We're going to Allentown! (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2019-12-11/college-hockey-bracketology-how-things-look-heading-winter) Jeff Hopkins will be happy.
In before someone says "it's too early for this to be really meaningful"
Who is going to watch any games in Albany. They should switch Clarkson/North Dakota with Minn. State/Sacred Heart. Clarkson fans go to Albany and U Mass fans go to Worcester. Sacred Heart fans can easily get to either and the rest have to fly anyway.
Quote from: Jim HylaWho is going to watch any games in Albany. They should switch Clarkson/North Dakota with Minn. State/Sacred Heart. Clarkson fans go to Albany and U Mass fans go to Worcester. Sacred Heart fans can easily get to either and the rest have to fly anyway.
Has Nathan a track record with three brackets?
Quote from: dbilmesWe're going to Allentown! (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2019-12-11/college-hockey-bracketology-how-things-look-heading-winter) Jeff Hopkins will be happy.
Assuming I can get a seat!
Shocked we didn't end up in Albany, but I guess I can see his logic.
playoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
Quote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
Quote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
getting controversial here on eLF
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
getting controversial here on eLF
60 teams and no NCAA since 1970. Gotta happen at some point. (I'm very new here. I apologize if I unintentionally started something.)
Quote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
You've succinctly summed up why this forum still exists.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
You've succinctly summed up why this forum still exists.
I thought it was just to make snarky comments.::popcorn::
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: RichHQuote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
You've succinctly summed up why this forum still exists.
I thought it was just to make snarky comments.::popcorn::
Speaking of which they should fire Schaffer if we don't win it all this year.
Quote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
You know, if people wouldn't post this deeply flawed model every year, we wouldn't have to spend time every year discussing why it's deeply flawed.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
You know, if people wouldn't post this deeply flawed model every year, we wouldn't have to spend time every year discussing why it's deeply flawed.
or you could just post a link to the thread from last year
Then we can start another thread about the spelling of Coach's name.....
Quote from: rediceThen we can start another thread about the spelling of Coach's name.....
Thank you Redice I was afraid no one noticed. **]
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
You know, if people wouldn't post this deeply flawed model every year, we wouldn't have to spend time every year discussing why it's deeply flawed.
Or you could, I dunno, fucking lighten up Francis.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
You've succinctly summed up why this forum still exists.
"All this has happened before. And it will happen again (http://tbrw.info/)."
Quote from: rediceThen we can start another thread about the spelling of Coach's name.....
Maybe Ken wants to fire a different coach. Ever think of that?
Quote from: KenPQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: RichHQuote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
You've succinctly summed up why this forum still exists.
I thought it was just to make snarky comments.::popcorn::
Speaking of which they should fire Schaffer if we don't win it all this year.
Hell, why wait? Fire him now!
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: KenPQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: RichHQuote from: blackwidowQuote from: Trotskyplayoffstatus.com current odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html):
FF Final Champion
North Dakota .49 .30 .17
Cornell .47 .29 .17
Mankato .40 .22 .12
Denver .32 .16 .09
BC .28 .14 .07
Penn State .22 .10 .05
Ohio State .20 .10 .05
it would be wonderful to see Cornell win the NCAA.
You've succinctly summed up why this forum still exists.
I thought it was just to make snarky comments.::popcorn::
Speaking of which they should fire Schaffer if we don't win it all this year.
Hell, why wait? Fire him now!
Srsly. He hasn't even won the 2020 ECACs and it's already January.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: rediceThen we can start another thread about the spelling of Coach's name.....
Maybe Ken wants to fire a different coach. Ever think of that?
Maybe he misspelled Archer?
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: rediceThen we can start another thread about the spelling of Coach's name.....
Maybe Ken wants to fire a different coach. Ever think of that?
Maybe he misspelled Archer?
+1
Belongs in the soon-to-be-compiled Elynah Humor (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?5,224944) collection.
Last week's NCAA version. (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-01-15/college-hockey-bracketology-how-things-look-less-three-months)
The Bracket:
Albany Regional (Albany, NY - Host ECAC)
1. Cornell vs. 16. Sacred Heart
8. Massachusetts vs. 9. Minnesota Duluth
Worcester Regional (Worcester, MA - Host Holy Cross)
2. North Dakota vs. 15. Northern Michigan
5. Boston College vs. 10. Clarkson
Allentown Regional (Allentown, PA - Host Penn State)
3. Minnesota State vs. 14. Arizona State
6. Penn State vs. 11. Providence
Loveland Regional (Loveland, CO - Host Denver)
4. Denver vs. 13. UMass Lowell
7. Ohio State vs. 12. Northeastern
and from this week's USCHO. (https://www.uscho.com/2020/01/22/bracketology-taking-an-early-look-at-how-the-2020-ncaa-tournament-could-potentially-shake-out/)
This week's brackets
West Regional (Loveland):
14 Northeastern vs. 2 Minnesota State
11 Arizona State vs. 5 Denver
Midwest Regional (Allentown):
16 AIC vs. 1 North Dakota
9 Penn State vs. 8 Clarkson
East Regional (Albany):
13 UMass Lowell vs. 3 Cornell
12 Minnesota Duluth vs. 6 Massachusetts
Northeast Regional (Worcester):
15 Quinnipiac vs. 4 Boston College
10 Providence vs. 7 Ohio State
Conference breakdowns
Hockey East — 5
ECAC Hockey — 3
NCHC — 3
Big Ten – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1
Interesting. CHN has Denver in 4th and BC in 5th. USCHO has them tied for 4th.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Interesting. CHN has Denver in 4th and BC in 5th. USCHO has them tied for 4th.
There's something wrong on uscho - not sure what. When you go to their list of comparisons, it shows Denver with 56 - which is what we have. On their chart, it shows 55. I don't know why. But 56 is correct.
Quote from: Jim HylaAllentown Regional (Allentown, PA - Host Penn State)
3. Minnesota State vs. 14. Arizona State
6. Penn State vs. 11. Providence
This one from last week caught my eye as an all-timer, if you ask me. Four of the top six highest scoring teams in one regional, and loads of star power. Providence having to take their medicine and go against the hosts for once. Three teams trying to prove their worth as rising powers and make their 1st FF. Sure, it won't happen, but I'd pay to see that.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaAllentown Regional (Allentown, PA - Host Penn State)
3. Minnesota State vs. 14. Arizona State
6. Penn State vs. 11. Providence
This one from last week caught my eye as an all-timer, if you ask me. Four of the top six highest scoring teams in one regional, and loads of star power. Providence having to take their medicine and go against the hosts for once. Three teams trying to prove their worth as rising powers and make their 1st FF. Sure, it won't happen, but I'd pay to see that.
Depending on where and when we play, I might just go to this regional final for grins.
This was before last weeks games, but I thought I'd put it up anyway.
College hockey bracketology: What things look like two months before tournament selections (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-01-29/college-hockey-bracketology-what-things-look-two-months)
[b]The Bracket:[/b]
[b]Worcester Region (Worcester, MA - Host Holy Cross)[/b]
1. North Dakota vs. 16. American International
[b][u]8. Clarkson[/u][/b] vs. 9. Providence
[b]Albany Regional (Albany, NY - Host ECAC)[/b]
[b][u]2. Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 15. Northern Michigan
7. Massachusetts vs. 10. Ohio State
[b]Allentown Region (Allentown, PA - Host Penn State)[/b]
3. Minnesota State vs. 14. New Hampshire
6. Penn State vs. 11. Arizona State
[b]Loveland Region (Loveland, CO - Host Denver)[/b]
4. Denver vs. 13. Northeastern
5. Boston College vs. 12. Minnesota Duluth
[b]Teams by conference:[/b]
Hockey East: 5
NCHC: 3
Big Ten: 2
[b][u]ECAC: 2[/u][/b]
WCHA: 2
Atlantic Hockey: 1
Independent: 1
In: New Hampshire, American International
Out: UMass Lowell, Sacred Heart
Well it looks like everybody is into it now.
CHN; Adam discusses Bracket ABCs ... February Edition (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/02/13_Bracket-ABCs--February.php) in reference to Pairwise Probability Matrix (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php)
USCHO has a couple of different ideas in Bracketology: Figuring out problems on how to best seed the 2020 NCAA hockey national tournament (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/12/bracketology-figuring-out-problems-on-how-to-best-seed-the-2020-ncaa-hockey-national-tournament/)
Jim's bracket
Allentown, Pa. Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Penn State (8)
3. UMass Lowell (11)
4. AIC (16)
Loveland, Colo. Regional
1. Minnesota Duluth (4)
2. Denver (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Quinnipiac (14)
Worcester, Mass. Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Massachusetts (7)
3. Arizona State (10)
4. Michigan State (15)
Albany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Boston College (6)
3. Clarkson (9)
4. Maine (13)
Jayson's bracket
Worcester, Mass. Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. UMass (7)
3. Clarkson (9)
4. AIC (16)
Loveland, Colo. Regional
1. Minnesota Duluth (4)
2. Denver (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Quinnipiac (14)
Allentown, Pa. Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (8)
3. UMass Lowell (11)
4. Michigan State (15)
Albany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Boston College (6)
3. Arizona State (10)
4. Maine (13)
NCAA: The 2020 NCAA college hockey bracket, predicted about 2 months from the Frozen Four (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-02-12/2020-ncaa-college-hockey-bracket-predicted-frozen-four)
The projected 2020 NCAA college hockey bracket (as of Feb. 12)
Albany Regional (Albany, NY - Host ECAC)
1. North Dakota vs. 16. American International
6. Boston College vs. 9. Clarkson
Worcester Region (Worcester, MA - Host Holy Cross)
2. Minnesota State vs. 14. Quinnipiac
7. Massachusetts vs. 10. Arizona State
Allentown Region (Allentown, PA - Host Penn State)
3. Cornell vs. 15. Michigan State
8. Penn State vs. 11. UMass Lowell
Loveland Region (Loveland, CO - Host Denver)
4. Minnesota Duluth vs. 13. Maine
5. Denver vs. 12. Northeastern
Well if Jim read my article (I'm sure he was one of the ones rolling his eyes) - he'd know that those brackets are neither "projections" nor "predictions" at all. It bothers the ever loving hell out of me when they're called that.
Quote from: adamwWell if Jim read my article (I'm sure he was one of the ones rolling his eyes) - he'd know that those brackets are neither "projections" nor "predictions" at all. It bothers the ever loving hell out of me when they're called that.
I read your article, Adam. I didn't roll my eyes, but I did smirk a bit at the disclaimer. ::whistle::
But based on the article, I get these brackets:
Worcester, Mass. Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Boston College (6)
3. Arizona State (10)
4. AIC (16)
Loveland, Colo. Regional
1. Minnesota Duluth (4)
2. Denver (5)
3. UMass Lowell (11) or Northeastern (12)
4. Ohio State (13)
Allentown, Pa. Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (8)
3. UMass Lowell (11) or Northeastern (12)
4. Providence (15)
Albany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. UMass (7)
3. Clarkson (9).
4. Maine (14)
QuoteAlbany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. UMass (7)
3. Clarkson (9).
4. Maine (14)
That regional is fascinating.
Interesting... At this point it is down to a 59-team race. Even though their PWR is higher than both Princeton and St. Lawrence... Vermont has 0.0% chance to make the NC$$ tournament.
Quote from: TrotskyQuoteAlbany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. UMass (7)
3. Clarkson (9).
4. Maine (14)
That regional is fascinating.
It is, isn't it? I did my own bracketology a few days ago, and put Az. State in Albany and Clarkson in Worcester, but that was simply because I didn't want to see Cornell and Clarkson match up a potential 4th time in the regionals.
Quote from: KenPInteresting... At this point it is down to a 59-team race. Even though their PWR is higher than both Princeton and St. Lawrence... Vermont has 0.0% chance to make the NC$$ tournament.
Merrimack's really close, too.
According to this (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournpartprob.html), 20 of those 59 can only make it now by winning their auto bid, including half the ECAC.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyQuoteAlbany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. UMass (7)
3. Clarkson (9).
4. Maine (14)
That regional is fascinating.
It is, isn't it? I did my own bracketology a few days ago, and put Az. State in Albany and Clarkson in Worcester, but that was simply because I didn't want to see Cornell and Clarkson match up a potential 4th time in the regionals.
I was thinking it would be wild to see us play Clarkson 3 times in 30 days: Feb 29 in Ithaca for the ECAC RS title, March 21 in Lake Placid for the ECAC title, and March 29 in Albany for advance to the Frozen Four.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyQuoteAlbany, N.Y. Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. UMass (7)
3. Clarkson (9).
4. Maine (14)
That regional is fascinating.
It is, isn't it? I did my own bracketology a few days ago, and put Az. State in Albany and Clarkson in Worcester, but that was simply because I didn't want to see Cornell and Clarkson match up a potential 4th time in the regionals.
I was thinking it would be wild to see us play Clarkson 3 times in 30 days: Feb 29 in Ithaca for the ECAC RS title, March 21 in Lake Placid for the ECAC title, and March 29 in Albany for advance to the Frozen Four.
I'd rather see us meet up the fourth time in Detroit, not Albany. And with Clarkson in Worcester with NoDak as #1, and us as #3, that meeting would be the finals.
The Pairwise Probability Matrix, which I believe "accounts for" uncertainty the same way playoffstatus.com does, gives Cornell (currently in 3rd place in the Pairwise/KRACH) a 67% chance of finishing with exactly the 3-seed. It gives NoDak (currently first) an 87% likelihood of finishing with the 1-seed. It gives Minn State (currently second) 75% odds of finishing with the 2-seed. Each of these teams still has ~12 games left before seeding. Sounds legit?
Quote from: BearLoverThe Pairwise Probability Matrix, which I believe "accounts for" uncertainty the same way playoffstatus.com does, gives Cornell (currently in 3rd place in the Pairwise/KRACH) a 67% chance of finishing with exactly the 3-seed. It gives NoDak (currently first) an 87% likelihood of finishing with the 1-seed. It gives Minn State (currently second) 75% odds of finishing with the 2-seed. Each of these teams still has ~12 games left before seeding. Sounds legit?
We're not accounting for any "uncertainty" at all - yet.
One thing that does it make it legit - yeah - is the gap in RPI between all of these teams. There is a larger gap between 1 and 2 - 2 to 3 - and, in particular 3 to 4 - than there is most of groups of 5 teams. In particular, there's a .0231 gap from 3 to 4. By comparison - No. 4 and 10 are closer than that gap.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverThe Pairwise Probability Matrix, which I believe "accounts for" uncertainty the same way playoffstatus.com does, gives Cornell (currently in 3rd place in the Pairwise/KRACH) a 67% chance of finishing with exactly the 3-seed. It gives NoDak (currently first) an 87% likelihood of finishing with the 1-seed. It gives Minn State (currently second) 75% odds of finishing with the 2-seed. Each of these teams still has ~12 games left before seeding. Sounds legit?
We're not accounting for any "uncertainty" at all - yet.
One thing that does it make it legit - yeah - is the gap in RPI between all of these teams. There is a larger gap between 1 and 2 - 2 to 3 - and, in particular 3 to 4 - than there is most of groups of 5 teams. In particular, there's a .0231 gap from 3 to 4. By comparison - No. 4 and 10 are closer than that gap.
