I believe this is our first NCAA postseason matchup vs. BU since the 1972 national title game. BU has the best talent in the country. They have three first-round draft picks and another player (Brady Tkachuk) who is a projected top-5 overall pick in this year's draft. They have more drafted defensemen (7) than they can fit in a lineup. They also have tournament experience, having made it to the NCAAs the past three seasons. They are missing Patrick Harper, who suffered a season-ending injury in January and was at the time their leading scorer, but I believe the rest of their team is healthy.
Cornell played them evenly at MSG this year, hanging on for a 4-3 win. At the time, BU was struggling and was discombobulated at forward. They have since turned things around and now play a more Cornell-style physical puck possession/get pucks deep/grind you down game. Cornell is deeper than nearly every team in the country, but BU is deep too, especially at D. And despite what the stats say, (first-round pick) Oettinger is probably at least as good a goalie as Galajda. Cornell played one fewer game this past weekend and have an extra day of rest. If BU spent the night of their Hockey East championship win partying, make that two extra days of rest. It should be noted too that BU, despite beating BC and Providence to win the automatic bid, hasn't looked like juggernauts, having won their last four games by 1 goal, discounting the empty-netter last night.
This is a pseudo-home game for BU because the selection committee doesn't care about bracket integrity. A home game against what is probably the most talented team in the country isn't the "prize" we were thinking of when we clinched the 1-seed, but I'd probably rather play BU than a high-flying offensive team like Penn State or Northeastern (we can worry about the latter if we get past BU). Overall, Cornell is the underdog.
It sucks that we're playing BU are essentially an away game... but on the other hand, that's what BU gets for traveling well.
Allentown would have been worse, and obviously Sioux Falls too. Really, only Bridgeport would have been "neutral"...
Quote from: BMacIt sucks that we're playing BU are essentially an away game... but on the other hand, that's what BU gets for traveling well.
Allentown would have been worse, and obviously Sioux Falls too. Really, only Bridgeport would have been "neutral"...
The NC$$ cares about the money. The best way to run up the cash register in Worcester was to schedule two home teams there. With only 4 #1s to choose from, their interests took second fiddle to putting local teams in Worcester.
Quote from: Tom McGinnis, chair of the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey CommitteeMcGinnis said. "We got three eastern teams in Worcester. Hopefully, that will create that environment that we're looking for." (http://www.uscho.com/2018/03/18/tournament-bracketing-straightforward-ncaa-committee-chair-tom-mcginnis-says/)
The Cornell-BU matchup could be defended on several grounds, not the least of which were the losses to Princeton, Union and RPI down the stretch.
Hopefully our guys will remember the UML loss last year and bring their A game. Wins by Cornell & Michigan on Saturday will serve the committee right.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: BMacIt sucks that we're playing BU are essentially an away game... but on the other hand, that's what BU gets for traveling well.
Allentown would have been worse, and obviously Sioux Falls too. Really, only Bridgeport would have been "neutral"...
The NC$$ cares about the money. The best way to run up the cash register in Worcester was to schedule two home teams there. With only 4 #1s to choose from, their interests took second fiddle to putting local teams in Worcester.
Quote from: Tom McGinnis, chair of the NCAA Men's Ice Hockey CommitteeMcGinnis said. "We got three eastern teams in Worcester. Hopefully, that will create that environment that we're looking for." (http://www.uscho.com/2018/03/18/tournament-bracketing-straightforward-ncaa-committee-chair-tom-mcginnis-says/)
The Cornell-BU matchup could be defended on several grounds, not the least of which were the losses to Princeton, Union and RPI down the stretch.
Hopefully our guys will remember the UML loss last year and bring their A game. Wins by Cornell & Michigan on Saturday will serve the committee right.
BU lines up with Cornell because we can't play Princeton in the first round. To make any other switch isn't fair to Notre Dame. Notre Dame is overall #2. They should not lose Michigan Tech because we can't play Princeton.
There was no decision to be made except whether we played BU or Michigan Tech. RPI seeding was followed when choosing all the 1 vs 4 seeds. (Overall 1-4 vs 13-16 seeds.)
Just gonna repeat here again that - the idea that BU got a "home game" is silly. BU doesn't draw like that anymore. At The Beanpot, there were more Northeastern fans than BU.
If Cornell fans can pack Lynah East every year, there's no reason they can't have as many people in Worcester as BU does.
Quote from: adamwJust gonna repeat here again that - the idea that BU got a "home game" is silly. BU doesn't draw like that anymore. At The Beanpot, there were more Northeastern fans than BU.
If Cornell fans can pack Lynah East every year, there's no reason they can't have as many people in Worcester as BU does.
Sure we might be able to get as many fans there, but the Lynah East analogy is false. That is something that many Boston area alums circle on their schedule every year. It's planned out months in advance and they go as much as a social event as for the hockey. I doubt very many go to any other area games, certainly they don't go to Brown.
BU has a home game because the casual fan can just decide on Sat to drive and go to it, not so for CU. BU students with limited budgets can pay for gas and a ticket, CU students need accommodations and 2 days away from school. I suspect that the NU fans will be rooting against us as well, but I'm not sure of that. I doubt UM fans will root for us. There is no comparison. I will be more than a little surprised if our fan base comes up to BU's.
This group could have as easily been in Bridgeport. There, a substantial CU alumni and student base in NYC, remember we have a couple of campuses there, could take public transportation back and forth from NYC. That would have benefited the number 1 regional seed, but no, they chose to benefit the number 4 regional seed.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: adamwJust gonna repeat here again that - the idea that BU got a "home game" is silly. BU doesn't draw like that anymore. At The Beanpot, there were more Northeastern fans than BU.
If Cornell fans can pack Lynah East every year, there's no reason they can't have as many people in Worcester as BU does.
Sure we might be able to get as many fans there, but the Lynah East analogy is false. That is something that many Boston area alums circle on their schedule every year. It's planned out months in advance and they go as much as a social event as for the hockey. I doubt very many go to any other area games, certainly they don't go to Brown.
BU has a home game because the casual fan can just decide on Sat to drive and go to it, not so for CU. BU students with limited budgets can pay for gas and a ticket, CU students need accommodations and 2 days away from school. I suspect that the NU fans will be rooting against us as well, but I'm not sure of that. I doubt UM fans will root for us. There is no comparison. I will be more than a little surprised if our fan base comes up to BU's.
This group could have as easily been in Bridgeport. There, a substantial CU alumni and student base in NYC, remember we have a couple of campuses there, could take public transportation back and forth from NYC. That would have benefited the number 1 regional seed, but no, they chose to benefit the number 4 regional seed.
I doubt the UM - NU fans will care about our game, and for most of it they won't even be in the building. If anything they will probably be rooting against BU as a rival / traditionally strong program / PITA fanbase with whom they are familiar. Nobody outside the ECAC really even knows we exist anymore.
From looking at past attendance stories i wouldnt be surprised if cornell has more fans that the other teams unless BU decides to bus kids in I dont think they travel in droves to the game. Many kids dont have cars, dont need them in boston anyway.
Quote from: adamwJust gonna repeat here again that - the idea that BU got a "home game" is silly. BU doesn't draw like that anymore. At The Beanpot, there were more Northeastern fans than BU.
This. For those of us who went to Manchester last year, the building was DOMINATED during our game by faithful Lowell townies (not really many students), residents of a suburban city who had an easy drive. Only the most rabid BU fans will be bothered to make the trip out to Worcester, especially when a lower % of them have cars and one can just catch it on TV either at home or the neighborhood bars. Outside of the hub, I doubt you find many where "BU" is the default rooting interest. A casual fan local fan in Worcester might walk in and wind up rooting for the Mass schools, sure, but won't be dressed head-to-toe in scarlet (which is off-red) nor incredibly vocal.
I'm actually expecting there to be more of a Northeastern presence since their fans haven't had as much success, and are therefore hungrier and more excited about their current talent. An "all-hands on deck, because we don't know when this will happen again" rally for them.
As someone (I think billhoward) mentioned, the building holds over 12,000. If they get half that, I'd be impressed. Allentown may very well be the attendance leader this weekend.
Quote from: upprdeckFrom looking at past attendance stories i wouldnt be surprised if cornell has more fans that the other teams unless BU decides to bus kids in I dont think they travel in droves to the game. Many kids dont have cars, dont need them in boston anyway.
I thought every kid at BU was from Long Island?
Quote from: Jim HylaThis group could have as easily been in Bridgeport. There, a substantial CU alumni and student base in NYC, remember we have a couple of campuses there, could take public transportation back and forth from NYC. That would have benefited the number 1 regional seed, but no, they chose to benefit the number 4 regional seed.
There's a century-old perception of a Notre Dame connection to New York City because of some dusty Knute Rockne playing Army in leather football helmets legend bullshit. Most committee members probably have no clue about Cornell's influence in NYC. If they even know what state we're in, they probably only think of our Ag pedigree.
Since the only word of explanation I've heard from the NCAA is "atmosphere," (translates to ticket $ale$) they kept the Mass schools in Mass. As for Bridgeport? "I-95 connects to Providence" is the hope there and maybe there's enough of the ND football nutjobs in NYC who will hop MetroNorth.
Finally, I want to point out how great it is to finally be able to type "ND" and not have any confusion.
"Most committee members probably have no clue about Cornell's influence in NYC. If they even know what state we're in, they probably only think of our Ag pedigree."
But Mike Schafer is on the Committee. Assume he'd make the point.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaThis group could have as easily been in Bridgeport. There, a substantial CU alumni and student base in NYC, remember we have a couple of campuses there, could take public transportation back and forth from NYC. That would have benefited the number 1 regional seed, but no, they chose to benefit the number 4 regional seed.
There's a century-old perception of a Notre Dame connection to New York City because of some dusty Knute Rockne playing Army in leather football helmets legend bullshit. Most committee members probably have no clue about Cornell's influence in NYC. If they even know what state we're in, they probably only think of our Ag pedigree.
Since the only word of explanation I've heard from the NCAA is "atmosphere," (translates to ticket $ale$) they kept the Mass schools in Mass. As for Bridgeport? "I-95 connects to Providence" is the hope there and maybe there's enough of the ND football nutjobs in NYC who will hop MetroNorth.
Finally, I want to point out how great it is to finally be able to type "ND" and not have any confusion.
Notre Dame gets an invitation to the Pinstripe Bowl if one of the participating conferences can't send an eligible team.
Source: I read it somewhere and don't remember the details.
Relevance: None.
Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
Quote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
Keplerian crickets.
