Keith Allain has retired. Effective immediately.
https://www.collegehockeyinsider.com/p/end-of-an-era-allain-retires-at-yale?utm_medium=bluesky
I guess he couldn't take the new sound system.
Turned around a historically weak program and led a team to a surprising championship run. Too bad about the recent years but the team probably needed an overdue change anyway behind the bench.
Article in today's Rochester D&C (https://rochesterdemocrat-ny.newsmemory.com/?publink=1ce43fac7_134fae5) featuring Ryan Walsh and another Rochester-area hockey standout. Interestingly, it mentions that Ryan had offseason surgery for an injury that "dates back two years."
.
Quote from: George64Article in today's Rochester D&C (https://rochesterdemocrat-ny.newsmemory.com/?publink=1ce43fac7_134fae5) featuring Ryan Walsh and another Rochester-area hockey standout. Interestingly, it mentions that Ryan had offseason surgery for an injury that "dates back two years."
.
What is it with hockey players and not getting offseason surgeries until, like, 3 years after the injury happened???
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: George64Article in today's Rochester D&C (https://rochesterdemocrat-ny.newsmemory.com/?publink=1ce43fac7_134fae5) featuring Ryan Walsh and another Rochester-area hockey standout. Interestingly, it mentions that Ryan had offseason surgery for an injury that "dates back two years."
.
What is it with hockey players and not getting offseason surgeries until, like, 3 years after the injury happened???
1. Denial.
2. Pressure to keep playing.
3. Fear the surgery won't work and the dream is over.
I get it. They're human. We all lie to ourselves even when it's counter-productive. Now add they are also still children with no life experience. If they made good decisions it would be weird.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: George64Article in today's Rochester D&C (https://rochesterdemocrat-ny.newsmemory.com/?publink=1ce43fac7_134fae5) featuring Ryan Walsh and another Rochester-area hockey standout. Interestingly, it mentions that Ryan had offseason surgery for an injury that "dates back two years."
.
What is it with hockey players and not getting offseason surgeries until, like, 3 years after the injury happened???
1. Denial.
2. Pressure to keep playing.
3. Fear the surgery won't work and the dream is over.
I get it. They're human. We all lie to ourselves even when it's counter-productive. Now add they are also still children with no life experience. If they made good decisions it would be weird.
That's fair, but I swear every single offseason in the NHL too it's like "Jesper Bratt has had a shoulder issue for 2 years and he's finally getting surgery for it"...
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: George64Article in today's Rochester D&C (https://rochesterdemocrat-ny.newsmemory.com/?publink=1ce43fac7_134fae5) featuring Ryan Walsh and another Rochester-area hockey standout. Interestingly, it mentions that Ryan had offseason surgery for an injury that "dates back two years."
.
What is it with hockey players and not getting offseason surgeries until, like, 3 years after the injury happened???
1. Denial.
2. Pressure to keep playing.
3. Fear the surgery won't work and the dream is over.
I get it. They're human. We all lie to ourselves even when it's counter-productive. Now add they are also still children with no life experience. If they made good decisions it would be weird.
That's fair, but I swear every single offseason in the NHL too it's like "Jesper Bratt has had a shoulder issue for 2 years and he's finally getting surgery for it"...
pain is part of the bargain. if it doesn't keep you from playing and it degrades slowly enough, you get the surgery when you HAVE TO. careers are short. you basically can't come back until you're 100% and it's a grind to get back to exactly where you are right now when it hurts like hell sometimes but you're still good enough to skate and there's a guy right there with cortisone.
Talking about out long with an injury. I do think that he had surgery back in 2021. Neutral Zone in a public post wrote it better than I could.
QuoteMatthew Jovanovic (D, L, 6'2, 201, No team, 09/22/2004, RPI)
Jovanovic has not played a competitive game since the 2020-21 season as a member of the USHL's Des Moines Buccaneers. He has been out all this time due to injury and never even got to play for the Saginaw Spirit – the OHL team that drafted him. RPI has given him a chance to comeback and play the game he loves again.
They have dropped him from 4.5 to 4.0 stars.
Elite Prospects currently lists Yale has having 8 players, each with 0 games of experience (https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/ncaa). They're gonna get a lot of ice time.
Quote from: TrotskyElite Prospects currently lists Yale has having 8 players, each with 0 games of experience (https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/ncaa). They're gonna get a lot of ice time.
12.5% of the team is Finnish.
Is this really the entire team?
Quote from: The RancorQuote from: TrotskyElite Prospects currently lists Yale has having 8 players, each with 0 games of experience (https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/ncaa). They're gonna get a lot of ice time.
12.5% of the team is Finnish.
Is this really the entire team?
The locker room would smell better but no goalie is a bold move Cotton.
CHN Yale Roster (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/roster/Yale/59)
Nothing on USCHO but CHN has a full roster listed.
CollegeHockeyNXT, which is a website/social media account that follows college hockey, lists Ben Robertson on the "all-portal second team." But it also lists Luke Ashton as part of the "all-portal third team." I have no idea if CollegeHockeyNXT is a reliable source at all. It may be run by some kid in his parents' basement.
I'm still very irked that Roberson transferred out. In part because he was our best defenseman and now we have zero returning LHD. But also in part because I'm not sure what it means long term. Are we going to continue losing our best players to NIL schools? UMich is now number 1 on my most hated teams. Yes, above Quinnipiac. BU is also above Quinnipiac now.
The blueline lost Robertson but picked up Fisher and Ashton, both NHL draft choices. That sounds like a net gain.
As to the reasons, we just don't know the details of the specific cases, so we don't know if they are systemic and repeatable or personal and unique. We'll need years of results to see if this will make a significant difference in either direction for the team.
I would analogize Robertson leaving to an employee leaving: your employer is using you as a fungible asset. You owe them nothing. Move as freely as they would axe you for the slightest reason or even on a whim.
Your family loves you; love them. Cornell doesn't give a shit about you; act accordingly.
Quote from: TrotskyThe blueline lost Robertson but picked up Fisher and Ashton, both NHL draft choices. That sounds like a net gain.
We'll see. At the moment, Robertson is more valuable than Fisher and Ashton put together. Fisher had (has?) a lot of potential but has been injured and has not produced for most of the last several seasons. While he is a draft pick, he is not on track to play professionally. That can all change, of course, but that's the current state of affairs.
Ashton is intriguing. Huge player that put up monster numbers in the BCHL one season. It didn't fully translate to Minnesota State last year, but he did produce some.
In sum, Robertson is a known quantity great collegiate player. Fisher and Ashton are not, though there is some potential there. Also, two players are better than one, and they each have three years of remaining eligibility to Robertson's two. So right now I give the advantage to Robertson, but it's subject to change.
Quote from: ursusminorTalking about out long with an injury. I do think that he had surgery back in 2021. Neutral Zone in a public post wrote it better than I could.
QuoteMatthew Jovanovic (D, L, 6'2, 201, No team, 09/22/2004, RPI)
Jovanovic has not played a competitive game since the 2020-21 season as a member of the USHL's Des Moines Buccaneers. He has been out all this time due to injury and never even got to play for the Saginaw Spirit – the OHL team that drafted him. RPI has given him a chance to comeback and play the game he loves again.
They have dropped him from 4.5 to 4.0 stars.
YEOUCH. What the hell happened to him. Poor dude.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: ursusminorTalking about out long with an injury. I do think that he had surgery back in 2021. Neutral Zone in a public post wrote it better than I could.
QuoteMatthew Jovanovic (D, L, 6'2, 201, No team, 09/22/2004, RPI)
Jovanovic has not played a competitive game since the 2020-21 season as a member of the USHL's Des Moines Buccaneers. He has been out all this time due to injury and never even got to play for the Saginaw Spirit – the OHL team that drafted him. RPI has given him a chance to comeback and play the game he loves again.
They have dropped him from 4.5 to 4.0 stars.
YEOUCH. What the hell happened to him. Poor dude.
It's always hard to get details about injuries. Apparently, a hip injury revealed something wrong that he had since birth. He is now skating with NHL players and supposedly he will be able to play this year. We will see what happens. RPI, which had almost a complete turnover, felt it was worth a gamble to sign him.
I doubt that he will return to 4.5 level. I add that Neutral Zone has downgraded him further to 3.5 stars. This makes sense to me.
If most of RPI's gambles come through, Eric Lang will deserve ECAC Coach of the Year honors. RPI is the only ECAC school never to have had a coach honored.
Quote from: BearLoverIn sum, Robertson is a known quantity great collegiate player.
Through ten games of his freshman year I thought he was on the way to being a great college hockey player. Then he struggled to maintain that pace all the way up until he started to get back to that level this past postseason. The power play was not much with him as the only defenseman on the top unit most times. He was just as inconsistent as many players in their first two years. Now I would prefer that he had stayed at Cornell and built on his finish to last postseason but I would argue that none of Cornell's players are irreplaceable. It's just that I've grown attached to them and don't want them to leave.
Quote from: VIEWfromKQuote from: BearLoverIn sum, Robertson is a known quantity great collegiate player.
Through ten games of his freshman year I thought he was on the way to being a great college hockey player. Then he struggled to maintain that pace all the way up until he started to get back to that level this past postseason.
This is what I saw, too.
Quote from: VIEWfromKQuote from: BearLoverIn sum, Robertson is a known quantity great collegiate player.
Through ten games of his freshman year I thought he was on the way to being a great college hockey player. Then he struggled to maintain that pace all the way up until he started to get back to that level this past postseason. The power play was not much with him as the only defenseman on the top unit most times. He was just as inconsistent as many players in their first two years. Now I would prefer that he had stayed at Cornell and built on his finish to last postseason but I would argue that none of Cornell's players are irreplaceable. It's just that I've grown attached to them and don't want them to leave.
Fair enough. But the fact he was reportedly being wooed by UMich, Denver, and Notre Dame suggests to me he is considered a great player by those who understand hockey better than I do.
I'm on Vancouver Island for a few days, and the CBC radio station out of Victoria had a 10-minute story today about the impact of the NCAA rule changes allowing CHL players to now play in the NCAA. Nothing particularly new in the story, but some good examples of the impacts to the local CHL (WHL) team, the Victoria Royals.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-48-on-the-island/clip/16166042-how-ncaa-changes-mens-hockey-eligibility-impacting-hockey
Quote from: ursusminorQuote from: stereaxQuote from: ursusminorTalking about out long with an injury. I do think that he had surgery back in 2021. Neutral Zone in a public post wrote it better than I could.
QuoteMatthew Jovanovic (D, L, 6'2, 201, No team, 09/22/2004, RPI)
Jovanovic has not played a competitive game since the 2020-21 season as a member of the USHL's Des Moines Buccaneers. He has been out all this time due to injury and never even got to play for the Saginaw Spirit – the OHL team that drafted him. RPI has given him a chance to comeback and play the game he loves again.
They have dropped him from 4.5 to 4.0 stars.
YEOUCH. What the hell happened to him. Poor dude.
It's always hard to get details about injuries. Apparently, a hip injury revealed something wrong that he had since birth. He is now skating with NHL players and supposedly he will be able to play this year. We will see what happens. RPI, which had almost a complete turnover, felt it was worth a gamble to sign him.
I doubt that he will return to 4.5 level. I add that Neutral Zone has downgraded him further to 3.5 stars. This makes sense to me.
If most of RPI's gambles come through, Eric Lang will deserve ECAC Coach of the Year honors. RPI is the only ECAC school never to have had a coach honored.
Article about Matthew Jovanovic's history on an RPI fan blog https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/matt-jovanovic-commits-to-rpi
Quote from: Chris H82I'm on Vancouver Island for a few days, and the CBC radio station out of Victoria had a 10-minute story today about the impact of the NCAA rule changes allowing CHL players to now play in the NCAA. Nothing particularly new in the story, but some good examples of the impacts to the local CHL (WHL) team, the Victoria Royals.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-48-on-the-island/clip/16166042-how-ncaa-changes-mens-hockey-eligibility-impacting-hockey
We're seeing this all play out even within our own recruiting pipeline: recruiting kids directly from the CHL, younger kids going to the CHL prior to college, fewer kids going Junior A.
At this point, 8 of 12 Cornell recruits playing junior hockey are in the CHL. Of 15 total recruits, the breakdown is as follows:
USHL (4): Sandruck, Tuminaro, Pelletier, Major
QMJHL (4): Marmulak, Kirkwood, Dontigny, Wotton
OHL (2): Dec, Emerton
WHL (2): Ament, Wehmann
Still finishing high school (3?): Peckham(?), DiPlacido, Broderick(?) [unclear if Peckham and Broderick are returning to high school or going to juniors. Possible they are trying to make USHL teams out of camp. DiPlacido will play his senior year at St. Andrews]
Shockingly, zero recruits are in the BCHL. In past years it has felt like around half of our recruits were in the BCHL.
Another wrinkle
https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2025/08/ncaa-grants-eligibility-to-two-former-pros.html#ref=home
Quote from: BearLoverShockingly, zero recruits are in the BCHL. In past years it has felt like around half of our recruits were in the BCHL.