I may be using the wrong terminology, but what do you mean you are not accounting for uncertainty? And would you put your money where your mouth is and assert that if this season were to be replicated from this point forward one million times, in 2/3 of those scenarios Cornell would finish with exactly the 3-seed? That Minn St would finish 3/4 of the time with exactly the 2-seed? That NoDak would finish 7/8 of the time with the 1-seed? Do you also believe Cornell is almost three times as likely to win the ECAC championship as Clarkson, and more likely to win it than the rest of the ECAC combined? I believe these numbers are quite a bit off, and a few years ago someone on here ran a regression [correct terminology?] showing that the tails of these models are off--the chances of a top team beating a bottom team are overstated by the model, which over the course of a lengthy stretch (in this case, ~12 remaining games) leads to significantly underrating volatility.
Quote from: BearLoverThe Pairwise Probability Matrix, which I believe "accounts for" uncertainty the same way playoffstatus.com does, gives Cornell (currently in 3rd place in the Pairwise/KRACH) a 67% chance of finishing with exactly the 3-seed. It gives NoDak (currently first) an 87% likelihood of finishing with the 1-seed. It gives Minn State (currently second) 75% odds of finishing with the 2-seed. Each of these teams still has ~12 games left before seeding. Sounds legit?
I've long had the same complaints about these models that you routinely bring up, and I've found it helps me to think of this less as a prediction of real probabilities and more as a mechanism of demonstrating the likely finishing positions assuming the rest of the game results follow from the existing game results. Honestly, there's no real reason to suspect that the high percentages indicate anything wrong with the model, at least not based on what it's effectively doing. At the end of the day, these monte carlo simulations based on KRACH (which is itself based solely on record) are incredibly information-poor and we have to account for that in our interpretation.
I ended up subscribing to The Athletic last year and I found their NHL playoff possibility models very interesting because they have access to a lot more team and player-level data. Of course, those richer models didn't come out looking very good last season what with Tampa Bay getting bounced in the first round and St. Louis winning it all. Even so, if I end up becoming an unemployed hobbyist for a while I'd love to try to get something similar for NCAA hockey, although the much smaller sample of games will make it super noisy.
I found the old thread, which includes jfeath's incredibly helpful analysis:
[Ugh sorry, having problems posting the link on my phone, but it's post #12 or so on the thread titled "2018 ECAC Permutations"]
all i know its a lot more fun being 6 games left wondering how Cornell can screw it up than it is 6 games left hoping other teams screw it up.
Amen, brother.
Quote from: upprdeckall i know its a lot more fun being 6 games left wondering how Cornell can screw it up than it is 6 games left hoping other teams screw it up.
And a lot more fun than wondering how Schafer talks to his team.
Also Adam's stats are probably better than any for the above.::crazy::
Quote from: adamwWell if Jim read my article (I'm sure he was one of the ones rolling his eyes) - he'd know that those brackets are neither "projections" nor "predictions" at all. It bothers the ever loving hell out of me when they're called that.
Ok, but to be *really* pedantic, I wouldn't necessarily call a KRACH-based Monte Carlo simulation a "prediction" either. The future results are based exactly on prior performance, and each team performs exactly that well through the remainder of the season - there's no new information being added. Therefore, I am a little skeptical that it is much/any more predictive than a strict "if the season ended today" approach, because even in the Monte Carlo approach, the addition of new information ended today, too.
This is especially true since you're boiling it down to a single predicted bracket (which is obviously not what the real bracket will be, no matter the methodology). Looking at the histograms of the 20,000 final PWR ranks for each team would be more interesting/informative for me than trying to "predict" an exact bracket.
Quote from: BearLoverI found the old thread, which includes jfeath's incredibly helpful analysis:
[Ugh sorry, having problems posting the link on my phone, but it's post #12 or so on the thread titled "2018 ECAC Permutations"]
The thread is here http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,213740,page=1
Quote from: RobbQuote from: adamwWell if Jim read my article (I'm sure he was one of the ones rolling his eyes) - he'd know that those brackets are neither "projections" nor "predictions" at all. It bothers the ever loving hell out of me when they're called that.
Ok, but to be *really* pedantic, I wouldn't necessarily call a KRACH-based Monte Carlo simulation a "prediction" either. The future results are based exactly on prior performance, and each team performs exactly that well through the remainder of the season - there's no new information being added. Therefore, I am a little skeptical that it is much/any more predictive than a strict "if the season ended today" approach, because even in the Monte Carlo approach, the addition of new information ended today, too.
This is especially true since you're boiling it down to a single predicted bracket (which is obviously not what the real bracket will be, no matter the methodology). Looking at the histograms of the 20,000 final PWR ranks for each team would be more interesting/informative for me than trying to "predict" an exact bracket.
Fair enough of course - but at least it's "predicting" future games and then factoring that into a creating a final bracket. The others do nothing of the sort and are thus completely useless.
Quote from: BearLoverI may be using the wrong terminology, but what do you mean you are not accounting for uncertainty? And would you put your money where your mouth is and assert that if this season were to be replicated from this point forward one million times, in 2/3 of those scenarios Cornell would finish with exactly the 3-seed? That Minn St would finish 3/4 of the time with exactly the 2-seed? That NoDak would finish 7/8 of the time with the 1-seed? Do you also believe Cornell is almost three times as likely to win the ECAC championship as Clarkson, and more likely to win it than the rest of the ECAC combined? I believe these numbers are quite a bit off, and a few years ago someone on here ran a regression [correct terminology?] showing that the tails of these models are off--the chances of a top team beating a bottom team are overstated by the model, which over the course of a lengthy stretch (in this case, ~12 remaining games) leads to significantly underrating volatility.
"uncertainty" in the mathematical sense, as I understand it, takes into consideration that only using relatively small sample sizes of past results, is too "precise" - so to speak - and therefore pulls things closer to the mean. This will account for the high odds you're talking about, and addresses your concerns - if we can get around to implementing it. I'm not the expert on this, however. The same dumb conversation from past years spurred us - i.e. John Whelan - to come up with an algorithm that adds uncertainty to the mix.
I do wonder - pray tell - how I'm supposed to put my money where my mouth is in regards to the season being played out 1,000,000 times. How are we supposed to test this hypothesis so that I can wager with you?
As it stands, we play out the season 20,000 times - which is pretty stable. Doing it 1,000,000 times isn't going to change things. Cornell will still be a 3 seed just about the same amount of times. I really don't know how else you'd like me to "prove" anything.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverI may be using the wrong terminology, but what do you mean you are not accounting for uncertainty? And would you put your money where your mouth is and assert that if this season were to be replicated from this point forward one million times, in 2/3 of those scenarios Cornell would finish with exactly the 3-seed? That Minn St would finish 3/4 of the time with exactly the 2-seed? That NoDak would finish 7/8 of the time with the 1-seed? Do you also believe Cornell is almost three times as likely to win the ECAC championship as Clarkson, and more likely to win it than the rest of the ECAC combined? I believe these numbers are quite a bit off, and a few years ago someone on here ran a regression [correct terminology?] showing that the tails of these models are off--the chances of a top team beating a bottom team are overstated by the model, which over the course of a lengthy stretch (in this case, ~12 remaining games) leads to significantly underrating volatility.
"uncertainty" in the mathematical sense, as I understand it, takes into consideration that only using relatively small sample sizes of past results, is too "precise" - so to speak - and therefore pulls things closer to the mean. This will account for the high odds you're talking about, and addresses your concerns - if we can get around to implementing it. I'm not the expert on this, however. The same dumb conversation from past years spurred us - i.e. John Whelan - to come up with an algorithm that adds uncertainty to the mix.
As others have said above, the model assumes that every team will perform as well as they have thus far--the third-best team will continue to perform as the third-best team, the second-best team will continue to perform as the second-best, etc. In reality, there is an extremely wide range of outcomes for how well a team can perform over its remaining games.
(Though, @Robb and @Tom Lento, why wouldn't each team have a 100% chance of finishing in exactly its current spot if what you are saying is true? And then what would be the point of running more than one simulation? I had understood that the possibility of the third-best team not performing as the third-best team going forward *is* built into the model, it just isn't weighted heavily enough.)
Quote from: adamwI do wonder - pray tell - how I'm supposed to put my money where my mouth is in regards to the season being played out 1,000,000 times. How are we supposed to test this hypothesis so that I can wager with you?
I wager $50 that Cornell finishes somewhere other than exactly third in NCAA seeding. You wager $100 that they finish exactly third. Would you make that bet?
Quote from: adamwAs it stands, we play out the season 20,000 times - which is pretty stable. Doing it 1,000,000 times isn't going to change things. Cornell will still be a 3 seed just about the same amount of times. I really don't know how else you'd like me to "prove" anything.
I did not mean to suggest 1,000,000 simulations would yield a different result than 20,000. I just used one million as a random large number. 20,000 will do just fine.
Quote from: BearLover(Though, @Robb and @Tom Lento, why wouldn't each team have a 100% chance of finishing in exactly its current spot if what you are saying is true? And then what would be the point of running more than one simulation? I had understood that the possibility of the third-best team not performing as the third-best team going forward *is* built into the model, it just isn't weighted heavily enough.
Because according to KRACH, even the third-best team has a non-zero probability of losing to the worst team. That's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
Cornell's KRACH SOS is 30; Other than Clarkson (42, also ECAC) you have to go down to #17 Lowell to find a weaker SOS. What this means is that we are on a steep slope and need to keep our footing. One "bad" loss or tie will drop us more than a bad loss by North Dakota or Minnesota State etc. Our percentages in these simulations will hold steady with wins but can change very quickly with a single loss.
Quote from: KenPWhat this means is that we are on a steep slope and need to keep our footing.
Perfect analogy. Very nice!
Quote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
If someone could create a better simulation, they would be getting rich from it and not posting to this board I suspect.
Also - to further answer the question which I thought was obvious, but I guess not ... things aren't 100%, because every game is "played" using KRACH as the weighted probability of a team winning that game. So, Team A has 600 KRACH ... Team B has 300 KRACH ... Team A has a 2/3 chance of winning that game. Play out every game for the rest of the season this way ... 20,000 times ... and you get your simulation.
The issue, then, is Cornell's chances of winning a game being overweighted if you think the KRACH differences aren't realistic.
But taking offense to the idea that the top 3 ends up exactly how it is now, without really understanding why the simulations come out that way, is silly.
Adam, I have a suggestion. Cornell has guaranteed itself an ECAC home playoff series, i.e. our worst-case ECAC rank is 8. Can you do something similar for NCAA participation? Specifically:
Create a worst-case simulation for each team. Set their games to losses, rerun the Monte Carlo simulation for the rest of the field, and grab the lowest PWR from the modified simulation. Add that as a
Everyone likes to know when their team officially "clinches" a playoff berth... this approach would give fans that answer.
P.S. other comments / suggestions:
* check your number formatting. Some values round up to "1.0%" while others round down to "1%"
* repeat table header at the bottom.
* not sure if you can have a slider bar at both the top and bottom but that would be nice too
* consider similar best case scenarios. playoffstatus.com has that which is why i saw Vermont is officially out of the race.
* for the best case and worse data... either show as additional columns or use that information and enter "x" for impossible year-end rankings. ("Impossible" may not be the right word given this is only 20,000 simulations.. but hopefully you and your readers will get the point.)
Quote from: adamwQuote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
Sorry, I don't agree. KRACH is not meant to be predictive. Therefore, a simulation based entirely on KRACH to predict future outcomes is flawed. The simulation is called the "Pairwise Probability Matrix" and assigns a percentage to all possible outcomes. To a casual viewer, like me, there is no note or disclaimer anywhere on the page that suggests the model is NOT predictive. In fact, below the chart there is a line that reads: "these numbers accurately reflect each team's possible finish to a high rate of precision."
I do not believe almost anyone reading the matrix understands it is limited to extrapolating existing KRACH over the rest of the season, or what this reliance on KRACH entails. I have seen dozens of posts on this forum over the past several years that look to the percentages as good predictive data. I don't think the simulation provides good predictive data.
I don't mean to sound overly harsh. CHN is one of my most-visited websites and I'd love to see the simulation improved. But in its current form, the simulation is not particularly helpful and I'd argue it is actively misleading.
Quote from: BearLoverAs others have said above, the model assumes that every team will perform as well as they have thus far--the third-best team will continue to perform as the third-best team, the second-best team will continue to perform as the second-best, etc. In reality, there is an extremely wide range of outcomes for how well a team can perform over its remaining games.
There really isn't much else to be done, though. Models as to what's going to happen in the future rely on what's happened in the past.
Could things be more complex? Sure. You could use goal differentials or advanced possession/shot metrics to estimate team quality. You could also weight for recency (Cornell's been weaker over the last month or so than the rest of the season, so maybe we're "worse" than our total record). But that's all more complicated and not necessarily more accurate.
How do you go about introducing "uncertainty" other than taking an existing model and blurring the results by some factor?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
Sorry, I don't agree. KRACH is not meant to be predictive. Therefore, a simulation based entirely on KRACH to predict future outcomes is flawed. The simulation is called the "Pairwise Probability Matrix" and assigns a percentage to all possible outcomes. To a casual viewer, like me, there is no note or disclaimer anywhere on the page that suggests the model is NOT predictive. In fact, below the chart there is a line that reads: "these numbers accurately reflect each team's possible finish to a high rate of precision."
I do not believe almost anyone reading the matrix understands it is limited to extrapolating existing KRACH over the rest of the season, or what this reliance on KRACH entails. I have seen dozens of posts on this forum over the past several years that look to the percentages as good predictive data. I don't think the simulation provides good predictive data.
I don't mean to sound overly harsh. CHN is one of my most-visited websites and I'd love to see the simulation improved. But in its current form, the simulation is not particularly helpful and I'd argue it is actively misleading.
KRACH has two main assumptions: (a) all games and results are reflective of overall quality of each team, and (b) that quality is consistent through the entire season including future games. You may wish for a system that incorporates more data to address those assumptions... but given those two statements
KRACH absolutely is meant to be predictive.
Quote from: KenPQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
Sorry, I don't agree. KRACH is not meant to be predictive. Therefore, a simulation based entirely on KRACH to predict future outcomes is flawed. The simulation is called the "Pairwise Probability Matrix" and assigns a percentage to all possible outcomes. To a casual viewer, like me, there is no note or disclaimer anywhere on the page that suggests the model is NOT predictive. In fact, below the chart there is a line that reads: "these numbers accurately reflect each team's possible finish to a high rate of precision."
I do not believe almost anyone reading the matrix understands it is limited to extrapolating existing KRACH over the rest of the season, or what this reliance on KRACH entails. I have seen dozens of posts on this forum over the past several years that look to the percentages as good predictive data. I don't think the simulation provides good predictive data.
I don't mean to sound overly harsh. CHN is one of my most-visited websites and I'd love to see the simulation improved. But in its current form, the simulation is not particularly helpful and I'd argue it is actively misleading.
KRACH has two main assumptions: (a) all games and results are reflective of overall quality of each team, and (b) that quality is consistent through the entire season including future games. You may wish for a system that incorporates more data to address those assumptions... but given those two statements KRACH absolutely is meant to be predictive.
