Dartmouth hasn't won too many games since the end of the winter break and lost in OT yesterday. The game is in Hanover, though, so it'll probably be closer than it needs to be
Quote from: IcebergDartmouth hasn't won too many games since the end of the winter break and lost in OT yesterday. The game is in Hanover, though, so it'll probably be closer than it needs to be
I always find Hanover closer than it needs to be.
Quote from: IcebergDartmouth hasn't won too many games since the end of the winter break and lost in OT yesterday. The game is in Hanover, though, so it'll probably be closer than it needs to be
They took Colgate to overtime last night.
I forgot they shoot the Thompson games from Mars.
Quote from: martyQuote from: IcebergDartmouth hasn't won too many games since the end of the winter break and lost in OT yesterday. The game is in Hanover, though, so it'll probably be closer than it needs to be
I always find Hanover closer than it needs to be.
And farther than any Cornell teams wants to be if it it loses in Hanover and faces that glum 5-1/2 ride home. Another reason to bring home a W. We had to many men's hockey Ls at Dartmouth the last decade or so. Too bad there isn't a Cornell-operated Far Above 737 Max to speed up transportation. Giving new meaning to "We want to beat Dartmouth if it's the last thing we do."
Dartmouth's aggressive forecheck causing problems.
No offense, Dartmouth, but: It's 7 pm. Your house not ours. There appear to be more people warming up on the ice than sitting in the stands.
We couldn't get out of our end for much of that period. Shots 10-4 and I am quite happy to still be scoreless. Some attitude adjustment going on in the lockerroom right now.
Trap game trap game trap game.
Quote from: billhowardNo offense, Dartmouth, but: It's 7 pm. Your house not ours.
Hard to recall now, but back when we were crushing Dartmouth every game in the mid 80s (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_vs_Opponent/rptCornell_Games_vs_Dartmouth.pdf) it was not unusual for us to dominate Thompson, and we only brought about 200 traveling / area fans. There were games where I did not see any Dartmouth student fans except the GFs.
Quote from: billhowardNo offense, Dartmouth, but: It's 7 pm. Your house not ours. There appear to be more people warming up on the ice than sitting in the stands.
At least their band is there. That rink never really fills up unless it's the one game against Princeton where students throw tennis balls on the ice
Clarkson behind 2-0 at Appleton.
As someone who has never played hockey, how important is it to have defensive pairings with a lefty on the left and a righty on the right? I notice that most, if not all of our d pairings are that way and I was wondering whether that's just something that is nice to do if it works out or if it is so important that we might specifically try to recruit a lefty d man just so we can have one in each pairing.
Quote from: chimpfoodAs someone who has never played hockey, how important is it to have defensive pairings with a lefty on the left and a righty on the right? I notice that most, if not all of our d pairings are that way and I was wondering whether that's just something that is nice to do if it works out or if it is so important that we might specifically try to recruit a lefty d man just so we can have one in each pairing.
I think Cornell specifically recruits for it.
Harvard 3 unanswered to go up on Colgate 3-2.
Dorfman will never not be funny.
(https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/77/17/1964475306-l.jpg)
Big to get that back before the period ended but we gotta get it together.
I had a great time watching last night's game. There was some great team play but most of the game we were inconsistent.
Thank you Jack O'Leary.
we're playing like we expect them to be afraid of us and they are attacking attacking attacking and it has us off-kilter. this 4x4 is when we should really take it to them.
Dartmouth classic case of no fucks to give.
Oof. That was a hard hit.
so much for that. back to the useless umbrella. dartmouth feels totally free to go after the skaters on the perimeter because they never leave formation to press the defense. they just tap it back and forth until they lose possession.
Thank you Jack O'Leary, again.
Quote from: ugarteso much for that. back to the useless umbrella. dartmouth feels totally free to go after the skaters on the perimeter because they never leave formation to press the defense. they just tap it back and forth until they lose possession.
My bad. After about a minute, I thought "gee, our power play looks a lot better."
Then we spent the last minute nothing but umbrella.
"Towelie"?
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteso much for that. back to the useless umbrella. dartmouth feels totally free to go after the skaters on the perimeter because they never leave formation to press the defense. they just tap it back and forth until they lose possession.
My bad. After about a minute, I thought "gee, our power play looks a lot better."
Then we spent the last minute nothing but umbrella.
As we all know, when Cornell doesn't see anything on the PP, they pass it around the point repeatedly until they either turn the puck over or the PP expires. They don't ever shoot the puck on net. Zero percent of the time do they just shoot instead of passing it around the outside.
We pick up ground on both Clarkson and Colgate. Question is: 1 point or 2?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteso much for that. back to the useless umbrella. dartmouth feels totally free to go after the skaters on the perimeter because they never leave formation to press the defense. they just tap it back and forth until they lose possession.
My bad. After about a minute, I thought "gee, our power play looks a lot better."