Quote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
As far as I know there has never been one.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
As far as I know there has never been one.
That seems weird. ELynah is better anyway :-) but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)
Quote from: djk26Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
As far as I know there has never been one.
That seems weird. ELynah is better anyway :-) but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)
I'd be the most likely person to start one there, and it seems pointless to me since we have eLynah. There is a poster who does Cornell game threads and some of us follow them, but that's about it.
It makes for the amusement that periodically some Yale or Union newbie numb nut will mouth off about Cornell not having enough fan support to even support a team thread. One of the RPI or Clarkson elders then politely posts the link to eLynah without comment. Similar things happen with the Clarkson Roundtable.
But if you like, start one. A lot of ECAC fans are on USCHO and some of them have a lot to say. :-)
Quote from: djk26Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
As far as I know there has never been one.
That seems weird. ELynah is better anyway :-) but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)
Nowadays it'd just be RPI, Colgate, and Union fans whining about Schafer and/or our band.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: djk26Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
As far as I know there has never been one.
That seems weird. ELynah is better anyway :-) but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)
Nowadays it'd just be RPI, Colgate, and Union fans whining about Schafer and/or our band.
Not RPI, they're a good contingent.
The ECAC whiners on USCHO are Yale, Colgate, and SLU. The contributors are RPI, Cornell, Clarkson. Nobody else makes any impression except for one particularly vapid fuckwit each from Union and Harvard.
Looks like we've been demoted (https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2018/03/espn-presents-the-2018-ncaa-mens-division-i-ice-hockey-championship/) ::doh::
Quote from: scoop85Looks like we've been demoted (https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2018/03/espn-presents-the-2018-ncaa-mens-division-i-ice-hockey-championship/) ::doh::
"Cloud State"? "North Dame"? I'd say the numerical error is the least of their problems. ::worry::
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: scoop85Looks like we've been demoted (https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2018/03/espn-presents-the-2018-ncaa-mens-division-i-ice-hockey-championship/) ::doh::
"Cloud State"? "North Dame"? I'd say the numerical error is the least of their problems. ::worry::
Looks like they fixed all the issues. I couldn't help myself, so I emailed the press contact.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: French RageQuote from: djk26Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: djk26Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO? I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one? I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.
As far as I know there has never been one.
That seems weird. ELynah is better anyway :-) but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)
Nowadays it'd just be RPI, Colgate, and Union fans whining about Schafer and/or our band.
Not RPI, they're a good contingent.
The ECAC whiners on USCHO are Yale, Colgate, and SLU. The contributors are RPI, Cornell, Clarkson. Nobody else makes any impression except for one particularly vapid fuckwit each from Union and Harvard.
I'll have to admit that there are a few RPI fans on USCHO whom I could easily live without.
When Tom Reale was starting up his Without-a-Peer blog, he considered starting a forum there, and I wrote to him that I preferred having input from other fan bases. This, however, was before two events, one being Tom having a child which apparently takes up a lot of his time ;-), and two being an influx of Union fans who think that there was no college hockey before about ten years ago. Then again a couple of down years in Schenectady and they will all jump into the Mohawk River. (Please!)
BTW, Tom just posted his first WaP entry (http://www.withoutapeer.com/2018/03/relevant.html) since last summer, an interesting and thought provoking post from the RPI viewpoint.
Quote from: ursusminorBTW, Tom just posted his first WaP entry (http://www.withoutapeer.com/2018/03/relevant.html) since last summer, an interesting and thought provoking post from the RPI viewpoint.
Fantastic piece, and I really hadn't known about most of those numbers. I know my perspective is skewed, but I still keenly remember (and even feel) Ross Lemon failing to pot a penalty shot in a loss to RPI in the 1990 ECAC semifinals on his birthday. I still remember Cornell as the #8 winning a three-game series at #3 RPI in 1998, during the idiotic years of the 10-team ECAC playoffs (and we wouldn't have needed the third game if every single ref hadn't completely missed a puck actually going in, hitting the back of the goal, and springing right back out right in front of us visiting fans). But those are a long time ago by any reasonable measure, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
That said, I know Cornell has a relatively large amount of "hardware" in the past 48 years, but we're in that vanishingly small group with a longer national title drought than RPI's, and we have the second longest title drought (among those with any titles to begin with), period. I'd like to see us not be the last one in that group.
Quote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because
THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and
THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
QuoteThat said, I know Cornell has a relatively large amount of "hardware" in the past 48 years, but we're in that vanishingly small group with a longer national title drought than RPI's, and we have the second longest title drought (among those with any titles to begin with), period. I'd like to see us not be the last one in that group.
While I feel dirty doing it, once Cornell gets eliminated each year, I quietly hope Colorado College doesn't win it, so we won't be "on the clock." After Maryland won lax last year, Cornell is now "on the clock" for that tournament.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.
My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a
sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: RichHQuote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.
My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.
Oh, I did.
WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that. It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.
I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration. And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: RichHQuote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.
My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.
Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that. It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.
I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration. And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.
That's a fair and reasonable analysis of Harvard's up and downswings. But even that also begs the question why a program like RPI's can't stumble on occasional good fortune as well. Their recruiting classes haven't sucked nearly as badly as their results, and the administration doesn't exactly ignore them. Anyway, I do hope they find some solutions soon.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: RichHQuote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.
My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.
Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that. It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.
I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration. And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.
RPI might want to get rid of the requirement that everyone in the school take freshman calculus and inflate their grades to an A- average. If Coach Smith can get by these two obstacles he is a near genius.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/grade-inflation-colleges-with-the-easiest-and-hardest-grades/
Good luck against BU. Make the ECAC proud. BU will be tough. A top seed has the best chance of making it to the F4. I think if you can get by BU you will make the F4.
That's a very well-written and well-researched article, but measuring relevance begs the question: "relevant to whom?" To me, a major metric of a team's relevancy is fan interest. If people are still interested in the team, then that team is relevant to those people. I do not know what RPI's crowds have been like lately, or what the level of student interest has been, but it sounds like RPI Hockey fan support is quite a bitter better than a lot of other teams'. Brown Hockey I'd say is teetering more closely to the edge of irrelevancy, because not only do they not win but they don't have any fans (or institutional support, which is another metric of relevancy the article doesn't cover--the fact RPI fired Seth Appert and hired away a coach from another school suggests the hockey team is at least somewhat relevant to the school administration as well).
Quote from: martyQuote from: RichHQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: RichHQuote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.
My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.
Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that. It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.
I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration. And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.
RPI might want to get rid of the requirement that everyone in the school take freshman calculus and inflate their grades to an A- average. If Coach Smith can get by these two obstacles he is a near genius.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/grade-inflation-colleges-with-the-easiest-and-hardest-grades/
http://www.gradeinflation.com/Harvard.html
http://www.gradeinflation.com/Cornell.html
Quote from: martyQuote from: RichHQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: RichHQuote from: Beeeejit's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.
Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.
My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.
If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.
Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that. It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.
I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration. And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.
RPI might want to get rid of the requirement that everyone in the school take freshman calculus and inflate their grades to an A- average. If Coach Smith can get by these two obstacles he is a near genius.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/grade-inflation-colleges-with-the-easiest-and-hardest-grades/
Management majors, which covers most of the hockey team, take a watered down version of calc these days. Also I cannot believe that article which you linked considering the yearly reports of grade point averages which I see for the hockey team and many other sports teams at RPI. That is unless most other schools inflate grades more than RPI does. From the source which Al gave http://www.gradeinflation.com/Rensselaer.html.
Institutional support does appear to be a problem. For whatever reason there seems to be more support for RPI's D-III teams these days than either hockey team. How can a football team win more games in a season than a hockey team? Although I certainly hope that Coach Smith has success, the search for Coach Appert's replacement did not appear to have been done well. They hired a search firm which had never done a search for a hockey coach before. They ignored the input of former players. I don't know whether or not that last item is good or bad.
I do agree that any program should be able to turn things around, but for whatever reason, RPI does not appear to have been able to do so.
Edit: It would not surprise me if Coach Donato has another generational talent entering in the fall in Oliver Wahlstrom. Do others remember him from when he was 9? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxGVSw6Ayw
Quote from: BeeeejI still remember Cornell as the #8 winning a three-game series at #3 RPI in 1998, during the idiotic years of the 10-team ECAC playoffs (and we wouldn't have needed the third game if every single ref hadn't completely missed a puck actually going in, hitting the back of the goal, and springing right back out right in front of us visiting fans).
Also known as Jeff Oates's career weekend. Good times. (Even if I was in a computer lab in Utah for most of them.)
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BeeeejI still remember Cornell as the #8 winning a three-game series at #3 RPI in 1998, during the idiotic years of the 10-team ECAC playoffs (and we wouldn't have needed the third game if every single ref hadn't completely missed a puck actually going in, hitting the back of the goal, and springing right back out right in front of us visiting fans).
Also known as Jeff Oates's career weekend. Good times. (Even if I was in a computer lab in Utah for most of them.)
Yep. IIRC (and I haven't checked TBRW?), he either scored 5 of Cornell's 10 goals that weekend, or scored 5 of his 10 career points that weekend. Maybe even both.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BeeeejI still remember Cornell as the #8 winning a three-game series at #3 RPI in 1998, during the idiotic years of the 10-team ECAC playoffs (and we wouldn't have needed the third game if every single ref hadn't completely missed a puck actually going in, hitting the back of the goal, and springing right back out right in front of us visiting fans).
Also known as Jeff Oates's career weekend. Good times. (Even if I was in a computer lab in Utah for most of them.)
Yep. IIRC (and I haven't checked TBRW?), he either scored 5 of Cornell's 10 goals that weekend, or scored 5 of his 10 career points that weekend. Maybe even both.
4 of his 19 career goals.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BeeeejI still remember Cornell as the #8 winning a three-game series at #3 RPI in 1998, during the idiotic years of the 10-team ECAC playoffs (and we wouldn't have needed the third game if every single ref hadn't completely missed a puck actually going in, hitting the back of the goal, and springing right back out right in front of us visiting fans).
Also known as Jeff Oates's career weekend. Good times. (Even if I was in a computer lab in Utah for most of them.)
Yep. IIRC (and I haven't checked TBRW?), he either scored 5 of Cornell's 10 goals that weekend, or scored 5 of his 10 career points that weekend. Maybe even both.
4 of his 19 career goals.
Thanks. And 4 of Cornell's 10 goals.
Quote from: RichHI'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration. And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.
