I was at this match up in early Novemer. Princeton played out of their minds, scoring a couple incredible goals. Princeton shot a lot at Iles head. Lot of cheap shots by Princeton, especially around the benches during changes, one I was afraid would put Ferlin out for a long while. This is an interesting game to see if the boxes are not filled most of the game. The referees let the first one get out of control. Best cheer after goal scored, The Condon broke!
Princeton's PP is fifth in the country and their PK is ninth. We need to keep this 5x5, but knowing this team, we won't.
Quote from: flyersgolfI was at this match up in early Novemer. Princeton played out of their minds, scoring a couple incredible goals. Princeton shot a lot at Iles head. Lot of cheap shots by Princeton, especially around the benches during changes, one I was afraid would put Ferlin out for a long while. This is an interesting game to see if the boxes are not filled most of the game. The referees let the first one get out of control. Best cheer after goal scored, The Condon broke!
Unfortunately Condons tend to have about a 95% success rate when used correctly. Given our teams impotence, I'm not optimistic.
I really enjoy the the sarcasm and satirical comments made. 25 years out of Cornell, I can tell you we have the best sense of humor of all the ivies.
Quote from: flyersgolfI really enjoy the the sarcasm and satirical comments made. 25 years out of Cornell, I can tell you we have the best sense of humor of all the ivies.
Come to rows 4 & 5 of B tonight near the aisle with C and you'll hear a lot more.
Quote from: BenQuote from: flyersgolfI really enjoy the the sarcasm and satirical comments made. 25 years out of Cornell, I can tell you we have the best sense of humor of all the ivies.
Come to rows 4 & 5 of B tonight near the aisle with C and you'll hear a lot more.
Middle of section M isn't too bad at satire either.
A few down years of Cornell hockey will do wonders for the quality of the cheering, because all the facetimers will stay home. That might even be worth it, if I were there to witness it in person.
At least they aren't losing after 1.
This is actually not a terrible showing by Cornell. They look like 06-07. A team I hated but much better than the last few months.
They dominate the puck, don't give up any good chances, get a few chances per game, and we just hope they get one in. Cornell hockey!
What frustration. We have the edge in every category, have a number of excellent chances, and can't put one home for our lives. I've been following Cornell hockey for a long time, and I've never seen a more bizarre season unfold.
The refs completely screwed us at the end. Hilbrich had his hands down and didn't even get half of the guy on the "boarding," and Axell's trip was after he had been tripped himself. Idiocy.
On the plus we hold them to 0 shots in the third and with a minute left that was the loudest Lynah has been in awhile.
This was a moral victory if there ever was one. Wish I were in Ithaca to commiserate at chappie's
Quote from: Scersk '97The refs completely screwed us at the end. Hilbrich had his hands down and didn't even get half of the guy on the "boarding," and Axell's trip was after he had been tripped himself. Idiocy.
Can it be that ever ref in every venue has a secret vendetta against us or is our approach to the game 20 years old. The Nile is a river in Egypt as well.
Looks like the quest for the program record consecutive losses continues. 5 more to go.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Scersk '97The refs completely screwed us at the end. Hilbrich had his hands down and didn't even get half of the guy on the "boarding," and Axell's trip was after he had been tripped himself. Idiocy.
Can it be that ever ref in every venue has a secret vendetta against us or is our approach to the game 20 years old. The Nile is a river in Egypt as well.
Did that knee hit you in the face when it jerked? Did you even watch the game?
The refs screwed us at the end of what was otherwise a frustrating but entertaining game, played mostly in Princeton's end. Numerous odd-man rushes just didn't go our way. Condon played very well, saving Princeton's bacon. Take a look at the box. Those 39 weren't bombers from the outside.
We dominated. I have no idea how we failed to score 4 or 5, let alone the 2 that were needed.
This weekend was not the self-sabotage of the prior weekend, nor the apathy of the Brown loss. Obviously with time slipping away the situation is terrible, but this weekend at least the effort and execution were not -- only the finishing.