Okay, pardon me for my poor verbiage. Practically speaking though, KRACH is meant to be used as a way of ranking/seeding teams, which depends entirely on past performance. It does a terrible job of predicting future outcomes (at least over a sample as small as 25 or so games).
To me Bracketology is just something fun to check out this time of year for amusement, nothing more than that.
Too many people seem to put way too much stock in this stuff (Adam excluded because it's what he does for a living--or at least part of a living).
Quote from: scoop85To me Bracketology is just something fun to check out this time of year for amusement, nothing more than that.
Too many people seem to put way too much stock in this stuff (Adam excluded because it's what he does for a living--or at least part of a living).
yeah i look at bracketology and say "neat. that would be ___ for us."
Quote from: BearLoverSorry, I don't agree. KRACH is not meant to be predictive. Therefore, a simulation based entirely on KRACH to predict future outcomes is flawed. The simulation is called the "Pairwise Probability Matrix" and assigns a percentage to all possible outcomes. To a casual viewer, like me, there is no note or disclaimer anywhere on the page that suggests the model is NOT predictive. In fact, below the chart there is a line that reads: "these numbers accurately reflect each team's possible finish to a high rate of precision."
I do not believe almost anyone reading the matrix understands it is limited to extrapolating existing KRACH over the rest of the season, or what this reliance on KRACH entails. I have seen dozens of posts on this forum over the past several years that look to the percentages as good predictive data. I don't think the simulation provides good predictive data.
I don't mean to sound overly harsh. CHN is one of my most-visited websites and I'd love to see the simulation improved. But in its current form, the simulation is not particularly helpful and I'd argue it is actively misleading.
I think you get way too hung up on this. Most people do, in fact, know this. Since most people probably know that there's nothing that can be done to entirely accurately predict the future. As someone else pointed out, it IS predictive - just not perfectly so - nothing is. The only thing anyone can do is to try to get better and better data to feed into the machine. There is literally no other way to predict the future any better.
I just don't know what you're looking for, or what you expect to find with any model that predicts future results. My guess is, you probably don't really know. I think you are getting hung up, and lack an understanding over what is being done, or can be done.
If you have data that's better than KRACH to rely upon - let me know.
Quote from: DafatoneCould things be more complex? Sure. You could use goal differentials or advanced possession/shot metrics to estimate team quality. You could also weight for recency (Cornell's been weaker over the last month or so than the rest of the season, so maybe we're "worse" than our total record). But that's all more complicated and not necessarily more accurate.
I do actually want to add in a "recency bias" - working on it. But, like you say, that's a subjective decision being introduced into the model, and there's no way of knowing that it's more or less accurate. Anything that tries to predict the future is going to be incomplete, obviously. Until future species master quantum mechanics.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: DafatoneCould things be more complex? Sure. You could use goal differentials or advanced possession/shot metrics to estimate team quality. You could also weight for recency (Cornell's been weaker over the last month or so than the rest of the season, so maybe we're "worse" than our total record). But that's all more complicated and not necessarily more accurate.
I do actually want to add in a "recency bias" - working on it. But, like you say, that's a subjective decision being introduced into the model, and there's no way of knowing that it's more or less accurate. Anything that tries to predict the future is going to be incomplete, obviously. Until future species master quantum mechanics.
Two thoughts: (1) add discrete events to split up a season, e.g. "New BU Goalie" or "Player Injured". Somehow identify the difference in KRACH pre- and post-event? (2) I think there are statistical tests to look at the data and determine if more than one regression line is appropriate. Paired t-test? You'd have to ask an actual statistician. But potentially you could pinpoint those pivot moments and identify the "recent" bias from the data.
Quote from: BearLoverOkay, pardon me for my poor verbiage. Practically speaking though, KRACH is meant to be used as a way of ranking/seeding teams, which depends entirely on past performance. It does a terrible job of predicting future outcomes (at least over a sample as small as 25 or so games).
It's not that KRACH does a poor job .... EVERYTHING does a poor job predicting the future. KRACH is the best tool we have. If you had anything better, you'd win a lot of money in Vegas.
Quote from: KenPAdam, I have a suggestion. Cornell has guaranteed itself an ECAC home playoff series, i.e. our worst-case ECAC rank is 8. Can you do something similar for NCAA participation? Specifically:
Create a worst-case simulation for each team. Set their games to losses, rerun the Monte Carlo simulation for the rest of the field, and grab the lowest PWR from the modified simulation. Add that as a
Everyone likes to know when their team officially "clinches" a playoff berth... this approach would give fans that answer.
P.S. other comments / suggestions:
* check your number formatting. Some values round up to "1.0%" while others round down to "1%"
* repeat table header at the bottom.
* not sure if you can have a slider bar at both the top and bottom but that would be nice too
* consider similar best case scenarios. playoffstatus.com has that which is why i saw Vermont is officially out of the race.
* for the best case and worse data... either show as additional columns or use that information and enter "x" for impossible year-end rankings. ("Impossible" may not be the right word given this is only 20,000 simulations.. but hopefully you and your readers will get the point.)
All good suggestions. I'm not minimizing them. Just - time is an issue.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
Sorry, I don't agree....
Just "add" nauseam and repeat. ;-)
Here's an example of the issue with using KRACH to predict final pairwise:
Cornell (KRACH Rating: 526) is playing St Lawrence (KRACH Rating: 11) in a few weeks. My understanding is that the ratings can be used to come up with a pseudo-record between the two teams (Cornell with 526 wins, St Lawrence with 11). The Monte Carlo simulation uses this record to determine how often Cornell wins. In this case, the model predicts they win 98% of the time.
jfeath's regression analysis from 2 years ago shows that a team with a KRACH winning percentage of 100% theoretically wins about 83.4% of the time, 14.5% lower than what KRACH states for the Cornell-St Lawrence game.
I think it makes sense for 83.4% to be an upper bound on winning percentage. Any goalie can have an incredible/incredibly bad day. Also, the fact that there are ties in hockey means that the winning percentage should be more weighted to 50% than a sport where you can't have ties.
Ideally, jfeath's regression analysis would be an in-between step in the Pairwise probability matrix to convert the KRACH winning percentages (which show what happened to date) to predictive winning percentages.
Quote from: martyQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
Sorry, I don't agree....
Just "add" nauseam and repeat. ;-)
::deadhorse::
Quote from: martyQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: RobbThat's why there would be a range of final PWR ratings for each team - in some of the trials, Cornell will be unlucky and lose a bunch of games to worse teams, and in some trials they won't. That's where the histogram comes in - so you can see the range of possibilities and get an estimate of how likely each of those possibilities appears to be (again, assuming that each team really is exactly as good as it's current KRACH rating).
Maybe it really is "most likely" that Cornell winds up 3rd, but if the range of possibilities is that we could end up anywhere from 1st to 20th, then 3rd might only happen in 15% of the trials, so then you'd get a sense that it's far more likely that Cornell finishes worse than 3rd even though 3rd is the most likely individual result.
The Matrix shows a possibility of Cornell finishing anywhere from 1 to 13, currently. I'm really bad with graphical thingies - so, thus, the Matrix, as opposed to a histogram. No difference really.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
As I said above - the gaps in RPI are significant from 2 to 3 and, moreso, 3 to 4. That is one reason Cornell is pretty stable in that spot. Doesn't mean it will definitely happen.
But for the umpteenth straight year, BearLover is focusing on the wrong thing. The simulation is what it is. Obviously it only goes by past results. It can't do anything else. The gripe you have is with how KRACH works, not how the simulation works. Ratings are based on relatively small samples of past results, and can't possibly take into account many things. Therefore, adding an "uncertainty" node into the algorithm will smooth things out a bit -- though it's a somewhat generic addition, and isn't based on any sort of analysis of team strength, injuries, or whatever.
Getting hung up on trashing the simulations really misses the point. Though, as I've said, we're definitely trying to "improve" it.
Sorry, I don't agree....
Just "add" nauseam and repeat. ;-)
Most people enjoy a good magic show. Some people look at it and think 'It all is just fake' and dismiss it. They will never be satisfied until the magic is real, and critics of predictive tools will never be satisfied unless they are perfect. Magic will never be real, and predictive tools will never be perfect, and those types will live their lives unsatisfied.
Quote from: KGR11Here's an example of the issue with using KRACH to predict final pairwise:
Cornell (KRACH Rating: 526) is playing St Lawrence (KRACH Rating: 11) in a few weeks. My understanding is that the ratings can be used to come up with a pseudo-record between the two teams (Cornell with 526 wins, St Lawrence with 11). The Monte Carlo simulation uses this record to determine how often Cornell wins. In this case, the model predicts they win 98% of the time.
jfeath's regression analysis from 2 years ago shows that a team with a KRACH winning percentage of 100% theoretically wins about 83.4% of the time, 14.5% lower than what KRACH states for the Cornell-St Lawrence game.
I think it makes sense for 83.4% to be an upper bound on winning percentage. Any goalie can have an incredible/incredibly bad day. Also, the fact that there are ties in hockey means that the winning percentage should be more weighted to 50% than a sport where you can't have ties.
Ideally, jfeath's regression analysis would be an in-between step in the Pairwise probability matrix to convert the KRACH winning percentages (which show what happened to date) to predictive winning percentages.
1st - this kind of disparity is extreme. St. Lawrence is historically lousy right now. I'd venture to say, Cornell probably would win 98% of the time.
2nd - ties are taken into consideration with a hard-coded 19% chance - which is already acting as a smoothing mechanism. It's probably not accurate to hard-code that value for every matchup - but it does act as a "smoother," so to speak. This lowers Cornell's chance of a win to closer to the 83% you're referring to. Cornell is winning 98% of the 81% percent of non-ties. So, 80% - plus 9.5%'s worth of win value (i.e. points) via the tie.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: KGR11Here's an example of the issue with using KRACH to predict final pairwise:
Cornell (KRACH Rating: 526) is playing St Lawrence (KRACH Rating: 11) in a few weeks. My understanding is that the ratings can be used to come up with a pseudo-record between the two teams (Cornell with 526 wins, St Lawrence with 11). The Monte Carlo simulation uses this record to determine how often Cornell wins. In this case, the model predicts they win 98% of the time.
jfeath's regression analysis from 2 years ago shows that a team with a KRACH winning percentage of 100% theoretically wins about 83.4% of the time, 14.5% lower than what KRACH states for the Cornell-St Lawrence game.
I think it makes sense for 83.4% to be an upper bound on winning percentage. Any goalie can have an incredible/incredibly bad day. Also, the fact that there are ties in hockey means that the winning percentage should be more weighted to 50% than a sport where you can't have ties.
Ideally, jfeath's regression analysis would be an in-between step in the Pairwise probability matrix to convert the KRACH winning percentages (which show what happened to date) to predictive winning percentages.
1st - this kind of disparity is extreme. St. Lawrence is historically lousy right now. I'd venture to say, Cornell probably would win 98% of the time.
2nd - ties are taken into consideration with a hard-coded 19% chance - which is already acting as a smoothing mechanism. It's probably not accurate to hard-code that value for every matchup - but it does act as a "smoother," so to speak. This lowers Cornell's chance of a win to closer to the 83% you're referring to. Cornell is winning 98% of the 81% percent of non-ties. So, 80% - plus 9.5%'s worth of win value (i.e. points) via the tie.
Hard-coding ties like that is a huge deal. You effectively changed the maximum winning percentage from 100% to 90%. That makes the simulation framework way better than I thought, since your max winning percentage is closer to jfeath's maximum winning percentage of 83%. The next time you publish a primer for the probability matrix, it might be worth including this.
I pointed to an extreme-disparity game because those are the games where KRACH overestimates the favorite team's winning percentage (per jfeath's analysis). That analysis shows that KRACH lines up pretty well when the favorite has a projected winning percentage of 70% or less. Somewhat of a moot point given the 19% tie input.
I'm tempted to propose a 50-1 bet for the Cornell-SLU game. Best case scenario, Cornell wins and I lose $2. Worst case scenario, Cornell loses and I win $100. Just seems a bit sacrilege.
Quote from: KGR11Quote from: adamwQuote from: KGR11Here's an example of the issue with using KRACH to predict final pairwise:
Cornell (KRACH Rating: 526) is playing St Lawrence (KRACH Rating: 11) in a few weeks. My understanding is that the ratings can be used to come up with a pseudo-record between the two teams (Cornell with 526 wins, St Lawrence with 11). The Monte Carlo simulation uses this record to determine how often Cornell wins. In this case, the model predicts they win 98% of the time.
jfeath's regression analysis from 2 years ago shows that a team with a KRACH winning percentage of 100% theoretically wins about 83.4% of the time, 14.5% lower than what KRACH states for the Cornell-St Lawrence game.
I think it makes sense for 83.4% to be an upper bound on winning percentage. Any goalie can have an incredible/incredibly bad day. Also, the fact that there are ties in hockey means that the winning percentage should be more weighted to 50% than a sport where you can't have ties.
Ideally, jfeath's regression analysis would be an in-between step in the Pairwise probability matrix to convert the KRACH winning percentages (which show what happened to date) to predictive winning percentages.
1st - this kind of disparity is extreme. St. Lawrence is historically lousy right now. I'd venture to say, Cornell probably would win 98% of the time.
2nd - ties are taken into consideration with a hard-coded 19% chance - which is already acting as a smoothing mechanism. It's probably not accurate to hard-code that value for every matchup - but it does act as a "smoother," so to speak. This lowers Cornell's chance of a win to closer to the 83% you're referring to. Cornell is winning 98% of the 81% percent of non-ties. So, 80% - plus 9.5%'s worth of win value (i.e. points) via the tie.
Hard-coding ties like that is a huge deal. You effectively changed the maximum winning percentage from 100% to 90%. That makes the simulation framework way better than I thought, since your max winning percentage is closer to jfeath's maximum winning percentage of 83%. The next time you publish a primer for the probability matrix, it might be worth including this.
I pointed to an extreme-disparity game because those are the games where KRACH overestimates the favorite team's winning percentage (per jfeath's analysis). That analysis shows that KRACH lines up pretty well when the favorite has a projected winning percentage of 70% or less. Somewhat of a moot point given the 19% tie input.
I'm tempted to propose a 50-1 bet for the Cornell-SLU game. Best case scenario, Cornell wins and I lose $2. Worst case scenario, Cornell loses and I win $100. Just seems a bit sacrilege.
Betting to profit off our misery is the plot of "The Big Short," so now I'm glad Topher is back tonight.
a couple interesting games this weekend.. Minn is now up to 16 and winning the B10 so that drops lowell out for now..
Minn-PSU this weekend..
PSU sweeps and that knocks Minn probably out of PWR contentio and takes them out of the B10 lead. PSU then done for the regular season
Minn Sweeps how far does PSU fall with only the playoffs left can they fall out of the top 15 with a bad playoff run.
minn then plays Mich, and with the 3 pt win rules and almost anyone can still win that B10.
Ice hockey is exclusively played on ice. Bracketology can be [and is] played on cell phones.
Quote from: osorojoIce hockey is exclusively played on ice. Bracketology can be [and is] played on cell phones.