Then we spent the last minute nothing but umbrella.
As we all know, when Cornell doesn't see anything on the PP, they pass it around the point repeatedly until they either turn the puck over or the PP expires. They don't ever shoot the puck on net. Zero percent of the time do they just shoot instead of passing it around the outside.
I'm okay with the not shooting. Bouncing a shot off a defender's ankles and out of the zone doesn't work.
But they gotta get the puck down low and skate it behind the net or otherwise shake things up.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteso much for that. back to the useless umbrella. dartmouth feels totally free to go after the skaters on the perimeter because they never leave formation to press the defense. they just tap it back and forth until they lose possession.
My bad. After about a minute, I thought "gee, our power play looks a lot better."
Then we spent the last minute nothing but umbrella.
As we all know, when Cornell doesn't see anything on the PP, they pass it around the point repeatedly until they either turn the puck over or the PP expires. They don't ever shoot the puck on net. Zero percent of the time do they just shoot instead of passing it around the outside.
I'm okay with the not shooting. Bouncing a shot off a defender's ankles and out of the zone doesn't work.
But they gotta get the puck down low and skate it behind the net or otherwise shake things up.
Well, yeah, that would be good too. But Cornell does try that some portion of the time, maybe 10%. And the puck is turned over shortly thereafter. I.e. if Cornell has the puck at the blue line on the PP, it's never getting shot on net, and rarely getting passed or skated down low—and when it does, it basically never works.
It's too bad that puck bounced on Mack in the OT because there was a lot of open net after that rebound
Is it a trap game when it happens every time?
Cornell's breakout was abominably bad tonight. As a result, they badly lost the possession battle and the hockey gods gave them what they deserved in OT/shootout. The PP troubles never improve so there's not much more to say about that. (Robertson's PP goal was 4x3 with a bunch of open ice so that doesn't really count—notably, though, it came off a shot that never made it to the net—something Cornell is deathly afraid of ever happening on a 5x4 PP.)
Just when I thought we were getting over our tendency to give away games to bad teams.
When we had the one bit of possession in OT, their skater backed into his own net and dislodged it with no push from a Cornell skater. Shouldn't that be a delay penalty?
Appears that the pwr is not changed.
Quote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
What a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal. Some of the Cornell hockey good karma got siphoned into the Cornell basketball karma and that 16-point win over Princeton.
All that matters is we get enough points in the ECAC to finish 2 or 3, avoid Quinnipiac in the ECAC semis (assuming no collapse in the QFs), then hope for a strong game in the final and if not hope for a second ECAC bid.
Quote from: nshapiroWhen we had the one bit of possession in OT, their skater backed into his own net and dislodged it with no push from a Cornell skater. Shouldn't that be a delay penalty?
If the ref thought he backed or slid in as part of getting close to the net, then it's no penalty. And a penalty call also makes Cornell a likely winner with a 4x3 if called, so the refs saw nothing callable.
Quote from: nshapiroWhen we had the one bit of possession in OT, their skater backed into his own net and dislodged it with no push from a Cornell skater. Shouldn't that be a delay penalty?
If Mack buried it, it would have been before the dislodging. Once he duffed it, it didn't matter since we weren't really in possession to do anything.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are close to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
Right. I see that now. Could've been worse I guess.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: nshapiroWhen we had the one bit of possession in OT, their skater backed into his own net and dislodged it with no push from a Cornell skater. Shouldn't that be a delay penalty?
If Mack buried it, it would have been before the dislodging. Once he duffed it, it didn't matter since we weren't really in possession to do anything.
He didn't duff it, it was bouncing. He actually managed to get stick on it and deflect towards the net; just not enough.
Cornell really played 1 great period yesterday and 5 blah ones after that.
honestly the 3x0 that went between Tim Rego's legs is the one i'm going to be seeing in my nightmares for a while
Quote from: ugartehonestly the 3x0 that went between Tim Rego's legs is the one i'm going to be seeing in my nightmares for a while
And the one on Ondrej that Big Foot somehow got over and got his skate against the left post.
A late refresh of PWR has Cornell at 15 with an RPI of .5498 and UNH at 16 with an RPI of .5489. These schools have the two best goalies in the nation, and they both are capable of playing above their ranking when playing a good team and below their ranking when playing a poor one. They both promise to make the late regular season interesting.
I'll get to see the Wildcats take on BU and Merrimack next weekend at the Whit. I expect UNH to split the weekend, but I'm not laying down money on which game they will win. The same can go for Cornell.
And if any of you have contact info for Mike Machnick, please let me know. I'd love to finally meet him in person on Saturday.
how did we get outshot by dartmouth what the fuck i'm still mad about this game
Quote from: ugartehow did we get outshot by dartmouth what the fuck i'm still mad about this game
The defense babied the puck in the defensive zone all night and just about any Dartmouth forecheck could have their way anytime.
