consistent goalie to me. I always think he'll give up 1-2 goals per game I just think the comparison was a bit lazy because it purely relies on size and minutes played, nothing about style and approach.Those are important differences, and they're not just dopplegangers, no matter what their height sheet tells you. I think of Iles more as a Hasek style goalie with tremendous athleticism ad instincts who happens to be a bit small. I look at Hunwick and I see a fantastic goalie who relies less on instinct and reactions and more on positioning and aggressively cutting off angles> I could be wrong, as I've only seen Hunwick play twice, but it doesn't strike me at all that he's a similar goalie to Iles beyond the height factor.
Quote from: css228Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: css2285) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
Hunwick is a senior and was pretty clearly one of the 10 best goalies in the NCAA this season. Does it matter that he was a walk-on four years ago? The comparison was drawn because they're both small workhorse goalies (Hunwick lists at 5'7", 166). Seems apt to me.
They also aren't remotely similar in terms of style.Iles flops a lot more than Hunwick. Hunwick, as they noted, is a far more aggressive goaltender, probably due to the fact that he is a bit smaller (isn't Iles 5'9, not the 5'8 the preview lists him as?). Hunwick also handles the puck much better than Iles. Furthermore, Iles is a classic streak goalie who'll steal games for you one night, but eventually have a brutal night here or there. Hunwick seems a lot more of a consistent goalie to me. I always think he'll give up 1-2 goals per game I just think the comparison was a bit lazy because it purely relies on size and minutes played, nothing about style and approach.Those are important differences, and they're not just dopplegangers, no matter what their height sheet tells you. I think of Iles more as a Hasek style goalie with tremendous athleticism ad instincts who happens to be a bit small. I look at Hunwick and I see a fantastic goalie who relies less on instinct and reactions and more on positioning and aggressively cutting off angles> I could be wrong, as I've only seen Hunwick play twice, but it doesn't strike me at all that he's a similar goalie to Iles beyond the height factor.
Fair enough - I've never seen Hunwick play, so I really have no idea what to expect. You may very well be right that they're not at all comparable, but I maintain that the fact that Hunwick was a walk-on isn't really relevant to the comparison. :-}
Quote from: css2283) Unrelated to the actual preview, but isn't CHN's suggestion to use KRACH to replace the RPI criteria of the PWR, not PWR altogether? To me that makes more sense then when blogs like this talk about replacing PWR with KRACH, because they aren't attempting to measure the same thing, while RPI and KRACH do.
CHN's position is that the PWR should be simply replaced with KRACH:
Quote from: CHN's KRACH FAQ, written by JTWQ: What about all of the other PairWise components besides RPI? Are they still needed?
A: You could theoretically take each PairWise component -- record in Last 16 games, record vs. common opponents, head-to-head record, record vs. other Teams Under Consideration -- and "KRACH-ify" them. In other words, use KRACH's strength of schedule method to modify those criteria.
But straight KRACH is much simpler -- a simple list of all the teams, ranked in order. This has the effect of eliminating some ambiguities in the comparison system, which is not transitive. For example, if Team A beats Team B in a head-to-head comparison, and Team B beats Team C ... that does not necessarily mean Team A beats Team C. This kind of issue leads to complications.
As a result, straight KRACH is preferred.
Emphasis mine. Source. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=krach)
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: css228Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: css2285) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
Hunwick is a senior and was pretty clearly one of the 10 best goalies in the NCAA this season. Does it matter that he was a walk-on four years ago? The comparison was drawn because they're both small workhorse goalies (Hunwick lists at 5'7", 166). Seems apt to me.