And trolling is played on computers
and cell phones.
Quote from: KGR11Here's an example of the issue with using KRACH to predict final pairwise:
Cornell (KRACH Rating: 526) is playing St Lawrence (KRACH Rating: 11) in a few weeks. My understanding is that the ratings can be used to come up with a pseudo-record between the two teams (Cornell with 526 wins, St Lawrence with 11). The Monte Carlo simulation uses this record to determine how often Cornell wins. In this case, the model predicts they win 98% of the time.
jfeath's regression analysis from 2 years ago shows that a team with a KRACH winning percentage of 100% theoretically wins about 83.4% of the time, 14.5% lower than what KRACH states for the Cornell-St Lawrence game.
I think it makes sense for 83.4% to be an upper bound on winning percentage. Any goalie can have an incredible/incredibly bad day. Also, the fact that there are ties in hockey means that the winning percentage should be more weighted to 50% than a sport where you can't have ties.
Ideally, jfeath's regression analysis would be an in-between step in the Pairwise probability matrix to convert the KRACH winning percentages (which show what happened to date) to predictive winning percentages.
Even if the Bradley-Terry model is "correct" (whatever that means) there are two potential problems with using KRACH to predict the outcome of a mismatch:
One, KRACH is a maximum-likelihood estimate of a team's Bradley-Terry strength, whereas any estimate of the Bradley-Terry parameters based on a finite amount of data has some uncertainty in it. Ordinarily that's not such a big deal for assigning probabilities to the outcome of one game: the ratio of Cornell's strength to Clarkson's might be higher or lower than our best guess, but that means we might have over- or under-estimated it, and so the uncertainty probably washes out. But when the best guess is something like 50-to-1, that uncertainty can make a big difference in a more careful estimate of the probabilities. As an oversimplified version, suppose the "correct" odds might be 100-to-1 or 25-to-1, but we don't know which. Then the probability of an upset would be the average of 1.0% and 3.8%, which is 2.4% or about 40-to-1 against, not 50-to-1. I.e., the uncertainty naturally biases our expectation of the true probability away from the extremes, because having maybe somewhat overestimated the magnitude of the upset is a bigger effect than having maybe somewhat underestimated it. This is the issue we addressed in this paper, with a specific example discussed on this forum of the Cornell-Quinnipiac quarterfinal series from a few years back: http://dx.doi.org/10.13164/ma.2019.09 http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04226
Two, the maximum-likelihood analysis doesn't take into account any prior expectations about the possible discrepancies in teams' strengths, which means it's equivalent to making your prior information completely noninformative. This is a well-known effect which leads to undefeated teams having infinite KRACH ratings, and it's why Ken Butler put the "fictitious games" into KRACH for a while (the maximum likelihood estimates with fictitious games turn out to be the maximum a posteriori estimates with a particular prior distribution). But this is almost always a pretty small effect by this point in the season, so we don't generally worry about it. (BTW, the basic problem is older than hockey, since LaPlace was working on it circa 1800. What's your best guess probability that an event will happen, given that it's never happened in some number of chances? If you use the fraction of times you've already seen it as an estimate, you get zero, but you probably don't want to say it's literally impossible. The Bayes-Laplace rule of succession is basically what you get if you at two extra "fictitious trials", one where it occurred and one where it didn't.)
Ties are a huge pain in the ass, and complicate everything, so it's often easier to pretend they don't exist (or rather that past ties are half wins and half losses and future ties are something we don't talk about), especially since they become impossible once the playoffs start.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: KGR11Here's an example of the issue with using KRACH to predict final pairwise:
Cornell (KRACH Rating: 526) is playing St Lawrence (KRACH Rating: 11) in a few weeks. My understanding is that the ratings can be used to come up with a pseudo-record between the two teams (Cornell with 526 wins, St Lawrence with 11). The Monte Carlo simulation uses this record to determine how often Cornell wins. In this case, the model predicts they win 98% of the time.
jfeath's regression analysis from 2 years ago shows that a team with a KRACH winning percentage of 100% theoretically wins about 83.4% of the time, 14.5% lower than what KRACH states for the Cornell-St Lawrence game.
I think it makes sense for 83.4% to be an upper bound on winning percentage. Any goalie can have an incredible/incredibly bad day. Also, the fact that there are ties in hockey means that the winning percentage should be more weighted to 50% than a sport where you can't have ties.
Ideally, jfeath's regression analysis would be an in-between step in the Pairwise probability matrix to convert the KRACH winning percentages (which show what happened to date) to predictive winning percentages.
Even if the Bradley-Terry model is "correct" (whatever that means) there are two potential problems with using KRACH to predict the outcome of a mismatch:
One, KRACH is a maximum-likelihood estimate of a team's Bradley-Terry strength, whereas any estimate of the Bradley-Terry parameters based on a finite amount of data has some uncertainty in it. Ordinarily that's not such a big deal for assigning probabilities to the outcome of one game: the ratio of Cornell's strength to Clarkson's might be higher or lower than our best guess, but that means we might have over- or under-estimated it, and so the uncertainty probably washes out. But when the best guess is something like 50-to-1, that uncertainty can make a big difference in a more careful estimate of the probabilities. As an oversimplified version, suppose the "correct" odds might be 100-to-1 or 25-to-1, but we don't know which. Then the probability of an upset would be the average of 1.0% and 3.8%, which is 2.4% or about 40-to-1 against, not 50-to-1. I.e., the uncertainty naturally biases our expectation of the true probability away from the extremes, because having maybe somewhat overestimated the magnitude of the upset is a bigger effect than having maybe somewhat underestimated it. This is the issue we addressed in this paper, with a specific example discussed on this forum of the Cornell-Quinnipiac quarterfinal series from a few years back: http://dx.doi.org/10.13164/ma.2019.09 http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04226
Two, the maximum-likelihood analysis doesn't take into account any prior expectations about the possible discrepancies in teams' strengths, which means it's equivalent to making your prior information completely noninformative. This is a well-known effect which leads to undefeated teams having infinite KRACH ratings, and it's why Ken Butler put the "fictitious games" into KRACH for a while (the maximum likelihood estimates with fictitious games turn out to be the maximum a posteriori estimates with a particular prior distribution). But this is almost always a pretty small effect by this point in the season, so we don't generally worry about it. (BTW, the basic problem is older than hockey, since LaPlace was working on it circa 1800. What's your best guess probability that an event will happen, given that it's never happened in some number of chances? If you use the fraction of times you've already seen it as an estimate, you get zero, but you probably don't want to say it's literally impossible. The Bayes-Laplace rule of succession is basically what you get if you at two extra "fictitious trials", one where it occurred and one where it didn't.)
Ties are a huge pain in the ass, and complicate everything, so it's often easier to pretend they don't exist (or rather that past ties are half wins and half losses and future ties are something we don't talk about), especially since they become impossible once the playoffs start.
I'm thinking LaPlace spent more time on this problem than he did arguing with Amoureux des Ours.::bolt::
Question for either everyone or just those with admin powers:
Can we have a dedicated thread for all things KRACH, PWR, probablities etc? And if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
Less thread drift in this would be great, plus the historical info on the subjects would still be in the same threads for reference.
Quote from: abmarksAnd if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
This is silly. If you have a problem with drift ask somebody to move their own post. Don't burden the mods with it.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: abmarksAnd if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
This is silly. If you have a problem with drift ask somebody to move their own post. Don't burden the mods with it.
Maybe we need a thread to discuss thread drift.
Quote from: nshapiroQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: abmarksAnd if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
This is silly. If you have a problem with drift ask somebody to move their own post. Don't burden the mods with it.
Maybe we need a thread to discuss thread drift.
No, we should just discuss that in every thread...
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: nshapiroQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: abmarksAnd if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
This is silly. If you have a problem with drift ask somebody to move their own post. Don't burden the mods with it.
Maybe we need a thread to discuss thread drift.
No, we should just discuss that in every thread...
I think what's missing is the statistical analysis of thread drift. One should be able to predict the direction and verbosity of the drift based on the number of times each registered user accesses eLynah. JTW might have some spare time to tackle this.
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: nshapiroQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: abmarksAnd if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
This is silly. If you have a problem with drift ask somebody to move their own post. Don't burden the mods with it.
Maybe we need a thread to discuss thread drift.
No, we should just discuss that in every thread...
I think what's missing is the statistical analysis of thread drift. One should be able to predict the direction and verbosity of the drift based on the number of times each registered user accesses eLynah. JTW might have some spare time to tackle this.
Only sissies use advanced metrics to predict thread drift. Real men use the eye test.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: abmarksAnd if so, more. Importantly, can we move posts and or threads that drift into the theory and minutia debates over to there in the future as they crop up?
This is silly. If you have a problem with drift ask somebody to move their own post. Don't burden the mods with it.
Fair enough. I'm used to mod-driven forums to assumed it was the same on here.
USCHO: Bracketology: Which bubble teams have a shot at playing for an NCAA hockey national championship? (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/20/bracketology-which-bubble-teams-have-a-shot-at-playing-for-an-ncaa-hockey-national-championship/)
Jayson's
Worcester
1 North Dakota
7 Clarkson
9 Northeastern
16 AIC
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
8 Massachusetts
10 Penn State
15 Minnesota
Albany
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
11 Arizona State
14 Maine
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Ohio State
Jim's
Albany
1 North Dakota
7 Clarkson
9 Northeastern
16 AIC
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
8 Massachusetts
10 Penn State
15 Minnesota
Worcester
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
11 Arizona State
14 Maine
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Ohio State
Quote from: Jim HylaUSCHO: Bracketology: Which bubble teams have a shot at playing for an NCAA hockey national championship? (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/20/bracketology-which-bubble-teams-have-a-shot-at-playing-for-an-ncaa-hockey-national-championship/)
Jayson's
Worcester
1 North Dakota
7 Clarkson
9 Northeastern
16 AIC
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
8 Massachusetts
10 Penn State
15 Minnesota
Albany
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
11 Arizona State
14 Maine
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Ohio State
Jim's
Albany
1 North Dakota
7 Clarkson
9 Northeastern
16 AIC
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
8 Massachusetts
10 Penn State
15 Minnesota
Worcester
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
11 Arizona State
14 Maine
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Ohio State
Marty says "North Dakota earned the right to stay out west!" And "Why give Duluth an easier path to three-peat?"
This also allows for less travel for the teams in Allentown and Worcester.
Albany3 Cornell[/u]
14 Maine
8 U Mass
7 ClarksonAllentown4 Minnesota Duluth
13 tOSU
9 Northeastern
10 Penn State
Worcester2 Minn State Mankato
15 Mass Lowell
6 Boston College
11 Arizona State
Loveland1 North Dakota
16 AIC
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
I've critiqued the Pairwise Probability Matrix the last couple of weeks, but I think it's worth stating that it is WAY better suited to answer the question posed in this week's USCHO bracketology post (Which bubble teams have a shot at playing for an NCAA hockey national championship?).
Has anyone ever used advanced statistical methods to determine the accuracy of past predictions of hockey game winners or the accuracy of past playoff seeding predictions? Please advise. I hate to waste my time studying inaccurate computations when I could be assessing promises made by presidential candidates.
Quote from: osorojoHas anyone ever used advanced statistical methods to determine the accuracy of past predictions of hockey game winners or the accuracy of past playoff seeding predictions? Please advise. I hate to waste my time studying inaccurate computations when I could be assessing promises made by presidential candidates.
Could you maybe move this to Twitter?
Quote from: KGR11I've critiqued the Pairwise Probability Matrix the last couple of weeks, but I think it's worth stating that it is WAY better suited to answer the question posed in this week's USCHO bracketology post (Which bubble teams have a shot at playing for an NCAA hockey national championship?).
The matrix never knows which shot hits the fricking post and goes in.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: KGR11I've critiqued the Pairwise Probability Matrix the last couple of weeks, but I think it's worth stating that it is WAY better suited to answer the question posed in this week's USCHO bracketology post (Which bubble teams have a shot at playing for an NCAA hockey national championship?).
The matrix never knows which shot hits the fricking post and goes in.
Red pill or blue pill?
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: billhowardQuote from: KGR11I've critiqued the Pairwise Probability Matrix the last couple of weeks, but I think it's worth stating that it is WAY better suited to answer the question posed in this week's USCHO bracketology post (Which bubble teams have a shot at playing for an NCAA hockey national championship?).
The matrix never knows which shot hits the fricking post and goes in.
Red pill or blue pill?
LET'S GO RED!!!!
Quote from: osorojoHas anyone ever used advanced statistical methods to determine the accuracy of past predictions of hockey game winners or the accuracy of past playoff seeding predictions? Please advise. I hate to waste my time studying inaccurate computations when I could be assessing promises made by presidential candidates.
Not exactly past predictions, but see Section 3.1 of http://dx.doi.org/10.13164/ma.2019.09 http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04226
Bracketology: Will top-end balance continue in NCAA hockey up until Selection Sunday? (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/26/bracketology-will-top-end-balance-continue-in-ncaa-hockey-up-until-upcoming-selection-sunday/)
Jim's bracket
Allentown Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Loveland Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Denver (6)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
Jayson's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (5)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
NCAA hockey bracket: 2020 projections a month from selections (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-02-26/ncaa-hockey-bracket-projections-2020-tournament)
The projected 2020 NCAA college hockey bracket (as of Feb. 23)
Albany Regional (Albany, NY — Host ECAC)
1. North Dakota vs. 16. AIC
8. Massachusetts vs. 9. Ohio State
Worcester Regional (Worcester, MA — Host Holy Cross)
4. Boston College vs. 13. Arizona State
5. Minnesota Duluth vs. 12. Northeastern
Allentown Regional (Allentown, PA — Host Penn State)
3. Cornell vs. 14. Minnesota
7. Penn State vs. 11. Bemidji State
Loveland Regional (Loveland, CO — Host Denver)
2. Minnesota State vs. 15. Western Michigan
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
It would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Quote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Do we imbue Penn State with greater powers than they have? They have failed to win 14 of their 34 games. Tambroni is not coaching hockey. In Albany the bracket du jour would allow only Cornell or Clarkson to get to the FF. I'd like to reprise 1970 in the finals. See if Kaldis is up to a third period hat trick.
Quote from: Jim HylaBracketology: Will top-end balance continue in NCAA hockey up until Selection Sunday? (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/26/bracketology-will-top-end-balance-continue-in-ncaa-hockey-up-until-upcoming-selection-sunday/)
Jim's bracket
Allentown Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Loveland Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Denver (6)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
Jayson's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (5)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
NCAA hockey bracket: 2020 projections a month from selections (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-02-26/ncaa-hockey-bracket-projections-2020-tournament)
The projected 2020 NCAA college hockey bracket (as of Feb. 23)
Albany Regional (Albany, NY — Host ECAC)
1. North Dakota vs. 16. AIC
8. Massachusetts vs. 9. Ohio State
Worcester Regional (Worcester, MA — Host Holy Cross)
4. Boston College vs. 13. Arizona State
5. Minnesota Duluth vs. 12. Northeastern
Allentown Regional (Allentown, PA — Host Penn State)
3. Cornell vs. 14. Minnesota
7. Penn State vs. 11. Bemidji State
Loveland Regional (Loveland, CO — Host Denver)
2. Minnesota State vs. 15. Western Michigan
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
Marty's bracketLoveland Regional1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (6)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional1. Cornell (3)2. Massachusetts (8)
3. t.Ohio State u. (9)
4. Minnesota (14)
The only move I made was to push Denver(6) and Bemidji(11) to Loveland as a pair which then moved Mass(8) and tOSu(9) to Albany. All of my first round matches add to 17 unless I've erred.