Why is it always Dartmouth. Seems like it's over 20 years with this dark bugaboo they have on us.
Because they are travel partners with Harvard, we are wired to always be a little less up for them or have a little less energy. Them's the breaks.
Quote from: pjd8And if any of you have contact info for Mike Machnick, please let me know. I'd love to finally meet him in person on Saturday.
That takes me back. He and the guy from Maine who has sadly passed were the OGs of hockey-l.
Quote from: billhowardWhat a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal.
The 3 on 3 OT needs to go! It's an aberration! I don't recall ever seeing a 3 on 3 in the course of a hockey game. Puck possession becomes the key. Worse yet, for an inferior team, just possess the puck and settle for a tie. With so much open ice, it's relatively easy to do.
Except for tournaments, what's wrong with a tie? Go to, say, a 10 minute sudden-death OT, if no one scores, it's a tie. You win it's two points, you tie one point.
And the shootout is totally pointless. It's one thing in soccer where most games seem to end nil-nil in regulation, but not hockey.
I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
Quote from: George64Quote from: billhowardWhat a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal.
The 3 on 3 OT needs to go! It's an aberration! I don't recall ever seeing a 3 on 3 in the course of a hockey game. Puck possession becomes the key. Worse yet, for an inferior team, just possess the puck and settle for a tie. With so much open ice, it's relatively easy to do.
Except for tournaments, what's wrong with a tie? Go to, say, a 10 minute sudden-death OT, if no one scores, it's a tie. You win it's two points, you tie one point.
And the shootout is totally pointless. It's one thing in soccer where most games seem to end nil-nil in regulation, but not hockey.
I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
There used to be 3 on 3 a long time ago. During offsetting minors both players sat and they played 4 on 4. If two sets of offsetting minors happened, they played 3 on 3. However, Edmonton was so good at scoring 3 on 3 that the NHL eliminated it by continuing to play 5 on 5 for offsetting minors Some people nicknamed the change "The Gretzky Rule." Eventually the NCAA followed suit.
Quote from: George64Quote from: billhowardWhat a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal.
The 3 on 3 OT needs to go! It's an aberration! I don't recall ever seeing a 3 on 3 in the course of a hockey game. Puck possession becomes the key. Worse yet, for an inferior team, just possess the puck and settle for a tie. With so much open ice, it's relatively easy to do.
Except for tournaments, what's wrong with a tie? Go to, say, a 10 minute sudden-death OT, if no one scores, it's a tie. You win it's two points, you tie one point.
And the shootout is totally pointless. It's one thing in soccer where most games seem to end nil-nil in regulation, but not hockey.
I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
I don't like 3 on 3 either. It feels like a different sport. Especially sudden death.
A 3 on 3 league would be fun, but sudden death just turns into possession focused hockey and gets surprisingly slow.
Quote from: George64I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
I still hope someone can answer my question, but in the meantime, in the Lynah Rink era, Cornell has gone 1133-643-149, so only 7.74 percent of all games have resulted in ties. These data, however, include post-season playoffs, so the regular season percentage should be somewhat higher. On the other hand, it includes games since tie-breaking inanity was instituted, which would reduce the tie percentage a bit. In a 29 game regular season, we should expect about two ties a year, not a BFD. This may vary for other teams.
3x3 and shootouts are shit, but this is the path the NHL has chosen, and so it is the path the NC$$ will follow.
Make me dictator. I will end RS games after regulation, no overtime, and play tourny games 5x5 with 20 min periods until somebody scores, the end.
Holy crap, this forum is still active? Super cool!
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: George64Quote from: billhowardWhat a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal.
The 3 on 3 OT needs to go! It's an aberration! I don't recall ever seeing a 3 on 3 in the course of a hockey game. Puck possession becomes the key. Worse yet, for an inferior team, just possess the puck and settle for a tie. With so much open ice, it's relatively easy to do.
Except for tournaments, what's wrong with a tie? Go to, say, a 10 minute sudden-death OT, if no one scores, it's a tie. You win it's two points, you tie one point.
And the shootout is totally pointless. It's one thing in soccer where most games seem to end nil-nil in regulation, but not hockey.
I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
I don't like 3 on 3 either. It feels like a different sport. Especially sudden death.
A 3 on 3 league would be fun, but sudden death just turns into possession focused hockey and gets surprisingly slow.
Do you guys watch much NHL? 3x3 OT is still really fast paced and exciting in the NHL. In college it's a little slower, but there are still many more great scoring chances per minute than in regulation. Frankly, it's very exciting for the casual fan, and it's still exciting for the jaded enfranchised fan like me as well. The same goes for shootouts, though to a lesser degree.
3x3 OT and shootouts add so much excitement to a game that otherwise would have ended in a tie that I think they are rightfully here to stay. To me, the interesting question is how to weight them because they're so much different from the rest of a hockey game. Not using either 3x3 or shootouts in the playoffs, and weighting shootouts as nothing for the PWR and as just a point in the standings, is perfect. The 65/35 PWR split for 3x3 win vs. loss is a little too great in my view—I'd rather they go back to 55/45 or do 60/40—but it's okay.