I think it's 60/40 that this squad can get its act together in time to be a real pain in somebody's ass in the tournament. If we really are heading for a 9-12 finish, as the cold equations are starting to indicate, perhaps we can make some history as an underdog.
Two things did worry me this weekend. (1) Ferlin has lost speed and agility. He's still strong, but the parallels wtih Vinnie Auger are ominous. (2) What is wrong with Axell? Tonight in particular he played like a guy with food poisoning, the flu, and a urinary tract infection. He was awful, and I am used to him being splendid. If he had a history of being a headcase I would worry he had checked out. But he doesn't, and I worry there is something physically wrong.
Quote from: Scersk '97The refs completely screwed us at the end. Hilbrich had his hands down and didn't even get half of the guy on the "boarding," and Axell's trip was after he had been tripped himself. Idiocy.
I saw it the same way on each penalty. However, in 2013 the team is 0-4 at Lynah, with an aggregate score of 3-11. In the past 206:10 at home they've scored one goal from 98 shots on goal, giving opposing goalies in that stretch a save % of 98.98. Cornell's problems have nothing to do with the refs.
What's happened to students chanting "townies up" at the end of games? Has it been banned?
Quote from: ithacatWhat's happened to students chanting "townies up" at the end of games? Has it been banned?
I heard it each night.
The boarding call was legit. The other, well, I didn't see it that way through Carnelian hued spectacles.
Quote from: Trotsky(2) What is wrong with Axell? Tonight in particular he played like a guy with food poisoning, the flu, and a urinary tract infection. He was awful, and I am used to him being splendid.
Not to mention the coaching decision to play him on the point on the PP (and tonight wasn't the first time) when he has neither the big, powerful shot to be effective from there nor the playmaking ability to set things up.
Speaking of the powerplay, it seems like we're lacking so many of the weapons that used to make us so deadly on the man-advantage, like the aforementioned big blast from the point (ala Doug Murray, Mike Devin or Brendon Nash), or a big body in front of the net creating havoc with deflections and rebound goals (Greening, Sawada, Baby). It also seems like we're setting up guys like McCarron for one-timers from the faceoff dots despite the fact that they miss the net over and over, whereas guys like Barlow, Gallagher, and Joe Devin had much better accuracy and would score repeatedly and far more often from that same position.
Quote from: sah67or a big body in front of the net creating havoc with deflections and rebound goals (Greening, Sawada, Baby)
Hillbrich is the guy they used for that tonight, and I liked what I saw. Very rough, but he crashed the net when he had the puck and he did raise a ruckus ("a ruckus, sir?" "Could you describe the ruckus?" ) when he was out front. He isn't a complete player and there are things he does that are painful to watch, but I think he could be an effective guy both for screens and rebounds. As he becomes more comfortable he'll be tough to muscle out from the front.
Quote from: sah67Quote from: Trotsky(2) What is wrong with Axell? Tonight in particular he played like a guy with food poisoning, the flu, and a urinary tract infection. He was awful, and I am used to him being splendid.
Not to mention the coaching decision to play him on the point on the PP (and tonight wasn't the first time) when he has neither the big, powerful shot to be effective from there nor the playmaking ability to set things up.
Speaking of the powerplay, it seems like we're lacking so many of the weapons that used to make us so deadly on the man-advantage, like the aforementioned big blast from the point (ala Doug Murray, Mike Devin or Brendon Nash), or a big body in front of the net creating havoc with deflections and rebound goals (Greening, Sawada, Baby). It also seems like we're setting up guys like McCarron for one-timers from the faceoff dots despite the fact that they miss the net over and over, whereas guys like Barlow, Gallagher, and Joe Devin had much better accuracy and would score repeatedly and far more often from that same position.
I have to completely disagree with both of you on Axell. I thought his game was OK, and the PP was one of the best this season. We had great control, with a lot of chances. I suspect we'll see more of him on the PP. We don't have great shooters, but we hit, what 2, or according to the post-game, 3 irons. They scored on an unbelieveable shot. If we had a couple of our irons go in and their's go out, we'd all be celebrating. I can't imagine what the lockerroom must have been like after the game. I hope like hell they can find a way to keep up this kind of play. If so, we still have some fun ahead.