They also aren't remotely similar in terms of style.Iles flops a lot more than Hunwick. Hunwick, as they noted, is a far more aggressive goaltender, probably due to the fact that he is a bit smaller (isn't Iles 5'9, not the 5'8 the preview lists him as?). Hunwick also handles the puck much better than Iles. Furthermore, Iles is a classic streak goalie who'll steal games for you one night, but eventually have a brutal night here or there. Hunwick seems a lot more of a consistent goalie to me. I always think he'll give up 1-2 goals per game I just think the comparison was a bit lazy because it purely relies on size and minutes played, nothing about style and approach.Those are important differences, and they're not just dopplegangers, no matter what their height sheet tells you. I think of Iles more as a Hasek style goalie with tremendous athleticism ad instincts who happens to be a bit small. I look at Hunwick and I see a fantastic goalie who relies less on instinct and reactions and more on positioning and aggressively cutting off angles> I could be wrong, as I've only seen Hunwick play twice, but it doesn't strike me at all that he's a similar goalie to Iles beyond the height factor.
Fair enough - I've never seen Hunwick play, so I really have no idea what to expect. You may very well be right that they're not at all comparable, but I maintain that the fact that Hunwick was a walk-on isn't really relevant to the comparison. :-}
Only reason I said that was more along the lines of that he doesn't have the kind of pure talent that Iles has that makes him stand out immediately. Not to say that he isn't a great college goalie, but there's a reason he was overlooked and Iles wasn't, and I think it has to do with Iles penchant for the spectacular and Hunwick's more consistent approach. Either way, it was lazy of me not to expand that thought all the way out.
Quote from: kingpin248Quote from: css2283) Unrelated to the actual preview, but isn't CHN's suggestion to use KRACH to replace the RPI criteria of the PWR, not PWR altogether? To me that makes more sense then when blogs like this talk about replacing PWR with KRACH, because they aren't attempting to measure the same thing, while RPI and KRACH do.
CHN's position is that the PWR should be simply replaced with KRACH:
Quote from: CHN's KRACH FAQ, written by JTWQ: What about all of the other PairWise components besides RPI? Are they still needed?
A: You could theoretically take each PairWise component -- record in Last 16 games, record vs. common opponents, head-to-head record, record vs. other Teams Under Consideration -- and "KRACH-ify" them. In other words, use KRACH's strength of schedule method to modify those criteria.
But straight KRACH is much simpler -- a simple list of all the teams, ranked in order. This has the effect of eliminating some ambiguities in the comparison system, which is not transitive. For example, if Team A beats Team B in a head-to-head comparison, and Team B beats Team C ... that does not necessarily mean Team A beats Team C. This kind of issue leads to complications.
As a result, straight KRACH is preferred.
Emphasis mine. Source. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=krach)
Thanks I guess I got the question from the FAQ and their actual position mixed up. Either way would probably make more sense than the current system, not that I'm complaining with the results its brought this year.
Quote from: snert1288I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever. While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3. I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC. In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.
The ECAC has won 7 national championships.
Current member schools have won 5 total (4 while in conference). List here (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_NCAA_Champ_by_Team.htm).
Quote from: RobbQuote from: snert1288I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever. While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3. I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC. In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.
5 - 2 each for Cornell and RPI, one for Sucks.
To be fair snert1288 is correct, the first RPI NCAA win was before the ECAC was born. They were in a different league then, so you really can't count it. So 4.
edit: That's why I hope they post Adam's ECAC history online. Yes, I've asked.
Even the Michigan fans are feeling bad karma with this one, haha.
"I love the puck previews, but this is way premature! There is absolutely no reason to post this, the last thing we want is a jinx! This is single-elimination playoff college hockey for crying out loud! TAKE THIS GODDAMN POST DOWN NOW! And hopefully put it back up Saturday."
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: RobbQuote from: snert1288I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever. While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3. I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC. In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.
5 - 2 each for Cornell and RPI, one for Sucks.
To be fair snert1288 is correct, the first RPI NCAA win was before the ECAC was born. They were in a different league then, so you really can't count it. So 4.
edit: That's why I hope they post Adam's ECAC history online. Yes, I've asked.
Well, that seems like shortchanging ourselves a bit. If we don't get to count RPI's in 1954, then it would seem fair to count BU in 71, 72, and 78, so 7. :-P
At the end of the day, talk is just talk. Our team needs to show up and bring its A-game this weekend. Anything less is a one way ticket to the golf course. All if this advanced scouting is useless if players can't perform on game day.