Really, the key point is that the significant majority of fans find these post-regulation gimmicks very exciting, and they have a muted effect on a team's success, so in my book I'm fine with the reality that they aren't going away.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: George64Quote from: billhowardWhat a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal.
The 3 on 3 OT needs to go! It's an aberration! I don't recall ever seeing a 3 on 3 in the course of a hockey game. Puck possession becomes the key. Worse yet, for an inferior team, just possess the puck and settle for a tie. With so much open ice, it's relatively easy to do.
Except for tournaments, what's wrong with a tie? Go to, say, a 10 minute sudden-death OT, if no one scores, it's a tie. You win it's two points, you tie one point.
And the shootout is totally pointless. It's one thing in soccer where most games seem to end nil-nil in regulation, but not hockey.
I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
I don't like 3 on 3 either. It feels like a different sport. Especially sudden death.
A 3 on 3 league would be fun, but sudden death just turns into possession focused hockey and gets surprisingly slow.
Do you guys watch much NHL? 3x3 OT is still really fast paced and exciting in the NHL. In college it's a little slower, but there are still many more great scoring chances per minute than in regulation. Frankly, it's very exciting for the casual fan, and it's still exciting for the jaded enfranchised fan like me as well. The same goes for shootouts, though to a lesser degree.
3x3 OT and shootouts add so much excitement to a game that otherwise would have ended in a tie that I think they are rightfully here to stay. To me, the interesting question is how to weight them because they're so much different from the rest of a hockey game. Not using either 3x3 or shootouts in the playoffs, and weighting shootouts as nothing for the PWR and as just a point in the standings, is perfect. The 65/35 PWR split for 3x3 win vs. loss is a little too great in my view—I'd rather they go back to 55/45 or do 60/40—but it's okay.
Really, the key point is that the significant majority of fans find these post-regulation gimmicks very exciting, and they have a muted effect on a team's success, so in my book I'm fine with the reality that they aren't going away.
I'm the rare weirdo that dislikes 3x3 in the NHL, but I get that most people like it. I didn't realize they went to 65/35 OT for the pairwise, though. I'm with you that I'd prefer it a little less steep.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Quote from: BearLover3x3 OT and shootouts add so much excitement to a game that otherwise would have ended in a tie that I think they are rightfully here to stay. To me, the interesting question is how to weight them because they're so much different from the rest of a hockey game. Not using either 3x3 or shootouts in the playoffs, and weighting shootouts as nothing for the PWR and as just a point in the standings, is perfect. The 65/35 PWR split for 3x3 win vs. loss is a little too great in my view—I'd rather they go back to 55/45 or do 60/40—but it's okay.
Just for the record - it's 2/3 and 1/3 split .... so .6666666666666666666/.33333333333333333
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
Cornell tied, though—it didn't win. So I don't really understand the distinction you're making.
Quote from: Trotsky3x3 and shootouts are shit, but this is the path the NHL has chosen, and so it is the path the NC$$ will follow.
Make me dictator. I will end RS games after regulation, no overtime, and play tourny games 5x5 with 20 min periods until somebody scores, the end.
Totally agree about the 3x3. It makes sense in the NHL, where the goal is entertaining the fans and an extra point here or there isn't a huge deal. Each NCAA game is so much more important. Having games decided by 3x3 OT, with a result that counts the same or similar to a win in regular time, is ludicrous.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
Quote from: jkahnQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a "bad win." But Cornell didn't win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don't understand why it's relevant here.
Yeah, ties can definitely bring your rpi down, what I'm not sure about and would love to know is whether or not OT wins can bring rpi down and wether you get less of the quality win bonus for an OT win and if you get any portion of a quality win bonus for a tie.
Quote from: BearLoverDo you guys watch much NHL? 3x3 OT is still really fast paced and exciting in the NHL. In college it's a little slower, but there are still many more great scoring chances per minute than in regulation. Frankly, it's very exciting for the casual fan, and it's still exciting for the jaded enfranchised fan like me as well. The same goes for shootouts, though to a lesser degree.
I've actually seen a lot of commentary from NHL fans/journalists this season regarding how many teams have figured out how to make 3-on-3 OT "boring"/less risky by having their skaters (with the puck) cycle back repeatedly through the neutral zone and into their own zone until they can find the "perfect" entry. You'll frequently hear a loud chorus of boos from the crowd when the visiting team employs this strategy in OT.
There have been some rumors that some team owners and league management want to discuss the potential introduction of a delay-of-game penalty in OT (in future seasons) for crossing back over the red line once you've entered the attacking neutral zone with the puck, a la a "backcourt" violation in basketball.
i was going to say the same - teams are content to take a 3x3 tie and play a very risk averse possession game. it's like watching the cornell powerplay.