I was reading an article earlier today but I forgot to save the link so I can't find it at the moment. However, it was talking about changes to the Canadian leagues and it had some quotes from the head of the bchl.
He said that in Prior seasons something like 25% of all D1 NCAA players had come through the bchl and that the ivy League school rosters were 48% from BCHL iirc.
Quote from: VIEWfromKAnother wrinkle
https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2025/08/ncaa-grants-eligibility-to-two-former-pros.html#ref=home
From that:
QuoteThe NCAA is also currently facing a U.S. District Court ruling that challenges how the NCAA counts years of eligibility. Previously, the collegiate association would include years in JUCO, or Junior College, against a player's maximum five years of NCAA eligibility. This new antitrust lawsuit would look to reverse that decision
Holy shit. We're gonna wind up with 32-year old NCAA basketball players who have played for JuCos, European professional leagues, and the Wyoming State Penitentiary All Stars.
NIL Money should be held in a trust until players either graduate or otherwise leave the school. Players should be provided room, board, scholarship, team uniforms, equipment and can earn money washing jock straps after practice, but that's it. Otherwise, intelligible. You should get one 'free' transfer without sitting a year, the second transfer is sit one season, lose no eligibility, third one you lose a season and a year. Everyone gets 5 seasons, grad years included. Max age is 26 at graduation, unless Military or Civilian service, then 27. No more shootouts, except for in season tournaments. White jerseys at home after January 1, then team colors. Playoff's higher seed chooses. Not more than 2 CHL seasons for NCAA eligibility. Nurses, doctors, social workers, other medical providers and teachers get full tuition reimbursement for 5 years of service in the public sector which includes our new Medicare for All system... something something solar on all new construction high speed rail....
Quote from: The RancorNIL Money should be held in a trust until players either graduate or otherwise leave the school. Players should be provided room, board, scholarship, team uniforms, equipment and can earn money washing jock straps after practice, but that's it. Otherwise, intelligible. You should get one 'free' transfer without sitting a year, the second transfer is sit one season, lose no eligibility, third one you lose a season and a year. Everyone gets 5 seasons, grad years included. Max age is 26 at graduation, unless Military or Civilian service, then 27. No more shootouts, except for in season tournaments. White jerseys at home after January 1, then team colors. Playoff's higher seed chooses. Not more than 2 CHL seasons for NCAA eligibility. Nurses, doctors, social workers, other medical providers and teachers get full tuition reimbursement for 5 years of service in the public sector which includes our new Medicare for All system... something something solar on all new construction high speed rail....
Why 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
Quote from: BearLoverWhy 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
I have some bad news for you.
Quote from: The RancorMax age is 26 at graduation, unless Military or Civilian service, then 27.
22. And no Starship Troopers discounts either.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWhy 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
I have some bad news for you.
It's a second chance for hockey message board lurkers. It's such an easy game - time to get that grad degree and a bit of fame. Offense, defense or defend the goal. How hard can it be?
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWhy 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
I have some bad news for you.
?
The Ivies and other elite schools are outliers in that undergrads tend to be the "traditional" age for college students and mostly graduate in 4 years. Most U.S. undergrads as a whole are older and take longer to graduate, and a large percentage of undergrads are not full-time students. So should NCAA athlete eligibility reflect some vanishing ideal of what an undergrad is or more closely match the reality of undergrad demographics? The Ivy is gonna do what the Ivy is gonna do, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the overall U.S. undergrad body to say that athletes must be 22 or younger and have only four years of eligibility.
Quote from: WederThe Ivies and other elite schools are outliers in that undergrads tend to be the "traditional" age for college students and mostly graduate in 4 years. Most U.S. undergrads as a whole are older and take longer to graduate, and a large percentage of undergrads are not full-time students. So should NCAA athlete eligibility reflect some vanishing ideal of what an undergrad is or more closely match the reality of undergrad demographics? The Ivy is gonna do what the Ivy is gonna do, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the overall U.S. undergrad body to say that athletes must be 22 or younger and have only four years of eligibility.
Well, yeah, but that's not why they changed the rule to 5. They changed the rule to 5 so that Southern Dipshit University could redshirt their entire incoming offensive line to get their weight up to 310 before their first live snap against Midwestern Fucknugget* State.
*
Go Fighting Lodes!
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: The RancorMax age is 26 at graduation, unless Military or Civilian service, then 27.
22. And no Starship Troopers discounts either.
Well, several of our juniors this year are already 22...so that won't cut it
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: WederThe Ivies and other elite schools are outliers in that undergrads tend to be the "traditional" age for college students and mostly graduate in 4 years. Most U.S. undergrads as a whole are older and take longer to graduate, and a large percentage of undergrads are not full-time students. So should NCAA athlete eligibility reflect some vanishing ideal of what an undergrad is or more closely match the reality of undergrad demographics? The Ivy is gonna do what the Ivy is gonna do, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the overall U.S. undergrad body to say that athletes must be 22 or younger and have only four years of eligibility.
Well, yeah, but that's not why they changed the rule to 5. They changed the rule to 5 so that Southern Dipshit University could redshirt their entire incoming offensive line to get their weight up to 310 before their first live snap against Midwestern Fucknugget* State.
* Go Fighting Lodes!
They did not change the rule to 5.
Quote from: fastforwardQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: The RancorMax age is 26 at graduation, unless Military or Civilian service, then 27.
22. And no Starship Troopers discounts either.
Well, several of our juniors this year are already 22...so that won't cut it
Aspirational.
Quote from: TrotskyQuoteThe NCAA is also currently facing a U.S. District Court ruling that challenges how the NCAA counts years of eligibility. Previously, the collegiate association would include years in JUCO, or Junior College, against a player's maximum five years of NCAA eligibility. This new antitrust lawsuit would look to reverse that decision
This is the Diego Pavia lawsuit, right? He had a breakout at Vandy and wanted another year of NIL eligibility before he gets taken in the 7th round.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWhy 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
I have some bad news for you.
?
.
Quote from: toddloseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWhy 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
I have some bad news for you.
?
.
^
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: toddloseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWhy 5 years of eligibility when college is 4 years? That would kill the Ivy League if it happened.
I have some bad news for you.
?
.
^
The "?" still stands
This is the right way to start the 2025-26 season, with a big hit.
Commentator:
"Honestly? that's what you're supposed to do, right? Guy hits your goaltender, knocks his bucket off...yeah, you gotta go in there with purpose."
https://www.instagram.com/share/reel/BAOJ-cJGkN
It's only 40 days and counting until the Univerzitní Hokej Czechia scrimmage.
Liberty the derpy bible thumper degree mill? They have a hockey team?
JFC. Literally.
Quote from: TrotskyLiberty the derpy bible thumper degree mill? They have a hockey team?
JFC. Literally.
Yeah, they're often listed first on ESPN+ under the "college hockey" category, probably because of conservative $$$
They have a med school. That is terrifying.
(https://justhistoryposts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/instruments.jpg)
Note: instruments shown bear marks of the scientific method and are thus well beyond Liberty.
Column paying tribute (https://www.nhregister.com/sports/article/keith-allain-yale-hockey-coach-retirement-21018925.php?utm_content=hed&sid=5d95e2d795a7a13ab45b0027&ss=A&st_rid=2055a492-ab8c-4c6e-9bcd-0c1befcee4b5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CT_NHR_MorningBriefing) to Yale's Allain in CT Hearst Newspapers. According to what Allain said in column, it was his choice to retire, but he'd been preparing to do so after this season. But over the summer had his doubts, and was reflecting on how he didn't like how angry he had been at times last season when things weren't going well at practice. The article said the AD met with him on Aug. 7 and asked him to return for one more season. His retirement was announced the next day.
No mention of new sound system playing a role in his decision.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Chris H82I'm on Vancouver Island for a few days, and the CBC radio station out of Victoria had a 10-minute story today about the impact of the NCAA rule changes allowing CHL players to now play in the NCAA. Nothing particularly new in the story, but some good examples of the impacts to the local CHL (WHL) team, the Victoria Royals.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-48-on-the-island/clip/16166042-how-ncaa-changes-mens-hockey-eligibility-impacting-hockey
We're seeing this all play out even within our own recruiting pipeline: recruiting kids directly from the CHL, younger kids going to the CHL prior to college, fewer kids going Junior A.
At this point, 8 of 12 Cornell recruits playing junior hockey are in the CHL. Of 15 total recruits, the breakdown is as follows:
USHL (4): Sandruck, Tuminaro, Pelletier, Major
QMJHL (4): Marmulak, Kirkwood, Dontigny, Wotton
OHL (2): Dec, Emerton
WHL (2): Ament, Wehmann
Still finishing high school (3?): Peckham(?), DiPlacido, Broderick(?) [unclear if Peckham and Broderick are returning to high school or going to juniors. Possible they are trying to make USHL teams out of camp. DiPlacido will play his senior year at St. Andrews]
Shockingly, zero recruits are in the BCHL. In past years it has felt like around half of our recruits were in the BCHL.
As far as I can tell, Peckham and Broderick are headed back to high school and will not play junior hockey this season. Meanwhile, despite dressing
almost all of last season for them, Sandruck apparently did not make the Lincoln Stars roster this year. He was on the preseason roster, but is not on the current roster. Best of luck to him wherever he ends up. Heisenberg seems to expect him to play in the NAHL.
Cornell ranked 17 in the preseason poll. Woot. (https://x.com/JaneMcNally_/status/1970167514475970980?t=USmVixUPjYbYqM63fcU8pg&s=19)
Cornell rank in USCHO poll (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_History.html):
Change (Ch) between final poll of prior season (Fi) and pre-season poll of current season (Pr):
[b]Yr Fi Pr Ch[/b]
99 -- --
00 -- --
01 -- 10
02 15 16 1
03 8 8 0
04 1 9 8
05 20 13 -7
06 4 4 0
07 8 4 -4
08 -- 18
09 21 17 -4
10 9 7 -2
11 6 11 5
12 20 20 0
13 10 6 -4
14 -- 18
15 15 14 -1
16 -- --
17 19 25 6
18 13 15 2
19 8 7 -1
20 8 5 -3
23 24 19 -5
24 9 11 2
25 9 9 0
26 12 17 5
The NCHC is rebranding (https://x.com/TheNCHC/status/1970186533308092532?t=f9Cty_6pwLz0kZcndsF0yQ&s=19) to the National. If you wanted something to laugh about.
Quote from: stereaxThe NCHC is rebranding (https://x.com/TheNCHC/status/1970186533308092532?t=f9Cty_6pwLz0kZcndsF0yQ&s=19) to the National. If you wanted something to laugh about.
Do it, Quinnipiac. Dooooooo iiiiiiiiiit............
Serious write-in potential here (https://nchchockey.com/news/2025/7/3/mens-ice-hockey-help-name-the-nchc-tournament-trophy.aspx).
Quote from: TrotskySerious write-in potential here (https://nchchockey.com/news/2025/7/3/mens-ice-hockey-help-name-the-nchc-tournament-trophy.aspx).
Form's been closed since July, lol.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskySerious write-in potential here (https://nchchockey.com/news/2025/7/3/mens-ice-hockey-help-name-the-nchc-tournament-trophy.aspx).
Form's been closed since July, lol.
Too bad, still nominating "Trophy McTrophace" here.
I'm old enough to remember Frank Deford's daily sports paper (https://www.ebay.com/itm/134143780582), which only lasted about 18 months.
On the other hand, I'm far too un-hip to know anything about these guys (https://www.americanmary.com/).
Men's D-1 starts tonight! CHN Schedule (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/schedules/scoreboard.php?rf=2&rtz=0&sd=20251003)
Let's hope Clarkson (Canisius) and Q (BC) can get the conference started in the right direction.
Quinnipiac leading BC 1-0 right now. Am I watching the Q feed on ESPN? Feels like they're super pro-Q...
Quote from: stereax on October 03, 2025, 07:23:56 PMQuinnipiac leading BC 1-0 right now. Am I watching the Q feed on ESPN? Feels like they're super pro-Q...
They look really good so far, good for our NPI (doesn't roll of the tongue like pairwise) but still kind of disgusting.
Quote from: chimpfood on October 03, 2025, 07:37:52 PMQuote from: stereax on October 03, 2025, 07:23:56 PMQuinnipiac leading BC 1-0 right now. Am I watching the Q feed on ESPN? Feels like they're super pro-Q...
They look really good so far, good for our NPI (doesn't roll of the tongue like pairwise) but still kind of disgusting.
4-2 now. Trying to figure out if Q is actually good this year or if BC is just not that good without Leonard, Perreault, and Fowler...
Cornell mention on the broadcast <3
Clarkson losing 2-0 to Canisius, so mixed effects for CHL players so far I guess.
Quote from: chimpfood on October 03, 2025, 08:35:58 PMClarkson losing 2-0 to Canisius, so mixed effects for CHL players so far I guess.
MSU is kicking the shit out of whoever they're playing, apparently. Win for the CHLers.