Quote from: Towerroadis our approach to the game 20 years old.
I can't believe it would be said that we're playing like 20 years ago. My god, after this game it's said? Oh well, last week it was Iles, yesterday Dags, so I guess today it had to be something.
Quote from: Jim Hylaand the PP was one of the best this season. We had great control, with a lot of chances. I suspect we'll see more of him on the PP. We don't have great shooters, but we hit, what 2, or according to the post-game, 3 irons. They scored on an unbelieveable shot. If we had a couple of our irons go in and their's go out, we'd all be celebrating. I can't imagine what the lockerroom must have been like after the game. I hope like hell they can find a way to keep up this kind of play. If so, we still have some fun ahead.
I agree with you completely on the overall pp. This was the pp we have been missing for the last 2 years -- it was extremely effective and produced a ridiculous number of great chances.
Quote from: sah67Speaking of the powerplay, it seems like we're lacking so many of the weapons that used to make us so deadly on the man-advantage, like the aforementioned big blast from the point (ala Doug Murray, Mike Devin or Brendon Nash), or a big body in front of the net creating havoc with deflections and rebound goals (Greening, Sawada, Baby).
Wherefore art thou, second coming of Paolini?
What I wouldn't give for a great garbageman; indeed, with all the constant hand wringing over lacking snipers, I think we've had more snipers than garbagemen. To my mind, no point in the big slappah when there's no one there to pick up the rebound.
Along those lines, why isn't McCarron planted in the crease, never to leave? He seems to have the correct attitude and the appropriate nasty streak. Tosses in wristers, sometimes on the backhand. I don't get it. We seemed to be working on a more "below-the-dots," low triangle type power play earlier in the season--actually, saw quite a bit of it in person at the first Princeton game--but that's disappeared in favor of the ol' Umbrella, which seems to put a lot of pressure on our already suspect points. The decline of the power play is my one bugaboo with regard to coaching in the last few years, i.e., definitely after Brekke left and even a bit after Russell left.
Yet, looking ahead into positivity and the future, I've also started to note how quick Hilbrich is with his stick. When he's deep forechecking, I've seen him screw up many a pass with a wrap-around swipe. Seems to be able to make up for a slight lack of foot speed. (A la... Paolini.) Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps he'll develop into what we've needed.
I was annoyed after the Brown loss. Tonight just frustrated.
Quote from: TrotskyThe boarding call was legit. The other, well, I didn't see it that way through Carnelian hued spectacles.
Because I like to torture myself, I went back and looked at the "tape."
Hilbrich's Board: Ennnnnnnhhhh... maybe. He did go in a bit out-of-control; after the check, he's on one skate. Made a huge smacking sound, but I think that was a stick. I hate the new glass. (I know, it's old by now, but it's still "new" to me.)
Axell's Trip: He was reaching for the puck and tripped a guy he couldn't have known was there, considering that he was already on his way down. It didn't take away a scoring opportunity from Princeton. Would've been the right time of the game not to call anything, given that no one was maimed.
(BTW, Mihalek nearly got his head taken off after taking a shot on a play right before that. Where's the call there?
Definitely CTH-elbowing. And then Lowry was completely tripped/interfered with on D'Agostino's last rush, ending up in the net and taking away a great scoring chance.)
Mowrey in the 1st: Complete phantom call from the Redcast camera angle. Mowrey looks completely surprised that it was him rather than someone else.
So, can you complain about reffing in a game where you have a two more power plays than the other guy? Yeah. Or at least I can. But I suppose I'm a whiner.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the guys have been playing with or through illness the last two weekends. Students have been missing a lot of class, but I don't have any hockey players in my classes this spring to confirm that the hockey team has fallen victim.
Quote from: dag14I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the guys have been playing with or through illness the last two weekends. Students have been missing a lot of class, but I don't have any hockey players in my classes this spring to confirm that the hockey team has fallen victim.
They didn't play like a team with players battling illness last night. They played like a team that's snakebit.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: ithacatWhat's happened to students chanting "townies up" at the end of games? Has it been banned?