Quote from: sah67Quote from: BearLoverDo you guys watch much NHL? 3x3 OT is still really fast paced and exciting in the NHL. In college it's a little slower, but there are still many more great scoring chances per minute than in regulation. Frankly, it's very exciting for the casual fan, and it's still exciting for the jaded enfranchised fan like me as well. The same goes for shootouts, though to a lesser degree.
I've actually seen a lot of commentary from NHL fans/journalists this season regarding how many teams have figured out how to make 3-on-3 OT "boring"/less risky by having their skaters (with the puck) cycle back repeatedly through the neutral zone and into their own zone until they can find the "perfect" entry. You'll frequently hear a loud chorus of boos from the crowd when the visiting team employs this strategy in OT.
There have been some rumors that some team owners and league management want to discuss the potential introduction of a delay-of-game penalty in OT (in future seasons) for crossing back over the red line once you've entered the attacking neutral zone with the puck, a la a "backcourt" violation in basketball.
I mostly watch the Rangers and Devils, both of whom have so much skill that the 3x3 OTs never play out the way you describe. It may be different with other teams, but with the Rangers/Devils it's almost entirely end to end action. 3x3 OT is can't-miss action for the Devils in particular.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: sah67Quote from: BearLoverDo you guys watch much NHL? 3x3 OT is still really fast paced and exciting in the NHL. In college it's a little slower, but there are still many more great scoring chances per minute than in regulation. Frankly, it's very exciting for the casual fan, and it's still exciting for the jaded enfranchised fan like me as well. The same goes for shootouts, though to a lesser degree.
I've actually seen a lot of commentary from NHL fans/journalists this season regarding how many teams have figured out how to make 3-on-3 OT "boring"/less risky by having their skaters (with the puck) cycle back repeatedly through the neutral zone and into their own zone until they can find the "perfect" entry. You'll frequently hear a loud chorus of boos from the crowd when the visiting team employs this strategy in OT.
There have been some rumors that some team owners and league management want to discuss the potential introduction of a delay-of-game penalty in OT (in future seasons) for crossing back over the red line once you've entered the attacking neutral zone with the puck, a la a "backcourt" violation in basketball.
I mostly watch the Rangers and Devils, both of whom have so much skill that the 3x3 OTs never play out the way you describe. It may be different with other teams, but with the Rangers/Devils it's almost entirely end to end action. 3x3 OT is can't-miss action for the Devils in particular.
May be "can't miss action" (so was roller derby) but it isn't hockey.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: sah67Quote from: BearLoverDo you guys watch much NHL? 3x3 OT is still really fast paced and exciting in the NHL. In college it's a little slower, but there are still many more great scoring chances per minute than in regulation. Frankly, it's very exciting for the casual fan, and it's still exciting for the jaded enfranchised fan like me as well. The same goes for shootouts, though to a lesser degree.
I've actually seen a lot of commentary from NHL fans/journalists this season regarding how many teams have figured out how to make 3-on-3 OT "boring"/less risky by having their skaters (with the puck) cycle back repeatedly through the neutral zone and into their own zone until they can find the "perfect" entry. You'll frequently hear a loud chorus of boos from the crowd when the visiting team employs this strategy in OT.
There have been some rumors that some team owners and league management want to discuss the potential introduction of a delay-of-game penalty in OT (in future seasons) for crossing back over the red line once you've entered the attacking neutral zone with the puck, a la a "backcourt" violation in basketball.
I mostly watch the Rangers and Devils, both of whom have so much skill that the 3x3 OTs never play out the way you describe. It may be different with other teams, but with the Rangers/Devils it's almost entirely end to end action. 3x3 OT is can't-miss action for the Devils in particular.
May be "can't miss action" (so was roller derby) but it isn't hockey.
Hockey players skating, passing, and shooting is something that I would refer to as hockey. Except there's way less congestion, fewer play stoppages, no more neutral zone traps, fewer cheap goals off of weird bounces and deflections, and way more scoring opportunities than 5x5. It's a faster and more exciting form of hockey, in small doses.
Is it a different game? for sure.
But its still hockey because it can and does happen in the real game even if in very limited situations.
Like Bball when a game is played 5x3.. not fun to watch and doesn't happen that often, but it does.
Quote from: upprdeckIs it a different game? for sure.
But its still hockey because it can and does happen in the real game even if in very limited situations.
Like Bball when a game is played 5x3.. not fun to watch and doesn't happen that often, but it does.
It happened in a real game for a reason: actual called penalties. It happens in overtime because some assholes decided to do it that way, perhaps to appeal to those who think beach volleyball is a real sport, not a skin show.
[What is 5x3 basketball?]
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: upprdeckIs it a different game? for sure.
But its still hockey because it can and does happen in the real game even if in very limited situations.
Like Bball when a game is played 5x3.. not fun to watch and doesn't happen that often, but it does.