If you want to look for reasons why Harvard improved in recent years, it has less to do with Vesey/Donato (because they always got good recruits) and more to do with Paul Pearl becoming an assistant coach there after leaving Holy Cross.
More than just CU-BU, but here's USCHO's take on the regional. (http://www.uscho.com/2018/03/21/previewing-the-northeast-regional-cornell-michigan-northeastern-boston-university/)
Quote from: Jim HylaMore than just CU-BU, but here's USCHO's take on the regional. (http://www.uscho.com/2018/03/21/previewing-the-northeast-regional-cornell-michigan-northeastern-boston-university/)
And USCHO Live! Discussion. North East region discussion starts at 59:10. Although Jaffe picks BU and Northeastern, he is very torn.
http://www.uscho.com/uscho-live/2018/03/19/march-20-uscho-live-previews-the-ncaa-regionals-with-espns-buccigross-cohen-jaffe-and-ritchlin/
On ESPN none of the predictions had us winning the regional. Of course it's ESPN so I wouldn't assume they studied college hockey in depth.
eating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
Quote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
I'm hanging my hat on the fact that when Yale and Providence won their recent NC's they both flamed-out in their conference playoffs. Hopefully we got our "bad" game out of the way (in which we didn't play terribly truth be told).
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
I'm hanging my hat on the fact that when Yale and Providence won their recent NC's they both flamed-out in their conference playoffs. Hopefully we got our "bad" game out of the way (in which we didn't play terribly truth be told).
As did all but BU in this regional. Only BU even got past the semis. So everybody craps on us, but not the others? I'm not referring to you.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
I'm hanging my hat on the fact that when Yale and Providence won their recent NC's they both flamed-out in their conference playoffs. Hopefully we got our "bad" game out of the way (in which we didn't play terribly truth be told).
I don't think Cornell played that badly against Princeton, to be totally honest. And I also don't think BU really blew anyone away during their Hockey East playoff run (four one-goal wins). There are reasons to think we are the underdog on Saturday, but the last few games I don't think tell us all that much, even if the prognosticators act like they do.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
I'm hanging my hat on the fact that when Yale and Providence won their recent NC's they both flamed-out in their conference playoffs. Hopefully we got our "bad" game out of the way (in which we didn't play terribly truth be told).
As did all but BU in this regional. Only BU even got past the semis. So everybody craps on us, but not the others? I'm not referring to you.
Michigan lost in OT to an eventual NCAA 1 seed. Northeastern lost in OT to an eventual NCAA 2 seed. Cornell lost to a team that would have hit the links if it hadn't won its tournament. Ugarte expressed it perfectly.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
I'm hanging my hat on the fact that when Yale and Providence won their recent NC's they both flamed-out in their conference playoffs. Hopefully we got our "bad" game out of the way (in which we didn't play terribly truth be told).
As did all but BU in this regional. Only BU even got past the semis. So everybody craps on us, but not the others? I'm not referring to you.
Michigan lost in OT to an eventual NCAA 1 seed. Northeastern lost in OT to an eventual NCAA 2 seed. Cornell lost to a team that would have hit the links if it hadn't won its tournament. Ugarte expressed it perfectly.
Fair point; while I never like to put too much stock in a single game, I can see why the prognosticators might be down on us. We'll see how things play out.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: ugarteeating shit in the conference semis against princeton is not going to endear us to the prognosticators.
You have a way with words.;-)
[And I completely agree with these.]
I'm hanging my hat on the fact that when Yale and Providence won their recent NC's they both flamed-out in their conference playoffs. Hopefully we got our "bad" game out of the way (in which we didn't play terribly truth be told).
As did all but BU in this regional. Only BU even got past the semis. So everybody craps on us, but not the others? I'm not referring to you.
Michigan lost in OT to an eventual NCAA 1 seed. Northeastern lost in OT to an eventual NCAA 2 seed. Cornell lost to a team that would have hit the links if it hadn't won its tournament. Ugarte expressed it perfectly.
it's not like i'm counting us out. what i'm saying is that i think we were eyed with suspicion all year and that game was enough to hang their hat on, and to choose a team that has played a tougher SOS or has a stronger "prospect" pedigree.
i'd think it was weird if the professional wags were picking us tbh.
Cornell's preview:
http://cornellbigred.com/news/2018/3/21/mens-ice-hockey-as-regions-top-seed-3-4-mens-hockey-takes-on-bu-in-ncaas.aspx
We played more than okay against Princeton. Just didn't put the puck in the net. FWIW: The last time we played BU in the NCAAs, we beat BU 3-2 in the RS in Ithaca in 1972. John Danby of BU, their stud forward that year, said, "I think we played a better game. We just didn't get the goals. We'll see what happens if we play again." That line stuck with me. We played BU for the ECAC title and lost 4-1, came back a week later and blew apart Denver (thought to be the tourney favorite) in the NCAA semis by 7-2. and then reverted to norm the next night losing to BU 4-0 for the title. http://www.tbrw.info
Quote from: billhowardWe played more than okay against Princeton. Just didn't put the puck in the net. FWIW: The last time we played BU in the NCAAs, we beat BU 3-2 in the RS in Ithaca in 1972. John Danby of BU, their stud forward that year, said, "I think we played a better game. We just didn't get the goals. We'll see what happens if we play again." That line stuck with me. We played BU for the ECAC title and lost 4-1, came back a week later and blew apart Denver (thought to be the tourney favorite) in the NCAA semis by 7-2. and then reverted to norm the next night losing to BU 4-0 for the title. http://www.tbrw.info
Agree. The PU game was not terrible play, just not as good as we can do, starting in the second period. Even with that it took some luck on the first couple of goals that PU got. Who knows what would have happened if that didn't occur. I've certainly seen the team get thru a bad period and then come back strong.
But that's past tense, let's hope they show how well they can bounce back. Certainly in the post-game press conference after PU, neither the players, nor coach, were hanging their heads low. Rather, they seemed to feel they didn't play as well as they could and they'll do better.
The only thing I didn't like from that conference was coach saying the bench was quiet once they got behind. We need our captains and better players to step up at those times. I'm "confident" that they will.
Quote from: BeeeejCornell's preview:
http://cornellbigred.com/news/2018/3/21/mens-ice-hockey-as-regions-top-seed-3-4-mens-hockey-takes-on-bu-in-ncaas.aspx
Some very interesting numbers from that article.
"Need-To-Know Numbers:
• Cornell has been particularly dominant at even strength, leading the nation with a team rating of plus-49. The Big Red has surrendered just a paltry 30 even-strength goals so far. For perspective, the next two lowest totals in the nation are Clarkson at 50, and Northeastern and Minnesota State at 57.
• The Big Red has three players in the top 10 nationally in rating, all junior defensemen. Matt Nuttle and Brendan Smith are tied for third at plus-22, while Alec McCrea — typically paired with Smith — is tied for sixth at plus-21. Junior forward Anthony Angello (plus-18) is tied for sixth among forwards.
• Cornell is the only team in the NCAA tournament field that has not surrendered more than four goals in a game this season.
• The Big Red is the youngest team in ECAC Hockey and the seventh-youngest team in the country. Despite playing fewer games than everyone else, the Big Red rank fifth among the 16 NCAA tournament teams in freshman scoring (24-54–78)."
What a future, I hope.
Being so good at even strength scoring means we need to do better on special teams. It's been a while since we went into a season where our power play scared the other guys. It has been disappointing when we give up a goal on penalty kill; if we're good with five skaters on the ice, we should be pretty good also with our four best remaining skaters.
I don't think we played poorly but I think there were long stretches when we played without intensity, or at least with less intensity than the Tigers. Princeton was beating us to the puck, coming out of the corners with possession, and in the later stages suffocating our transition and standing us up at the blue line.
Princeton played a fantastic weekend, except the first period of our game when I thought we thoroughly outplayed them and would have had them down for the count with just one more Cornell goal. But I wouldn't say we played all that well the next two periods. We were meh and they were really on top of their game, and we got what we deserved. It's nothing to commit suicide over but this weekend is really the test of the whole season: play the way we can and we have a legitimate 1-seed's chance of going to St. Paul.
This has been a solid team to watch all year, and even though I'm too old and cynical to fall in love I believe this is our best bet since '05. I believe this team should be in the Frozen Four. Usually in the NC$$s I feel like if we can just keep it close we have a puncher's chance, but no, this year I feel like if all goes according to plan we ought to advance. In 38 seasons I've only felt that on two other occasions, '03 and '05. Now here we are, 20 games over .500, and I feel like this is qualitatively a better team than all but those two.
(http://www.tbrw.info/cornell_History/Cornell_Games_Over_500.gif)
I really want this and I am allowing myself to hope for it because I feel like we have a serious, non-delusional, non-miracle shot.
From the normally good CHN in their preview:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2018/03/23_NCAA-Northeast-Regional-Preview.php
QuoteThe Terriers met Cornell at Madison Square Garden in November and took an early-season win — one of just five teams to beat Cornell this season — and now becomes the question of whether or not they can do it again. Cornell, a little older, isn't over-the-top physical as it has been in prior years. The Big Red have more skill and are considerably smaller than they were three years ago.
The fascinating matchup here is Cornell stud freshman goaltender Matthew Galajda (.940 save percentage) going up against a star-studded BU roster, which includes freshman first-round pick Shane Bowers and future first-round pick Brady Tkachuk.
"They have had a heck of a season," BU coach David Quinn said. "They are a No. 1 seed for a reason. We had a great game with them in New York City in November. But we are two completely different teams now, as are most teams in the tournament. When you are in the national tournament you are playing a great team."
BU was able to steal a win from the Big Red in November after two late goals in the third period. Schafer said that his team learned plenty on that November night.
I had to look again at our results to make sure I hadn't had a Mandela Effect moment.
I saw that as well and nearly shit a brick.
Quote from: cozI saw that as well and nearly shit a brick.
Talk about no respect. If they can't get a win, say nothing about the score, correct, well maybe that helps to explain why they don't think we got a bad deal in going to Worcester.
Quote"It is nice getting (Worcester) because the last few years we've been out west," Quinn said this week. "It will be great for us to have some fan support and hopefully we'll get a big crowd."
Do they deserve it?
Normally, I just tell Adam about these things privately as a courtesy, but this is just a bridge too far. Sloppiness in the extreme. So instead...
https://twitter.com/BeeeejEsq/status/977151509422137344
To get a result wrong in passing is one thing. But to mention it several times, count it in reference to the team's record, and then to provide details exactly how that wrong result came about, is really something.