I heard it each night.
The boarding call was legit. The other, well, I didn't see it that way through Carnelian hued spectacles.
Watched the end of the game again and I think the Hilbrich call was a weak one. He gets his shoulder in front of the guy and stands him up and they both slide shoulder first into the boards. The Axell call was legit. Axell skates through a trip but afterward loses his edge and goes down before tripping the PU skater. I'll admit to being ridiculously biased when it comes to the officials. :)
Glad I wasn't the only one confused by the high stick call that led to a center ice FO.
I did hear on replay two or three townies up. Not hearing it at all over in H...it's the kind of season that is now about the little things.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Scersk '97The refs completely screwed us at the end. Hilbrich had his hands down and didn't even get half of the guy on the "boarding," and Axell's trip was after he had been tripped himself. Idiocy.
Can it be that ever ref in every venue has a secret vendetta against us or is our approach to the game 20 years old. The Nile is a river in Egypt as well.
Did that knee hit you in the face when it jerked? Did you even watch the game?
The refs screwed us at the end of what was otherwise a frustrating but entertaining game, played mostly in Princeton's end. Numerous odd-man rushes just didn't go our way. Condon played very well, saving Princeton's bacon. Take a look at the box. Those 39 weren't bombers from the outside.
Take another look at the box. See that goose egg next to Cornell?
Quote from: TrotskyWe dominated. I have no idea how we failed to score 4 or 5, let alone the 2 that were needed.
This weekend was not the self-sabotage of the prior weekend, nor the apathy of the Brown loss. Obviously with time slipping away the situation is terrible, but this weekend at least the effort and execution were not -- only the finishing.
I think it's 60/40 that this squad can get its act together in time to be a real pain in somebody's ass in the tournament. If we really are heading for a 9-12 finish, as the cold equations are starting to indicate, perhaps we can make some history as an underdog.
Two things did worry me this weekend. (1) Ferlin has lost speed and agility. He's still strong, but the parallels wtih Vinnie Auger are ominous. (2) What is wrong with Axell? Tonight in particular he played like a guy with food poisoning, the flu, and a urinary tract infection. He was awful, and I am used to him being splendid. If he had a history of being a headcase I would worry he had checked out. But he doesn't, and I worry there is something physically wrong.
Given that every shot was straight to Condon's chest protector, its not schoking we couldn't score.
Quote from: BMacThis is actually not a terrible showing by Cornell. They look like 06-07. A team I hated but much better than the last few months.
They dominate the puck, don't give up any good chances, get a few chances per game, and we just hope they get one in. Cornell hockey!
It sure did seem like 06-07. Same strategy (loads of shots, bodies in front, responsible defense, impotent PP), same result (no goals and no W,) same comments on the forums (we won in every category but the end result. the refs screwed us.) That "system" stopped working (I don't think it ever really did, at least against the better teams) why did the coaching staff think it would magically start working again? It won't. Need new coaches. Could not be any clearer.
Quote from: css228Quote from: TrotskyWe dominated. I have no idea how we failed to score 4 or 5, let alone the 2 that were needed.
This weekend was not the self-sabotage of the prior weekend, nor the apathy of the Brown loss. Obviously with time slipping away the situation is terrible, but this weekend at least the effort and execution were not -- only the finishing.
I think it's 60/40 that this squad can get its act together in time to be a real pain in somebody's ass in the tournament. If we really are heading for a 9-12 finish, as the cold equations are starting to indicate, perhaps we can make some history as an underdog.
Two things did worry me this weekend. (1) Ferlin has lost speed and agility. He's still strong, but the parallels wtih Vinnie Auger are ominous. (2) What is wrong with Axell? Tonight in particular he played like a guy with food poisoning, the flu, and a urinary tract infection. He was awful, and I am used to him being splendid. If he had a history of being a headcase I would worry he had checked out. But he doesn't, and I worry there is something physically wrong.
Given that every shot was straight to Condon's chest protector, its not schoking we could score.