Quote from: martyQuote from: Jim HylaBracketology: Will top-end balance continue in NCAA hockey up until Selection Sunday? (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/26/bracketology-will-top-end-balance-continue-in-ncaa-hockey-up-until-upcoming-selection-sunday/)
Jim's bracket
Allentown Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Loveland Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Denver (6)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
Jayson's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (5)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
NCAA hockey bracket: 2020 projections a month from selections (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-02-26/ncaa-hockey-bracket-projections-2020-tournament)
The projected 2020 NCAA college hockey bracket (as of Feb. 23)
Albany Regional (Albany, NY — Host ECAC)
1. North Dakota vs. 16. AIC
8. Massachusetts vs. 9. Ohio State
Worcester Regional (Worcester, MA — Host Holy Cross)
4. Boston College vs. 13. Arizona State
5. Minnesota Duluth vs. 12. Northeastern
Allentown Regional (Allentown, PA — Host Penn State)
3. Cornell vs. 14. Minnesota
7. Penn State vs. 11. Bemidji State
Loveland Regional (Loveland, CO — Host Denver)
2. Minnesota State vs. 15. Western Michigan
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
Marty's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (6)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. t.Ohio State u. (9)
4. Minnesota (14)
The only move I made was to push Denver(6) and Bemidji(11) to Loveland as a pair which then moved Mass(8) and tOSu(9) to Albany. All of my first round matches add to 17 unless I've erred.
Denver and NoDak fans would throw a fit
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Do we imbue Penn State with greater powers than they have? They have failed to win 14 of their 34 games. Tambroni is not coaching hockey. In Albany the bracket du jour would allow only Cornell or Clarkson to get to the FF. I'd like to reprise 1970 in the finals. See if Kaldis is up to a third period hat trick.
I've had quite enough of playing teams at "neutral" sites in their backyard.
It hadn't occured to me before but it's entirely possible that if Cornell makes the F4 we will be the closest school to Detroit.
Fill the barn, people.
Quote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
And it would be nice if you stopped calling it that.
Quote from: martyMarty's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (6)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. t.Ohio State u. (9)
4. Minnesota (14)
The only move I made was to push Denver(6) and Bemidji(11) to Loveland as a pair which then moved Mass(8) and tOSu(9) to Albany. All of my first round matches add to 17 unless I've erred.
That's Jeff's bracket, too, for exactly the same reason. Great minds...
Quote from: CU2007Quote from: martyQuote from: Jim HylaBracketology: Will top-end balance continue in NCAA hockey up until Selection Sunday? (https://www.uscho.com/2020/02/26/bracketology-will-top-end-balance-continue-in-ncaa-hockey-up-until-upcoming-selection-sunday/)
Jim's bracket
Allentown Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Loveland Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Denver (6)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
Jayson's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (5)
3. Ohio State (9)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Minnesota (14)
NCAA hockey bracket: 2020 projections a month from selections (https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2020-02-26/ncaa-hockey-bracket-projections-2020-tournament)
The projected 2020 NCAA college hockey bracket (as of Feb. 23)
Albany Regional (Albany, NY — Host ECAC)
1. North Dakota vs. 16. AIC
8. Massachusetts vs. 9. Ohio State
Worcester Regional (Worcester, MA — Host Holy Cross)
4. Boston College vs. 13. Arizona State
5. Minnesota Duluth vs. 12. Northeastern
Allentown Regional (Allentown, PA — Host Penn State)
3. Cornell vs. 14. Minnesota
7. Penn State vs. 11. Bemidji State
Loveland Regional (Loveland, CO — Host Denver)
2. Minnesota State vs. 15. Western Michigan
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
Marty's bracket
Loveland Regional
1. North Dakota (1)
2. Denver (6)
3. Bemidji State (11)
4. American International (16)
Worcester Regional
1. Boston College (4)
2. Minnesota Duluth (5)
3. Northeastern (12)
4. Arizona State (13)
Allentown Regional
1. Minnesota State (2)
2. Penn State (7)
3. Clarkson (10)
4. Western Michigan (15)
Albany Regional
1. Cornell (3)
2. Massachusetts (8)
3. t.Ohio State u. (9)
4. Minnesota (14)
The only move I made was to push Denver(6) and Bemidji(11) to Loveland as a pair which then moved Mass(8) and tOSu(9) to Albany. All of my first round matches add to 17 unless I've erred.
Denver and NoDak fans would throw a fit
::whistle::
Quote from: CU2007Denver and NoDak fans would throw a fit
One way or another the NoDak fans will be upset. Either they'll complain about having to play Denver in their backyard (never mind how many times the regional has been in Fargo) or they'll complain about having to travel to the east coast. They won't be satisfied either way, so just take them out of the equation.
As to Denver, if they want not to have to play a higher seed, they need to move up to #4. They're already getting a home series. F' em.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
And it would be nice if you stopped calling it that.
You know what would have been even nicer?
If it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Do we imbue Penn State with greater powers than they have? They have failed to win 14 of their 34 games. Tambroni is not coaching hockey. In Albany the bracket du jour would allow only Cornell or Clarkson to get to the FF. I'd like to reprise 1970 in the finals. See if Kaldis is up to a third period hat trick.
As much as I hate to do this, because Albany & Worcester are easiest for me to travel to, +1. (I'd even go for a Barron hat trick.)
Quote from: Jim HylaLoveland Regional (Loveland, CO — Host Denver)
2. Minnesota State vs. 15. Western Michigan
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
Clarkson won't be altitude adapted. One and done.
Quote from: adamwIf it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
I like the bracketeers who put Clarkson and Penn State in the 2-3 or 3-2 slots in Allentown, and Cornell in Albany. Gives Cornell the possibility of reprising the 1970 final.
As for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
Quote from: TrotskyIt hadn't occured to me before but it's entirely possible that if Cornell makes the F4 we will be the closest school to Detroit.
Fill the barn, people.
Little Caesars arena is a nicer barn than the Joe. A bit more kneeroom, too.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: adamwIf it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
I like the bracketeers who put Clarkson and Penn State in the 2-3 or 3-2 slots in Allentown, and Cornell in Albany. Gives Cornell the possibility of reprising the 1970 final.
As for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
But I'd rather take them on in Detroit than in Allentown.
Quote from: billhowardAs for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
Providence called...
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardAs for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
Providence called...
They said..."You suck!" ???
I don't care about if or when we run into Penn State.
I just care about where we run into Penn State. Tired of being the favorite in opposing territory.
I was hoping that Denver could move back up to #4. That way we could be 100% certain that we wouldn't have to go to Loveland. With Denver at #6, they could still screw us over and send us west.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Do we imbue Penn State with greater powers than they have? They have failed to win 14 of their 34 games. Tambroni is not coaching hockey. In Albany the bracket du jour would allow only Cornell or Clarkson to get to the FF. I'd like to reprise 1970 in the finals. See if Kaldis is up to a third period hat trick.
I've had quite enough of playing teams at "neutral" sites in their backyard.
If only there was some way Cornell could host a regional and guarantee it stays local. Maybe there's a long list of schools that want to host and we have to wait for a chance.
Quote from: NCAARegional competition for the DI Men's Ice Hockey Championship will take place March 27-29 at four regional sites. For 2020, the East regional has been awarded to the Times Union Center in Albany, New York, and will be hosted by ECAC Hockey on March 28-29, while the Northeast regional will be held March 27-28 at the DCU Center in Worcester, Massachusetts, with Holy Cross serving as the host. The Midwest regional will be hosted by Penn State on March 28-29 at the PPL Center in Allentown, Pennsylvania, while Denver will be the host school for the West regional March 27-28 at the Budweiser Events Center in Loveland, Colorado.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
And it would be nice if you stopped calling it that.
Be nicer if Penn State felt remorse and contrition for longer than a freshman stays at Kentucky playing basketball.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
And it would be nice if you stopped calling it that.
You know what would have been even nicer?
+1
It becomes even worse i suppose if Minn Duluth becomes the 4. Then would they really move 2 of then east and leave Denver to play at home and make 2 higher seeded teams come east?
But if Denver wins out how far up the PWR do they move?
2 losses could have knocked PSU out or down to 12-13ish but the b10 format means they only at worst can lose 1 game.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Do we imbue Penn State with greater powers than they have? They have failed to win 14 of their 34 games. Tambroni is not coaching hockey. In Albany the bracket du jour would allow only Cornell or Clarkson to get to the FF. I'd like to reprise 1970 in the finals. See if Kaldis is up to a third period hat trick.
I've had quite enough of playing teams at "neutral" sites in their backyard.
If only there was some way Cornell could host a regional and guarantee it stays local. Maybe there's a long list of schools that want to host and we have to wait for a chance.
Quote from: NCAARegional competition for the DI Men's Ice Hockey Championship will take place March 27-29 at four regional sites. For 2020, the East regional has been awarded to the Times Union Center in Albany, New York, and will be hosted by ECAC Hockey on March 28-29, while the Northeast regional will be held March 27-28 at the DCU Center in Worcester, Massachusetts, with Holy Cross serving as the host. The Midwest regional will be hosted by Penn State on March 28-29 at the PPL Center in Allentown, Pennsylvania, while Denver will be the host school for the West regional March 27-28 at the Budweiser Events Center in Loveland, Colorado.
Let me just state the obvious questions. This would imply that at least one ECAC team has the "home team right" in Albany. Is this true or not? And if it's true, how is that home team selected?
I thought this just meant it was coordinated by the ECAC as a whole and thus no team got the extra benefit?
As to why the Cornell AD staff doesnt bother to even try some years to be the host , I guess they are too busy in any given years doing something?
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyIt would be nice to avoid Pedo State in Allentown.
Do we imbue Penn State with greater powers than they have? They have failed to win 14 of their 34 games. Tambroni is not coaching hockey. In Albany the bracket du jour would allow only Cornell or Clarkson to get to the FF. I'd like to reprise 1970 in the finals. See if Kaldis is up to a third period hat trick.
I've had quite enough of playing teams at "neutral" sites in their backyard.
If only there was some way Cornell could host a regional and guarantee it stays local. Maybe there's a long list of schools that want to host and we have to wait for a chance.
Quote from: NCAARegional competition for the DI Men's Ice Hockey Championship will take place March 27-29 at four regional sites. For 2020, the East regional has been awarded to the Times Union Center in Albany, New York, and will be hosted by ECAC Hockey on March 28-29, while the Northeast regional will be held March 27-28 at the DCU Center in Worcester, Massachusetts, with Holy Cross serving as the host. The Midwest regional will be hosted by Penn State on March 28-29 at the PPL Center in Allentown, Pennsylvania, while Denver will be the host school for the West regional March 27-28 at the Budweiser Events Center in Loveland, Colorado.
Let me just state the obvious questions. This would imply that at least one ECAC team has the "home team right" in Albany. Is this true or not? And if it's true, how is that home team selected?
I'm sure someone will clarify but in the meantime IIRC when the ECAC hosts there is no team host. It gives us no protection.
Were I Cornell I would be hosting every regional in New York State. Apparently there is expense and time involved and god knows a school with our endowment can't afford to hire one FTE to do nothing but make sure the paperwork gets filed correctly. Or, I dunno, ask me to do it for free.
Quote from: upprdeckI thought this just meant it was coordinated by the ECAC as a whole and thus no team got the extra benefit?
As to why the Cornell AD staff doesnt bother to even try some years to be the host , I guess they are too busy in any given years doing something?
I assumed Albany got no invididual-college volunteers and Cornell like the others looked at the workoad with no benefit - OTHER THAN EVEN AS A FOUR-SEED CORNELL WOULD STAY LOCAL - and didn't volunteer. We all can remember Cornell hosting an NCAA lax regional ~ 10 years ago and there were a couple screwups like Schoellkopf running out of food at the concession stands.
Maybe the Johnson School could take on Albany or Allentown in a future years as a charity case. Then all the involved students could add a sports-marketing line to their resumes.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: adamwIf it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
I like the bracketeers who put Clarkson and Penn State in the 2-3 or 3-2 slots in Allentown, and Cornell in Albany. Gives Cornell the possibility of reprising the 1970 final.
As for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
But I'd rather take them on in Detroit than in Allentown.
If there *is* a Detroit. A friend put it out there a few days ago, and I'm starting to worry.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articles/coronavirus_could_force_cancellation_of_two_major_hockey_tournaments/s1_14825_31451024
Quote from: billhowardIf only there was some way Cornell could host a regional and guarantee it stays local. Maybe there's a long list of schools that want to host and we have to wait for a chance.
Our Athletic Department has never indicated it would even consider lifting a finger to host anything. They can't even host a single hockey game at MSG without outside help, and it's basically the same every year.
they could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
its also different hosting a world event with travelers than a US event with travelers.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: adamwIf it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
I like the bracketeers who put Clarkson and Penn State in the 2-3 or 3-2 slots in Allentown, and Cornell in Albany. Gives Cornell the possibility of reprising the 1970 final.
As for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
But I'd rather take them on in Detroit than in Allentown.
If there *is* a Detroit. A friend put it out there a few days ago, and I'm starting to worry.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articles/coronavirus_could_force_cancellation_of_two_major_hockey_tournaments/s1_14825_31451024
Don't even, muthafucka. ::cuss::
Quote from: upprdeckthey could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
You're assuming the ECAC would've been willing to shoulder the lion's share of the cost and workload just so one specific member team can get a location benefit for the regionals.
More generally, I suspect you all are grossly under-estimating the potential cost outlay and logistical complexity of organizing an event of this scale. This isn't a family reunion on the Jersey Shore (which, incidentally, is much harder to organize without some local connections), it's a multi-day one-off major sporting event featuring a set of participants from four schools of unknown size and location. Doing logistics management with a few phone calls and one or two site visits is a recipe for disaster.
If Cornell was actually in Albany or Syracuse that'd be one thing, but it isn't (although Syracuse is a more reasonable target if their AHL arena is sufficient for NCAA regional purposes). As much as I'd love to see the home ice advantage for the regional I don't see why Cornell would ever take it on, unless it turns out that it really is a few phone calls and some chance of losing $10k or something. I just can't imagine that's the case.
Quote from: upprdeckthey could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
What is sad is that a small essentially D3 school, RPI, used to host at Albany. I don't knock them for giving that up but geez Cornell could do it.
Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: upprdeckthey could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
You're assuming the ECAC would've been willing to shoulder the lion's share of the cost and workload just so one specific member team can get a location benefit for the regionals.
More generally, I suspect you all are grossly under-estimating the potential cost outlay and logistical complexity of organizing an event of this scale. This isn't a family reunion on the Jersey Shore (which, incidentally, is much harder to organize without some local connections), it's a multi-day one-off major sporting event featuring a set of participants from four schools of unknown size and location. Doing logistics management with a few phone calls and one or two site visits is a recipe for disaster.