Quote from: css228Quote from: BeeeejI've gotta say, that's some really thorough research and analysis.
Yeah, a few things which I'll gladly not correct them on.
1) They underestimate Iles. The .918 SV% really doesn't speak to how good he's been the majority of this year.
2) Dutchmen weren't a dominant #1 in the ECAC this year. It bothers me when Union fans say it and it bothers me when Michigan fans say it. Union only got 1 point from us this season, we outplayed them both times we played them, and heading into the last day of the season we had the inside track at the #1 seed. Not that I particularly care about the regular season results, but there was clearly a time where Cornell was running away with the league, and we squandered that lead by blowing leads in numerous games. If you assume we hold all games of 2+ goal lead entering the third, like we usually do, we run away with the league. I know I'm using counter-factual history, but if Union were really a dominant #1 in the league all of my "If only's" would be resulting in Cornell maybe having a shot at the one seed, not Cornell running away with it like they clearly could have.
3) Unrelated to the actual preview, but isn't CHN's suggestion to use KRACH to replace the RPI criteria of the PWR, not PWR altogether? To me that makes more sense then when blogs like this talk about replacing PWR with KRACH, because they aren't attempting to measure the same thing, while RPI and KRACH do.
4) Cornell has no real top line per say. In terms of production it has to be the Miller line, but the Collins line is first on the depth chart.
5) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
6) You think it would be unwise for them to do most of their analysis of Cornell based on their worst game all season, the BU game, and two games at altitude, but they do.
7) "Drawing an ECAC team is usually good news" ...unless its Cornell. We all know this. Michigan fans seem not to.
Overall, am I optimistic about us winning, no, but I think we could beat Michigan 3-4 times our of 10. So I'd put my money on Michigan, but I'm not going to be shocked if we win. We have a young, but very talented hockey team that a lot of the country seems to be overlooking. PWR mean very little to me, as changing one result could have made us a 1 seed instead of a 4. For fans of a team that just lost to the 14th ranked team in the PWR they just seem overconfident to me. I see that they admit that they could lose, but it was more along the lines of a, if Cornell wins it will be a lucky win type thing. Truth is we could lose 6-1 again, but we could also come out and just outclass them off the ice. These are two relatively evenly matched teams, not Denver-Huntsville (and even there...). I seriously doubt Red will let his team be unprepared, but if they are, it could be a great Friday night in GB.
Your last point is key, and the blog doesn't mention it. We have an exceptionally young but talented team. One would expect a team this young to have a steep learning curve over the course of a season. So season-long stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. (Anyone want to do a statistical comparison of the season by halves or thirds?) The Mercyhurst loss, for example, is meaningless in this context.
Young teams are also volatile, and the RPI and Harvard losses are reflections of this. As others have pointed out, if the older-but-wiser Big Red team shows up, Michigan may be in for a surprise. (But damn, I wish Ferlin could play.)
Cornell under Schafer has only upset 2 teams in the NCAA tournament, Miami in 1997 (6 over 3, so 12 overall vs 5 overall at best) and Northeastern in 2009 (3 over 2, so again perhaps 12 over 5). #14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
Aside: does anyone know of a site which archives the final PWR as used for tournament selection for each year?
Edit: found them back to 2002 on tbrw. The win over NE was actually #11 over #6.
Quote from: RobbEdit: found them back to 2002 on tbrw.
Thanks for reminding me, I need to find the 2009 and 2011 ones.
Quote from: RobbCornell under Schafer has only upset 2 teams in the NCAA tournament, Miami in 1997 (6 over 3, so 12 overall vs 5 overall at best)
This one technically wasn't an upset. Yes, Miami was a 3 and Cornell a 6, but the NCAA did something odd that year that I don't recall them doing before and I'm pretty sure they haven't done since. For first-round matchups, they used the individual head-to-head comparison between the two teams to determine which one got the higher seed. In 1997, Cornell finished higher in the PWR than Miami, but Miami won the individual comparison between the two and thus got the #3 seed. (The overall PWR matchup between the two was very close; I don't recall why this was a 3-6 game rather than a 4-5, but it probably had something to do with the desire to avoid, as much as possible, intra-conference matchups in the tournament.)