It seems like they can only either shoot the puck 2 feet wide or directly into the goalie's chest. And what kind of shot did Princeton score on?
Quote from: css228Given that every shot was straight to Condon's chest protector, its not schoking we couldn't score.
However much I appreciate your creative portmanteau (I can only assume) of "shocking" and "choking," I can't agree.
Take off your jaundiced glasses and watch the game. Great game; poor result.
Quote from: sah67What I wouldn't give for a great garbageman; indeed, with all the constant hand wringing over lacking snipers, I think we've had more snipers than garbagemen. To my mind, no point in the big slappah when there's no one there to pick up the rebound.
Better yet, it'd be wonderful to have a great sniper who's also a great garbageman... Matt Moulson is the name that comes to mind.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: css228Given that every shot was straight to Condon's chest protector, its not schoking we couldn't score.
However much I appreciate your creative portmanteau (I can only assume) of "shocking" and "choking," I can't agree.
Take off your jaundiced glasses and watch the game. Great game; poor result.
They're just trying to keep us entertained by finding many different ways to lose games.
Quote from: css228Quote from: TrotskyWe dominated. I have no idea how we failed to score 4 or 5, let alone the 2 that were needed.
This weekend was not the self-sabotage of the prior weekend, nor the apathy of the Brown loss. Obviously with time slipping away the situation is terrible, but this weekend at least the effort and execution were not -- only the finishing.
I think it's 60/40 that this squad can get its act together in time to be a real pain in somebody's ass in the tournament. If we really are heading for a 9-12 finish, as the cold equations are starting to indicate, perhaps we can make some history as an underdog.
Two things did worry me this weekend. (1) Ferlin has lost speed and agility. He's still strong, but the parallels wtih Vinnie Auger are ominous. (2) What is wrong with Axell? Tonight in particular he played like a guy with food poisoning, the flu, and a urinary tract infection. He was awful, and I am used to him being splendid. If he had a history of being a headcase I would worry he had checked out. But he doesn't, and I worry there is something physically wrong.
Given that every shot was straight to Condon's chest protector, its not schoking we couldn't score.
That wasn't true of the PU game. There were a lot of those shots, sure, but our best chances were the many, many situations where the goalie was down and out and the puck was sitting in the crease between four sets of skates while the players all battled to get a stick down. We *never* managed to come up with the little wrist flick in that situation. That was what really doomed us.
So, we're not different than years ago? When did we outshhot our opponent 39-12? Hmmm. When did we have as free-wheeling offensive strategy as was seen? Did you see our defensemen going deep into the corners? All teams do, and did, that somewhat, but coach has asked them to specifically do it and they are aggressive about it. That is different than how we used to play.
All shots into the chest protector? What about the 3 that clanged off iron? Sure they don't count in the stats as shots, but... Princeton scored on one great shot, just inside the post and just below the crossbar. I'd take our effort and game plan before PU's any evening. If we can play like that every game, I'll enjoy watching and take our chances. If we lose every game but have that type of effort, I'll be unhappy but still proud. PU must have felt they had the right gods on their side and I'm sure they all felt they stole a game.
Hopefully the way the team is responding, after coach sat players down for dumb penalties, will silence those who thought he was too blame.
I'm always the optimist, but I do think we have a lot of good hockey left. My only concern is the team losing mental focus after so many lost games. They certainly didn't last night and played three solid periods. If we're on the road for the playoffs, do you think that PU wants us to be their opponent?
Losing to Princeton, we flipped the Tigers from T-8 in the ECAC to T-3. Cornell also needs to sweep Union and RPI to avoid a losing RS record at home (now 4-5-2). (A win and tie would do it, too.) We win out the last four games, we'd have 18 points, which would call for an amazing collapse by RPI or Princeton to keep us from playing in week one.