It happened in a real game for a reason: actual called penalties. It happens in overtime because some assholes decided to do it that way, perhaps to appeal to those who think beach volleyball is a real sport, not a skin show.
[What is 5x3 basketball?]
5x3 is better than 5x2.. no rule that basketball is played 5x5.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: upprdeck...perhaps to appeal to those who think beach volleyball is a real sport, not a skin show....
I'm guessing you are not very familiar with competitive beach volleyball. "Uniforms" aside, the game requires a high degree of athleticism and skill - not to mention size. And you might also be surprised at the range of uniforms that teams choose to wear.
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/volleyball/beach
Enjoy.
Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: upprdeck...perhaps to appeal to those who think beach volleyball is a real sport, not a skin show....
I'm guessing you are not very familiar with competitive beach volleyball. "Uniforms" aside, the game requires a high degree of athleticism and skill - not to mention size. And you might also be surprised at the range of uniforms that teams choose to wear.
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/volleyball/beach
Enjoy.
I'm knowing you are wrong. Of course, it takes skill and athleticism. So does ballroom dancing. So did roller derby.
QuoteSo did roller derby.
Alive and well (https://wftda.com/wftda-leagues/).
I was privileged to see flat track roller derby in Tucson. Those women are outstanding, and the culture is boisterous and rebellious and delightful.
roller derby is in the mall about once a month.. They sell tickets so there must be some audience for it.
Quote from: upprdeckroller derby is in the mall about once a month.. They sell tickets so there must be some audience for it.
There's a strong core culture which is similar to Riot Grrrl. The crowd was part looky-loo tourist (our money's good too), part true believers on a mission, part women just settling into working but derby curious. It went all the way up and down the spectrum from kids running around (my god is derby the perfect adult version of kids' natural play) to grandmas. Lots of multi-generation families. One of the few places that still exist with working class and Eloi side by side. Dominant chord: laughter. It was wonderful.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: George64Quote from: billhowardWhat a depressing finish, to wit being outshot in regulation and still be one lucky shot away from a 3-2 regulation win, then getting out-possessioned in the 3x3 OT then losing the shootout without getting even one goal.
The 3 on 3 OT needs to go! It's an aberration! I don't recall ever seeing a 3 on 3 in the course of a hockey game. Puck possession becomes the key. Worse yet, for an inferior team, just possess the puck and settle for a tie. With so much open ice, it's relatively easy to do.
Except for tournaments, what's wrong with a tie? Go to, say, a 10 minute sudden-death OT, if no one scores, it's a tie. You win it's two points, you tie one point.
And the shootout is totally pointless. It's one thing in soccer where most games seem to end nil-nil in regulation, but not hockey.
I'm curious, prior to this silliness, what percent of regular season games ended in a tie?
I don't like 3 on 3 either. It feels like a different sport. Especially sudden death.
A 3 on 3 league would be fun, but sudden death just turns into possession focused hockey and gets surprisingly slow.
BTW, I have no objection to 3 x 3 exhibition hockey, especially when it involves Cornell alumna.
https://www.thepwhl.com/en/pwhl-ottawa-players-look-ahead-to-three-on-three-action-at-nhl-all-star-thursday
https://twitter.com/CornellSports/status/1752398453026484449?cxt=HBwWwsOzmfjG4tEwAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
Quote from: Trotsky[/url]
QuoteSo did roller derby.
Alive and well (https://wftda.com/wftda-leagues/).
I was privileged to see flat track roller derby in Tucson. Those women are outstanding, and the culture is boisterous and rebellious and delightful.
If you're in Ithaca when we're playing in the quarter-final NCAA men's hockey game on March 16, you can catch the Ithaca SufferJets in the late afternoon. Tickets still available. (http://www.ithacarollerderby.com)
Nothing is more sacred than beating Harvard at Lynah East. Which we did nicely. Yet, posts bitching about the loss next night to Dartmouth (and some thread drift) outnumber the Harvard posts 82-77. We love to complain.
Quote from: billhowardNothing is more sacred than beating Harvard at Lynah East. Which we did nicely. Yet, posts bitching about the loss next night to Dartmouth (and some thread drift) outnumber the Harvard posts 82-77. We love to complain.
We just love to make the national tournament, which we made a lot harder by playing down to Dartmouth's level.
Quote from: billhowardNothing is more sacred than beating Harvard at Lynah East.
Beating Harvard at Lynah (http://www.tbrw.info/?/games/fish_&_Fowl.htm) is.
Quote from: billhowardNothing is more sacred than beating Harvard at Lynah East. Which we did nicely. Yet, posts bitching about the loss next night to Dartmouth (and some thread drift) outnumber the Harvard posts 82-77. We love to complain.
not exactly a year to get hype about beating harvard. they stink! so does dartmouth and we lost! it kind of explains itself.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: billhowardNothing is more sacred than beating Harvard at Lynah East. Which we did nicely. Yet, posts bitching about the loss next night to Dartmouth (and some thread drift) outnumber the Harvard posts 82-77. We love to complain.
not exactly a year to get hype about beating harvard. they stink! so does dartmouth and we lost! it kind of explains itself.