Watching the pregame of the PSU-ASU game on the NHL Network and believe it or not ASU is retiring Joey Daccord's number. I get that he's a nice story and has had a decent NHL career, but that's a pretty low bar for a number retirement.
Quote from: scoop85 on October 03, 2025, 10:09:55 PMWatching the pregame of the PSU-ASU game on the NHL Network and believe it or not ASU is retiring Joey Daccord's number. I get that he's a nice story and has had a decent NHL career, but that's a pretty low bar for a number retirement.
Not everyone can be as picky as the Big Red.
Speaking of, ASU up 3-2 after 2 over Penn State. Lol.
Quote from: BearLover on September 17, 2025, 06:48:35 PMAs far as I can tell, Peckham and Broderick are headed back to high school and will not play junior hockey this season. Meanwhile, despite dressing
almost all of last season for them, Sandruck apparently did not make the Lincoln Stars roster this year. He was on the preseason roster, but is not on the current roster. Best of luck to him wherever he ends up. Heisenberg seems to expect him to play in the NAHL.
Sandruck is back with the Jr. Amerks in the NAHL.
Uniform retirements are false hustle.
Q did the league proud. Clarkson... um...
Union tied Army uffda. SLU down 1 to Niagara but hey still in it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ben Robertson is quarterbacking the Michigan power play and has 4 assists through 1.5 games so far this weekend (currently halfway through the second game) as Michigan blows out Mercyhurst. Depressing.
Quote from: BearLover on October 04, 2025, 08:12:52 PMBen Robertson is quarterbacking the Michigan power play and has 4 assists through 1.5 games so far this weekend (currently halfway through the second game) as Michigan blows out Mercyhurst. Depressing.
It do be like that. Good for him though.
Quote from: stereax on October 04, 2025, 08:46:52 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 04, 2025, 08:12:52 PMBen Robertson is quarterbacking the Michigan power play and has 4 assists through 1.5 games so far this weekend (currently halfway through the second game) as Michigan blows out Mercyhurst. Depressing.
It do be like that. Good for him though.
Good on you too. Seems some folks are always depressed and that can be depressing too.
Is there an ignore function built into this software? JK.
Quote from: stereax on October 04, 2025, 08:46:52 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 04, 2025, 08:12:52 PMBen Robertson is quarterbacking the Michigan power play and has 4 assists through 1.5 games so far this weekend (currently halfway through the second game) as Michigan blows out Mercyhurst. Depressing.
It do be like that. Good for him though.
You are way too young to know this meme!
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/they-dont-think-it-be-like-it-is-but-it-do
Quote from: marty on October 04, 2025, 08:50:56 PMQuote from: stereax on October 04, 2025, 08:46:52 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 04, 2025, 08:12:52 PMBen Robertson is quarterbacking the Michigan power play and has 4 assists through 1.5 games so far this weekend (currently halfway through the second game) as Michigan blows out Mercyhurst. Depressing.
It do be like that. Good for him though.
Good on you too. Seems some folks are always depressed and that can be depressing too.
Is there an ignore function built into this software? JK.
I think you can now block posters on the new ELynah... if you don't ragequit it for being new, of course :D
Quote from: Trotsky on October 04, 2025, 10:49:15 PMQuote from: stereax on October 04, 2025, 08:46:52 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 04, 2025, 08:12:52 PMBen Robertson is quarterbacking the Michigan power play and has 4 assists through 1.5 games so far this weekend (currently halfway through the second game) as Michigan blows out Mercyhurst. Depressing.
It do be like that. Good for him though.
You are way too young to know this meme!
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/they-dont-think-it-be-like-it-is-but-it-do
I'm full of surprises... just like the TBL/FLA game today, lmao.
I can't remember the NHL hyping any NCAA Hockey player before, like they have for Gavin McKenna. Watching the hype machine go over the years from basically not giving a shit to drooling is interesting. I suppose with CHL players having the collage option, this is what to expect.
Quote from: The Rancor on October 05, 2025, 09:37:59 AMI can't remember the NHL hyping any NCAA Hockey player before, like they have for Gavin McKenna. Watching the hype machine go over the years from basically not giving a shit to drooling is interesting. I suppose with CHL players having the collage option, this is what to expect.
Celebrini did not get this level of hype. Nobody from the '25 draft year did either, but that was a more open field. Nobody since Bedard has gotten this level of glaze.
I'm watching the BU-RPI exhibition game and it's both sad and hilarious that on the ice at Agganis is an ad for "Jeffrey Glassman, Injury Lawyer"
I hope it isn't in that corner.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
Quote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Fun game overall, though (if you're a BU and backup goaltender fan).
Quote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Different arena anyway. Walter Brown is only used by the women's team nowadays
Quote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
...Yikes.
Huh. Coulda sworn that was at Agannis.
Quote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
I for one read your comment as an allusion rather than a joke.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Well it's definitely an allusion, and I also interpreted it as an attempt at a joke. They're not mutually exclusive. I mean, what was the point of the post, then?
Quote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:17 AMHuh. Coulda sworn that was at Agannis.
Agganis didn't open until about 10 years later
Our first opponent this season, UMass, put up 35 shots in the first period and 70 in the game vs Northern Michigan Saturday night, if the CHN scoreboard is to be believed. I cannot remember seeing this many SOG by one team in a period or in a game that ended in regulation.
Quote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 01:31:36 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Well it's definitely an allusion, and I also interpreted it as an attempt at a joke. They're not mutually exclusive. I mean, what was the point of the post, then?
A joke is something that you'd laugh at. An allusion is a reference point, something that Trotsky often does. He also references jokes or cartoons (good or bad attempts ;D ), but you know it when that happens. Knowing Trotsky I'd never expect him to disrespect an injured player like that. Institutions, big businesses for sure, but not this.
Rather I thought that he was just being cute, even if he was totally wrong.
Quote from: Jim Hyla on October 09, 2025, 10:07:59 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 01:31:36 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Well it's definitely an allusion, and I also interpreted it as an attempt at a joke. They're not mutually exclusive. I mean, what was the point of the post, then?
A jKnowing Trotsky I'd never expect him to disrespect an injured player like that. Institutions, big businesses for sure, but not this.
I only know Trotsky through this forum, but his propensity for edgy jokes is exactly why I interpreted this one as a joke. See, for example, his long-running bit about lacrosse players being rapists. This one seemed like an allusion at which you're supposed to laugh nervously, and guiltily, once the allusion becomes clear.
Quote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 01:31:36 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Well it's definitely an allusion, and I also interpreted it as an attempt at a joke. They're not mutually exclusive. I mean, what was the point of the post, then?
What are you implying?
Sorry, I mistyped that.
What are you implying, asshole?
Quote from: BearLover on October 09, 2025, 10:21:02 AMQuote from: Jim Hyla on October 09, 2025, 10:07:59 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 01:31:36 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Well it's definitely an allusion, and I also interpreted it as an attempt at a joke. They're not mutually exclusive. I mean, what was the point of the post, then?
A jKnowing Trotsky I'd never expect him to disrespect an injured player like that. Institutions, big businesses for sure, but not this.
I only know Trotsky through this forum, but his propensity for edgy jokes is exactly why I interpreted this one as a joke. See, for example, his long-running bit about lacrosse players being rapists. This one seemed like an allusion at which you're supposed to laugh nervously, and guiltily, once the allusion becomes clear.
You are really a piece of work.
I have extended the olive branch so many times but, nope, you're done. Once I find Ignore in this format you unexist. Have a bitter, miserable existence and FOAD.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 09, 2025, 04:50:34 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 01:31:36 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 06, 2025, 11:50:45 AMQuote from: BearLover on October 06, 2025, 06:20:25 AMQuote from: stereax on October 06, 2025, 02:27:58 AMQuote from: scoop85 on October 05, 2025, 10:40:50 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 05, 2025, 10:05:08 PMI hope it isn't in that corner.
Thankfully not — it's near the blue line.
At the risk of sounding like a neophyte... which corner?
Trotsky is making a "joke" about 20-year-old BU hockey player Travis Roy breaking his neck and becoming a paraplegic.
An allusion, not a joke. That's the point.
Well it's definitely an allusion, and I also interpreted it as an attempt at a joke. They're not mutually exclusive. I mean, what was the point of the post, then?
What are you implying?
Sorry, I mistyped that.
What are you implying, asshole?
I thought you were trying to make an edgy joke
Clarkson beats Penn state. They looked good all night, especially their goalie. Didn't expect this after they lost to canisius.
Quote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 08:53:57 PMClarkson beats Penn state. They looked good all night, especially their goalie. Didn't expect this after they lost to canisius.
I've still got 40 seconds left on my broadcast. Is this not live?!
Quote from: Beeeej on October 09, 2025, 08:54:40 PMQuote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 08:53:57 PMClarkson beats Penn state. They looked good all night, especially their goalie. Didn't expect this after they lost to canisius.
I've still got 40 seconds left on my broadcast. Is this not live?!
Its live, figured a 2 goal lead with 40 seconds was enough for me to call it.
Quote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 08:55:30 PMQuote from: Beeeej on October 09, 2025, 08:54:40 PMQuote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 08:53:57 PMClarkson beats Penn state. They looked good all night, especially their goalie. Didn't expect this after they lost to canisius.
I've still got 40 seconds left on my broadcast. Is this not live?!
Its live, figured a 2 goal lead with 40 seconds was enough for me to call it.
You and Miami of Ohio in 2009.
Quote from: Beeeej on October 09, 2025, 08:59:44 PMQuote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 08:55:30 PMQuote from: Beeeej on October 09, 2025, 08:54:40 PMQuote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 08:53:57 PMClarkson beats Penn state. They looked good all night, especially their goalie. Didn't expect this after they lost to canisius.
I've still got 40 seconds left on my broadcast. Is this not live?!
Its live, figured a 2 goal lead with 40 seconds was enough for me to call it.
You and Miami of Ohio in 2009.
Yikes. Too soon! 8)
And UNH beat Michigan state. Ferris also leads Western Michigan 2-1 in the third.
Glad to see Big 10 schools losing.
Quote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 09:16:29 PMAnd UNH beat Michigan state. Ferris also leads Western Michigan 2-1 in the third.
Ferris???
For our long suffering RPI fan friends, USCHO is listing the Engineers in first place on the current standings opposite the Cornell roster: https://www.uscho.com/stats/roster/team/cornell/mens-hockey
Quote from: stereax on October 09, 2025, 11:58:42 PMQuote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 09:16:29 PMAnd UNH beat Michigan state. Ferris also leads Western Michigan 2-1 in the third.
Ferris???
Some of us still have vivid memories of losing to Ferris in the regional finals in 2012 after our gorgeous OT upset of Michigan the night before. It was beautiful but excruciating defensive hockey, like watching the same team on both sides. I had to watch from a hotel restaurant in Miami (no, the other one) where I was traveling for work. And after Ferris won 2-1, they ended up facing Union in the Frozen Four semis, an admittedly strong Union team yet one against whom we'd gone 1-0-1 that year.
So many missed opportunities...!
CHL players seem to be doing very well so far. Playing big roles in Quinnipiac's and Clarkson's wins, McKenna has 5 points in 3 games, etc. Things will hopefully calm down over the next few years, but right now it's looking like teams who were able to add CHL players at the last minute are benefiting greatly.
Quote from: Beeeej on October 10, 2025, 09:27:40 AMQuote from: stereax on October 09, 2025, 11:58:42 PMQuote from: chimpfood on October 09, 2025, 09:16:29 PMAnd UNH beat Michigan state. Ferris also leads Western Michigan 2-1 in the third.
Ferris???
Some of us still have vivid memories of losing to Ferris in the regional finals in 2012 after our gorgeous OT upset of Michigan the night before. It was beautiful but excruciating defensive hockey, like watching the same team on both sides. I had to watch from a hotel restaurant in Miami (no, the other one) where I was traveling for work. And after Ferris won 2-1, they ended up facing Union in the Frozen Four semis, an admittedly strong Union team yet one against whom we'd gone 1-0-1 that year.
So many missed opportunities...!
Also, Ferris is in the WCCHA, and Western is in the NCHC, so conference virtue says we should be happy about this.
Quote from: BearLover on October 09, 2025, 09:52:31 PMGlad to see Big 10 schools losing.
Don't try to sweet talk me.
BU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Quote from: stereax on October 10, 2025, 09:17:21 PMBU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Con-cock-ting?
Q loses to Alaska, great because we can cheer for them to lose and not get hurt in the NPI because we also play Alaska. It's hilarious to me that Quinnipiac just keeps playing their worse goalie for some reason.
Quote from: stereax on October 10, 2025, 09:17:21 PMBU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Please let us be up by a 1-2 goals in the closing minutes of the game. The chant writes itself.
Quote from: jtwcornell91 on October 11, 2025, 07:53:52 AMQuote from: stereax on October 10, 2025, 09:17:21 PMBU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Please let us be up by a 1-2 goals in the closing minutes of the game. The chant writes itself.