Schools Pts Conf All
Quinnipiac 30 14-0-2 21-3-4
Yale 19 9-5-1 13-6-3
Princeton 17 7-6-3 9-10-4
Rensselaer 17 7-6-3 12-11-5
St. Lawrence 16 6-6-4 13-11-4
Dartmouth 16 7-6-2 11-8-3
Union 16 6-6-4 13-10-5
Clarkson 15 6-7-3 7-14-7
Colgate 13 5-8-3 13-11-4
Brown 13 4-6-5 8-9-5
Cornell 10 4-10-2 8-13-2
Harvard 6 3-12 5-15-1
Quote from: jtn27Looks like the quest for the program record consecutive losses continues. 5 more to go.
Not even close. The record is 19 (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Color_All_Games.html) (1960).
I see no reason to expect that this team will put together anything resembling a consistent run for the rest of the season. Even if you assume that last night's effort was sufficient to accumulate the 8-10 points* needed to secure home ice in the first round, this team has been anything but consistent. The most consistent run of the season so far was between Dartmouth and SLU at home, but three of those games were at home and both Michigan and Clarkson were in bad patches.
*Looking at the standings listed on the ECAC site from the last few years, the 8th-placed team has finished the regular season with between 18 and 21 points.
This is what I feel like the optimists are saying to me[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZnYloe5rhw[/video]
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtn27Looks like the quest for the program record consecutive losses continues. 5 more to go.
Not even close. The record is 19 (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Color_All_Games.html) (1960).
I looked at that exact chart. I'm not sure how I missed that long black streak. I was thinking 92-93's 11 straight was the record.
Quote from: Ben*Looking at the standings listed on the ECAC site from the last few years, the 8th-placed team has finished the regular season with between 18 and 21 points.
Mean for 8th place is 19.0 (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_Points_by_Seed.html).
A this point I'm not assuming home ice in the first round, and playing at Lynah doesn't seem to particularly matter this year. I think we will go into the playoffs wanting to atone for a terrible RS, and whoever we wind up playing will not enjoy the experience.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtn27Looks like the quest for the program record consecutive losses continues. 5 more to go.
Not even close. The record is 19 (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Color_All_Games.html) (1960).
I looked at that exact chart. I'm not sure how I missed that long black streak. I was thinking 92-93's 11 straight was the record.
Nah, I
just added 1901-1963. :)
:-/But... for such a collapse by RIP or P to happen, other teams ahead of us would get points too. We're playing in the first round, no question. We need to win out to have a chance at playing that round at home - and that also involves too many losses to realistically happen to all the teams ahead of us. I can only hope we play at RPI or Union so I can see a couple more games.
Quote from: TimV:-/But... for such a collapse by RIP or P to happen, other teams ahead of us would get points too. We're playing in the first round, no question. We need to win out to have a chance at playing that round at home - and that also involves too many losses to realistically happen to all the teams ahead of us. I can only hope we play at RPI or Union so I can see a couple more games.
And I pray that if this comes to pass that we play Onion. As for RIP they have come back from the dead -you don't need to be Greg to realize that the engineers are on one hell of a hot streak.
I can't help but feel RPI's gotten lucky in the same way we've gotten unlucky. I see three, maybe 4 more losses for them. Union's got more talent.
I still think we'll make the playoffs.
Quote from: Jordan 04I still think we'll make the playoffs.
I'm not so sure.
It's time for a playoff script.:-)Do you know anyone?:-}
I want Princeton. After that last game, there's no reason why we wouldn't advance. After that, avoid the Q, and its really a crap shoot to get back to boardwalk hall. Obviously, this is the extreme optimist inside me speaking currently.
Quote from: toddloseI want Princeton. After that last game, there's no reason why we wouldn't advance. After that, avoid the Q, and its really a crap shoot to get back to boardwalk hall. Obviously, this is the extreme optimist inside me speaking currently.
In the mid-2000s it felt like Harvard made a habit of fielding talented teams that under-performed their way to road playoff series only to run off one impressive playoff run after another (before inevitably losing to maine in the ncaas). This team is arguably talented enough to follow that script. If they duplicate last night's effort twice next week, there's at least hope for an enjoyable playoff run that lasts more than two nights.
c.f. (http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2013/2/10/3972692/satire-new-york-islanders-season-ending-loss)
Quote from: Trotskyc.f. (http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2013/2/10/3972692/satire-new-york-islanders-season-ending-loss)
OK, but *they* didn't get shut out... ::panic::
Quote from: toddloseI want Princeton. After that last game, there's no reason why we wouldn't advance. After that, avoid the Q, and its really a crap shoot to get back to boardwalk hall. Obviously, this is the extreme optimist inside me speaking currently.