I mean, remember how frustrated Stewart looked when he gave up the tying goal? And what about that stick-check in the 2nd period? I mean...WHOA.
This is what I get for going to bed and letting the writer post it himself at 2 a.m. :) Sorry folks - fixed now.
Quote from: adamwThis is what I get for going to bed and letting the writer post it himself at 2 a.m. :) Sorry folks - fixed now.
Mostly. ("Galadja" - "supress" )
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: adamwThis is what I get for going to bed and letting the writer post it himself at 2 a.m. :) Sorry folks - fixed now.
Mostly. ("Galadja" - "supress" )
bring it
Quote from: RichHI had to look again at our results to make sure I hadn't had a Mandela Effect moment.
It's the Mengele Effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiYefeMlek).
Now I am totally jonesing for us to play in the Roman Colosseum.
Quote from: TrotskyNow I am totally jonesing for us to play in the Roman Colosseum.
Outdoor games are gimmicks.
The story is also wrong that Cornell is "considerably smaller than they've been in recent years." Cornell is the second-tallest team in the country.
Quote from: BearLoverThe story is also wrong that Cornell is "considerably smaller than they've been in recent years." Cornell is the second-tallest team in the country.
Both could be true.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverThe story is also wrong that Cornell is "considerably smaller than they've been in recent years." Cornell is the second-tallest team in the country.
Both could be true.
This says Cornell is 6th in average weight, which might even be artificially low given the ten freshmen on the team who will likely get bigger: https://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-wtavg.php
Two of several USCHO columnists pick Cornell to emerge from our Regional:
http://www.uscho.com/2018/03/23/uscho-com-columnists-pick-the-winners-to-come-out-of-this-weekends-regionals/
Drew Claussen is smoking crack.
Quote from: BeeeejTwo of several USCHO columnists pick Cornell to emerge from our Regional:
http://www.uscho.com/2018/03/23/uscho-com-columnists-pick-the-winners-to-come-out-of-this-weekends-regionals/
Drew Claussen is smoking crack.
Several CHN folks pick Cornell to beat BU, but none pick us to emerge:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/ncaa/picksRegionals.php
Josh Seguin is also smoking crack.
Quote from: BeeeejSeveral CHN folks pick Cornell to beat BU, but none pick us to emerge:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/ncaa/picksRegionals.php
Josh Seguin is also smoking crack.
Had Boulay not made his picks yet?
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejSeveral CHN folks pick Cornell to beat BU, but none pick us to emerge:
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/ncaa/picksRegionals.php
Josh Seguin is also smoking crack.
Had Boulay not made his picks yet?
Whoops! Somehow I missed that.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverThe story is also wrong that Cornell is "considerably smaller than they've been in recent years." Cornell is the second-tallest team in the country.
Both could be true.
This says Cornell is 6th in average weight, which might even be artificially low given the ten freshmen on the team who will likely get bigger: https://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-wtavg.php
I heard from a western hockey fan that Cornell was heavier this Spring due to their cupcake schedule.
4 of 8 CHN columnists pick Cornell to beat BU. Only Boulay picks Cornell to beat Notheastern (which beats Michigan).
0 of 8 have the west regional picked correctly.
Correction - one still has a shot.
can someone post a link that will work if i dont get espnnews
thanks
Illegal stream enthusiasts: https://www.firstonetv.net/Live/United-States-(USA)/ESPN-News-87
This place is a mausoleum and cornell fans significantly outnumber bu fans.
Not even close to a bu "home game"
I think you're at a different game than I am. I'd say there are clearly more BU fans here, and they have a bigger, louder student section.
Quote from: abmarksThis place is a mausoleum and cornell fans significantly outnumber bu fans.
Not even close to a bu "home game"
Quote from: jhibI think you're at a different game than I am. I'd say there are clearly more BU fans here, and they have a bigger, louder student section.
Watching on TV the broadcast is showing Cornell fans significantly more than they are showing BU fans. In fact I'm not sure I've seen any shots of BU fans.
Crap
Ah well. Hell of a year, and we should be right back in the thick of it next season.
That's just unfortunate. Both teams played well and the game was pretty even but BU got the key goals in a game that mattered, which seems to happen a lot for them.
And I don't know if it was just me, but the ESPN feed was garbage and kept freezing frequently.
The tying goal from BU 36 seconds after Cornell scored was a killer. It killed any momentum.
Shoot... I wish we really landed one of those many chances we had to score.
I sure will miss this very talented senior class. They improved a lot over the course of their time here at Cornell and have a bright future ahead of them.
Hopefully no early departures like Angello too
Anything can happen in a single-elimination tournament. I thought we played pretty well in an evenly-played game but didn't get the bounces we needed. Better luck next year.
These are the times, I wish Cornell had a player who can score 20 goals in a season. Someone like Matt Moulson who can come through in the playoffs.
Having depth is great and all, but you usually need that one playmaker who helps pull you through and make the special plays.
Cornell outshot the most talented team in the country and played well enough to win. That's all you can really asked for in the NCAA tournament.
Outshot the "most talented" team? Moral victories in the post season are meaningless. I agree with the poster about a go to guy. This team did not have that.
If this team were less balanced by replacing some of our bottom two lines with scrubs, we'd be calling angello, vanderlaan, and Yates go to.
Would be nice to have a 20 goal scorer, but I'm nothing but excited for the future.
Lurking behind my joy of watching this year's team was a feeling that there is still a talent gap between what we have and what it takes to win a title. Does Jeff Teat play hockey?
several pucks thru the crease down the stretch, just couldnt put one home.. the first BU goal on a wild swinging pass that the cameras never really got a good luck at. the 2nd thru crazy traffic out in front.. i thought BU did a good job of throwing bodies out front, but other than that we really controlled them to going wide all game.. we came thru the blue line with speed more, and cycled several times really well. pretty even game,
Tough to lose, but a great season nonetheless. Far better than anyone envisioned. LGR
Quote from: George64Tough to lose, but a great season nonetheless. Far better than anyone envisioned. LGR
Well 61% said preseason that the team had to get to the Regionals to meet their expectations
Our guys played great. So did theirs. This looked like a good NCAA game between two really strong teams. Too bad it went the wrong way. Great season, hope eveybody's back next year and we can build on this.
A couple of years ago the basketball team made it a point to play some really top flight programs for the experience. Yes they lost to Syracuse and Kansas but they did make it to the Sweet 16.
Perhaps there is still time to set up some quality non ECAC opponents so the schedule will not be called "cupcake". Fun year - we'll lick 'em next year!
Bad stuff is what makes good stuff matter. This was a very enjoyable season with many good memories. For all but one team it was going to end on a down note.
Next year let's be that one team.
See you all in 7 months.
Quote from: cufanA couple of years ago the basketball team made it a point to play some really top flight programs for the experience. Yes they lost to Syracuse and Kansas but they did make it to the Sweet 16.
Perhaps there is still time to set up some quality non ECAC opponents so the schedule will not be called "cupcake". Fun year - we'll lick 'em next year!
+1
This year's NCAA field shows that there's a fine line between teams that can advance & win the NC vs teams that don't. I think the team's goals for next year will have to be more than making the NCAA's. A strong OC schedule, even with more losses may pay off in March. Look at BU.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: George64Tough to lose, but a great season nonetheless. Far better than anyone envisioned. LGR
Well 61% said preseason that the team had to get to the Regionals to meet their expectations
to meet their expectations or to consider it a good season? i thought the poll was the latter. this year went beyond my expectations, despite the postseason bleh. with such a young class i wasn't expecting anything like the regular season we had. i still consider it a good season.
if we lose in the semis of the ecac and the first round again next year i won't feel as good about the year, regardless of how the regular season goes.
Even game for the most part. However, I think our d pairs looked awful when trying to move the Puck. Either tentative or trying to be too fancy. Though the case in point was the unforgivable turnover that led to the thing goal, that was hardly the first time all night.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: cufanA couple of years ago the basketball team made it a point to play some really top flight programs for the experience. Yes they lost to Syracuse and Kansas but they did make it to the Sweet 16.
Perhaps there is still time to set up some quality non ECAC opponents so the schedule will not be called "cupcake". Fun year - we'll lick 'em next year!
+1
This year's NCAA field shows that there's a fine line between teams that can advance & win the NC vs teams that don't. I think the team's goals for next year will have to be more than making the NCAA's. A strong OC schedule, even with more losses may pay off in March. Look at BU.
Can we do much about next year's OOC at this point? I figure it would be fleshed out. Thought looking at our schedule thread it looks like everything is still open. Is it normal for OOC slots to still be open at this point?
Next year was the year before this year became the year.. but its hockey where 1 goal +/-is the norm for good and bad teams.
Postgame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A73WsXKq4hc
Game Highlights
https://www.ncaa.com/video/icehockey-men/2018-03-24/mhk-105-mens-ice-hockey-boston-u-cornell-semi-finals
Full game replay on ESPN
http://www.espn.com/watch/player?id=3304629
BU played a chippy first period. There were a lot of deliberate after the whistle bumps into Cornell players. Also, check out the scrum with 3:50 left in the first period. Tkachuk and Greenway were both hitting Vanderlaan in the head with the end of their sticks as the fought for the puck. Vanderlaan complained after the whistle was blown but no penalty was called. At least one of those guys should have gotten 2 minutes for contact to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't stomach watching the whole game on replay. Cornell should have won. I believe they were the better team, definitely the more skilled team. BU likes to play rough to compensate for their lack of skill.
The second BU goal was just a bad defensive breakdown.
Galajda played a great game.
Best of luck to the graduating seniors.
Quote from: nmcorm83Outshot the "most talented" team? Moral victories in the post season are meaningless. I agree with the poster about a go to guy. This team did not have that.
I didn't say anything about a moral victory. I said we did what he had to do to win and things just didn't work out that way.
Cornell probably isn't ever going to recruit the blue-chip blue forwards. Not in a defense-first team without scholarships.
On the topic of scoring, for those who say we aren't losing much to graduation, I would consider that three players on this year's team scored more than 7 goals: Yates (13), Angello (13), and Rauter (11). Yates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
Schafer has never made the NCAA tournament three years in a row. Remember the great freshman class in 2011-12? It had four draft picks on it and the team's leading scorer (as a freshman). Made the NCAAs that year...never made it again. Nothing is guaranteed. That's why, even when the future looks bright or you're playing with house money, your tournament run is no less important than any other year's, and few losses are going to be more disappointing than yesterday's.
Two very evenly matched teams playing a really tight, hard-hitting game. Other than a win, I think you couldn't ask for more.