Quote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.
If we play well, get some scoring and hold on, I think we can have a lead heading into the 3rd period. If that happens, I'll bet the farm that the blow the lead, and it'll come down to a crapshoot for who moves on.
Quote from: ajh258Quote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. ::rolleyes::
Quote from: RobbQuote from: ajh258Quote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. ::rolleyes::
In this case, we both know Cornell is relatively mediocre.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: ajh258Quote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. ::rolleyes::
I think it's time for you to throw your diploma into the shredder.
Quote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
My name is ugarte and I'll be your waiter. May I take your tall order?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_x1oo35L0
Quote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
We're the 13th seed. Doesn't seem like such a tall order now, does it?
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
My name is ugarte and I'll be your waiter. May I take your tall order?
And you can't quote that without referring to "the call" at the end of this mix:
Homer Call Extraordinare (http://college.holycross.edu/wchc/files/HCHockeyMix.mp3)
Still brings tears to my eyes.
Would we think of it as a tall order if it wasn't against a traditional power? Sorry to be Captain Obvious but just play the damn game and we'll see.
Everyone, myself included, is holding their collective breath.
Finally muted the sound after the 21st mention of the "Michigan 2-0 lead 90 seconds into the game." These announcers and producers are giving Cornell minimal respect
Quote from: CUrafterFinally muted the sound after the 21st mention of the "Michigan 2-0 lead 90 seconds into the game." These announcers and producers are giving Cornell minimal respect
You mean the "CORNELL BIG REG [sic]?"
(graphic before the start of the third)
Quote from: Greenberg '97Quote from: CUrafterFinally muted the sound after the 21st mention of the "Michigan 2-0 lead 90 seconds into the game." These announcers and producers are giving Cornell minimal respect
You mean the "CORNELL BIG REG [sic]?"
(graphic before the start of the third)
Hey, we complain when we get no TV, and then when we do, we bitch about that too :-P
Let's go Red! Ferris State tomorrow.
Wow!
Assume this motherfuckers!!!!
duplicate post during the post game server near melt down
Quote from: gjk22Michigan's premier sports blog (over 1.5M visitors per month) already has a preview up for assumed Michigan vs. Denver match-up.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-denver
In case people are curious, here is their preview for Cornell-Michigan.
http://mgoblog.com/content/puck-preview-cornell
So
I assume Michigan will play Denver in the consolation.
(http://images.zaazu.com/img/golf-golf-club-tiger-woods-smiley-emoticon-000193-large.gif)
Reading through this thread feels GREAT! WARM UP THE GOLF CART!!
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Greenberg '97Quote from: CUrafterFinally muted the sound after the 21st mention of the "Michigan 2-0 lead 90 seconds into the game." These announcers and producers are giving Cornell minimal respect
You mean the "CORNELL BIG REG [sic]?"
(graphic before the start of the third)
Hey, we complain when we get no TV, and then when we do, we bitch about that too :-P
In industry it's called "continuous improvement." ::yark::
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Greenberg '97Quote from: CUrafterFinally muted the sound after the 21st mention of the "Michigan 2-0 lead 90 seconds into the game." These announcers and producers are giving Cornell minimal respect
You mean the "CORNELL BIG REG [sic]?"
(graphic before the start of the third)
Hey, we complain when we get no TV, and then when we do, we bitch about that too :-P
In industry it's called "continuous improvement." ::yark::
CMMI 5, baby.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
My name is ugarte and I'll be your waiter. May I take your tall order?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_x1oo35L0
I'm sorry that it took a little extra time to get your order for you. I assume everything is to your liking? Can I get you anything else?
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
My name is ugarte and I'll be your waiter. May I take your tall order?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_x1oo35L0
I'm sorry that it took a little extra time to get your order for you. I assume everything is to your liking? Can I get you anything else?
Another tall order tomorrow would be quite nice.
Any chance that a Ferris State blog will have already written a preview of the Ferris State-Union game before 9 pm?