There's a very big gap between Q and the rest of the conference right now. 12 can't avoid going through Q to get to AC, while 7 or better is Q-free before the SF. Moral: aim for 7.
Unfortunately, with the current 7 at .500 and us 6 (!) games under .500 in conference, we need a 5-1 record to have even a sniff at 7.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: toddloseI want Princeton. After that last game, there's no reason why we wouldn't advance. After that, avoid the Q, and its really a crap shoot to get back to boardwalk hall. Obviously, this is the extreme optimist inside me speaking currently.
There's a very big gap between Q and the rest of the conference right now. 12 can't avoid going through Q to get to AC, while 7 or better is Q-free before the SF. Moral: aim for 7.
Unfortunately, with the current 7 at .500 and us 6 (!) games under .500 in conference, we need a 5-1 record to have even a sniff at 7.
You are assuming that there won't be any upsets in the preliminary games. Even if we stay at 11, if both Harvard and us win through the playoffs, then Harvard ends up playing Q, as they will be the lowest seed. Not that I wouldn't be happy being 7, but do the best we can and hope there are other upsets.
Quote from: Jim HylaYou are assuming that there won't be any upsets in the preliminary games. Even if we stay at 11, if both Harvard and us win through the playoffs, then Harvard ends up playing Q, as they will be the lowest seed. Not that I wouldn't be happy being 7, but do the best we can and hope there are other upsets.
I haven't looked this up to verify it, but I can't recall a year in the past decade or so where there wasn't at least one upset in the preliminary games.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: toddloseI want Princeton. After that last game, there's no reason why we wouldn't advance. After that, avoid the Q, and its really a crap shoot to get back to boardwalk hall. Obviously, this is the extreme optimist inside me speaking currently.
There's a very big gap between Q and the rest of the conference right now. 12 can't avoid going through Q to get to AC, while 7 or better is Q-free before the SF. Moral: aim for 7.
Unfortunately, with the current 7 at .500 and us 6 (!) games under .500 in conference, we need a 5-1 record to have even a sniff at 7.
You are assuming that there won't be any upsets in the preliminary games. Even if we stay at 11, if both Harvard and us win through the playoffs, then Harvard ends up playing Q, as they will be the lowest seed. Not that I wouldn't be happy being 7, but do the best we can and hope there are other upsets.
I actually started out writing that because there is a big lump of similar teams in the middle 1R upset are probably more likely this year. :) I decided to keep it simple in the end.
Quote from: dbilmesQuote from: Jim HylaYou are assuming that there won't be any upsets in the preliminary games. Even if we stay at 11, if both Harvard and us win through the playoffs, then Harvard ends up playing Q, as they will be the lowest seed. Not that I wouldn't be happy being 7, but do the best we can and hope there are other upsets.
I haven't looked this up to verify it, but I can't recall a year in the past decade or so where there wasn't at least one upset in the preliminary games.
I'm not where I can write up an analysis at the moment, but here is the raw data (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_Tournament/ecac_Tournament_frame.html).
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: dbilmesQuote from: Jim HylaYou are assuming that there won't be any upsets in the preliminary games. Even if we stay at 11, if both Harvard and us win through the playoffs, then Harvard ends up playing Q, as they will be the lowest seed. Not that I wouldn't be happy being 7, but do the best we can and hope there are other upsets.
I haven't looked this up to verify it, but I can't recall a year in the past decade or so where there wasn't at least one upset in the preliminary games.
I'm not where I can write up an analysis at the moment, but here is the raw data (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_Tournament/ecac_Tournament_frame.html).
Under the current format (since 2003), there were no first round upsets on two occasions (2007, 2008). The record of each higher seed -
#5: 8-2
#6: 5-5
#7: 5-5
#8: 6-4