"It is never the wrong time to beat Harvard." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Loss aversion bias. It explains everything all the time.
I'm kinda stuck here, because on one hand I tend to be relatively optimistic, but on the other hand I somehow hate Dartmouth more than Harvard.
Quote from: chimpfoodQuote from: billhowardNothing is more sacred than beating Harvard at Lynah East. Which we did nicely. Yet, posts bitching about the loss next night to Dartmouth (and some thread drift) outnumber the Harvard posts 82-77. We love to complain.
We just love to make the national tournament, which we made a lot harder by playing down to Dartmouth's level.
Yes, this is the obvious answer. We want Cornell to make the NCAAs, which requires winning the vast majority of our remaining games. Therefore, a loss is a lot more momentous than a win.
Honestly I don't really GAF about the NC$$s right now. Beat Harvard, fill the building, win the Ivies, win the ECACs. Then the NC$$s is the trip to Disneyland at the end.
But don't crucify the entire season on PWR. It substitutes the map for the territory. Get your head out of the porn and go talk to the plain girl at the end of the bar.
Quote from: TrotskyHonestly I don't really GAF about the NC$$s right now. Beat Harvard, fill the building, win the Ivies, win the ECACs. Then the NC$$s is the trip to Disneyland at the end.
But don't crucify the entire season on PWR. It substitutes the map for the territory. Get your head out of the porn and go talk to the plain girl at the end of the bar.
my man, we just tied/lost to Dartmouth which jeopardizes half of your goals! you are picking the wrong time to grind this particular axe.
Quote from: DafatoneI'm kinda stuck here, because on one hand I tend to be relatively optimistic, but on the other hand I somehow hate Dartmouth more than Harvard.
I always found the games against Dartmouth to be contentious affairs and often more exciting that the games against Harvard the night before or after. With Gaudet behind the bench, you would figure some kind of shenanigans would happen either behind the bench or on the ice.
Someone made a point about Dartmouth being more of an issue because they're travel partners with Harvard. Was this an issue with Brown under the old travel partner arrangement that existed before UVM jumped to Hockey East? Was the Dartmouth/Vermont road trip notoriously difficult?
Quote from: IcebergQuote from: DafatoneI'm kinda stuck here, because on one hand I tend to be relatively optimistic, but on the other hand I somehow hate Dartmouth more than Harvard.
I always found the games against Dartmouth to be contentious affairs and often more exciting that the games against Harvard the night before or after. With Gaudet behind the bench, you would figure some kind of shenanigans would happen either behind the bench or on the ice.
Someone made a point about Dartmouth being more of an issue because they're travel partners with Harvard. Was this an issue with Brown under the old travel partner arrangement that existed before UVM jumped to Hockey East? Was the Dartmouth/Vermont road trip notoriously difficult?
I am pretty sure that the point was Hahvahd travel partner was always a trap game after (or before) the big game against the big rival.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyHonestly I don't really GAF about the NC$$s right now. Beat Harvard, fill the building, win the Ivies, win the ECACs. Then the NC$$s is the trip to Disneyland at the end.
But don't crucify the entire season on PWR. It substitutes the map for the territory. Get your head out of the porn and go talk to the plain girl at the end of the bar.
my man, we just tied/lost to Dartmouth which jeopardizes half of your goals! you are picking the wrong time to grind this particular axe.
We just beat Harvard which advances them
all.So, no. It's a fine time.
Quote from: nshapiroQuote from: IcebergQuote from: DafatoneI'm kinda stuck here, because on one hand I tend to be relatively optimistic, but on the other hand I somehow hate Dartmouth more than Harvard.
I always found the games against Dartmouth to be contentious affairs and often more exciting that the games against Harvard the night before or after. With Gaudet behind the bench, you would figure some kind of shenanigans would happen either behind the bench or on the ice.
Someone made a point about Dartmouth being more of an issue because they're travel partners with Harvard. Was this an issue with Brown under the old travel partner arrangement that existed before UVM jumped to Hockey East? Was the Dartmouth/Vermont road trip notoriously difficult?
I am pretty sure that the point was Hahvahd travel partner was always a trap game after (or before) the big game against the big rival.
I also think the trip is the longest in the ECAC schedule. (Yale/Brown is probably 2nd place. Q & P may be more miles, but Ithaca is closer.) Doing this trip by bus & then playing 2 very tough games must be grueling and take its toll on the team's performance.
Quote from: DafatoneI'm kinda stuck here, because on one hand I tend to be relatively optimistic, but on the other hand I somehow hate Dartmouth more than Harvard.
That's a different kind of hate, though.