If Cornell was actually in Albany or Syracuse that'd be one thing, but it isn't (although Syracuse is a more reasonable target if their AHL arena is sufficient for NCAA regional purposes). As much as I'd love to see the home ice advantage for the regional I don't see why Cornell would ever take it on, unless it turns out that it really is a few phone calls and some chance of losing $10k or something. I just can't imagine that's the case.
It's money. All the effort you can (and should) subcontract to somebody who knows what they are doing (emphatically
not the Cornell athletic office).
It's just not a priority for throwing money around. Budget is politics and driven by trophies that political players can put on their walls. So you get a faddish initiative or a big grant or you destroy some more of Cornell's greenspace for yet another godawful builiding. Nobody's going to speak for hosting a hockey tournament that doesn't even include the women. My god,
that Trustees meeting is not something anybody would want to try to speak at. "I'm sorry, you want to
what?"
And that's good. We're fucked enough in what we pour money into that has nothing to do with our academic mission. We shouldn't be in the SEC business of wasting academic resources on jock bullshit.
It just sucks.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: adamwIf it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
I like the bracketeers who put Clarkson and Penn State in the 2-3 or 3-2 slots in Allentown, and Cornell in Albany. Gives Cornell the possibility of reprising the 1970 final.
As for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
But I'd rather take them on in Detroit than in Allentown.
If there *is* a Detroit. A friend put it out there a few days ago, and I'm starting to worry.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articles/coronavirus_could_force_cancellation_of_two_major_hockey_tournaments/s1_14825_31451024
So they'll '94 Expo us?
Quote from: French RageQuote from: RichHQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: adamwIf it wasn't for the fact that I'd be scared of losing, I would LOVE to see Cornell-Penn State in the NCAAs. The contrasting coaching philosophy is off the charts interesting.
I like the bracketeers who put Clarkson and Penn State in the 2-3 or 3-2 slots in Allentown, and Cornell in Albany. Gives Cornell the possibility of reprising the 1970 final.
As for not running into Penn State until we have to, I'm sure there's a coach or announcer who's prepped to say if you want to be the best you gotta beat the best.
But I'd rather take them on in Detroit than in Allentown.
If there *is* a Detroit. A friend put it out there a few days ago, and I'm starting to worry.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articles/coronavirus_could_force_cancellation_of_two_major_hockey_tournaments/s1_14825_31451024
So they'll '94 Expo us?
I've already seen some talk of March Madness being played in empty arenas.
Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: upprdeckthey could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
You're assuming the ECAC would've been willing to shoulder the lion's share of the cost and workload just so one specific member team can get a location benefit for the regionals.
More generally, I suspect you all are grossly under-estimating the potential cost outlay and logistical complexity of organizing an event of this scale. This isn't a family reunion on the Jersey Shore (which, incidentally, is much harder to organize without some local connections), it's a multi-day one-off major sporting event featuring a set of participants from four schools of unknown size and location. Doing logistics management with a few phone calls and one or two site visits is a recipe for disaster.
If Cornell was actually in Albany or Syracuse that'd be one thing, but it isn't (although Syracuse is a more reasonable target if their AHL arena is sufficient for NCAA regional purposes). As much as I'd love to see the home ice advantage for the regional I don't see why Cornell would ever take it on, unless it turns out that it really is a few phone calls and some chance of losing $10k or something. I just can't imagine that's the case.
FWIW, the Syracuse War Memorial seats 6500 for hockey. Loveland seats about 5300, Allentown 8500+. So capacity-wise, it's suitable. It hosted the Frozen Four in '67 and '71, but I don't know if it's suitable for a regional of today's standards.
I think a more pertinent question is whether we could fill it? We sometimes have trouble filling Lynah these days. Yes, we can sell a bunch of tickets at MSG, but think of the alumni network we have in NYC. I know we brought a big crowd to the Carrier Dome for the Sweet 16, but could we do that for a "lesser" sport? I'm not sure.
Hasn't Brown co-hosted in Providence? Harvard, in Boston? RPI, in Albany?
And we're talking about the regionals here, not the nationals.
Providence College hosted last year. So consider:
Providence College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_College)
Endowment: $234.2 million
Students: 4,550 (undergraduates + graduates)
Faculty: At 12 students for every instructional faculty member (https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/providence-college/academic-life/faculty-composition/), that's a faculty of 379 members.
Now consider Cornell University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University):
Endowment: $7.33 billion
Students: 24,027 (total)
Faculty: At 9 students for every instructional faculty member (https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/cornell-university/academic-life/faculty-composition/), that's 2,670 faculty members
And, shit, if we can handle splitting colleges between the Ithaca and New York Tech campuses, which are 233 miles (4h 35m by car according to Google Maps), don't tell me we can't handle the commute to Albany (166 mi.; 2h, 53m) or Syracuse (52.5 mi; 1h 2m).
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: upprdeckthey could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
You're assuming the ECAC would've been willing to shoulder the lion's share of the cost and workload just so one specific member team can get a location benefit for the regionals.
More generally, I suspect you all are grossly under-estimating the potential cost outlay and logistical complexity of organizing an event of this scale. This isn't a family reunion on the Jersey Shore (which, incidentally, is much harder to organize without some local connections), it's a multi-day one-off major sporting event featuring a set of participants from four schools of unknown size and location. Doing logistics management with a few phone calls and one or two site visits is a recipe for disaster.
If Cornell was actually in Albany or Syracuse that'd be one thing, but it isn't (although Syracuse is a more reasonable target if their AHL arena is sufficient for NCAA regional purposes). As much as I'd love to see the home ice advantage for the regional I don't see why Cornell would ever take it on, unless it turns out that it really is a few phone calls and some chance of losing $10k or something. I just can't imagine that's the case.
FWIW, the Syracuse War Memorial seats 6500 for hockey. Loveland seats about 5300, Allentown 8500+. So capacity-wise, it's suitable. It hosted the Frozen Four in '67 and '71, but I don't know if it's suitable for a regional of today's standards.
I think a more pertinent question is whether we could fill it? We sometimes have trouble filling Lynah these days. Yes, we can sell a bunch of tickets at MSG, but think of the alumni network we have in NYC. I know we brought a big crowd to the Carrier Dome for the Sweet 16, but could we do that for a "lesser" sport? I'm not sure.
Back in the day, attendance at the SHIT was horrendous. Fun fact: the Syracuse War Memorial is the most depressing place I've ever been to see a hockey game, and I've been to the Tacoma Dome.
Quote from: SwampyHasn't Brown co-hosted in Providence? Harvard, in Boston? RPI, in Albany?
And we're talking about the regionals here, not the nationals.
Providence College hosted last year. So consider:
Providence College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_College)
Endowment: $234.2 million
Students: 4,550 (undergraduates + graduates)
Faculty: At 12 students for every instructional faculty member (https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/providence-college/academic-life/faculty-composition/), that's a faculty of 379 members.
Now consider Cornell University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University):
Endowment: $7.33 billion
Students: 24,027 (total)
Faculty: At 9 students for every instructional faculty member (https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/cornell-university/academic-life/faculty-composition/), that's 2,670 faculty members
And, shit, if we can handle splitting colleges between the Ithaca and New York Tech campuses, which are 233 miles (4h 35m by car according to Google Maps), don't tell me we can't handle the commute to Albany (166 mi.; 2h, 53m) or Syracuse (52.5 mi; 1h 2m).
Is it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: upprdeckthey could have offered to share hosting with the ECAC. its not like making the cut was a wild long shot. it probably would have required a few phone calls and maybe a trip or 2 all the way to Albany. Huge schools like Holy Cross figured out a way to do it.
Probably too overwhelmed by all the other things that they have going on.
You're assuming the ECAC would've been willing to shoulder the lion's share of the cost and workload just so one specific member team can get a location benefit for the regionals.
More generally, I suspect you all are grossly under-estimating the potential cost outlay and logistical complexity of organizing an event of this scale. This isn't a family reunion on the Jersey Shore (which, incidentally, is much harder to organize without some local connections), it's a multi-day one-off major sporting event featuring a set of participants from four schools of unknown size and location. Doing logistics management with a few phone calls and one or two site visits is a recipe for disaster.
If Cornell was actually in Albany or Syracuse that'd be one thing, but it isn't (although Syracuse is a more reasonable target if their AHL arena is sufficient for NCAA regional purposes). As much as I'd love to see the home ice advantage for the regional I don't see why Cornell would ever take it on, unless it turns out that it really is a few phone calls and some chance of losing $10k or something. I just can't imagine that's the case.
FWIW, the Syracuse War Memorial seats 6500 for hockey. Loveland seats about 5300, Allentown 8500+. So capacity-wise, it's suitable. It hosted the Frozen Four in '67 and '71, but I don't know if it's suitable for a regional of today's standards.
I think a more pertinent question is whether we could fill it? We sometimes have trouble filling Lynah these days. Yes, we can sell a bunch of tickets at MSG, but think of the alumni network we have in NYC. I know we brought a big crowd to the Carrier Dome for the Sweet 16, but could we do that for a "lesser" sport? I'm not sure.
The question about filling the War Memorial is a good one. But to answer it, we should compare it to Loveland, Allentown, and Albany. In any case, as I argued above, we should be able to host Albany, Buffalo, or Binghamton almost as well as Syracuse.
Maybe a bigger issue is whether the neoliberal city fathers (and mothers -- "city parents"?) would welcome, boost, and contribute to Cornell hosting an event in their cities the same way as those in Providence welcome PC, Allentown welcome PSU, Loveland welcomes DU, etc.
You know what solves all this?
Campus sites for the first two rounds.
Just sayin'.
IINM there's nothing scheduled beyond 2022. Senior Ben Berard could score an NCAA QF hat trick at Lynah.
Cornell's NC$$ game locations (had matchups stayed the same):
[b][u]Yr Actual Co Op Campus Site [/u] [/b]
96 Albany E6 E3 at Lake Superior
[i][color=#0033CC]97 Grand Rapids W6 W3 at Miami[/color][/i]
97 Grand Rapids W6 W2 at North Dakota
02 Worcester E4 E5 Quinnipiac
02 Worcester E4 E1 at UNH
03 Providence E1 E4 Mankato
03 Providence E1 E2 BC
05 Minneapolis W2 W3 Ohio State
05 Minneapolis W2 W1 at Minnesota
06 Green Bay W2 W3 CC
06 Green Bay W2 W1 at Wisconsin
09 Grand Rapids M3 M2 Northeastern
[b]09 Grand Rapids M3 M4 Bemidji[/b]
[b]10 Albany E2 E3 UNH[/b]
[i][color=#0033CC]12 Green Bay M4 M1 at Michigan[/color][/i]
12 Green Bay M4 M2 at Ferris State
17 Manchester N3 N2 at Lowell
[b]18 Worcester N1 N4 BU[/b]
[i][color=#0033CC]19 Providence E3 E2 at Northeastern[/color][/i]
[b]19 Providence E3 E4 Providence[/b]
Games we won which we would have had to play on the road.
Games we lost which we would have gotten to play at home.
Yeah there is a cost/time outlay. But its also spread out over multiple months, Its not 40 hrs a week for 10 months thing like an olympics. In a world where meetings of a much larger importance are routinely handled over phone/zoom/etc dont say it cant be done.. its a logistics thing and it requires effort more than cost. It also requires a skill set that we probably lack. I do know they consider it and effort worth spending.. But if this was the wrestling team getting trying to win a championship it would happen.
They dont even want to host the Lax Ivy or NCAA regional playoffs at home so I can see why they dont do it..
Its not like we expect it to happen every yr. But bigger picture they should forecast it every once awhile
Quote from: upprdeckYeah there is a cost/time outlay. But its also spread out over multiple months, Its not 40 hrs a week for 10 months thing like an olympics. In a world where meetings of a much larger importance are routinely handled over phone/zoom/etc dont say it cant be done.. its a logistics thing and it requires effort more than cost. It also requires a skill set that we probably lack. I do know they consider it and effort worth spending.. But if this was the wrestling team getting trying to win a championship it would happen.
They dont even want to host the Lax Ivy or NCAA regional playoffs at home so I can see why they dont do it..
Its not like we expect it to happen every yr. But bigger picture they should forecast it every once awhile
I hate to tempt the woofing gods, but at least our men's hockey team looks very good this year and next. And on paper, at least, for quite a few years to come.
So, after posting the polls, etc. I start reading the 29 posts on Bracketology that have come up since I checked in the morning.
I was hopeful for something exciting, like maybe an early announcement about the next 10 years of the tourney, or SU decided to start a men's team and as part of the Dome renovation they were going to add ice and start trying to get the regionals/Frozen Four.
But what do I plow through, endless comments about why can't CU host a regional, it must be that they don't care, or they're too cheap, or whatever.
No one bothers to try and find out what is needed to be a host, which seems to me to be the first step upon discussing whether CU could/should go for it.
If you really want to help, get the requirements in money (including what is risked if no crowd shows up), time and other effort. Post the info and see whether you can stir up some interest.
Or you can just post your complaints and theories as to why it must be that CU won't do what must be cheap and simple.
After all, doesn't the NCAA have dozens and dozens of places asking to host every year? They must know something that CU doesn't, don't they?
Quote from: Jim HylaAfter all, doesn't the NCAA have dozens and dozens of places asking to host every year? They must know something that CU doesn't, don't they?
all I know is that other schools do it and every time they do we have to play them at their place
The host must also provide all public relations coordination, first aid and medical services, food and beverage concessions, support personnel, computers, fax machines, printers, athletic training staff, and "other items as later requested by the NCAA." To accomplish this, each site requires about 100 volunteers.
you can read the rest. somethings like spend $5000 to market the games and make sure they make $150,000 is interesting.
Much of this though is done by the site, you dont just get an area/arena to go into this without some help from them as well.
so you want to be a host (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/icehockey/d1/men/2020-22D1MIH_RegionalBidSpecs.pdf)
really though, much of the spec is facility related.. you have to be willing to market the game a little and make sure hotel and some other stuff happens.. If you join in with Albany I have to think they are doing most of that heavy lifting and have done it dozens of times.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaAfter all, doesn't the NCAA have dozens and dozens of places asking to host every year? They must know something that CU doesn't, don't they?
all I know is that other schools do it and every time they do we have to play them at their place
I think we all know the problem. The difficulty is the solution. So far on this thread I read a lot about the problem, whining about CU not hosting, and no discussion about the solution.
The line you quoted was meant to emphasize that the NCAA doesn't have an abundance of schools/other entities that apply for hosting a regional.
Maybe, just maybe, many of them have looked at the process and determined that the risk is not worth the reward. If that's true, then the problem is not that schools don't apply, but that the NCAA is asking too much.
I don't know what is the problem. But I do know that to come up with an answer, you first need to understand the problem. Otherwise all we do is whine.
Adam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
I nominate Greg.
Quote from: Jim HylaAdam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: Adam WodonNow, I don't really think Cornell should fear a potential second-round game in Allentown against Penn State. There would be at least as many Cornell fans there as Penn State fans. And I am fascinated by the idea of seeing Cornell face Penn State in the NCAAs, with contrasting styles. But I know Cornell people prefer Albany, so there's that.