One thing that surprised me was how much bigger BU looked than us. I'm not used to seeing us be the smaller team. But we were clearly the faster team.
And we're young. We'll be back next year.
On to lax season!
Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with what you said. As I understand it, Pittsburgh has to make a decision this year, either sign him or give him up to free agency. If that's true, I suspect he'll be back.
I don't think he's had such a great year/career that he'd be offered a wonderful contract. Therefore coming back to finish his degree and improve would make the most sense.
Maybe I've got it wrong, anybody know?
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with you that he is a long-shot to make the NHL and would want to return to a strong team and all his friends and the ability to earn a degree, but Pittsburgh is going to offer him a lot of money and none of us can speak to what his and his family's financial situation is. It definitely wouldn't be shocking beyond belief.
Quote from: BearLoverIt definitely wouldn't be shocking beyond belief.
I didn't mean "shocking"—I meant something else. More in the vein of "foolish."
Having done a quick search on the speculation, I understand the chatter. But if he has a truly dominant season next year, the rewards, a la Vesey, could be enormous.
PS Whether or not Angello leaves, I actually think our offensive prospects for next season rest squarely on the shoulders of Starrett, my current "most likely to piss me off." If he develops into what he's supposed to be, we'll make a very deep run.
Quote from: BearLoverSchafer has never made the NCAA tournament three years in a row. Remember the great freshman class in 2011-12? It had four draft picks on it and the team's leading scorer (as a freshman). Made the NCAAs that year...never made it again. Nothing is guaranteed. That's why, even when the future looks bright or you're playing with house money, your tournament run is no less important than any other year's, and few losses are going to be more disappointing than yesterday's.
Greg again.
1. The last time we made the NC$$s 3 years in a row, the coach was Ned Harkness. This is hardly some Schafer issue.
2. You are of course absolutely correct that nothing is guaranteed and every chance is precious. Every chance is also a crapshoot. c.f. St. Cloud. The best way to win the NC$$ is just to get back there regularly. You gotta be in it to win it.
3. From RUMINT, the freshmen of 2012 (Class of 2015) is the subtext of Mike's postgame comments about bonding well but too exclusively. He was making a comparison with this large talented class and saying they hadn't done that. If he raised it in that context I assume he's been lecturing them about it all year and they will be hyper vigilent about mixing in the successor classes.
I think Angelo wants to complete his education. Check his Cornell bio and his Linkedin profile.
Recent NC$$ champions and their number of appearances in the tournament in the 7-year interval (t-3 .. t+3).
# Title Team[hr]5 2015 Providence
5 2014 Union
5 2013 Yale
6 2012 BC
3 2011 UMD
6 2010 BC
4 2009 BU
6 2008 BC
4 2007 Michigan State
4 2006 Wisconsin
4.8 average
The last time Cornell had 5 appearances in a 7-year period was (1968 .. 1974).
Quote from: Anne 85Recent NC$$ champions and their number of appearances in the tournament in the 7-year interval (t-3 .. t+3).
# Title Team[hr]5 2015 Providence
5 2014 Union
5 2013 Yale
6 2012 BC
3 2011 UMD
6 2010 BC
4 2009 BU
6 2008 BC
4 2007 Michigan State
4 2006 Wisconsin
4.8 average
The last time Cornell had 5 appearances in a 7-year period was (1968 .. 1974).
This kind of analysis throws Harvard and Clarkson's poor performances in the NCAAs into stark relief.
Clarkson "should have" won a championship in the 90s; Harvard should have won a championship in the early aughts.
Quote from: BigRedHockeyFanThe second BU goal was just a bad defensive breakdown.
I'm still trying to figure out what happened on that breakout.
Betts gets the puck behind the goal and just stands there, even after Smith breaks out wide. (I'm screaming in my head, "Pass and get out of there. Let the D handle it!") Meanwhile, McCrea is standing very awkwardly in front of Galajda. Sure, Tkachuk is standing nearly in the crease daring Betts to go right, but why not let him try to chase Betts? Shouldn't McCrea just get out of there and set up opposite Smith?
And then Angello comes out of nowhere to take the puck. Shouldn't that have been just about anyone else? I don't remember Angello taking it up ice very often. Where is our fifth player? Angello promptly coughs up the puck. He and Betts never really properly pick up men to cover. Blammo.
A stunning series of miscues from a team that, all season long, has looked far more fluid than usual getting out of their own zone.
Quote from: Scersk '97Betts gets the puck behind the goal and just stands there, even after Smith breaks out wide.
This. CU teams over the past five seasons did this reset/delayed breakout an uncomfortable number of times for me. This season's team did not. The confidence to quickly and skillfully push a transition was a welcome change and a hallmark of this squad in my eyes, and as soon as I saw Betts back all the way up made my nerves-alarm explode, and then it's in the net.
Probably the best post-mortem of this weekend that matches my views came in the conclusion in a piece about the parity of this tournament, written by Joe Meloni on CHN titled "No. 1 Doesn't Mean What it Used To." (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2018/03/25_No-1-Doesnt-Mean-What-it.php)
QuoteBU knocking Cornell off on Saturday was a case of, effectively, two largely equivalent teams that hit their strides at different points in the season. The Terriers are on fire right now. Cornell entered the weekend off a frustrating 4-1 loss to Princeton in the ECAC semifinals last weekend in Lake Placid. The Big Red offense hadn't quite been at its best for some time before BU ended its season.
Cornell hit a rough stretch at the wrong time. The Terriers became the best version of themselves just as the lights started to shine. Air Force's goal goaltender had the night of his life to end St. Cloud's season. A broken stick saved Notre Dame's season on Friday afternoon.
It happens every year.
My opinion all through this season was that we were pleased with the progress, speed, and youth of this team, and many of us were just waiting for the inevitable cold streak or injury bug to derail them. In the past, that usually hit in the Dec tournament through early January. But we kept winning, even with some key injuries. By the time they dropped that RPI game, a top seed was already well in reach. Frankly, I thought the offense (SPECIFICALLY THE PP) went pretty cold in February. The first QF game kept this flickering hope that they had turned the corner, but when you only score 4 goals in the final three games, admittedly to the best and fiercest competition of the year, you can't expect to advance too far. If we keep making it this far, you just have to hope the bounces will fall on our side some of the time.
Quote from: RichHProbably the best post-mortem of this weekend that matches my views came in the conclusion in a piece about the parity of this tournament, written by Joe Meloni on CHN titled "No. 1 Doesn't Mean What it Used To." (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2018/03/25_No-1-Doesnt-Mean-What-it.php)
QuoteBU knocking Cornell off on Saturday was a case of, effectively, two largely equivalent teams that hit their strides at different points in the season. The Terriers are on fire right now. Cornell entered the weekend off a frustrating 4-1 loss to Princeton in the ECAC semifinals last weekend in Lake Placid. The Big Red offense hadn't quite been at its best for some time before BU ended its season.
Cornell hit a rough stretch at the wrong time. The Terriers became the best version of themselves just as the lights started to shine. Air Force's goal goaltender had the night of his life to end St. Cloud's season. A broken stick saved Notre Dame's season on Friday afternoon.
It happens every year.
Yep, that's good.
Question is, is it possible to influence when those good / bad stretches come, or is it completely up to these puck bunnies:
(https://sites.google.com/site/basicgreekmythology/_/rsrc/1321536982420/other-greek-characters/the-fates/fates.jpg)
we lost the last 2 games of the season.. BU had a wild swinging goal deflect in that was shot 6 ft off line and a seeing eye shot thru 5-6 bodies and an EN. PU had a breakway where we had the puck, a bad bounce goal and EN and a nice goal on a long breakout pass.
no PP goals no odd man rushes, no giveaways in front of the net. no shorties..
things happen.
Quote from: Anne 85Quote from: BearLoverSchafer has never made the NCAA tournament three years in a row. Remember the great freshman class in 2011-12? It had four draft picks on it and the team's leading scorer (as a freshman). Made the NCAAs that year...never made it again. Nothing is guaranteed. That's why, even when the future looks bright or you're playing with house money, your tournament run is no less important than any other year's, and few losses are going to be more disappointing than yesterday's.
Greg again.
1. The last time we made the NC$$s 3 years in a row, the coach was Ned Harkness. This is hardly some Schafer issue.
Didn't mean to suggest it was--just that in this era of Cornell Hockey, success doesn't necessarily carry over from one year to the next. You're not going to hear me complain about Mike for some time.
Quote from: RichHThe first QF game kept this flickering hope that they had turned the corner, but when you only score 4 goals in the final three games, admittedly to the best and fiercest competition of the year, you can't expect to advance too far. If we keep making it this far, you just have to hope the bounces will fall on our side some of the time.
I agree the offense is clearly what needs to most improvement (just like every other year), but that's a deceptive sample size. In the three prior games, Cornell scored 16 goals, and they were top ten in the country in GPG in the regular season. If you look at how the last few games went, Cornell threw enough shots on goal where they'd typically score more than four goals (not so much in the second Q game, but they got a ton of shots through against Princeton and BU).
Hopefully The Plan is to keep gradually moving the equalizer levels in favor of speed and finesse and accentuating full participation of all 5 players on the offense. Having a solid netminder in Galajda for possibly 3 more seasons surely won't hurt that.
Nothing is guaranteed but we're in a good position next year: solid D and G returning, and a good foundation at F with perhaps more help coming in. (http://www.tbrw.info/?/seasons/2018/2018_Future_Players.html) Remember we absorbed 2 deserters this season so we have 2 slots to fill in addition to the seniors.
G (2 return) (1) backup needed.
D (7 return) (2) sought, I do not believe Bliss will be back.
F (11 return) (5) sought.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with you that he is a long-shot to make the NHL and would want to return to a strong team and all his friends and the ability to earn a degree, but Pittsburgh is going to offer him a lot of money and none of us can speak to what his and his family's financial situation is. It definitely wouldn't be shocking beyond belief.
He's a long-shot to make the NHL, but Pittsburgh's going to offer him a lot of money?
How do you get that? That's my point in reverse. Right now he isn't a lock to make it, so why would they offer him a lot of money? I'm certainly not sure of that.
And his family is okay.
Quote from: Anne 85D (7 return) (2) sought, I do not believe Bliss will be back.
Ryan Bliss lists himself as Cornell '18 on Facebook. It's unfortunate he was not able to play last year or this year.