Possibly the greatest joke in eLynah history. Take a bow, my friend.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 11, 2025, 12:38:01 PMQuote from: jtwcornell91 on October 11, 2025, 07:53:52 AMQuote from: stereax on October 10, 2025, 09:17:21 PMBU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Please let us be up by a 1-2 goals in the closing minutes of the game. The chant writes itself.
Possibly the greatest joke in eLynah history. Take a bow, my friend.
I didn't ask BU friend about the empty cage specifically - that was my first thought too - but I know they were chanting "You Suck Dyck" every time he got scored on. Which was... a lot.
Skating Saints beats the Catamounts in the battle of the bottom feeders. Every little bit helps the conference.
Quote from: stereax on October 11, 2025, 02:06:04 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 11, 2025, 12:38:01 PMQuote from: jtwcornell91 on October 11, 2025, 07:53:52 AMQuote from: stereax on October 10, 2025, 09:17:21 PMBU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Please let us be up by a 1-2 goals in the closing minutes of the game. The chant writes itself.
Possibly the greatest joke in eLynah history. Take a bow, my friend.
I didn't ask BU friend about the empty cage specifically - that was my first thought too - but I know they were chanting "You Suck Dyck" every time he got scored on. Which was... a lot.
Could be a women's game. That would be a lot.
Quote from: Trotsky on October 13, 2025, 11:44:19 AMQuote from: stereax on October 11, 2025, 02:06:04 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 11, 2025, 12:38:01 PMQuote from: jtwcornell91 on October 11, 2025, 07:53:52 AMQuote from: stereax on October 10, 2025, 09:17:21 PMBU has dropped a touchdown on Colgate, 6-2 win. I'm already preparing to be blown out at MSG, lol.
Did you know Colgate's goalie is called Dyck?
Please imagine the insults I am concocting in my head.
Please let us be up by a 1-2 goals in the closing minutes of the game. The chant writes itself.
Possibly the greatest joke in eLynah history. Take a bow, my friend.
I didn't ask BU friend about the empty cage specifically - that was my first thought too - but I know they were chanting "You Suck Dyck" every time he got scored on. Which was... a lot.
Could be a women's game. That would be a lot.
I meant, they did it like 5 or 6 times, LOL.
Quinnipiac just received a commitment from the first overall pick in the USHL Futures Draft, Thaddeus McMahon. Hopefully Pecknold retires soon. Though, now that we've won back to back ECACs, my focus has shifted to winning a national title. From that perspective, whether this kid ends up at Q or at BU isn't a huge difference.
Sorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Canisius has already beaten Clarkson/STL/Colgate this year
Quote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Onion made me cry when they came back to beat Niagara but good for the league.
Quote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Was thinking the same, which got me thinking - What percentage of OOC games happen very early in the season (when teams are not what they will be come tourney time) and how much does that impact who gets in? I assume greatly, which seems unfortunate.
Quote from: CU2007 on October 18, 2025, 09:41:48 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Was thinking the same, which got me thinking - What percentage of OOC games happen very early in the season (when teams are not what they will be come tourney time) and how much does that impact who gets in? I assume greatly, which seems unfortunate.
Right now the ECAC is 10-15-3. That's a 0.411 winning percentage. I can't easily find the record from last year but in 2023-2024 the season ended with the ECAC having a .414 record in non com games. So this isn't a disaster so far, and better news for us is that two of the losses come from BU and Alaska who we play, so those won't hurt us. Also this is just anecdotal but it seems like the ECAC non conference games have been against tough opponents so far this year, but maybe I'm just making that up.
Quote from: chimpfood on October 18, 2025, 10:20:56 PMQuote from: CU2007 on October 18, 2025, 09:41:48 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Was thinking the same, which got me thinking - What percentage of OOC games happen very early in the season (when teams are not what they will be come tourney time) and how much does that impact who gets in? I assume greatly, which seems unfortunate.
Right now the ECAC is 10-15-3. That's a 0.411 winning percentage. I can't easily find the record from last year but in 2023-2024 the season ended with the ECAC having a .414 record in non com games. So this isn't a disaster so far, and better news for us is that two of the losses come from BU and Alaska who we play, so those won't hurt us. Also this is just anecdotal but it seems like the ECAC non conference games have been against tough opponents so far this year, but maybe I'm just making that up.
Depends if the league is playing the same quality of teams year to year, which may be true - I honestly have no idea. But, I always cringe when I see an ECAC team lose to a team in Atlantic Hockey.
Quote from: CU2007 on October 18, 2025, 09:41:48 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Was thinking the same, which got me thinking - What percentage of OOC games happen very early in the season (when teams are not what they will be come tourney time) and how much does that impact who gets in? I assume greatly, which seems unfortunate.
Agree. I think the old record in last 16 criterion was intended to account for that and reward the hot hand.
As long as the start dates are staggered, the ivies in particular would benefit from front loading conference games (particularly amongst themselves) and maybe making the period from roughly Thanksgiving to MLK the OOC window.
Quote from: Chris '03 on October 19, 2025, 05:42:52 PMQuote from: CU2007 on October 18, 2025, 09:41:48 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Was thinking the same, which got me thinking - What percentage of OOC games happen very early in the season (when teams are not what they will be come tourney time) and how much does that impact who gets in? I assume greatly, which seems unfortunate.
Agree. I think the old record in last 16 criterion was intended to account for that and reward the hot hand.
As long as the start dates are staggered, the ivies in particular would benefit from front loading conference games (particularly amongst themselves) and maybe making the period from roughly Thanksgiving to MLK the OOC window.
All games should carry equal weight. The alternative doesn't seem fair. If teams struggle more early, that's the same problem everyone has to deal with. Well, except for the Ivies. That's an Ivy problem, and yes that can be fixed to some degree by scheduling more intra-Ivy games early, and indeed Yale-Brown and Harvard-Dartmouth used to play each other opening weekend, but Cornell can't really do this with its non-Ivy travel partner.
Re-sort as Cornell/Princeton, Brown/Yale, Harvard/Dartmouth, the North Country, the Capital District, Q/Colgate. Play the ECAC home-and-homes as the first weekend of Ivy sufferance. Move that Ivy start forward by only one week.
The earlier league start also gives the mid season more flexibility to schedule non-conference opponents according to their availability.
Problem solved. I'll have a Samuel Smith Chocolate Stout, please. Next: the Middle East.
Q-Colgate seems like a long trip between games. How about Q-RPI and Colgate-Union to split the difference.
Quote from: TimV on October 20, 2025, 01:38:16 PMQ-Colgate seems like a long trip between games. How about Q-RPI and Colgate-Union to split the difference.
Yes, Q-gate is about an hour longer than the current Q-Princeton
Quote from: chimpfood on October 18, 2025, 10:20:56 PMQuote from: CU2007 on October 18, 2025, 09:41:48 PMQuote from: BearLover on October 17, 2025, 11:19:30 PMSorry showing from the ECAC tonight. If Quinnipiac hadn't come back in the final minutes against Maine, it would have been an oh-for (o-fer?).
It's too early to be saying this but it's looking like another year of just Quinnipiac + tournament champion in the NCAA.
Was thinking the same, which got me thinking - What percentage of OOC games happen very early in the season (when teams are not what they will be come tourney time) and how much does that impact who gets in? I assume greatly, which seems unfortunate.
Right now the ECAC is 10-15-3. That's a 0.411 winning percentage. I can't easily find the record from last year but in 2023-2024 the season ended with the ECAC having a .414 record in non com games. So this isn't a disaster so far, and better news for us is that two of the losses come from BU and Alaska who we play, so those won't hurt us. Also this is just anecdotal but it seems like the ECAC non conference games have been against tough opponents so far this year, but maybe I'm just making that up.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/standings.php
hover over the Inter-Conference Records tab - click on any of the past seasons.
Here's 2023-24
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/standings-interconf.php?s=20232024
UND loses to Clarkson in the North Country. Hmm...
Quote from: Iceberg on October 24, 2025, 09:30:11 PMUND loses to Clarkson in the North Country. Hmm...
3 upsets:
Clarkson 5 #8 North Dakota 2
Colgate 3 #10 Maine 2
Merrimack 4 #6 Quinnipiac 1
1 chalk:
#20 Mankato 4 RPI 2
Quote from: Trotsky on October 24, 2025, 11:25:24 PMQuote from: Iceberg on October 24, 2025, 09:30:11 PMUND loses to Clarkson in the North Country. Hmm...
3 upsets:
Clarkson 5 #8 North Dakota 2
Colgate 3 #10 Maine 2
Merrimack 4 #6 Quinnipiac 1
1 chalk:
#20 Mankato 4 RPI 2
I got all four wrong in the prediction contest on USCHO. I did no worse when I forgot to post guesses last week. :)
Quote from: ursusminor on October 25, 2025, 01:22:47 AMQuote from: Trotsky on October 24, 2025, 11:25:24 PMQuote from: Iceberg on October 24, 2025, 09:30:11 PMUND loses to Clarkson in the North Country. Hmm...
3 upsets:
Clarkson 5 #8 North Dakota 2
Colgate 3 #10 Maine 2
Merrimack 4 #6 Quinnipiac 1
1 chalk:
#20 Mankato 4 RPI 2
I got all four wrong in the prediction contest on USCHO. I did no worse when I forgot to post guesses last week. :)
I dunno it seems consistent. All four ranked teams severely underperformed.
;)
Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
Also noticed that other than the IVYs there is only Miami left as an undefeated untied team, 2-3 weeks into the season.
Quote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
Quote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMIt's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
That link is fantastic, Adam!
Quote from: Trotsky on October 27, 2025, 04:18:44 PMQuote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMIt's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
That link is fantastic, Adam!
just replaced the pairwise link that was there for 20+ years? but hey - glad you caught up :)
Quote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMQuote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
So this sounds like the "recursive RPI" that we were discussing on HOCKEY-L 20-odd years ago. I didn't realize the NCAA was already doing something like this in other sports.
Quote from: adamw on October 28, 2025, 05:26:04 PMQuote from: Trotsky on October 27, 2025, 04:18:44 PMQuote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMIt's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
That link is fantastic, Adam!
just replaced the pairwise link that was there for 20+ years? but hey - glad you caught up :)
What am I supposed to do with all the headspace I've devoted to remembering pairwise intricacies?
Also, you've explained it to me in fairly convincing detail before, but 1.2 to 0.8 still feels like too much weight for home/away advantage.
The BU-Maine game is fuckin batty. I advise you watch it.
Quote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMQuote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.
Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?
Is
Quote from: CU2007 on November 02, 2025, 12:09:08 AMQuote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMQuote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.
Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?
Is
yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution. As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 02:22:08 AMQuote from: CU2007 on November 02, 2025, 12:09:08 AMQuote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMQuote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.
Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?
Is
yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution. As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.
Makes sense, thanks
Quote from: stereax on November 01, 2025, 09:35:26 PMThe BU-Maine game is fuckin batty. I advise you watch it.
I caught the third. And did not appreciate the facemasking flashbacks thank you very much.
The question will still be is a flawed computer based system better than a flawed human based system.
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 02:22:08 AMQuote from: CU2007 on November 02, 2025, 12:09:08 AMQuote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMQuote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.
Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?
Is
yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution. As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.
What
is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.
As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.
Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?
(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)
My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually
disadvantaged, relatively speaking.
*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit
more.
Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 11:26:24 AMWhat is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.
As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.
Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?
(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)
My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.
*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.
Well - it wasn't my decision. But if the "real" home/road is really like 1.02/0.98 - then it most certainly is a punishment for earning home ice advantage. The 1.2/0.8 was put in to encourage top teams to schedule road non-league games. It wasn't meant to be mathematically accurate.
Your argument about 4/5 logic being backwards would be true if the 1.2/0.8 was real.
The rest - we'll see how it plays out. Cornell is going to get other advantages from the new system.
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 12:00:01 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 11:26:24 AMWhat is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.
As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.
Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?
(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)
My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.
*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.
Well - it wasn't my decision. But if the "real" home/road is really like 1.02/0.98 - then it most certainly is a punishment for earning home ice advantage. The 1.2/0.8 was put in to encourage top teams to schedule road non-league games. It wasn't meant to be mathematically accurate.
Your argument about 4/5 logic being backwards would be true if the 1.2/0.8 was real.
The rest - we'll see how it plays out. Cornell is going to get other advantages from the new system.
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 12:00:01 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 11:26:24 AMWhat is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.
As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.
Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?
(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)
My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.
*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.
Well - it wasn't my decision. But if the "real" home/road is really like 1.02/0.98 - then it most certainly is a punishment for earning home ice advantage. The 1.2/0.8 was put in to encourage top teams to schedule road non-league games. It wasn't meant to be mathematically accurate.
Your argument about 4/5 logic being backwards would be true if the 1.2/0.8 was real.
The rest - we'll see how it plays out. Cornell is going to get other advantages from the new system.
Choosing teams for the national tournament based on a formula that is designed to maximize things other than picking the most qualified teams is absolutely nuts! I'm wondering how off the 1.2/0.8 split is though. I could imagine it's close to the "true" advantage...