Adam,
The issue is much bigger than how many fans are in the stands. If this were solely the case, Cornell would almost always be at an advantage.
Read some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Jim HylaAdam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: Adam WodonNow, I don't really think Cornell should fear a potential second-round game in Allentown against Penn State. There would be at least as many Cornell fans there as Penn State fans. And I am fascinated by the idea of seeing Cornell face Penn State in the NCAAs, with contrasting styles. But I know Cornell people prefer Albany, so there's that.
Adam,
The issue is much bigger than how many fans are in the stands. If this were solely the case, Cornell would almost always be at an advantage.
Read some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Would we even head back to Ithaca from Albany between games?
Quote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
I nominate Greg.
I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that?
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: SwampyQuote from: Jim HylaAdam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: Adam WodonNow, I don't really think Cornell should fear a potential second-round game in Allentown against Penn State. There would be at least as many Cornell fans there as Penn State fans. And I am fascinated by the idea of seeing Cornell face Penn State in the NCAAs, with contrasting styles. But I know Cornell people prefer Albany, so there's that.
Adam,
The issue is much bigger than how many fans are in the stands. If this were solely the case, Cornell would almost always be at an advantage.
Read some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Would we even head back to Ithaca from Albany between games?
Probably not, but BC might head back to Chestnut Hill from a regional in Worcester hosted by, say, Holy Cross.
I believe that currently all teams participating in a regional or Frozen Four are required to stay in a hotel, rather than their dorms or regular college housing. To prevent geographical advantages with facilities, which go beyond hosting the event (see the BC example above), all participating teams, including their coaches, trainers, etc., should be forbidden from using any training or other athletic facility other than one(s) equally available to all teams participating in the event.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
I nominate Greg.
I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that?
This may be why he nominated you. ::popcorn::
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
I nominate Greg.
I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that?
This may be why he nominated you. ::popcorn::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbYgLae1u0
the power went out last yr at the Cornell hotel and they couldnt even watch game film for a good chunk of time while providence was home getting ready.
maybe they should ask the top 4 teams to order their preferences too. maybe ND would rather stay west and play Denver in rd 2 than go east?
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Jim HylaAdam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: Adam WodonNow, I don't really think Cornell should fear a potential second-round game in Allentown against Penn State. There would be at least as many Cornell fans there as Penn State fans. And I am fascinated by the idea of seeing Cornell face Penn State in the NCAAs, with contrasting styles. But I know Cornell people prefer Albany, so there's that.
Adam,
The issue is much bigger than how many fans are in the stands. If this were solely the case, Cornell would almost always be at an advantage.
Read some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
State College is 164 miles from Allentown. Seems to me quite a bit different than Providence playing a few miles from its campus.
I've always thought a neat way to run seeding would be for higher seeds to pick their locations and opponents. Might increase the travel costs too much on the national scene, but it would sure make ECACs interesting.
Quote from: scoop85State College is 164 miles from Allentown. Seems to me quite a bit different than Providence playing a few miles from its campus.
That actually makes me feel a lot better. Thank you. I thought they were closer. That's the distance from Ithaca to Albany. We'll be fine.
Ithaca distances to driveable regionals:
167 Albany
181 Allentown
293 Worcester
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: SwampyQuote from: Jim HylaAdam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: Adam WodonNow, I don't really think Cornell should fear a potential second-round game in Allentown against Penn State. There would be at least as many Cornell fans there as Penn State fans. And I am fascinated by the idea of seeing Cornell face Penn State in the NCAAs, with contrasting styles. But I know Cornell people prefer Albany, so there's that.
Adam,
The issue is much bigger than how many fans are in the stands. If this were solely the case, Cornell would almost always be at an advantage.
Read some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Would we even head back to Ithaca from Albany between games?
Probably not, but BC might head back to Chestnut Hill from a regional in Worcester hosted by, say, Holy Cross.
I believe that currently all teams participating in a regional or Frozen Four are required to stay in a hotel, rather than their dorms or regular college housing. To prevent geographical advantages with facilities, which go beyond hosting the event (see the BC example above), all participating teams, including their coaches, trainers, etc., should be forbidden from using any training or other athletic facility other than one(s) equally available to all teams participating in the event.
Isn't this exactly what the FryBoys did last year? Is this a change or did they just ignore the rule?
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
I nominate Greg.
I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that?
This may be why he nominated you. ::popcorn::
::whistle::
Quote from: martyQuote from: SwampyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: SwampyQuote from: Jim HylaAdam's take on the brackets and the current issues. (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php)
Quote from: Adam WodonNow, I don't really think Cornell should fear a potential second-round game in Allentown against Penn State. There would be at least as many Cornell fans there as Penn State fans. And I am fascinated by the idea of seeing Cornell face Penn State in the NCAAs, with contrasting styles. But I know Cornell people prefer Albany, so there's that.
Adam,
The issue is much bigger than how many fans are in the stands. If this were solely the case, Cornell would almost always be at an advantage.
Read some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Would we even head back to Ithaca from Albany between games?
Probably not, but BC might head back to Chestnut Hill from a regional in Worcester hosted by, say, Holy Cross.
I believe that currently all teams participating in a regional or Frozen Four are required to stay in a hotel, rather than their dorms or regular college housing. To prevent geographical advantages with facilities, which go beyond hosting the event (see the BC example above), all participating teams, including their coaches, trainers, etc., should be forbidden from using any training or other athletic facility other than one(s) equally available to all teams participating in the event.
Isn't this exactly what the FryBoys did last year? Is this a change or did they just ignore the rule?
There is no such rule. Swampy's point is that there should be.
Quote from: SwampyUnfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, ....
Seems like an unnecessary qualifier. It's all about three things:
* The money
* Prefacing
athlete with
student and keeping a straight face when talking about, say, Louisville basketball
* Nice hotels for officialdom at tournaments and off-season conferences
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: scoop85State College is 164 miles from Allentown. Seems to me quite a bit different than Providence playing a few miles from its campus.
That actually makes me feel a lot better. Thank you. I thought they were closer. That's the distance from Ithaca to Albany. We'll be fine.
Ithaca distances to driveable regionals:
167 Albany
181 Allentown
293 Worcester
First two can be day trips for Ithacans. I hope Cornell sets up buses for students and EV owners.
All three are day-trip distances from metro New York. You go out day one. If we have the early game on day one, you have the option if things go well to do a last-minute hotel if there is a second game for Cornell, and if not, shed tears on the drive back and still be home by midnight.
I like to think Worcester would more likely go to the 1-seed from New England so their semi-loyal fans don't have to drive so far. This if BC can be the fourth 1-seed as the only strong Hockey East team this year.
Does the Cornell team fear Penn State, or is it just those of us here online? Will we be more confident if we take down Penn State lax this Saturday?
There is so much what-iffing on this thread (me, guilty, too) that it was nice to see a just-the-facts scenario laid out by Adam Wodon in his CHN column (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/03/02_Bracket-ABCs--The-Playoffs.php). It does feel like Allentown or Albany is where we'll go barring, say, being swept in the ECAC QFs.
Does anybody from Cornell have the opinion that Providence played better on that day last spring?
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
People in the athletics department who are, or believe they are, fully engaged, won't jump at the opportunity to do more work on the chance that Cornell qualifies for the NCAAs and that not being sent west improves the likely outome for the hockey team. The other advantage is that more Cornell fans go to an Albany, Bridgeport, Providence, Worcester or Allentown event than someplace in Michigan or the Rockies.
Quote from: SwampyUnfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
So let me get this straight. You want CU to host a regional, in say Binghamton. Then you want the team sent to Manchester, so that all the fans leave Ithaca.
And CU's supposed to take the risk and make money on that.
I'll take the bet against that, if you'll take the bet for it.
Do we need hosts? Is the Frozen Four "hosted"?
Quote from: DafatoneDo we need hosts? Is the Frozen Four "hosted"?
Yes (https://www.ncaa.com/championships/icehockey-men/d1/future-info).
do i want cornell in albany, where i have a place to stay for free? or in allentown, which turns out to be a closer drive. hmm
Quote from: DafatoneDo we need hosts? Is the Frozen Four "hosted"?
The FF is most definitely hosted.
This year's hosts are Michigan State and Detroit Sports Commission. The University of Wisconsin hosted the most recent FF in Tampa. (https://madison.com/wsj/sports/college/hockey/badgers-men-s-hockey-uw-serves-as-host-school-for/article_8625da1c-96b1-58dd-9923-c9ddce000d56.html) The University of Alaska Anchorage hosted the first Frozen Four I attended in Anaheim, CA.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BeeeejIs it now time for the annual conversation about how endowments work?
Hosting a hockey regional is just like anything else you want Cornell to do that they don't already do. Someone external needs to come up with the money, the will, and the way of getting it done, and they might consider it.
Cornell has over a billion in the general purpose fund. Someone in Athletics can make a pitch to the Trustees.
I nominate Greg.
I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that?
I hadn't heard.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: scoop85State College is 164 miles from Allentown. Seems to me quite a bit different than Providence playing a few miles from its campus.
That actually makes me feel a lot better. Thank you. I thought they were closer. That's the distance from Ithaca to Albany. We'll be fine.
Ithaca distances to driveable regionals:
167 Albany
181 Allentown
293 Worcester
And let me tell you, getting from Ithaca to Albany is a lot more straightforward than getting from State College to Allentown.
Albany to Ithaca is one of the easiest drives ever. I've done it in a little over 2.5 hours without being pulled over (I-88 often has several state troopers)
Quote from: WederQuote from: DafatoneDo we need hosts? Is the Frozen Four "hosted"?
Yes (https://www.ncaa.com/championships/icehockey-men/d1/future-info).
Cripe! As per the link, the 2021 regional sites are:
East, Bridgeport (hosts Yale, Sacred Heart) - 250 miles
Midwest, Fargo (N Dakota) - 1300 miles
NEast, Manchester (UNH) - 400 miles
West, Loveland CO [same site as this year] (Denver) - 1640 miles
FINALS Pittsburgh (Sports Pittsburgh) - 340 miles
... so only Bridgeport is a reasonable drive.
Quote from: ugartedo i want Cornell in Albany, where i have a place to stay for free? or in Allentown, which turns out to be a closer drive. hmm
I have places to stay for free in both Allentown and Worcester. I'll even get free food in Worcester since my sister will cook ::whistle:: But I'd still be perfectly happy going to Albany.
And for those worrying about PPL Center being full of Penn State Fans, as of now it looks like there have been very few tickets sold. Most of the lower bowl (other than those sections being reserved for the schools) and much of the upper sections are still available for both sessions. So either the Penn State alumni aren't interested or they don't understand that Penn State is likely guaranteed to be playing there. But they are advertising it at the Phantoms games and on both the Phantoms and Flyers broadcasts, so if there are general hockey fans who are also Penn State alums, they should be aware of it.
Lastly, when Penn State played Princeton in Philly in 2018, the attendance was about 8500. So they don't bring the numbers like we do at MSG even in Philly. And the last time they were in the NCAAs in Allentown (2018), the semifinal attendance was 7500 in an arena that seats 8500 plus. So I don't think this will be as much of a Penn State home game as people are making out.
Let me just clarify a few things:
[list=1]
- I am simply arguing that home-ice advantage goes beyond the number of fans who show up at the event. In particular, easy access to home athletic support systems can confer a huge advantage.
- Trying to figure out a way to negate this unfair advantage, I initially proposed (at 09:12) requiring the host teams to play at "foreign" sites, like everyone else does. Then (at 10:18) I rethought what I said in my earlier post and proposed instead (what I currently think is) a better solution. Currently, even the home teams have to stay in hotels for the weekend: they're forbidden from sleeping in their usual digs. So I proposed extending this to forbidding all teams from using any athletics-related facilities that are not available to all teams participating in the event. If enforced, this would solve, for example, the problem of, say, BU hosting the event but Harvard going back to Bright between games to pop steroids behind the stands. :-P
- Marty, I'm not sure what you're asking. Yes, the PC team slept in a hotel. But they also went back to campus where they could use the "coaches offices, shooting room, ... meeting rooms, athletic training room, ... video boards, video ribbon boards, ... and a strength and conditioning facility" at Schneider Arena (https://friars.com/sports/2018/6/15/facilities-schneider-arena-html.aspx), or they could go over to the Ruane Athletic Development Center (https://www.yurview.com/all-ball/inside-look-providence-college-ruane-athletic-development-center/) where they could use:
Quotesleep pods, flotation pools, cryogenic therapy, electronic massage, body fat testing, plus access to sports psychologists, team doctors, and x-ray machines when needed. In short, whether it is sleep, hydration, nutrition, or mental health, the athletic staff is clearly taking a holistic approach to meeting the needs of their student athletes.
The article also mentions:
Quote.. two practice [basketball] courts that are being recorded at all times. That means the coaching staff ... [can] integrate everything they are doing from a technology standpoint. When a play happens during practice, the team is immediately able to review it, as the live feed is processed to multiple computers and screens instantaneously, including one big screen that is mounted to the wall next to the court. This also [sic..allows] the staff to not just tell the players what corrections they need to make, but literally show them on screen without having to leave the court or interrupt the flow of practice.
Schneider Arena was renovated in 2013, and I wouldn't be surprised if by now similar technology has been installed there. Imagine the advantage if you give up a goal on the PK in your first game and then can go over to campus for an hour practice where you can study what you did and then work on correcting it.
- Bill, you make good points. I also appreciate Adam's clear, intelligent writing on college hockey. I was just pointing out that fan base in only one advantage local teams -- not just hosts -- have, and perhaps it's not even the most important one.
And yes, Providence did play better that day. They whupped us. The question is how did they do it? There probably are a bunch of answers to this question that are legitimate and deserve a tip of the hat from us, but we'll never know if an hour in cryogenic therapy or a film session on ice, for example, didn't confer an unfair advantage that was unavailable to the other teams. I'm simply arguing (a) not to ignore such advantages (I'm looking at you, Adam) and (b) to find ways to minimize such unfair advantages.
- Bill's point about 2021 is also a good one. But it highlights the inherent advantage New England teams have. For a long time New England and Minnesota were the hotbeds of hockey, and this led to them having several schools with strong hockey traditions. Now there's a fan base and, especially in New England, relatively short distances and lots of schools that can host with little financial risk (if the committee chooses wisely which schools it sends to the venue). This is an inherent geo-historical advantage that probably won't ever be overcome, at least not in our lifetimes. I just think we shouldn't ignore it, and where possible those who govern the sport should do everything possible to minimize unfair advantages.
Quote from: SwampyMarty, I'm not sure what you're asking. Yes, the PC team slept in a hotel...
I was not reading your post properly. I thought you were saying that Providence essentially broke the rules (or perhaps the rules changed after the 2019 season.) I was mistaken.
Quote from: SwampyRead some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Allentown is hours from State College. No one is leaving Allentown to go train at their advanced home facilities.
Everything is driven by money. News flash.