I wish him the best of luck.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with you that he is a long-shot to make the NHL and would want to return to a strong team and all his friends and the ability to earn a degree, but Pittsburgh is going to offer him a lot of money and none of us can speak to what his and his family's financial situation is. It definitely wouldn't be shocking beyond belief.
He's a long-shot to make the NHL, but Pittsburgh's going to offer him a lot of money?
How do you get that? That's my point in reverse. Right now he isn't a lock to make it, so why would they offer him a lot of money? I'm certainly not sure of that.
And his family is okay.
As a big guy who can skate and shoot, he has potential. And if Pittsburgh doesn't sign him now they lose him forever. I don't know the NHL cap structure for first year signees who would probably go straight to the AHL. Can the Penguins just offer the max to all of their draft picks? Or does it all come out of the same pool of money? Anybody familiar with the rules?
Quote from: BigRedHockeyFanQuote from: Anne 85D (7 return) (2) sought, I do not believe Bliss will be back.
Ryan Bliss lists himself as Cornell '18 on Facebook. It's unfortunate he was not able to play last year or this year.
I wish him the best of luck.
My understanding is he didn't do senior night because he's going to give it another shot. He's our David Wright. I admire his courage and determination and of course I wish him the best.
IMO biggest room for improvement is Strength of Schedule.
Quote from: KenPIMO biggest room for improvement is Strength of Schedule.
I'd have said so too but our shit SOS got us to #1 in the country this year. Now, did it hurt our preparation for the playoffs? Maybe.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with you that he is a long-shot to make the NHL and would want to return to a strong team and all his friends and the ability to earn a degree, but Pittsburgh is going to offer him a lot of money and none of us can speak to what his and his family's financial situation is. It definitely wouldn't be shocking beyond belief.
He's a long-shot to make the NHL, but Pittsburgh's going to offer him a lot of money?
How do you get that? That's my point in reverse. Right now he isn't a lock to make it, so why would they offer him a lot of money? I'm certainly not sure of that.
And his family is okay.
As a big guy who can skate and shoot, he has potential. And if Pittsburgh doesn't sign him now they lose him forever. I don't know the NHL cap structure for first year signees who would probably go straight to the AHL. Can the Penguins just offer the max to all of their draft picks? Or does it all come out of the same pool of money? Anybody familiar with the rules?
So you don't know the rules, but "Pittsburgh's going to offer him a lot of money".::screwy::
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with you that he is a long-shot to make the NHL and would want to return to a strong team and all his friends and the ability to earn a degree, but Pittsburgh is going to offer him a lot of money and none of us can speak to what his and his family's financial situation is. It definitely wouldn't be shocking beyond belief.
He's a long-shot to make the NHL, but Pittsburgh's going to offer him a lot of money?
How do you get that? That's my point in reverse. Right now he isn't a lock to make it, so why would they offer him a lot of money? I'm certainly not sure of that.
And his family is okay.
As a big guy who can skate and shoot, he has potential. And if Pittsburgh doesn't sign him now they lose him forever. I don't know the NHL cap structure for first year signees who would probably go straight to the AHL. Can the Penguins just offer the max to all of their draft picks? Or does it all come out of the same pool of money? Anybody familiar with the rules?
So you don't know the rules, but "Pittsburgh's going to offer him a lot of money".::screwy::
Yes, they're going to offer him a lot of money--far more than he'd be earning in his first year out of college at a regular job. The only question is how much more.
Quote from: Anne 85Quote from: KenPIMO biggest room for improvement is Strength of Schedule.
I'd have said so too but our shit SOS got us to #1 in the country this year. Now, did it hurt our preparation for the playoffs? Maybe.
Cupcakes are tasty but won't help you get to full potential.
Quote from: KenPQuote from: Anne 85Quote from: KenPIMO biggest room for improvement is Strength of Schedule.
I'd have said so too but our shit SOS got us to #1 in the country this year. Now, did it hurt our preparation for the playoffs? Maybe.
Cupcakes are tasty but won't help you get to full potential.
But they're so hot right now.
Quote from: Anne 85My understanding is he didn't do senior night because he's going to give it another shot.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
I also believe Bliss didn't take classes last year to retain a year of eligibility.
the MAX AHL salary is roughly 70K for first year guys, so its all about the signing bonus .
he probably isnt going right to the NHL where the ELC is capped at 900K and the bonus is capped at 10% of the salary..
So unless he is getting a huge contract like Donato just how much do you think he will get thrown at him?
Quote from: Anne 85Quote from: KenPIMO biggest room for improvement is Strength of Schedule.
I'd have said so too but our shit SOS got us to #1 in the country this year. Now, did it hurt our preparation for the playoffs? Maybe.
it seems like the ECAC is now generally strong enough to prepare a team for the tournament - I'd rather play a mediocre schedule and take our chances in the tournament, instead of overscheduling and risking a lower seed or too many bad losses.
I think generally, RPI evens everything out. That is, if we have a tougher schedule, then we'll get in with a lower win%. If our schedule is weaker, we need a higher win%. This isn't perfect, and we've had some years where we barely missed getting in and maybe a win over a cupcake would have done more than a loss to a good team, but I don't think it's that significant a factor.
I'd rather see us get tested a little throughout the year, but that's easier said than done. Miami's usually a strong team, and they had a down year. And we lost to them once anyway, so it's not like weaker teams are automatic wins.
I'm starting to believe seeding doesn't matter. Just get in. 4s beat 1s -- it happens. Just get in.
Quote from: TrotskyI'm starting to believe seeding doesn't matter. Just get in. 4s beat 1s -- it happens. Just get in.
I agree. I'd rather see us as a 1-3 and not barely make the tournament as a 4.
get in, take your shot and try not to get seeded on some other team's home ice seems the best bet, b/c it's a total crapshoot in single game elimination.
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyI'm starting to believe seeding doesn't matter. Just get in. 4s beat 1s -- it happens. Just get in.
I agree. I'd rather see us as a 1-3 and not barely make the tournament as a 4.
The ideal thing is to win the league championship in a tough league. This way the team enters the Regionals in peak form.
This year several 4-seeds had to win their leagues just to get in. Yet they did real well because they had this momentum.
Besides RPI evening out tough schedules with more losses versus weaker ones with fewer, the bigger issue is team preparation for the big dance.
We played BU early on, when it was a struggling team. So I don't even think we can count the MSG game as adequate preparation for the dance. The ECAC had at least 4 teams that could have qualified for the NC$$'s, but none are playing next weekend.
I'd really like to see us start a 4-game home-and-home two-year series with a B1G school, and play a NCHC team in MSG in years we don't play BU. Or vice-versa. Or go to a tournament where the big boys are playing. If we go 0-4, it just means we have to win the ECAC tournament. If we can't do that, maybe we're not ready for the NC$$'s yet.
None of this implies we should drop the
occasional UAH or AS game. Schafer is a really decent guy, and he always schedules weaker teams in order to give them a chance to play up. Christ, it's hockey! If Sunbelt schools from Alabama and Arizona can't schedule games with storied programs from the north, how will the sport ever spread?
Quote from: SwampyIf Sunbelt schools from Alabama and Arizona can't schedule games with storied programs from the north, how will the sport ever spread?
Should it?
Quote from: DafatoneI think generally, RPI evens everything out. That is, if we have a tougher schedule, then we'll get in with a lower win%. If our schedule is weaker, we need a higher win%. This isn't perfect, and we've had some years where we barely missed getting in and maybe a win over a cupcake would have done more than a loss to a good team, but I don't think it's that significant a factor.
I'd rather see us get tested a little throughout the year, but that's easier said than done. Miami's usually a strong team, and they had a down year. And we lost to them once anyway, so it's not like weaker teams are automatic wins.
I've been thinking about this a lot. I, for one, have started to come around to buying more into bearlover's argument that playing in a cupcake league is preferable based on watching Cornell's season develop. At the same time, I just had to correct someone who just made a "There goes the Big Ten...taking over as usual" comment because the Big Ten only sent one team to each of the last two NCAA tournaments (their auto-bid). This year, they came a Princeton OT goal away (or 0.0001 RPI point) from sending five of their seven teams. That 5th team, Minnesota, had a 19-17-2 record. Think about that...a team with
seventeen losses nearly got an at-large bid, while a team like 23-12-6 Bowling Green was out of the conversation early. Maine was 18-16-4, but sat way down in 29th, barely ahead of 12-20-5 Miami. This suggests that league strength matters a lot.
The now seven-team Big Ten reminds me of the ACC of Lacrosse, back when there were 4 teams, or whatever it was. Throw in the league playoffs, and the teams that belong to that small league get to play each other many more times than teams in larger conferences. Minnesota got to play PWR relevant Penn State six times this season. Now, when a small conference like that is weak, like in 2016-2018, that doesn't exactly help any of the members. But look what happened when a team of Notre Dame's current caliber is added. Suddenly their SoS all got bumpedup to some extent, and they nearly pack 5 teams into a 16-team tournament. It seems like an amplification device for all the teams in the conference.
And then, that conference backs it up by advancing 3 of their 4 bids to the FF, which merges this thought back into the "battle-tested" debate.
I have to return to Dafatone's point "generally, RPI evens everything out," (and repeat it as one of my mantras) but it sure
feels like a smaller conference gets a big boost for having an insulated schedule centered around a great team.
but ND also was bout 30 secs away from not getting past game 1 either. Air Force who is not very good beat SCst.
The margin is small not matter how much better you are.. we lost to RPI at home.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: DafatoneI think generally, RPI evens everything out. That is, if we have a tougher schedule, then we'll get in with a lower win%. If our schedule is weaker, we need a higher win%. This isn't perfect, and we've had some years where we barely missed getting in and maybe a win over a cupcake would have done more than a loss to a good team, but I don't think it's that significant a factor.
I'd rather see us get tested a little throughout the year, but that's easier said than done. Miami's usually a strong team, and they had a down year. And we lost to them once anyway, so it's not like weaker teams are automatic wins.
I've been thinking about this a lot. I, for one, have started to come around to buying more into bearlover's argument that playing in a cupcake league is preferable based on watching Cornell's season develop. At the same time, I just had to correct someone who just made a "There goes the Big Ten...taking over as usual" comment because the Big Ten only sent one team to each of the last two NCAA tournaments (their auto-bid). This year, they came a Princeton OT goal away (or 0.0001 RPI point) from sending five of their seven teams. That 5th team, Minnesota, had a 19-17-2 record. Think about that...a team with seventeen losses nearly got an at-large bid, while a team like 23-12-6 Bowling Green was out of the conversation early. Maine was 18-16-4, but sat way down in 29th, barely ahead of 12-20-5 Miami. This suggests that league strength matters a lot.