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 02:22:08 AMQuote from: CU2007 on November 02, 2025, 12:09:08 AMQuote from: adamw on October 27, 2025, 01:07:22 PMQuote from: upprdeck on October 25, 2025, 10:51:14 AMClarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine? Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.
Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?
It's complicated
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi
Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.
Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?
Is
yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution. As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.
I find references to Kris Mayotte triggering after watching him put up like 50something saves beating us at Lynah one year while I couldn't figure out wtf was on his mask.
It might have been a chocobo?
Dartmouth throttling Yale in what's actually a non-conference game. I'll be surprised if Yale doesn't finish in last place this year given that it seems like every other team has improved in some way
Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 12:18:41 PMChoosing teams for the national tournament based on a formula that is designed to maximize things other than picking the most qualified teams is absolutely nuts! I'm wondering how off the 1.2/0.8 split is though. I could imagine it's close to the "true" advantage...
National home ice advantage last year was .5377 ... which is the lowest in at least 10 years. I think that's also skewed by all the "bigger" teams that still host "smaller" teams in most instances where two such teams meet. But that's somewhat speculative.
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 11:37:06 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 12:18:41 PMChoosing teams for the national tournament based on a formula that is designed to maximize things other than picking the most qualified teams is absolutely nuts! I'm wondering how off the 1.2/0.8 split is though. I could imagine it's close to the "true" advantage...
National home ice advantage last year was .5377 ... which is the lowest in at least 10 years. I think that's also skewed by all the "bigger" teams that still host "smaller" teams in most instances where two such teams meet. But that's somewhat speculative.
Also I assume it is counting teams that host home playoff games by virtue of having a better record.
If I have time I'll eventually calculate what home ice advantage was within the ECAC regular season last year. Small sample but it would account for most of these issues. If someone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free.
Quote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 11:37:06 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 12:18:41 PMChoosing teams for the national tournament based on a formula that is designed to maximize things other than picking the most qualified teams is absolutely nuts! I'm wondering how off the 1.2/0.8 split is though. I could imagine it's close to the "true" advantage...
National home ice advantage last year was .5377 ... which is the lowest in at least 10 years. I think that's also skewed by all the "bigger" teams that still host "smaller" teams in most instances where two such teams meet. But that's somewhat speculative.
Adam, is that advantage based on straight win/loss?
It would be more useful to see a krach
adjusted advantage as that would remove the big school small school issue and also adjust for sos.
Quote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 11:43:42 PMQuote from: adamw on November 02, 2025, 11:37:06 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 02, 2025, 12:18:41 PMChoosing teams for the national tournament based on a formula that is designed to maximize things other than picking the most qualified teams is absolutely nuts! I'm wondering how off the 1.2/0.8 split is though. I could imagine it's close to the "true" advantage...
National home ice advantage last year was .5377 ... which is the lowest in at least 10 years. I think that's also skewed by all the "bigger" teams that still host "smaller" teams in most instances where two such teams meet. But that's somewhat speculative.
Also I assume it is counting teams that host home playoff games by virtue of having a better record.
If I have time I'll eventually calculate what home ice advantage was within the ECAC regular season last year. Small sample but it would account for most of these issues. If someone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free.
my bad not including ties in a WL% formula. Doesn't change it much nationally ... .5345
the home ice advantage in just ECAC regular-season games was ... negative - by a lot ... .4394
I checked this for all conferences just to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong ... the national WL% for regular-season games in any conference was .... .4960
This lends credence to the idea that non-conference games are largely by "bigger" teams playing "smaller" teams.
The home WL% in the Big Ten - BTW - was ... .5563
take that for what it's worth
(FYI - I did not do goofy points % math with 3-2-1 points, etc... - Just 2 for a W, 1 for T through OT - so Ws including OTWs)
So does it make sense then, that better teams win more home and away and worse teams lose more home and away.
How much does it skew thing if there is no advantage at all for h/a?
A good team in a bad league will win more and also win more away and thus get more credit? But then its value is lowered by the SOS.
I was listening to a show talking about power rankings and metrices for gambling and they had the discussion that basically the eye test is much better at picking better teams but that with so many teams they computer numbers make it easier to assign value even if its wrong.
So my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Quote from: BearLover on November 03, 2025, 04:12:35 PMSo my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Nobody ever believed the home/road weighting was accurate. 100% accuracy was literally never the goal. The fact that it's not accurate is not even a question.
Quote from: adamw on November 04, 2025, 09:53:24 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 03, 2025, 04:12:35 PMSo my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Nobody ever believed the home/road weighting was accurate. 100% accuracy was literally never the goal. The fact that it's not accurate is not even a question.
Umm, ok? Obviously no one would expect it to be perfectly accurate. But I would have expected it to be somewhat based in reality, given they had to choose a number. Why 1.2/0.8 instead of 1.1/0.9 or 1.3/0.7? It's pretty clearly implied that the question of "whether the weighting is accurate" also includes the question of "if it's not accurate, then by how much?"
Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 11:03:15 AMQuote from: adamw on November 04, 2025, 09:53:24 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 03, 2025, 04:12:35 PMSo my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Nobody ever believed the home/road weighting was accurate. 100% accuracy was literally never the goal. The fact that it's not accurate is not even a question.
Umm, ok? Obviously no one would expect it to be perfectly accurate. But I would have expected it to be somewhat based in reality, given they had to choose a number. Why 1.2/0.8 instead of 1.1/0.9 or 1.3/0.7? It's pretty clearly implied that the question of "whether the weighting is accurate" also includes the question of "if it's not accurate, then by how much?"
They literally debate 6 ways to Sunday every different possibility all the time. Conference games vs. NC - OT weights - etc... You want the minutes of all the meetings? I'm telling you the general gist is that it wasn't intended to be accurate. It was intended to encourage bigger programs to play road non-conference games. So no one has cared about tweaking 1.2/0.8 to fit whatever the exact home ice advantage is every year - which fluctuates.
Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 11:03:15 AMQuote from: adamw on November 04, 2025, 09:53:24 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 03, 2025, 04:12:35 PMSo my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Nobody ever believed the home/road weighting was accurate. 100% accuracy was literally never the goal. The fact that it's not accurate is not even a question.
If it angers the media due to their innumeracy, so much the better.
Umm, ok? Obviously no one would expect it to be perfectly accurate. But I would have expected it to be somewhat based in reality, given they had to choose a number.
It would be easy enough to let that number "choose" itself from any given year's actual results, normalized the way the poster said above. They didn't "have" to do anything. It's arbitrary. So let the weights determine themselves. Don't force a (mis-) preconception onto them.
If it infuriates the innumerate masses, so much the better.
Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 03:35:56 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 11:03:15 AMQuote from: adamw on November 04, 2025, 09:53:24 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 03, 2025, 04:12:35 PMSo my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Nobody ever believed the home/road weighting was accurate. 100% accuracy was literally never the goal. The fact that it's not accurate is not even a question.
If it angers the media due to their innumeracy, so much the better.
Umm, ok? Obviously no one would expect it to be perfectly accurate. But I would have expected it to be somewhat based in reality, given they had to choose a number.
It would be easy enough to let that number "choose" itself from any given year's actual results, normalized the way the poster said above. They didn't "have" to do anything. It's arbitrary. So let the weights determine themselves. Don't force a (mis-) preconception onto them.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me but this is what I'm calling for, yes. There's a clear misperception here: I was (and I assume most other fans were) under the impression the 1.2/0.8 split was meant to capture the real advantage of home ice. Apparently that isn't the goal at all. That's not only unfair, it's also misleading. Seems like the easiest way to game the system is to schedule a bunch of games on the road, since you get a bonus that exceeds the home team's real advantage. If you want to slightly sweeten the deal for away teams to encourage more teams to travel to Alaska or something, sure, but once we have to start changing other rules to account for this weighting being bad, then it begs the question whether we need to use weights that are totally off in the first place.
Quote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 03:44:13 PMQuote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 03:35:56 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 04, 2025, 11:03:15 AMQuote from: adamw on November 04, 2025, 09:53:24 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 03, 2025, 04:12:35 PMSo my question here was whether the current home/away weighting in the NPL is accurate. It assumes home teams should win 60% of the time, all else being equal. Sounds like in effect it's closer to 53.5%. If I have that right, the 1.2/0.8 weighting should be lessened. Obviously, you'd need to cross-check this against more years to confirm last year wasn't a fluke.
This is all a wash if every team plays the same ratio of games home:away.
Nobody ever believed the home/road weighting was accurate. 100% accuracy was literally never the goal. The fact that it's not accurate is not even a question.
If it angers the media due to their innumeracy, so much the better.
Umm, ok? Obviously no one would expect it to be perfectly accurate. But I would have expected it to be somewhat based in reality, given they had to choose a number.
It would be easy enough to let that number "choose" itself from any given year's actual results, normalized the way the poster said above. They didn't "have" to do anything. It's arbitrary. So let the weights determine themselves. Don't force a (mis-) preconception onto them.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me but this is what I'm calling for, yes.
I didn't read your post. I am saying any dictated number is artificial so at least this would be somewhat reality-based and flexible. Of course, the choice of algorithm which rolls those results in would itself then be arbitrary, and on and on...
Every reality is a social convention so the sane have a beer and the fanatical fight for the right to impose their pet system. cf. politics, ethics, aesthetics, religion, science, history, law, language, etc...
Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 03:55:03 PMEvery reality is a social convention so the sane have a beer and the fanatical fight for the right to impose their pet system. cf. politics, ethics, aesthetics, religion, science, history, law, language, etc...
As long as the insane aren't allowed to choose the beer I'm fine with this.
Two prime hatewatch opportunities tonight - Stonehill/Harvard and Alaska/Quinnipiac. If either of the non-ECAC teams win, we can brand their opponents absolute frauds.
Quote from: stereax on November 04, 2025, 05:58:43 PMTwo prime hatewatch opportunities tonight - Stonehill/Harvard and Alaska/Quinnipiac. If either of the non-ECAC teams win, we can brand their opponents absolute frauds.
We would prefer them to win, unfortunately. Or I suppose we can think of it as a no lose situation.
Quote from: Trotsky on November 04, 2025, 07:29:18 PMQuote from: stereax on November 04, 2025, 05:58:43 PMTwo prime hatewatch opportunities tonight - Stonehill/Harvard and Alaska/Quinnipiac. If either of the non-ECAC teams win, we can brand their opponents absolute frauds.
We would prefer them to win, unfortunately. Or I suppose we can think of it as a no lose situation.
Harvard pumps Stonehill, 6-2, but Alaska and Q tie.
Adam - I'm assuming you didn't catch one of my questions earlier.
Any chance of looking at home advantage and adjusting for quality of opponent by applying krach? The ultimate question isn't home advantage. It's whether being at home makes you more likely than you should be to win vs a specific opponent.
I think this is the math for this, someone correct me if I am wrong:
for each game result, a team is likely to win at a percentage of Ke =Kh/(Kh+Kr)
where Ke is the expected win percent, Kh is the home teams krach and Kr is the road teams krach.
You can calculate a season total for Krach expected home wins by adding up the Ke for all home games by played by a team.
Over or under expectation is the difference between the Ke and the actual win percentage from those home games.
Admittedly I don't know how to handle ties when krach adjusting in this model. Krach ratios tell you how often to expect a win, but I don't think I've ever seen a mention of how to use them to predict the tie percentage. We know that if you are 80% win probability a tie is underperforming, but not as much as a loss, but using any point system for WLT is arbitrary. Is there a theoretical way to predict the tie ratio as well as the win ratio?
Quote from: abmarks on November 04, 2025, 11:46:05 PMAdam - I'm assuming you didn't catch one of my questions earlier.
Any chance of looking at home advantage and adjusting for quality of opponent by applying krach? The ultimate question isn't home advantage. It's whether being at home makes you more likely than you should be to win vs a specific opponent.
I think this is the math for this, someone correct me if I am wrong:
for each game result, a team is likely to win at a percentage of Ke =Kh/(Kh+Kr)
where Ke is the expected win percent, Kh is the home teams krach and Kr is the road teams krach.
You can calculate a season total for Krach expected home wins by adding up the Ke for all home games by played by a team.
Over or under expectation is the difference between the Ke and the actual win percentage from those home games.
Admittedly I don't know how to handle ties when krach adjusting in this model. Krach ratios tell you how often to expect a win, but I don't think I've ever seen a mention of how to use them to predict the tie percentage. We know that if you are 80% win probability a tie is underperforming, but not as much as a loss, but using any point system for WLT is arbitrary. Is there a theoretical way to predict the tie ratio as well as the win ratio?
Rather than relying on KRACH, which (AFAIK) is not a (remotely?) perfect measure of how likely a team is to win versus a specific opponent, can't you control for this by restricting your analysis to in-conference games so that every team plays every opponent an equal number of times home and away?
Quote from: abmarks on November 04, 2025, 11:46:05 PMAdam - I'm assuming you didn't catch one of my questions earlier.
Any chance of looking at home advantage and adjusting for quality of opponent by applying krach? The ultimate question isn't home advantage. It's whether being at home makes you more likely than you should be to win vs a specific opponent.