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
My name is ugarte and I'll be your waiter. May I take your tall order?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_x1oo35L0
I'm sorry that it took a little extra time to get your order for you. I assume everything is to your liking? Can I get you anything else?
Make mine a double, please!!!!!!
Quote from: css228Quote from: ugarteQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Robb#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.
My name is ugarte and I'll be your waiter. May I take your tall order?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_x1oo35L0
I'm sorry that it took a little extra time to get your order for you. I assume everything is to your liking? Can I get you anything else?
Another tall order tomorrow would be quite nice.
Don't you mean today.::banana::
Quote from: KenPIf we play well, get some scoring and hold on, I think we can have a lead heading into the 3rd period. If that happens, I'll bet the farm that the blow the lead, and it'll come down to a crapshoot for who moves on.
Quite a predicton, it turns out.
Quote from: trainbowQuote from: KenPIf we play well, get some scoring and hold on, I think we can have a lead heading into the 3rd period. If that happens, I'll bet the farm that the blow the lead, and it'll come down to a crapshoot for who moves on.
Quite a predicton, it turns out.
If only I could call the stock market that well...
Quote from: KenPQuote from: trainbowQuote from: KenPIf we play well, get some scoring and hold on, I think we can have a lead heading into the 3rd period. If that happens, I'll bet the farm that the blow the lead, and it'll come down to a crapshoot for who moves on.
Quite a predicton, it turns out.
If only I could call the stock market that well...
I'll settle for a prediction for tonight's game.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: KenPQuote from: trainbowQuote from: KenPIf we play well, get some scoring and hold on, I think we can have a lead heading into the 3rd period. If that happens, I'll bet the farm that the blow the lead, and it'll come down to a crapshoot for who moves on.
Quite a predicton, it turns out.
If only I could call the stock market that well...
I'll settle for a prediction for tonight's game.
Ferris State was the CCHA regular season champion, then got embarrasingly dumped out of the conference tourney. Good defense, and they know what's at stake.
My biggest concern is Cornell's inconsistency. If last night's team shows up tonight I'd say we have a chance. Just as easily I could see the rails fall off, i.e. a repeat of the Harvard game, or a repeat of the start of last night's game. Will they be too tired to play with the same intensity? Will Ferris be more effective at capitalizing on the abundance of chances we know Cornell is going to offer?
If they can make it through the first 10 minutes of the game without being down more than 2 goals, I give them a chance.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: RobbEdit: found them back to 2002 on tbrw.
Thanks for reminding me, I need to find the 2009 and 2011 ones.
Note that in addition to the PWR pages for every season going back to 2002, e.g., http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2002/pwr , the PWR for the 1998 through 2001 seasons are available in various "if the season ended today" pages: http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2001/pairwise.010318.shtml http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2000/pairwise.000319.shtml http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/1999/pairwise.990321.shtml http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/1998/pairwise.980322.shtml and some information about 1996 and 1997 is also in http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/1998/seeds.shtml
I remember when I was watching Colgate play Ferris State think that they were a team very eerily similar to you guys. It'll be a good, probably low-scoring game between two teams that match up well. Colgate almost got a split against them at their barn, so I think you'll be fine on neutral ice. So please go ahead and get another "EZAC" team in the Frozen Four and if Union gets it done, then in the title game. Good luck!
QuoteMichigan already assuming victoy over Cornell
I guess they succeeded. As far as I'm concerned, they can have all the victoy (http://www.victoy.com/english/ecompany.asp) they want.
(Frankly, I'm shocked this wasn't pointed out sooner...)
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: RobbEdit: found them back to 2002 on tbrw.
Thanks for reminding me, I need to find the 2009 and 2011 ones.
Note that in addition to the PWR pages for every season going back to 2002, e.g., http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2002/pwr , the PWR for the 1998 through 2001 seasons are available in various "if the season ended today" pages: http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2001/pairwise.010318.shtml http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2000/pairwise.000319.shtml http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/1999/pairwise.990321.shtml http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/1998/pairwise.980322.shtml and some information about 1996 and 1997 is also in http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/1998/seeds.shtml
Thx.