Quote from: SwampyAnd yes, Providence did play better that day. They whupped us. The question is how did they do it? There probably are a bunch of answers to this question that are legitimate and deserve a tip of the hat from us, but we'll never know if an hour in cryogenic therapy or a film session on ice, for example, didn't confer an unfair advantage that was unavailable to the other teams. I'm simply arguing (a) not to ignore such advantages (I'm looking at you, Adam) and (b) to find ways to minimize such unfair advantages.
I couldn't possibly had a chance to ignore it or not, because it's apples and oranges, and not germane to this year's conversation. As mentioned a few times already, Penn State to Allentown is not close - Cornell is barely further, and an easier drive away. So to the extent I ignored this point in that article - it's because it's irrelevant. But really, it just never crossed my mind.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: SwampyRead some of the local newspapers from last year, when they wrote about how the Providence College team could use its advanced training facilities to recuperate between games, and how the coaching staff could use the technology and tools at their home disposal to breakdown films and otherwise strategize for the upcoming second-round game. In this day of modern technology and training methods, home teams that are serious enough to make the NCAA's have a tremendous advantage.
Unfortunately, the NC$$ is driven primarily by money. If it were otherwise, to level the playing field hosting teams making the tournament would automatically be located away from the host city. If the school is enthusiastic enough to host the event, its supporters should be enthusiastic enough to travel to the event.
Of course I realize there are counter arguments about attendance and the atmosphere. But there should be no denying that today's home-ice advantage in the national championship is not your father's home-ice advantage.
Allentown is hours from State College. No one is leaving Allentown to go train at their advanced home facilities.
Everything is driven by money. News flash.
Adam, we are not concerned about the future. We are still trying to re-litigate 2019 and the quote unfairness of the PC advantage. Ignore that the oldest farts among us still recall when Ned (using his first name means "I was there at the creation of the dynasty"] would have the guest locker room windows welded shut and then turn up the locker room heat to 85 degrees.
But, yes, one could argue that fairness says a host team playing in its home city now 2 hours away cannot sneak back to campus to use its facilities, the ones not available to the other teams. The team still has the advantage of getting its fans to the arena on local buses. If such a rule got passed by the NCAA governors / competition committees, would it lead to fewer schools interested in hosting a hockey or field hockey regional.
Quote from: SwampyThe question about filling the War Memorial is a good one. But to answer it, we should compare it to Loveland, Allentown, and Albany. In any case, as I argued above, we should be able to host Albany, Buffalo, or Binghamton almost as well as Syracuse.
No love for Rochester?
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: SwampyThe question about filling the War Memorial is a good one. But to answer it, we should compare it to Loveland, Allentown, and Albany. In any case, as I argued above, we should be able to host Albany, Buffalo, or Binghamton almost as well as Syracuse.
No love for Rochester?
Rochester could be a great venue. Is there a chance RIT would host?
Syracuse hosts Bball with no hope of a home game so they find value in it and thats way more work than a hockey regional.
Quote from: martyQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: SwampyThe question about filling the War Memorial is a good one. But to answer it, we should compare it to Loveland, Allentown, and Albany. In any case, as I argued above, we should be able to host Albany, Buffalo, or Binghamton almost as well as Syracuse.
No love for Rochester?
Rochester could be a great venue. Is there a chance RIT would host?
RIT did that in 2007 - only time the Regional was in Rochester. That was the year Jonathan Quick stood on his head and beat Clarkson 1-0.
Quote from: upprdeckSyracuse hosts Bball with no hope of a home game so they find value in it and thats way more work than a hockey regional.
And that let us play the Sweet Sixteen game an hour from campus.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: martyQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: SwampyThe question about filling the War Memorial is a good one. But to answer it, we should compare it to Loveland, Allentown, and Albany. In any case, as I argued above, we should be able to host Albany, Buffalo, or Binghamton almost as well as Syracuse.
No love for Rochester?
Rochester could be a great venue. Is there a chance RIT would host?
RIT did that in 2007 - only time the Regional was in Rochester. That was the year Jonathan Quick stood on his head and beat Clarkson 1-0.
Did RIT host in Buffalo in 2003?
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: adamwQuote from: martyQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: SwampyThe question about filling the War Memorial is a good one. But to answer it, we should compare it to Loveland, Allentown, and Albany. In any case, as I argued above, we should be able to host Albany, Buffalo, or Binghamton almost as well as Syracuse.
No love for Rochester?
Rochester could be a great venue. Is there a chance RIT would host?
RIT did that in 2007 - only time the Regional was in Rochester. That was the year Jonathan Quick stood on his head and beat Clarkson 1-0.
Did RIT host in Buffalo in 2003?
No, the 2003 hosts were the MAAC, Niagara University, and Canisius College. Not that I remember much after that event started.
Quote from: SwampyYes, the PC team slept in a hotel. But they also went back to campus where they could use the "coaches offices, shooting room, ... meeting rooms, athletic training room, ... video boards, video ribbon boards, ... and a strength and conditioning facility"
Wow. A shooting room? Given our performance in shootouts, breakaways, and penalty shots, where can we get one of those?::dribble::
all this worry and then we found out the games will be played with empty arenas
Quote from: upprdeckall this worry and then we found out the games will be played with empty arenas
As long as the ice is NHL width...
USCHO: Bracketology: Time ticking down on which teams will qualify for 2020 NCAA hockey tournament (https://www.uscho.com/2020/03/05/bracketology-time-ticking-down-on-which-teams-will-qualify-for-2020-ncaa-hockey-tournament/)
Jayson's:
Loveland
1 North Dakota
6 Denver
11 Ohio State
16 Atlantic Hockey Champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
12 Arizona State
15 Maine
Albany
3 Cornell
8 Massachusetts
10 Bemidji State
13 UMass Lowell
Worcester
4 Boston College
5 Minnesota Duluth
9 Clarkson
14 Quinnipiac
Jim's:
Loveland[/b]
1 North Dakota
6 Denver
11 Ohio State
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
10 Bemidji State
15 Maine
Albany
3 Cornell
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson
13 UMass Lowell
Worcester
4 Boston College
5 Minnesota Duluth
12 Arizona State
14 Quinnipiac
Bemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Quote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
thanks for the memories
Quote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
I'm intrigued that Bemidji goaltender Matt Dalton took the L for that game and Cornell's Ben Scrivens won it, although for the teams it was the other way around.
[/smart-ass]
Quote from: Jim HylaUSCHO: Bracketology: Time ticking down on which teams will qualify for 2020 NCAA hockey tournament (https://www.uscho.com/2020/03/05/bracketology-time-ticking-down-on-which-teams-will-qualify-for-2020-ncaa-hockey-tournament/)
Jayson's:
Loveland
1 North Dakota
6 Denver
11 Ohio State
16 Atlantic Hockey Champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
12 Arizona State
15 Maine
Albany
3 Cornell
8 Massachusetts
10 Bemidji State
13 UMass Lowell
Worcester
4 Boston College
5 Minnesota Duluth
9 Clarkson
14 Quinnipiac
Jim's:
Loveland[/b]
1 North Dakota
6 Denver
11 Ohio State
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
10 Bemidji State
15 Maine
Albany
3 Cornell
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson
13 UMass Lowell
Worcester
4 Boston College
5 Minnesota Duluth
12 Arizona State
14 Quinnipiac
This is amusing. I had North Dakota in Loveland for the last two weeks and now that I want to move N.D. to Allentown Jayson and Jim have moved them west.
Loveland2 Minnesota State
6 Denver
12 Arizona State
15 Maine
Allentown1 North Dakota
7 Penn State
10 Bemidji
16 AIC
Albany3 Cornell8 UMass
9 Clarkson13 UMass Lowell
Worcester4 Boston College
5 Minnesota Duluth
11 tOSu
14 QuinnipuckMy other scenario for seeding gives a potential second round 2 vs 6, 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 with Cornell playing Duluth. (It would move Duluth and tOSu to Albany with UMass and Clarkson in
BridgeportWorcester).
It also gives BC an easier 4 vs 8 path to the finals.
This would screw Cornell in a nod to NCAA seeding history guarantee a Bridgeport sell out.
Bridgeport has been one of the cash cows since its first use as a regional location,
which though true is irrelevant this year. The seeding I have above gives Cornell a theoretical advantage and I am thinking that the committee
might give has often given that advantage to
Hockey East instead other schools.
FMP::stupid::
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
I'm intrigued that Bemidji goaltender Matt Dalton took the L for that game and Cornell's Ben Scrivens won it, although for the teams it was the other way around.
[/smart-ass]
I'll fix it tonight smart-ass. ::doh::
Quote from: martyMy other scenario for seeding gives a potential second round 2 vs 6, 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 with Cornell playing Duluth. (It would move Duluth and tOSu to Albany with UMass and Clarkson in Bridgeport).
It also gives BC an easier 4 vs 8 path to the finals. This would guarantee a Bridgeport sell out. Bridgeport has been one of the cash cows since its first use as a regional location. The seeding I have above gives Cornell a theoretical advantage and I am thinking that the committee might give that advantage to Hockey East instead.
Assume you mean Worcester in all the places you say Bridgeport.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: martyMy other scenario for seeding gives a potential second round 2 vs 6, 1 vs 7 and 3 vs 5 with Cornell playing Duluth. (It would move Duluth and tOSu to Albany with UMass and Clarkson in Bridgeport).
It also gives BC an easier 4 vs 8 path to the finals. This would guarantee a Bridgeport sell out. Bridgeport has been one of the cash cows since its first use as a regional location. The seeding I have above gives Cornell a theoretical advantage and I am thinking that the committee might give that advantage to Hockey East instead.
Assume you mean Worcester in all the places you say Bridgeport.
Yes. My bad and though that negates my sell out theory it is still possible that Hockey East and ticket sales will rule rather than an easier path for Cornell in this imaginary seeding.
Quote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
I dunno, man. 40% of all Canadian boys are named "Tyler."
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
I dunno, man. 40% of all Canadian boys are named "Tyler."
And the rest are named Cam.
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
I dunno, man. 40% of all Canadian boys are named "Tyler."
And the rest are named Cam.
Whatever happened to Gordie?
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
I dunno, man. 40% of all Canadian boys are named "Tyler."
And the rest are named Cam.
Whatever happened to Gordie?
Laid to rest with the Big Guy.
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/93/0d/8e/930d8eb4b075daf2721f3735a4744311.jpg)
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
I dunno, man. 40% of all Canadian boys are named "Tyler."
And the rest are named Cam.
Whatever happened to Gordie?
Laid to rest with the Big Guy.
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/93/0d/8e/930d8eb4b075daf2721f3735a4744311.jpg)
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBemidji. What could go wrong (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2009/box20090329.pdf)?
Right. The Tyler Mugford era. (Assist on the first Cornell goal. Only Cornell goal.) A name like that seems to neatly rhyme with "penalty minutes."
I really appreciate that he truly was that sort, too. Wonder if, with that name, it's self-fulfilling.
I dunno, man. 40% of all Canadian boys are named "Tyler."
And the rest are named Cam.
Whatever happened to Gordie?
Laid to rest with the Big Guy.
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/93/0d/8e/930d8eb4b075daf2721f3735a4744311.jpg)
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
This is the "Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn." of our generation.
NoDak got hammered tonight, 4-1, by 13-16-5 UNO. That doesn't hurt.
If we beat Princeton next weekend (hopefully, we can sweep them), are we assured a Top 4 seed (meaning a No. 1 seed at one of the regionals) regardless of what happens in Lake Placid?
It's interesting that Princeton only won 2 regular-season ECAC games and then won 2 this weekend. But I saw our game at Princeton, and we dominated them completely in 5-on-5 play, although we did give up 3 power-play goals.
Bracketology: As conference tournaments roll on, teams looking to secure spots in NCAA tournament (https://www.uscho.com/2020/03/11/bracketology-as-conference-tournaments-roll-on-teams-looking-to-secure-spots-in-ncaa-tournament/)
Jayson:
Worcester
1 North Dakota
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
11 UMass Lowell
14 Michigan
Albany
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
10 Ohio State
15 Maine
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Arizona State
Jim:
Worcester
1 North Dakota
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
11 UMass Lowell
15 Maine
Albany
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
10 Ohio State
14 Michigan
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Arizona State
Quote from: Jim HylaBracketology: As conference tournaments roll on, teams looking to secure spots in NCAA tournament (https://www.uscho.com/2020/03/11/bracketology-as-conference-tournaments-roll-on-teams-looking-to-secure-spots-in-ncaa-tournament/)
Jayson:
Worcester
1 North Dakota
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
11 UMass Lowell
14 Michigan
Albany
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
10 Ohio State
15 Maine
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Arizona State
Jim:
Worcester
1 North Dakota
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Allentown
2 Minnesota State
7 Penn State
11 UMass Lowell
15 Maine
Albany
3 Cornell
6 Boston College
10 Ohio State
14 Michigan
Loveland
4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Arizona State
Marty wants this to decrease travel distances - but Jim's is almost the same or better:
Worcester2 Minnesota State
8 Massachusetts
9 Clarkson15 Maine
Allentown1 North Dakota
7 Penn State
11 UMass Lowell
16 Atlantic Hockey champion
Albany
3 Cornell6 Boston College
10 Ohio State
14 Michigan
Loveland4 Minnesota Duluth
5 Denver
12 Bemidji State
13 Arizona State
Sigh. It's amazing how much less I care about bracketology as compared to the same time last week.
Quote from: KenPSigh. It's amazing how much less I care about bracketology as compared to the same time last week.
Yep
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: KenPSigh. It's amazing how much less I care about bracketology as compared to the same time last week.
Yep
And yes again. I wondered why the hell I was doing it this week.
It sucks not be able to see them in person but I am still 99.9% interested. They're playing. That's what matters.
Quote from: TrotskyIt sucks not be able to see them in person but I am still 99.9% interested. They're playing. That's what matters.
Yes but trying to outsmart some NCAA Committee wonk (or trying to beat Jason and Jim predicting the committee's wonking) is less engaging when another NCAA entity has already vacated the premises, so to speak. I'll be watching and will be there in spirit but my spirit is partially broken.
I also just looked at the Jason Moy piece and realized it was written before the "Fan Ban". But at this point, again, I am not sure I give a flying eff.
Why would the games not having fans change anything as far as rooting for the team or being excited? I honestly don't get it.
It is interesting that this eliminates the NC$$'s bullsh-t dollar sign motives. Makes for a better seeding anyway.
I vote we suspend the playoffs, pick them up in June, and play all conference and NC$$ games at the better seed. Ahem.
Quote from: TrotskyWhy would the games not having fans change anything as far as rooting for the team or being excited? I honestly don't get it.
It is interesting that this eliminates the NC$$'s bullsh-t dollar sign motives. Makes for a better seeding anyway.
I vote we suspend the playoffs, pick them up in June, and play all conference and NC$$ games at the better seed. Ahem.
Right now, I'm hoping we get summer hockey playoffs instead of no hockey playoffs.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyWhy would the games not having fans change anything as far as rooting for the team or being excited? I honestly don't get it.
It is interesting that this eliminates the NC$$'s bullsh-t dollar sign motives. Makes for a better seeding anyway.
I vote we suspend the playoffs, pick them up in June, and play all conference and NC$$ games at the better seed. Ahem.
Right now, I'm hoping we get summer hockey playoffs instead of no hockey playoffs.
+1