I think this is the math for this, someone correct me if I am wrong:
for each game result, a team is likely to win at a percentage of Ke =Kh/(Kh+Kr)
where Ke is the expected win percent, Kh is the home teams krach and Kr is the road teams krach.
You can calculate a season total for Krach expected home wins by adding up the Ke for all home games by played by a team.
Over or under expectation is the difference between the Ke and the actual win percentage from those home games.
Admittedly I don't know how to handle ties when krach adjusting in this model. Krach ratios tell you how often to expect a win, but I don't think I've ever seen a mention of how to use them to predict the tie percentage. We know that if you are 80% win probability a tie is underperforming, but not as much as a loss, but using any point system for WLT is arbitrary. Is there a theoretical way to predict the tie ratio as well as the win ratio?
Side notes first ...
- not sure who injected the remark about innumeracy into my quote to make it look like I said it, but I didn't. That said, most people are, in general.
- listen to our latest podcast, with NPI architect Tim Danehy if you want more insight
- leave it to BL to twist things around into oblivion, and if they don't fit into the narrowly defined specifications of his liking, then everyone must be terrible or doing something wrong or misleading people. No one is being misled. No one thinks they are being misled. As I said, they endlessly debate, with each other, what the right thing is. If 1.2/0.8 isn't working out, they'll change it. So far it's close enough. And if it was so easy to "game the system" by scheduling nothing but road games - why aren't teams doing it? Like I said, listen to the podcast.
- As for KRACH - saying it's not "remotely" a perfect measure, is silly (go figure). Where's John Whelan when I need him? It's actually - as far as I'm concerned (with some needed tweaks to what we publish) - the best method there is. Listen to Tim discuss this on the podcast, where he gives a counter-point to that, while also saying that, with enough data, it would be the best system.
- To finally answer the question ... certainly you can do a lot of complex formulations to make things work, and that's what I mean about tweaking KRACH for home/road. But when it comes to something like NPI, they want the criteria to be also somewhat understandable. And since it's all "close enough" - albeit arbitrary in many ways - it works out. Just as the Pairwise did.
- I have 2 math PhDs helping me tweak our KRACH calculation to do exactly things like that, and more. At the end of the day, however, almost anything you do will have subjective components to them. For example, having a "recency bias" is doable, but a philosophical discussion. Having a "Quality Win Bonus" is done now, but that's a philosophical decision, not based on real math, per se. Same for H/R weights, and OT weights. They're not always gunning for perfect math. "Better" math, but not perfect. Because there are other considerations. I mean, you either accept that or you don't. Sorry if anyone believed otherwise - but I tell you the truth, and you can get all agitated about it, or not. Up to you.
repeating ... listen to the Podcast.
Well, I came to this forum to tell people about the fascinating podcast I just listened to on CHN, and what do I see?
Quote- leave it to BL to twist things around into oblivion, and if they don't fit into the narrowly defined specifications of his liking, then everyone must be terrible or doing something wrong or misleading people. No one is being misled. No one thinks they are being misled. As I said, they endlessly debate, with each other, what the right thing is. If 1.2/0.8 isn't working out, they'll change it. So far it's close enough. And if it was so easy to "game the system" by scheduling nothing but road games - why aren't teams doing it? Like I said, listen to the podcast.
Huh? I was, quite literally, misled. I thought home/away weighting was intended to be accurate. Why wouldn't I? The rankings are meant to do their best to capture the most deserving teams for the NCAAs, so obviously I would expect each of the components to serve that same purpose??? I would guess many others had the same misconception.
Quote- As for KRACH - saying it's not "remotely" a perfect measure, is silly (go figure). Where's John Whelan when I need him? It's actually - as far as I'm concerned (with some needed tweaks to what we publish) - the best method there is. Listen to Tim discuss this on the podcast, where he gives a counter-point to that, while also saying that, with enough data, it would be the best system.
But that's the key flaw, isn't it? There's nowhere near enough data. KRACH may be mathematically elegant and it may do the best job at ranking teams at the end of a short season based on past performance, but that is VERY different from accurately predicting future outcomes. There simply are nowhere near enough games in a season and most of them are intra-conference. If one were to build a betting model to predict college hockey games, it would look wildly different from KRACH. Obviously! Because KRACH is trying to rank teams the best it can based on a tiny sample of past performance, it isn't trying to tell you who will come out on top in the future.
Anyway, the podcast is great. I encourage everybody listen.
Quote from: BearLover on November 05, 2025, 08:55:34 PMBecause KRACH is trying to rank teams the best it can based on a tiny sample of past performance, it isn't trying to tell you who will come out on top in the future.
Is there a better model for predicting the future? If there is, and you know it, don't tell anyone just go to Vegas.
The point of KRACH (or NPI) for this discussion is to select teams to play in a postseason tournament. For that, I don't want something predictive. I want something that "ranks teams the best it can based on a tiny sample of past performance" and then let the teams slug it out on the ice and see if they can live up to their ranking. Some existential analysis of who would have the best record if they played at full-strength all year is not a thing I care about outside of a sportsbook. You earn a spot in the postseason by winning and if you can't win because your starting center had knee surgery, tell it to your grandkids when they ask about the glory days.
Quote from: ugarte on November 06, 2025, 12:15:31 AMThe point of KRACH (or NPI) for this discussion is to select teams to play in a postseason tournament. For that, I don't want something predictive. I want something that "ranks teams the best it can
You do a fine job capturing a much-abused nuance of statistics: the difference between predictive and descriptive statistics. However, I cut you off before you got into sampling because sampling muddies the issue. Descriptive stats are based on as much prior data as we can get. Baseball Reference has every PA in every player's history. The point is to describe with as much precision as possible the data set. There is no pretense of predicting future results. This is what Pete Alonso did. The question of who Pete Alonso is shall be left to ontological philosophy.
Exactly as you said, the stats used to pick the NC$$ field capture what teams did to earn their place there. There is no pretense in predicting who will win. That is for the teams on the ice.
Quote from: Trotsky on November 06, 2025, 03:12:33 AMQuote from: ugarte on November 06, 2025, 12:15:31 AMThe point of KRACH (or NPI) for this discussion is to select teams to play in a postseason tournament. For that, I don't want something predictive. I want something that "ranks teams the best it can
You do a fine job capturing a much-abused nuance of statistics: the difference between predictive and descriptive statistics. However, I cut you off before you got into sampling because sampling muddies the issue. Descriptive stats are based on as much prior data as we can get. Baseball Reference has every PA in every player's history. The point is to describe with as much precision as possible the data set. There is no pretense of predicting future results. This is what Pete Alonso did. The question of who Pete Alonso is shall be left to ontological philosophy.
Exactly as you said, the stats used to pick the NC$$ field capture what teams did to earn their place there. There is no pretense in predicting who will win. That is for the teams on the ice.
Why on earth would you want to know who wins the game before it's played? Why watch? Why even play? The whole point is not knowing and experiencing the triumph or heartbreak- or back in the day the cold satisfaction of a tie- and the drama of the game itself?
Quote from: ugarte on November 06, 2025, 12:15:31 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 05, 2025, 08:55:34 PMBecause KRACH is trying to rank teams the best it can based on a tiny sample of past performance, it isn't trying to tell you who will come out on top in the future.
The point of KRACH (or NPI) for this discussion is to select teams to play in a postseason tournament. For that, I don't want something predictive. I want something that "ranks teams the best it can based on a tiny sample of past performance" and then let the teams slug it out on the ice and see if they can live up to their ranking.
And to the extent we want to debate what the "right" way to do that is, it's always going to be subjective choice about what the inputs are. As Adam said, the committee wants to incentivize teams to schedule road games by making those wins have a higher value. Because the committee feels that teams that all things being equal, a team that is willing to travel is more deserving a a spot in the tournament than a team that does not. And they think that the current weighting does a reasonable job of that. There are, of course, infinite ways to calibrate this incentive.
Most systems of selecting teams on objective criteria will put a team with a .900 winning percentage in the field. Just win and you're in. The debate is around what the appropriate criteria are for picking between three or four similar teams for the last couple of spots based on a body of work that's about 38 games and the degree to which the criteria need to be "accurate." Humans prioritize and the model reflects that priority. It will never be accurate because the sample size is too low and the game is too variable. It would otherwise be boring. The selection system needs to be objective, published in advance, and fairly reflect the stated priorities of the committee. Personally, I wouldn't hate a system that puts league regular season and tournament champions in the field and calls it a day. Will the "best" teams all make it? No. But people will argue that the "best" teams don't make it now either. Why should the fifth place team in NCHC who lost a first round playoff game play in the NCAA tournament anyway?
The gnashing of teeth around selection criteria and the relative closeness of teams ranked 5 and 12 or whatever, is part of why I remain in the neutral site NCAA camp. A team could host a tournament game because it had an extra road game because of the way its conference scheduled vs its opponent who had a home game instead or because its AD insisted on an extra home date to cover expenses at a small school? Neutral sites (in general) work to mitigate that issue.
Quote from: BearLover on November 05, 2025, 08:55:34 PMWell, I came to this forum to tell people about the fascinating podcast I just listened to on CHN, and what do I see?
Quote- leave it to BL to twist things around into oblivion, and if they don't fit into the narrowly defined specifications of his liking, then everyone must be terrible or doing something wrong or misleading people. No one is being misled. No one thinks they are being misled. As I said, they endlessly debate, with each other, what the right thing is. If 1.2/0.8 isn't working out, they'll change it. So far it's close enough. And if it was so easy to "game the system" by scheduling nothing but road games - why aren't teams doing it? Like I said, listen to the podcast.
Huh? I was, quite literally, misled. I thought home/away weighting was intended to be accurate. Why wouldn't I? The rankings are meant to do their best to capture the most deserving teams for the NCAAs, so obviously I would expect each of the components to serve that same purpose??? I would guess many others had the same misconception.
Quote- As for KRACH - saying it's not "remotely" a perfect measure, is silly (go figure). Where's John Whelan when I need him? It's actually - as far as I'm concerned (with some needed tweaks to what we publish) - the best method there is. Listen to Tim discuss this on the podcast, where he gives a counter-point to that, while also saying that, with enough data, it would be the best system.
But that's the key flaw, isn't it? There's nowhere near enough data. KRACH may be mathematically elegant and it may do the best job at ranking teams at the end of a short season based on past performance, but that is VERY different from accurately predicting future outcomes. There simply are nowhere near enough games in a season and most of them are intra-conference. If one were to build a betting model to predict college hockey games, it would look wildly different from KRACH. Obviously! Because KRACH is trying to rank teams the best it can based on a tiny sample of past performance, it isn't trying to tell you who will come out on top in the future.
Anyway, the podcast is great. I encourage everybody listen.
hmm - thanks ... heh. Sorry - didn't realize you were referring to KRACH in a future sense, because that was not the context of this conversation. It's OK to just admit you misspoke - because your doubling down to say you were referring to the future, is also silly, given that there is nothing that can predict the future, and nobody says it can. But it's something - and it's better than anything else. And that's all we have.
Glad I could clear up the misconceptions about the home/road weighting.
Quote from: Chris '03 on November 06, 2025, 08:25:08 AMThe gnashing of teeth around selection criteria and the relative closeness of teams ranked 5 and 12 or whatever, is part of why I remain in the neutral site NCAA camp. A team could host a tournament game because it had an extra road game because of the way its conference scheduled vs its opponent who had a home game instead or because its AD insisted on an extra home date to cover expenses at a small school? Neutral sites (in general) work to mitigate that issue.
Agreed. I've made this point about 5 bazillion times in recent years, including this podcast, and every "debate" with David Carle and others. People who are not very math savvy are making these decisions, and also making comments like "if the math is good enough to pick the teams, why not good enough to seed the teams for home ice," not realizing the inherent flaw in that logic. I would have a much easier and enjoyable time debating the topic, if people just admitted the math was far from perfect, and so there's no way to know how to seed teams 5-12 really, so giving 5-8 home ice advantage is a double whammy. And then just say you still want home-ice Regionals for other reasons. Don't try to defend the math of it. ... But alas that will apparently never sink in for many.
Just to clarify what I mean above—
KRACH (and the Pairwise, and the NPI) are built to pick the 16 teams most deserving of the NCAA tournament (and their order). That is a very different thing than a predictive model. KRACH may well be the best model we have at choosing NCAA teams, but it's not built to be predictive and shouldn't be used that way.
KRACH et al are mostly just a function of winning percentage and strength of schedule. As they should be, because that's how we should choose who has earned an NCAA bid. But you get absurd results when you extrapolate that to future performance. With a large enough, and representative enough, sample, this would start to even out, but in college hockey this isn't possible (because seasons are very short and teams only play a small subset of other teams).
You can't just plug in two teams' win% and SOS and try to predict which one will win. (Try doing that with college hockey games, you'd lose a ton of money.) There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factors that affect the tiny sample of games on which win% and SOS are based. Again, this is not a knock on KRACH-it's doing its job just fine. Its job is not to predict future performance.