The now seven-team Big Ten reminds me of the ACC of Lacrosse, back when there were 4 teams, or whatever it was. Throw in the league playoffs, and the teams that belong to that small league get to play each other many more times than teams in larger conferences. Minnesota got to play PWR relevant Penn State six times this season. Now, when a small conference like that is weak, like in 2016-2018, that doesn't exactly help any of the members. But look what happened when a team of Notre Dame's current caliber is added. Suddenly their SoS all got bumpedup to some extent, and they nearly pack 5 teams into a 16-team tournament. It seems like an amplification device for all the teams in the conference.
And then, that conference backs it up by advancing 3 of their 4 bids to the FF, which merges this thought back into the "battle-tested" debate.
I have to return to Dafatone's point "generally, RPI evens everything out," (and repeat it as one of my mantras) but it sure feels like a smaller conference gets a big boost for having an insulated schedule centered around a great team.
I have no evidence to back this up, but I'd like to see our OOC opponents be pretty strong. Not that I want nothing but great teams, but 1-3 games against top competition is a good measuring stick and a good way to let our players know what they may be up against.
As to league strength, certainly we did well this year in a weak ECAC. Generally, I don't want the ECAC to suck, but I want us at the top of it, so shrug?
And how much "more prepared" would we have been? At the game, I thought it was pretty even and, like others have said, we just didn't get the bounces. When I watched on TV the next day, I thought we outplayed them on balance (and held that offense to 3 third period shots). We were very ready to play the best teams out there.
Quote from: jeff '84And how much "more prepared" would we have been? At the game, I thought it was pretty even and, like others have said, we just didn't get the bounces. When I watched on TV the next day, I thought we outplayed them on balance (and held that offense to 3 third period shots). We were very ready to play the best teams out there.
It's not like BU was the best team in the country, even as much as they'd improved recently. Just because we played them "pretty even" (and I agree we did) doesn't mean we couldn't have been even better prepared, and perhaps even outplayed them, had we faced stronger opposition during the regular season. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: DafatoneI think generally, RPI evens everything out. That is, if we have a tougher schedule, then we'll get in with a lower win%. If our schedule is weaker, we need a higher win%. This isn't perfect, and we've had some years where we barely missed getting in and maybe a win over a cupcake would have done more than a loss to a good team, but I don't think it's that significant a factor.
I'd rather see us get tested a little throughout the year, but that's easier said than done. Miami's usually a strong team, and they had a down year. And we lost to them once anyway, so it's not like weaker teams are automatic wins.
I've been thinking about this a lot. I, for one, have started to come around to buying more into bearlover's argument that playing in a cupcake league is preferable based on watching Cornell's season develop.
There's a wide range between wanting to play a cupcake schedule and not wanting our biggest rivals to win the national championship before we do. I don't want Cornell to play a super easy schedule, though there is a benefit to it: the increased chance of winning the automatic bid from being in an easy league. The benefit of playing a hard schedule is of course gaining experience against top teams. I can't say with any high degree of certainty given the tiny sample, but I don't think our relatively weak opposition hurt us this year. We played well against BU in both games, while St. Cloud, who played in the toughest conference in the country, lost to an Atlantic Hockey team in the first round, etc. Beyond that, the PWR/RPI, in theory at least, accounts for whatever mathematical advantage/disadvantage would come from playing an easier/tougher schedule.
There are different types of tough schedules. I would rather Cornell play a tough schedule against highly skilled teams (and stay healthy through the season) than a tough schedule against thug teams (and get all banged up). I never liked when they played North Dakota or other teams in the old WCHA.
there is a limit to who we can play because there is a limit to which teams will come here. We can get the teams like Niagara to come without a return but only so many of the big boys will come here and we wont go there without a return trip.
I dont think playing a tougher schedule makes us any more ready, if may show that we are better but we were #3 with this schedule how much better would we have been playing a few better teams
Quote from: upprdeckthere is a limit to who we can play because there is a limit to which teams will come here. We can get the teams like Niagara to come without a return but only so many of the big boys will come here and we wont go there without a return trip.
I dont think playing a tougher schedule makes us any more ready, if may show that we are better but we were #3 with this schedule how much better would we have been playing a few better teams
Maybe one or two games in the postseason.
SCst played a tougher SOS and that got them beat by air force..
Quote from: upprdeckSCst played a tougher SOS and that got them beat by air force..
(https://theinsuranceproblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-25-at-9.02.20-AM-e1435238415841.png)
I don't think anybody was suggesting that playing a tougher schedule was
a guarantee of better post-season success.
I noticed that BU's Jordan Greenway signed with the Minnesota Wild.... Makes me wish that Doug Murray was still in the NHL to take some of the dirtiness out of his game... In fact, I'd love to watch Doug beat the hell out of that kid!!!
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BearLoverYates and Rauter are now gone and we had better pray Angello doesn't leave.
This vein of speculation is getting unduly thick. Keeping it civil but being as blunt as possible, Angello leaving would be "misguided" on a level beyond even Shane Hynes. It would be "shocking" beyond belief.
Nevermind that he has only one more year left in his degree. We have a chance to finish a good amount of unfinished business next year, and I can only imagine that his central role in such a campaign will raise the value of his stock significantly.
I agree with what you said. As I understand it, Pittsburgh has to make a decision this year, either sign him or give him up to free agency. If that's true, I suspect he'll be back.
I don't think he's had such a great year/career that he'd be offered a wonderful contract. Therefore coming back to finish his degree and improve would make the most sense.
Maybe I've got it wrong, anybody know?
Pittsburgh would still have his exclusive rights through August 15, 2019. He would have the option to wait until Aug. 16, 2019 and sign with any team (as Jimmy Vesey did after his senior year).
Its says 2 yrs for Juniors and 4 yrs for college kids. So what is the real incentive for him to go now and not next year?
Quote from: BeeeejI don't think anybody was suggesting that playing a tougher schedule was a guarantee of better post-season success.
come on be fair. it's no different than the anecdata that we played a soft schedule and lost to BU in the first round.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejI don't think anybody was suggesting that playing a tougher schedule was a guarantee of better post-season success.
come on be fair. it's no different than the anecdata that we played a soft schedule and lost to BU in the first round.
Anecdata...great word.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejI don't think anybody was suggesting that playing a tougher schedule was a guarantee of better post-season success.
come on be fair. it's no different than the anecdata that we played a soft schedule and lost to BU in the first round.
Anecdata...great word.
+1
have none of you that advocate for playing the weaker schedule ever actually played a sport yourselves? Sure, a weaker schedule might well make it easier to get in to the tournament...but what it won't do is help prepare us to *win* against the best in the country. If you want to be able to beat the best out there come tourney time, you need to take the measure of yourself having some serious competition against the best you can find.
No one ever got better by only playing lesser opposition.
Also, the experience of playing the best competition is useful to the players in that game for as long as they are playing with us, not just this year.
When I walked out of the Worcester DCU, that was it for me. Good ride, better season than I expected. For once, I'm not re-playing the playoffs with what-ifs. I thought we played BU even. They got a couple breaks. We didn't. I don't feel as crushed as the St. Cloud State fans. I was ready for St. Paul because I don't know if I'll live long enough to see Cornell in another title game, and I think I might feel that way if I was 30. LGR ... in the fall. Time to see how far lax can go.
Quote from: billhowardWhen I walked out of the Worcester DCU, that was it for me. Good ride, better season than I expected. For once, I'm not re-playing the playoffs with what-ifs. I thought we played BU even. They got a couple breaks. We didn't. I don't feel as crushed as the St. Cloud State fans. I was ready for St. Paul because I don't know if I'll live long enough to see Cornell in another title game, and I think I might feel that way if I was 30. LGR ... in the fall. Time to see how far lax can go.
Other than never seeing us in the final in my lifetime, I agree with you.
Angello bolting is an illustration of why I don't think there is such a thing as "looking towards the future" or "playing with house money" in college hockey. When you make the tournament with a team that is good enough to win it, as we did this year, any loss is brutal, regardless of how many of your players are supposedly returning. With Yates (13 goals), Rauter (11), and now Angello (13) gone, we have no one returning who scored more than 7 goals this year. Which isn't to say we can't score or be good, but both of those things are far from guaranteed.
Quote from: BearLoverAngello bolting is an illustration of why I don't think there is such a thing as "looking towards the future" or "playing with house money" in college hockey. When you make the tournament with a team that is good enough to win it, as we did this year, any loss is brutal, regardless of how many of your players are supposedly returning. With Yates (13 goals), Rauter (11), and now Angello (13) gone, we have no one returning who scored more than 7 goals this year. Which isn't to say we can't score or be good, but both of those things are far from guaranteed.
building from the back out does make it easier to withstand some loss of offense, and i really do think we have players that really can score more (Donaldson and Mallott in particular) but yeah it is going to be interesting to see if we can have another strong year where everyone scores a few but nobody scores a lot
Quote from: BearLoverAngello bolting is an illustration of why I don't think there is such a thing as "looking towards the future" or "playing with house money" in college hockey. When you make the tournament with a team that is good enough to win it, as we did this year, any loss is brutal, regardless of how many of your players are supposedly returning. With Yates (13 goals), Rauter (11), and now Angello (13) gone, we have no one returning who scored more than 7 goals this year. Which isn't to say we can't score or be good, but both of those things are far from guaranteed.
I think this is also related to Greg's observation about persistence - teams generally win the title during an extended run of NCAA appearances. Teams that can absorb the loss of a key early departure or an entire class of immensely talented forwards (as Yale did) and maintain national relevance just get more chances (and probably better recruits, although Yale's pipeline seems to have dried up quite a bit).
Cornell hasn't been in that position for ~12 years and it's not clear the team is in that position now. Given the talent in the freshman class I'm still hopeful, but Angello leaving right now definitely hurts since there was reason to believe that next year was going to be Cornell's best shot since 2003.
Quote from: abmarkshave none of you that advocate for playing the weaker schedule ever actually played a sport yourselves? Sure, a weaker schedule might well make it easier to get in to the tournament...but what it won't do is help prepare us to *win* against the best in the country. If you want to be able to beat the best out there come tourney time, you need to take the measure of yourself having some serious competition against the best you can find.
No one ever got better by only playing lesser opposition.
Also, the experience of playing the best competition is useful to the players in that game for as long as they are playing with us, not just this year.