To illustrate the difference: Yes, I hate both Harvard and Quinnipiac. But the ideal ECAC season ends with Cornell at 22-0 in the RS and 4-0 in the playoffs, with Harvard at 20–2/3-1 and Quinnipiac at 0-22/0-2. I'm fine if you want to slot Dartmouth in at 2-20/0-2.
Quote from: RobbTo illustrate the difference: Yes, I hate both Harvard and Quinnipiac. But the ideal ECAC season ends with Cornell at 22-0 in the RS and 4-0 in the playoffs, with Harvard at 20–2/3-1 and Quinnipiac at 0-22/0-2. I'm fine if you want to slot Dartmouth in at 2-20/0-2.
This is perfectly said. Harvard is Worthy Opponent. Quinnipiac is Rectal Pain.
Quote from: jkahnQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
Cornell's RPI was below .600 -- that was the point there.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: jkahnQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a "bad win." But Cornell didn't win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don't understand why it's relevant here.
That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...
I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.
I'm well aware they tied.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.
Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.
Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.
Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: jkahnQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a "bad win." But Cornell didn't win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don't understand why it's relevant here.
That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...
I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.
I'm well aware they tied.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.
Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.
Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.
Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
makes sense to me now, you kind of just said it in a roundabout way
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: jkahnQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a "bad win." But Cornell didn't win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don't understand why it's relevant here.
That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...
I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.
I'm well aware they tied.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.
Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.
Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.
Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sorry, but your post was actually very unclear. You said the drop did "not come from the result itself." You then said "if you win, you're not allowed to drop from it." The clear implication is that the latter statement has something to do with the former—otherwise, why bring that part up at all? That's what caused the confusion.
Even if your post were clear, I don't understand the point you were trying to make. The statement "Cornell's RPI went down because they tied Dartmouth" covers the fact they (i) tied and (ii) played Dartmouth. Whether the drop in RPI was due to (i) or (ii) does not alter the reality that Cornell would NOT have dropped had they WON. So yeah, technically Cornell's win% didn't drop and their SOS did, but who cares? The point is that their RPI would NOT have dropped had they WON the game. Therefore, a tie against Dartmouth was a bad result.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: jkahnQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaAppears that the pwr is not changed.
Cornell lost RPI in the PWR. Because it was in OT and on the road, it wasn't as bad as it otherwise would have been against the 44th ranked team. But we dropped from ~.5528 to .5500, meaning we are closer to 16, and farther from 14, than we were when the night began.
A drop is a drop - though it came from SOS, not from the result itself. Since the tie on the road is worth .6000. If you win, you're not allowed to drop from it - so if you do, the result is discarded.
Wait, I'm confused—are you saying that there is a rule that a team cannot lose RPI from a tie on the road? If BC tied Stonehill on the road, their RPI/PWR would be unaffected?
I said the opposite ... I said if you win you're not allowed to drop from it.
Cornell dropped - but it didn't come from its own Win% - which for the game, is .600. It came from its SOS (i.e. opp win%, and opp-opp win%).
The drop, in part, did come from Cornell's win percentage. Adding 6/10 of a win and 4/10 of a loss to Cornell's win percentage prior to the game would drop the win % for any team over .600 in winning percentage.
adamw seems to be claiming that this drop was erased per a PWR rule that negates any drop a team would receive from a "bad win." But Cornell didn't win, it tied, so even if that were the rule, I don't understand why it's relevant here.
That isn't what I said, in any way, shape or form ...
I never said this drop was erased -- whatsoever.
I'm well aware they tied.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding - so it's hard to explain any further.
Cornell's RPI for the game was .600 -- not withstanding SOS factors. ... .600 is higher than their RPI going into the game -- THUS -- if they dropped in RPI, it was due to the SOS portions of their RPI. Not the tie itself.
Had they won and dropped - THEN the entire result gets thrown out. That is not the case here.
Not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sorry, but your post was actually very unclear. You said the drop did "not come from the result itself." You then said "if you win, you're not allowed to drop from it." The clear implication is that the latter statement has something to do with the former—otherwise, why bring that part up at all? That's what caused the confusion.
Even if your post were clear, I don't understand the point you were trying to make. The statement "Cornell's RPI went down because they tied Dartmouth" covers the fact they (i) tied and (ii) played Dartmouth. Whether the drop in RPI was due to (i) or (ii) does not alter the reality that Cornell would NOT have dropped had they WON. So yeah, technically Cornell's win% didn't drop and their SOS did, but who cares? The point is that their RPI would NOT have dropped had they WON the game. Therefore, a tie against Dartmouth was a bad result.
At this point, I'm hoping BearLover will magically transform into FaceTimer.
If Watterson would only lend me a Transmogrifier.
Apropos of nothing, and I suspect y'all already knew this, but I've been trying to figure out why the name Cooper Black sounded so darn familiar. I thought it might be a company that makes power tools -- turns out it's a font.