Anyway, related to the above and also something I was wondering during the podcast—the guest mentioned that coaches and fans have put their faith in these models because its outputs seem acceptable. That is, we see the 16 teams the Pairwise spits out, they pass the smell test, we move on with our lives and don't question the model. But I'm wondering if anyone has ever made a more rigorous attempt to quantify if the model is picking teams properly. I'm not sure how this would look or if it's even possible, but it did strike me as a little spooky that all this time we've been entrusting a computer model whose outputs we don't even have a means of judging past "the smell test."
Quote from: BearLover on November 05, 2025, 08:55:34 PMWell, I came to this forum to tell people about the fascinating podcast I just listened to on CHN, and what do I see?
Quote- leave it to BL to twist things around into oblivion, and if they don't fit into the narrowly defined specifications of his liking, then everyone must be terrible or doing something wrong or misleading people. No one is being misled. No one thinks they are being misled. As I said, they endlessly debate, with each other, what the right thing is. If 1.2/0.8 isn't working out, they'll change it. So far it's close enough. And if it was so easy to "game the system" by scheduling nothing but road games - why aren't teams doing it? Like I said, listen to the podcast.
Huh? I was, quite literally, misled. I thought home/away weighting was intended to be accurate. Why wouldn't I? The rankings are meant to do their best to capture the most deserving teams for the NCAAs, so obviously I would expect each of the components to serve that same purpose??? I would guess many others had the same misconception.
You weren't misled, you made an assumption that wasn't accurate. The home ice formula has been discussed on this forum forever. Adam has explained the rational for getting large schools to move out a gazillion times. Large schools loved to play small schools at home to pad their record and pad their income. The powers that be didn't like that, so tried to do something about it.
If you weren't part of that discussion, then researching before assuming would be the correct approach.
Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 10:49:40 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 05, 2025, 08:55:34 PMWell, I came to this forum to tell people about the fascinating podcast I just listened to on CHN, and what do I see?
Quote- leave it to BL to twist things around into oblivion, and if they don't fit into the narrowly defined specifications of his liking, then everyone must be terrible or doing something wrong or misleading people. No one is being misled. No one thinks they are being misled. As I said, they endlessly debate, with each other, what the right thing is. If 1.2/0.8 isn't working out, they'll change it. So far it's close enough. And if it was so easy to "game the system" by scheduling nothing but road games - why aren't teams doing it? Like I said, listen to the podcast.
Huh? I was, quite literally, misled. I thought home/away weighting was intended to be accurate. Why wouldn't I? The rankings are meant to do their best to capture the most deserving teams for the NCAAs, so obviously I would expect each of the components to serve that same purpose??? I would guess many others had the same misconception.
You weren't misled, you made an assumption that wasn't accurate. The home ice formula has been discussed on this forum forever. Adam has explained the rational for getting large schools to move out a gazillion times. Large schools loved to play small schools at home to pad their record and pad their income. The powers that be didn't like that, so tried to do something about it.
If you weren't part of that discussion, then researching before assuming would be the correct approach.
Yes, the entire disagreement at this point is over the use of the word "misleading." In any event, I would guess that most fans have the same misconception of the weighting that I had (that the idea is to reflect home ice advantage).
Quote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 11:07:40 AMQuote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 10:49:40 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 05, 2025, 08:55:34 PMWell, I came to this forum to tell people about the fascinating podcast I just listened to on CHN, and what do I see?
Quote- leave it to BL to twist things around into oblivion, and if they don't fit into the narrowly defined specifications of his liking, then everyone must be terrible or doing something wrong or misleading people. No one is being misled. No one thinks they are being misled. As I said, they endlessly debate, with each other, what the right thing is. If 1.2/0.8 isn't working out, they'll change it. So far it's close enough. And if it was so easy to "game the system" by scheduling nothing but road games - why aren't teams doing it? Like I said, listen to the podcast.
Huh? I was, quite literally, misled. I thought home/away weighting was intended to be accurate. Why wouldn't I? The rankings are meant to do their best to capture the most deserving teams for the NCAAs, so obviously I would expect each of the components to serve that same purpose??? I would guess many others had the same misconception.
You weren't misled, you made an assumption that wasn't accurate. The home ice formula has been discussed on this forum forever. Adam has explained the rational for getting large schools to move out a gazillion times. Large schools loved to play small schools at home to pad their record and pad their income. The powers that be didn't like that, so tried to do something about it.
If you weren't part of that discussion, then researching before assuming would be the correct approach.
Yes, the entire disagreement at this point is over the use of the word "misleading." In any event, I would guess that most fans have the same misconception of the weighting that I had (that the idea is to reflect home ice advantage).
Misconception means you had the wrong idea.
Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.
Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.
Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.
Quote from: Trotsky on November 06, 2025, 03:12:33 AMQuote from: ugarte on November 06, 2025, 12:15:31 AMThe point of KRACH (or NPI) for this discussion is to select teams to play in a postseason tournament. For that, I don't want something predictive. I want something that "ranks teams the best it can
You do a fine job capturing a much-abused nuance of statistics: the difference between predictive and descriptive statistics. However, I cut you off before you got into sampling because sampling muddies the issue.
ftr i phrased it the way i did because it was a direct quote from bearlover. if a small sample is the best we've got - as he believes, and tbh i figure is probably correct yet still MUCH better than what football has to work with - then that's the data we use. KRACH appears to be the best for the job (and i think everyone here generally agrees) under the circumstances.
i have no opinion on H/A weighting!
As the one who brought up krach, I can say that no one realized what I was asking.
I was trying to ask Adam if he could recalculate the historic home advantage with a krach adjustment. He had given us the actual numbers from past season(s) as a measure of the "true" home advantage in terms of wins.
I thought that the historic evaluation would be more meaningful if krach adjusted to show us how much home advantage there really is historically.
Adam- would still like to see a krach adjusted home advantage (calculating the advantage each game depending on opponent) and see how much it diverges from the simple star you gave.
I'm not suggesting we krachify the home road weights for noon this way.
BL, we all know you hate krach, but Adam is correct that if you want to compare teams based on records to date, there is no better model, and this one has no arbitrary weights in it. Also, JTW would have to confirm this, but that model wasn't developed to pick tournament teams. It was a mathematical model that they thought was the best way of quantifying relative team strength based on games played. Some did as ocate for that to be used for selection, but pretty sure it wasn't developed for that reason.
And again to BL, I was not looking for a future projection. I wanted a statistical evaluation of the historical expected performance. Consider it like xG, only it's xHW.
Quote from: abmarks on November 06, 2025, 07:56:41 PMBL, we all know you hate krach, but Adam is correct that if you want to compare teams based on records to date, there is no better model, and this one has no arbitrary weights in it. Also, JTW would have to confirm this, but that model wasn't developed to pick tournament teams. It was a mathematical model that they thought was the best way of quantifying relative team strength based on games played. Some did as ocate for that to be used for selection, but pretty sure it wasn't developed for that reason.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I have never said anything bad about KRACH. It's just not meant to be predictive and shouldn't be used to make predictions.
We all seem to be talking past each other here. The Venn diagrams of what people want strongly overlap. The divergence of how people characterize what each candidate system does are due to differences in information and understanding of the math. I only listen to Whelan. The rest of us are toddlers defacing differential equations with crayon.
Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 02:01:04 PMMisconception means you had the wrong idea.
Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.
Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.
Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.
for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.
Quote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 10:48:12 AMJust to clarify what I mean above—
KRACH (and the Pairwise, and the NPI) are built to pick the 16 teams most deserving of the NCAA tournament (and their order). That is a very different thing than a predictive model. KRACH may well be the best model we have at choosing NCAA teams, but it's not built to be predictive and shouldn't be used that way.
KRACH et al are mostly just a function of winning percentage and strength of schedule. As they should be, because that's how we should choose who has earned an NCAA bid. But you get absurd results when you extrapolate that to future performance. With a large enough, and representative enough, sample, this would start to even out, but in college hockey this isn't possible (because seasons are very short and teams only play a small subset of other teams).
You can't just plug in two teams' win% and SOS and try to predict which one will win. (Try doing that with college hockey games, you'd lose a ton of money.) There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factors that affect the tiny sample of games on which win% and SOS are based. Again, this is not a knock on KRACH-it's doing its job just fine. Its job is not to predict future performance.
You continue to make a really odd assertion that we (I) don't seem to know this. We're not curing cancer dude. Our Probability Matrix, which I assume you refer to, is just for poops and giggles. That said, it does provide some utility, because it plays out the schedule based on who wins and loses, including conference tournament brackets. That could get pretty complicating to do by hand. Ergo - SOMETHING has to be used to pick the winner of each game. Thus KRACH. And with 10,000 simulations, it gives people an idea.
No one - ever - claimed that KRACH was some magic potion that predicted the future. You're arguing straw men.
This is also why myself - and others - have been working on using better models, with KRACH as the starting point. But we all have other lives, and it's not easy. There's also no sense of urgency, because the state of the world won't change based upon whether our Matrix is improved.
Other sites have simply taken all the possible win/loss combinations and played things out. Our Matrix decided to do Monte Carlo simulations instead, which allowed us to play out the season much further in advance. That's pretty much it. And I never claimed otherwise.
Quote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 10:48:12 AMAnyway, related to the above and also something I was wondering during the podcast—the guest mentioned that coaches and fans have put their faith in these models because its outputs seem acceptable. That is, we see the 16 teams the Pairwise spits out, they pass the smell test, we move on with our lives and don't question the model. But I'm wondering if anyone has ever made a more rigorous attempt to quantify if the model is picking teams properly. I'm not sure how this would look or if it's even possible, but it did strike me as a little spooky that all this time we've been entrusting a computer model whose outputs we don't even have a means of judging past "the smell test."
Decided to split this up into two answers.
I mean, how it would like, can go a million different ways, and I think anyone close to it, does all sorts of tests to tinker around with what it would mean if this was tweaked or that was tweaked. Certainly the Committee/Tim Danehy do. But there is no god-like answer, so I don't even know how you'd answer that question. On what basis would you judge?
Quote from: abmarks on November 06, 2025, 07:56:41 PMI was trying to ask Adam if he could recalculate the historic home advantage with a krach adjustment. He had given us the actual numbers from past season(s) as a measure of the "true" home advantage in terms of wins.
I thought that the historic evaluation would be more meaningful if krach adjusted to show us how much home advantage there really is historically.
It takes me 30 seconds to run a query on the database to get winners of home and road games. It takes many times longer than that to do what you're asking :)
To return to our opponents, despite taking the last four penalties of the game Yale came from two goals down to beat Q 4-2 tonight!
Quote from: Trotsky on November 07, 2025, 09:40:26 PMTo return to our opponents, despite taking the last four penalties of the game Yale came from two goals down to beat Q 4-2 tonight!
I'm pretty sure that was Yale's first win against Q since the championship game in 2013
Quote from: Iceberg on November 07, 2025, 09:52:15 PMQuote from: Trotsky on November 07, 2025, 09:40:26 PMTo return to our opponents, despite taking the last four penalties of the game Yale came from two goals down to beat Q 4-2 tonight!
I'm pretty sure that was Yale's first win against Q since the championship game in 2013
Feb 2018 they said on the broadcast.
I'm not sure which message to reply to, and I don't have time to wade into the discussion at the moment, except to remind Adam that we actually implemented a version of KRACH that automatically fit the home-ice advantage, which we called KASA. ("KRACH Adjusted for Site Advantage", a backronym which Ken Butler helped us construct.)
Also, a previous debate on the eLF did lead to a paper entitled "Prediction and Evaluation in College Hockey Using the Bradley-Terry-Zermelo Model": https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04226
RPI with their second win of the season stuns Clarkson who was relying on their backup goalie. 5-1.
My almost 3 year old grandson's first 2 periods watching NCAA Hockey.
Claimed he liked the puck drop but I think he liked playing with the chairs and watching the Zambonis.
Does RPI's 5-1 victory over Clarkson not count because CHN thinks the game will start at 7 PM? ;)
Somewhere in all the yelling Adam pointed out that the heavier home/road weighting helps incentivize big teams to play small teams on the road sometimes rather than just say, "we're [insert traditional powerhouse], you gotta come to us if you want to play us."
That's a good enough reason for me to be okay with it.
Quote from: Dafatone on November 08, 2025, 06:28:23 PMSomewhere in all the yelling Adam pointed out that the heavier home/road weighting helps incentivize big teams to play small teams on the road sometimes rather than just say, "we're [insert traditional powerhouse], you gotta come to us if you want to play us."
That's a good enough reason for me to be okay with it.
But I'm thinking this should only be used during inter-league play. I guess the powers wouldn't consider a different multiplier during league matchups.
Quote from: marty on November 08, 2025, 06:17:37 PMRPI with their second win of the season stuns Clarkson who was relying on their backup goalie. 5-1.
My almost 3 year old grandson's first 2 periods watching NCAA Hockey.
Claimed he liked the puck drop but I think he liked playing with the chairs and watching the Zambonis.
To be fair, you are never too old to like watching the Zambonis.
Quote from: adamw on November 07, 2025, 06:54:18 PMQuote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 02:01:04 PMMisconception means you had the wrong idea.
Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.
Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.
Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.
for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.
Pretty childish tbh. Usually once you hit adulthood you learn to attack the argument, not the person making it. I guess not in everyone's case though.
Quote from: adamw on November 07, 2025, 06:59:52 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 06, 2025, 10:48:12 AMJust to clarify what I mean above—
KRACH (and the Pairwise, and the NPI) are built to pick the 16 teams most deserving of the NCAA tournament (and their order). That is a very different thing than a predictive model. KRACH may well be the best model we have at choosing NCAA teams, but it's not built to be predictive and shouldn't be used that way.
KRACH et al are mostly just a function of winning percentage and strength of schedule. As they should be, because that's how we should choose who has earned an NCAA bid. But you get absurd results when you extrapolate that to future performance. With a large enough, and representative enough, sample, this would start to even out, but in college hockey this isn't possible (because seasons are very short and teams only play a small subset of other teams).
You can't just plug in two teams' win% and SOS and try to predict which one will win. (Try doing that with college hockey games, you'd lose a ton of money.) There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factors that affect the tiny sample of games on which win% and SOS are based. Again, this is not a knock on KRACH-it's doing its job just fine. Its job is not to predict future performance.
You continue to make a really odd assertion that we (I) don't seem to know this. We're not curing cancer dude. Our Probability Matrix, which I assume you refer to, is just for poops and giggles. That said, it does provide some utility, because it plays out the schedule based on who wins and loses, including conference tournament brackets. That could get pretty complicating to do by hand. Ergo - SOMETHING has to be used to pick the winner of each game. Thus KRACH. And with 10,000 simulations, it gives people an idea.
No one - ever - claimed that KRACH was some magic potion that predicted the future. You're arguing straw men.
This is also why myself - and others - have been working on using better models, with KRACH as the starting point. But we all have other lives, and it's not easy. There's also no sense of urgency, because the state of the world won't change based upon whether our Matrix is improved.
Other sites have simply taken all the possible win/loss combinations and played things out. Our Matrix decided to do Monte Carlo simulations instead, which allowed us to play out the season much further in advance. That's pretty much it. And I never claimed otherwise.
Actually I was not at all referring to the matrix, which I've said enough about. I was referring to abmarks wanting to use KRACH to determine how much a team "should" win absent home-ice advantage.
I wonder when the last time was Dartmouth was the highest ranking team in the polls from the ECAC. Early 60s I would guess. Eddie Jeremiah. https://www.ushockeyhall.com/page/show/3003325-edward-jeremiah
Not that they will be this week, though they should certainly be in the teens and ahead of us.
#20 this week (https://x.com/USCHO/status/1987932887467856094?s=20) in the polls. Dartmouth at 19.
Quote from: BearLover on November 09, 2025, 07:45:22 PMQuote from: adamw on November 07, 2025, 06:54:18 PMQuote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 02:01:04 PMMisconception means you had the wrong idea.
Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.
Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.
Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.
for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.
Pretty childish tbh. Usually once you hit adulthood you learn to attack the argument, not the person making it. I guess not in everyone's case though.
This is an honest question, BL. Does it give you pause that you get in fights with EVERYONE on this forum?
I get in fights fairly frequently with 2 people, and just that makes me assume I am the problem and makes me try to really cool it down and play nicer. Sorry, ugarte.
Quote from: Trotsky on November 10, 2025, 04:23:08 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 09, 2025, 07:45:22 PMQuote from: adamw on November 07, 2025, 06:54:18 PMQuote from: Jim Hyla on November 06, 2025, 02:01:04 PMMisconception means you had the wrong idea.
Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.
Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.
Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.
for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.
Pretty childish tbh. Usually once you hit adulthood you learn to attack the argument, not the person making it. I guess not in everyone's case though.
This is an honest question, BL. Does it give you pause that you get in fights with EVERYONE on this forum?
Far from everyone, but yes, a lot more than most. It gives me slight pause but seems too difficult to correct at this point. I usually only post when I disagree strongly enough with what others are saying (if I'm just agreeing with the masses, doesn't really seem worth posting). I've actually tried to temper this impulse, but I've noticed a lot of people reading negativity or criticism into my posts when there isn't any. For example, adamw thought my post in this thread was about him, a bunch of people thought my call for Casey to use the transfer portal was a criticism of Schafer, somebody interpreted my point that $400 season tickets is a lot for locals as coming from a place of extreme privilege and ignorance. Many such cases. For every one of my nine positive or neutral posts there's one negative post, but the nine are forgotten while the one is confirmation bias.
It is what it is. I'm gonna keep posting my thoughts. I'm not trying to provoke people but I'm also not trying to win a popularity contest.
The coaching staff blew it by not bringing in Pelletier this season.
Wow.
Quote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
Quote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AMQuote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
You need a better hobby.
Quote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AMQuote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
51 across in today's (11-11-2025) WSJ crossword.
Quote from: marty on November 11, 2025, 10:22:30 AMQuote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AMQuote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
51 across in today's (11-11-2025) WSJ crossword.
i think it was in the NYT this past week too
Quote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AMQuote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
IMHO, FWIW, when you post straight
without trolling your observations about games, and in particular your observations about our recruiting and our prospects' performance for their pre-Cornell teams, are
excellent. You have a lot to contribute. But, much like me, when you try to be funny you miss, and when you provide criticism you have a lead foot and/or embarrass yourself. Nobody asked me, but if you stick to matters of fact you are a high value contributor. If your intent with criticism is to provide clarity you are washing windows with bricks.
Mostly I suppose I just miss being unquestionably the most unnecessarily caustic prick here. It was all I had, man. Don't take that from me.
Quote from: Trotsky on November 11, 2025, 02:42:29 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AMQuote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
IMHO, FWIW, when you post straight without trolling your observations about games, and in particular your observations about our recruiting and our prospects' performance for their pre-Cornell teams, are excellent. You have a lot to contribute. But, much like me, when you try to be funny you miss, and when you provide criticism you tend to veer into ad hom and/or embarrass yourself. Nobody asked me, but if you stick to matters of fact you are a high value contributor. If your intent is provide clarity then you are washing our windows with bricks.
Mostly I suppose I just miss being unquestionably the most unnecessarily caustic prick here. It was all I had, man. Don't take that from me.
I feel like someone had you (and BL) beat about 15 years ago, but I'm not certain on the name details.
Quote from: Dafatone on November 11, 2025, 02:44:12 PMQuote from: Trotsky on November 11, 2025, 02:42:29 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AMQuote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.
I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.
IMHO, FWIW, when you post straight without trolling your observations about games, and in particular your observations about our recruiting and our prospects' performance for their pre-Cornell teams, are excellent. You have a lot to contribute. But, much like me, when you try to be funny you miss, and when you provide criticism you tend to veer into ad hom and/or embarrass yourself. Nobody asked me, but if you stick to matters of fact you are a high value contributor. If your intent is provide clarity then you are washing our windows with bricks.
Mostly I suppose I just miss being unquestionably the most unnecessarily caustic prick here. It was all I had, man. Don't take that from me.
I feel like someone had you (and BL) beat about 15 years ago, but I'm not certain on the name details.
He Who Shall Not Be Named is without doubt the all-time PPG leader for sheer offensiveness. I would like to think it was the alter ego of one of our more gentle posters. That would give me great joy.
QU is up 3-0 on BU and it doesn't even look like the two teams are in the same stratosphere with the way that game is going
Quote from: Iceberg on November 15, 2025, 04:45:50 PMQU is up 3-0 on BU and it doesn't even look like the two teams are in the same stratosphere with the way that game is going
Two minutes into the second period, the live box has Q outshooting BU 27-8. What has happened to BU this year?
And can it please continue for two more weeks?
Quote from: Iceberg on November 15, 2025, 04:45:50 PMQU is up 3-0 on BU and it doesn't even look like the two teams are in the same stratosphere with the way that game is going
Jesus.
ECAC 4-0 non con today. Up to .475 on the season. Even though Omaha, BU and Alaska don't look like the teams we probably hoped they would be when we scheduled them, we have a fighting chance for an at large bid thanks to the conference turning it on a bit.
Quote from: chimpfood on November 15, 2025, 10:37:07 PMECAC 4-0 non con today. Up to .475 on the season. Even though Omaha, BU and Alaska don't look like the teams we probably hoped they would be when we scheduled them, we have a fighting chance for an at large bid thanks to the conference turning it on a bit.
Well, we haven't played those teams yet so if they suck and we beat them, then whatever. UMass is a more concerning to me, we already split with them and they were swept by BC this weekend. I hope they're actually good.
Clarkson starting to struggle now that Casey's recruits are gone? Hmm...
Quote from: BearLover on November 15, 2025, 10:40:27 PMQuote from: chimpfood on November 15, 2025, 10:37:07 PMECAC 4-0 non con today. Up to .475 on the season. Even though Omaha, BU and Alaska don't look like the teams we probably hoped they would be when we scheduled them, we have a fighting chance for an at large bid thanks to the conference turning it on a bit.
Well, we haven't played those teams yet so if they suck and we beat them, then whatever. UMass is a more concerning to me, we already split with them and they were swept by BC this weekend. I hope they're actually good.
Clarkson starting to struggle now that Casey's recruits are gone? Hmm...
Hmmmmmmm.
Also, Omaha is outperforming expectations. They just had a stretch of SUPER high level games. Don't count them out.
BU - defense has forgotten how to defend. Team is imploding a little. As a BU mild enthusiast I hate to see it, as a Cornell fan HELL yes.
Alaska... have not been keeping track tbh.
Quote from: stereax on November 15, 2025, 10:45:31 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 15, 2025, 10:40:27 PMQuote from: chimpfood on November 15, 2025, 10:37:07 PMECAC 4-0 non con today. Up to .475 on the season. Even though Omaha, BU and Alaska don't look like the teams we probably hoped they would be when we scheduled them, we have a fighting chance for an at large bid thanks to the conference turning it on a bit.
Well, we haven't played those teams yet so if they suck and we beat them, then whatever. UMass is a more concerning to me, we already split with them and they were swept by BC this weekend. I hope they're actually good.
Clarkson starting to struggle now that Casey's recruits are gone? Hmm...
Hmmmmmmm.
Also, Omaha is outperforming expectations. They just had a stretch of SUPER high level games. Don't count them out.
BU - defense has forgotten how to defend. Team is imploding a little. As a BU mild enthusiast I hate to see it, as a Cornell fan HELL yes.
Alaska... have not been keeping track tbh.
UNO got a nice win over Duluth tonight.
Quote from: ugarte on November 15, 2025, 11:06:04 PMQuote from: stereax on November 15, 2025, 10:45:31 PMAs a BU mild enthusiast ...
what the
Unfortunately I have been inflicted with BU Friends as well as My NHL Team's Goalie Is There. So I can't hate them. As much as I try :(
Quote from: scoop85 on November 15, 2025, 11:02:52 PMQuote from: stereax on November 15, 2025, 10:45:31 PMQuote from: BearLover on November 15, 2025, 10:40:27 PMQuote from: chimpfood on November 15, 2025, 10:37:07 PMECAC 4-0 non con today. Up to .475 on the season. Even though Omaha, BU and Alaska don't look like the teams we probably hoped they would be when we scheduled them, we have a fighting chance for an at large bid thanks to the conference turning it on a bit.
Well, we haven't played those teams yet so if they suck and we beat them, then whatever. UMass is a more concerning to me, we already split with them and they were swept by BC this weekend. I hope they're actually good.
Clarkson starting to struggle now that Casey's recruits are gone? Hmm...
Hmmmmmmm.
Also, Omaha is outperforming expectations. They just had a stretch of SUPER high level games. Don't count them out.
BU - defense has forgotten how to defend. Team is imploding a little. As a BU mild enthusiast I hate to see it, as a Cornell fan HELL yes.
Alaska... have not been keeping track tbh.
UNO got a nice win over Duluth tonight.
As I said... UNO is sneaky good rn.
If we're playing UNO at Lynah this year, will we be going to UNO next year?
Because I can actually get to Omaha. Last time we were there, the Nebraskans did not appreciate it when I yelled "red" during the anthem.
Early on it looks like 5 teams fighting for 4 byes: Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvard, Union, Quinnipiac.
Our abbreviated schedule:
11/07 W @ Hvd
11/08 L @ Drt
11/21 Uni
01/17 Qpc
01/23 Drt
01/24 Hvd
02/14 @ Uni
02/20 @ Qpc
Cause she knows that
It's demandin'
To defeat those evil machines
I know she can beat them
Quote from: jtwcornell91 on November 08, 2025, 12:22:35 AMI'm not sure which message to reply to, and I don't have time to wade into the discussion at the moment, except to remind Adam that we actually implemented a version of KRACH that automatically fit the home-ice advantage, which we called KASA. ("KRACH Adjusted for Site Advantage", a backronym which Ken Butler helped us construct.)
Also, a previous debate on the eLF did lead to a paper entitled "Prediction and Evaluation in College Hockey Using the Bradley-Terry-Zermelo Model": https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04226
well aware on both counts