Cornell can't control schedule strength to any meaningful degree. There are 7 NC games in the Ivy schedule, all of them come before February, and they are all typically scheduled multiple years in advance. Add in the money factor (Cornell requires reciprocal arrangements for hosting and many perennial contenders will not travel to Ithaca) and you have a very thin set of options and a lot of volatility on the higher quality end of the spectrum. By way of example, Cornell had a pair of 2 game sets against MSU shortly after Ryan Miller backstopped them to multiple deep tourney runs, and by the time they came to Ithaca they were basically a .500 team.
The silly academic discussions about relative league strength are, well, silly. Everybody's got an opinion and that opinion is always based on a highly specific set of unstated - and probably unconscious - assumptions. Going up against the best helps prepare you for the tournament, but if you're sneaking in as an at large 14 seed from the fourth or fifth slot in the conference you have at best a puncher's chance of winning it all anyway. When you say "strong schedule is better!" you're assuming - whether you admit it or not - that Cornell will still get in to the tournament from near the top of the conference pile.
To put it another way, if the choice is "make the tournament every year for 8 years running by dominating a weak league and hope for the best" or "make the tournament 1 out of 3 years and generally be an underdog from a strong league anyway" I think it's totally reasonable to take the former. It's probably better to get lots of lottery tickets than figure out how to marginally improve your odds of winning with a specific set of numbers. If the choice is "make the tournament every year for 8 years running against a cupcake schedule" and "make the tournament every year for 8 years running as a relative favorite from a strong conference" I don't see any reason why you'd choose the easy route.
Where things get interesting is when the choice is "make the tournament every year against a weak conference" or "make the tournament half the time from a strong conference, sometimes near the top and sometimes not" - in those cases I prefer the strong conference. As a player I'd want the test. As a fan I want better hockey. You'll note those reasons have nothing to do with title odds.
Angello scored 13, but he had about 2/3 of them in a short span of time. not that
his goals that will be as much as his presence on the ice.. yates scored like crazy and then not for almost 2 months.
Quote from: Tom LentoCornell can't control schedule strength to any meaningful degree. There are 7 NC games in the Ivy schedule, all of them come before February, and they are all typically scheduled multiple years in advance. Add in the money factor (Cornell requires reciprocal arrangements for hosting and many perennial contenders will not travel to Ithaca) and you have a very thin set of options and a lot of volatility on the higher quality end of the spectrum. By way of example, Cornell had a pair of 2 game sets against MSU shortly after Ryan Miller backstopped them to multiple deep tourney runs, and by the time they came to Ithaca they were basically a .500 team.
The silly academic discussions about relative league strength are, well, silly. Everybody's got an opinion and that opinion is always based on a highly specific set of unstated - and probably unconscious - assumptions. Going up against the best helps prepare you for the tournament, but if you're sneaking in as an at large 14 seed from the fourth or fifth slot in the conference you have at best a puncher's chance of winning it all anyway. When you say "strong schedule is better!" you're assuming - whether you admit it or not - that Cornell will still get in to the tournament from near the top of the conference pile.
To put it another way, if the choice is "make the tournament every year for 8 years running by dominating a weak league and hope for the best" or "make the tournament 1 out of 3 years and generally be an underdog from a strong league anyway" I think it's totally reasonable to take the former. It's probably better to get lots of lottery tickets than figure out how to marginally improve your odds of winning with a specific set of numbers. If the choice is "make the tournament every year for 8 years running against a cupcake schedule" and "make the tournament every year for 8 years running as a relative favorite from a strong conference" I don't see any reason why you'd choose the easy route.
Where things get interesting is when the choice is "make the tournament every year against a weak conference" or "make the tournament half the time from a strong conference, sometimes near the top and sometimes not" - in those cases I prefer the strong conference. As a player I'd want the test. As a fan I want better hockey. You'll note those reasons have nothing to do with title odds.
This is well put. BTW, if the NMU games were scheduled a few years ago it looks like we may be fortunate there, as they made a big leap in 2018 and have no early departures.
Quote from: Tom LentoI think this is also related to Greg's observation about persistence - teams generally win the title during an extended run of NCAA appearances. Teams that can absorb the loss of a key early departure or an entire class of immensely talented forwards (as Yale did) and maintain national relevance just get more chances (and probably better recruits, although Yale's pipeline seems to have dried up quite a bit).
Cornell hasn't been in that position for ~12 years and it's not clear the team is in that position now. Given the talent in the freshman class I'm still hopeful, but Angello leaving right now definitely hurts since there was reason to believe that next year was going to be Cornell's best shot since 2003.
You make an extended run of NCAA appearances, doesn't that actuarially improve your odds on its own (Gretzky's 'you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take')? There is also the tournament theory that even a blind squirrel finds some nuts. E.g. UMBC vs. Virginia. I would love to see that on a warmup tee-shirt instead of Prove You're Worth [sic], Believe In Yourself, or One Team One Destiny, the kind of stuff made by a moonlighting Hallmark card writer.
As regards believing in yourself, USCHO summed up Notre Dame's never-arrived-late-game-goal in the title round against Minnesota-Duluth.
Yes, the biggest and clearest reason making the tournament a bunch of times is better is because more pulls of the lever-->more chances of hitting jackpot
last at-large team in wins again
Quote from: ugartelast at-large team in wins again
I think the only one I have a problem with is Providence.
If you blow your league's quarters, thus backing into a rest weekend right before regionals, you shouldn't make the tournament.
PS I'm aware this rule would limit leagues to four participants. That would be a good thing.
PPS I'm also willing to limit the Big Ten and WCHA to two teams because of their non-standard playoff systems. Want four teams, potentially? Fall in line.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: ugartelast at-large team in wins again
I think the only one I have a problem with is Providence.
If you blow your league's quarters, thus backing into a rest weekend right before regionals, you shouldn't make the tournament.
Isn't that what Yale did?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: ugartelast at-large team in wins again
I think the only one I have a problem with is Providence.
If you blow your league's quarters, thus backing into a rest weekend right before regionals, you shouldn't make the tournament.
Isn't that what Yale did?
No, they were in Atlantic City in 2013. Even played a consie (http://www.collegehockeystats.net/1213/schedules/yalm).
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: ugartelast at-large team in wins again
I think the only one I have a problem with is Providence.
If you blow your league's quarters, thus backing into a rest weekend right before regionals, you shouldn't make the tournament.
PS I'm aware this rule would limit leagues to four participants. That would be a good thing.
PPS I'm also willing to limit the Big Ten and WCHA to two teams because of their non-standard playoff systems. Want four teams, potentially? Fall in line.
What's a "standard playoff system"? If you mean what we, and some others, currently do, then realize that "playoff systems" have changed over the years. Even the ECAC has changed.
If you mean having a tournament at a big neutral arena, then why, as far as the NCAA goes, is that better than playing at home rinks? I like it, but that doesn't make it better.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: ugartelast at-large team in wins again
I think the only one I have a problem with is Providence.
If you blow your league's quarters, thus backing into a rest weekend right before regionals, you shouldn't make the tournament.
PS I'm aware this rule would limit leagues to four participants. That would be a good thing.
PPS I'm also willing to limit the Big Ten and WCHA to two teams because of their non-standard playoff systems. Want four teams, potentially? Fall in line.
What's a "standard playoff system"? If you mean what we, and some others, currently do, then realize that "playoff systems" have changed over the years. Even the ECAC has changed.
If you mean having a tournament at a big neutral arena, then why, as far as the NCAA goes, is that better than playing at home rinks? I like it, but that doesn't make it better.
I think Scott's idea is to disqualify any team not playing the weekend before the regionals start. It might have the unintended consequence of getting conferences to adopt Final Five and Super Six formats...
Quote from: jtwcornell91I think Scott's idea is to disqualify any team not playing the weekend before the regionals start. It might have the unintended consequence of getting conferences to adopt Final Five and Super Six formats...
Yup, and I have no problem with that. But let's cap it at four teams per league, shall we? Do we ever need to see five or more teams from
any league in the tournament, e.g., the 2016 Hockey East second-chance tournament?
Really, I'd prefer a tournament of just the league champions, so everyone would likely have played 2 games the prior weekend. I suppose I could tolerate league champions and league regular-season "champions" who have at least made their leagues' final weekends. I'd arrange things so as to have a best 2 of 3 quarterfinal round at the higher seed's rink, with byes or play-in games as necessary. If we're dealing with the tournament and regular-season champions, I'd seed those teams who pull off "the double" first.
So, let's look at this year:
RS PS TOTES
St. Cloud NCHC 1 2 3
Mankato WCHA 1 3 4
Air Force AHA 3 1 4
Denver NCHC 2 1 3
Princeton ECAC 7 1 8
Cornell ECAC 1 3 4
BU HE 4 1 5
Notre Dame B10 1 1 2
Michigan Tech WCHA 5 1 6
BC HE 1 3 4
Mercyhurst AHA 1 3 4
Given the differing sizes of leagues, how to combine the results is arguable, but this is my world so I'm fine for now with the idiocy of TOTES. So, rearranged as seeds:
TOTES
1. Notre Dame 2
2. St. Cloud 3 [seed within bands by KRACH]
3. Denver 3
4. Cornell 4
5. Mankato 4
6. BC 4
7. Mercyhurst 4
8. Air Force 4
9. BU 5
10. Michigan Tech 6
11. Princeton 8
Or flipping within bands of TOTES for the play-ins:
1. Notre Dame
2. St. Cloud
3. Denver
4. Cornell
5. Mankato
6. BC
7. Air Force
8. Mercyhurst
9. BU
10. Michigan Tech
11. Princeton
Princeton/BC, Michigan Tech/Air Force, and BU/Mercyhurst figure out the play-in, either mid-week at the higher seed or at their future quarterfinal location.
It's messy and far beyond ridiculous, but I don't like how the current system lets in teams that just shouldn't be there. Like, picking a few:
RS PS
2017 Providence 5 5
2016 BU 4 5
2016 Notre Dame 3 5
2015 BC 3 5
2015 Omaha 3 5
2015 Duluth 5 5
2015 Yale 3 5
2014 Vermont 7[!] 5
2013 Mankato 6 5
2013 NoDak 3 5
2013 UNH 5 5
2013 Denver 5 7 [first round!, at home to CC]
2012 MSU 5 5
2011 Duluth* 4 5
2011 RPI 5 5
2011 Omaha 3 7
2010 UAF 5 5
* Won it all! Doesn't refute my point; still shouldn't have been there.
The small sample space of OOC games is not a valid means for comparing conferences, so why not just rid ourselves of at-large teams and get rid of the static?