After the Brown win we are 6 in NPI with, and I swear I am not making this up, 9 in SOS, I believe entirely on the strength of having played the NPI #1 Dartmouth (cf. Colgate at 7 in SOS). My ignorant guess is once Dartmouth loses a few we will dip into the mid teens if we keep up our rate of play and beat the teams we ought.
I'm looking at Dartmouth's remaining schedule, and I'm not seeing a lot of teams they "should" lose to. Certainly, they'll drop a few, but I think the only real challenges they have left are us, Q, and maybe (probably not) their two remaining Hockey East games. And I don't see them dropping all five of those. They'll probably win as many of those as they drop games to lesser opponents that they should beat. And they will be stoked to return to Lynah this year.
CHN's Power Ratings has Cornell at 1 for SOS. Colgate is 6. Yale is 3 (from four games, including D and Q). But losing to D didn't help SLU (58) as they have too many other games against lesser opponents diluting the effect.
Having played two UMass games has helped us. Q and BU will help too. But that's about it.
We will share in some of Dartmouth's riches, and we'll need it. Once we beat them in Lynah, I will feel much better about them continuing to have a great season.
Because if we beat them in Lynah, we can beat them in Lake Placid.
Quote from: pjd8 on November 15, 2025, 03:47:34 PMI'm looking at Dartmouth's remaining schedule, and I'm not seeing a lot of teams they "should" lose to. Certainly, they'll drop a few, but I think the only real challenges they have left are us, Q, and maybe (probably not) their two remaining Hockey East games. And I don't see them dropping all five of those. They'll probably win as many of those as they drop games to lesser opponents that they should beat. And they will be stoked to return to Lynah this year.
CHN's Power Ratings has Cornell at 1 for SOS. Colgate is 6. Yale is 3 (from four games, including D and Q). But losing to D didn't help SLU (58) as they have too many other games against lesser opponents diluting the effect.
Having played two UMass games has helped us. Q and BU will help too. But that's about it.
We will share in some of Dartmouth's riches, and we'll need it. Once we beat them in Lynah, I will feel much better about them continuing to have a great season.
Because if we beat them in Lynah, we can beat them in Lake Placid.
Overindexing on tiny sample sizes IMO. I doubt Dartmouth is an especially good team. Top 4 in the ECAC sure, but there's nothing impressive about their talent or who they've played so far. If the offsides no-call goes our way we probably tie them, and their other games are against very weak opposition. They have a worse team talent-wise on paper than they've had the past two seasons when they were what, like high-20s in the PWR at best?
It does not mean anything in November, but I'd rather be 3 (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/npi) than 53.
I just found a database of polls back to 1970. Kid in the candy store. Cornell results on TBRW soon to be expanded considerably.
As promised (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html).
Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data. I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.
It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance. I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.
Quote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html).
Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data. I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.
It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance. I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.
I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.
I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.
Quote from: Jim Hyla on December 11, 2025, 02:15:43 PMQuote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html).
Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data. I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.
It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance. I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.
I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.
I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.
Thank you so much, Jim.
It's really always the work of a handful of weird amateurs that saves these things. It sure won't be Cornell which would just Lost Ark it and then pulp it in 2040 for an extra $35. TBH I wouldn't even donate it to them; they don't deserve it. We need a privately run Cornell Hockey Museum with the university's grubby collaborationist mitts as far away from it as Heidegger from personal accountability.
Quote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 02:19:51 PMQuote from: Jim Hyla on December 11, 2025, 02:15:43 PMQuote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html).
Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data. I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.
It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance. I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.
I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.
I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.
Thank you so much, Jim.
It's really always the work of a handful of weird amateurs that saves these things. It sure won't be Cornell which would just Lost Ark it and then pulp it in 2040 for an extra $35. TBH I wouldn't even donate it to them; they don't deserve it. We need a privately run Cornell Hockey Museum with the university's grubby collaborationist mitts as far away from it as Heidegger from personal accountability.
Okay, I'll let you fund it. :o
Until then I'm going to try and scan things that maybe someone/somewhere could host.
Maybe Adam would like to host copies of old Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter.
Quote from: Jim Hyla on December 11, 2025, 03:05:32 PMQuote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 02:19:51 PMQuote from: Jim Hyla on December 11, 2025, 02:15:43 PMQuote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html).
Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data. I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.
It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance. I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.
I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.
I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.
Thank you so much, Jim.
It's really always the work of a handful of weird amateurs that saves these things. It sure won't be Cornell which would just Lost Ark it and then pulp it in 2040 for an extra $35. TBH I wouldn't even donate it to them; they don't deserve it. We need a privately run Cornell Hockey Museum with the university's grubby collaborationist mitts as far away from it as Heidegger from personal accountability.
Okay, I'll let you fund it. :o
Until then I'm going to try and scan things that maybe someone/somewhere could host.
Maybe Adam would like to host copies of old Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter.
Hell, I'll host the pdfs on TBRW.
For funding, well if only Cornell had alumni who were rich.
Quote from: Jim Hyla on December 11, 2025, 02:15:43 PMQuote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html).
Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data. I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.
It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance. I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.
I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.
I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.
I would love these files. Or access at least. You're right about UNH and RPI. Jim Finke was going to send me his stuff, but he passed away and I'm not sure what happened to it.
I have a few questions about the quality win bonus for Adam or anyone else who might know:
1. Why does the bonus exist in the first place? Why is beating #1 and losing to #60 better than the other way around?
2. Why do schools that don't benefit from the QWB (any non-NCHC/B1G/HE schools, ivies especially) let it exist still?
3. Is the quality win bonus larger with the new NPI? Looking at some of the bonuses less than halfway through the season it seems larger than I remember in the past with the RPI, but maybe I'm just wrong.
Cornell holds at 17 in USCHO and drops to 16 in USA Hockey, while settling into 14 in NPI.
Quote from: chimpfood on December 14, 2025, 01:05:04 PMI have a few questions about the quality win bonus for Adam or anyone else who might know:
1. Why does the bonus exist in the first place? Why is beating #1 and losing to #60 better than the other way around?
2. Why do schools that don't benefit from the QWB (any non-NCHC/B1G/HE schools, ivies especially) let it exist still?
3. Is the quality win bonus larger with the new NPI? Looking at some of the bonuses less than halfway through the season it seems larger than I remember in the past with the RPI, but maybe I'm just wrong.
1 and 2 - who knows. It's all arbitrary philosophical decisions - going back to my argument against home site Regionals.
3 - it may just appear that way in terms of how we're presenting it. it's not as straightforward to calculate now that the whole thing is a recursive, iterative process. I don't think it has much more, if any, weight than in the past.
5 ECAC teams in the top 14 of the NPI.
6 Dartmouth
10 Quinnipiac
12 Cornell
13 Harvard
16 Princeton
It is better to be in this position, where the mere act of playing in conference does not pull us down into a gravity well.
Quote from: adamw on December 17, 2025, 01:33:42 PMIt's all arbitrary philosophical decisions - going back to my argument against home site Regionals
Slllllllllllllllowly I turned...
Quote from: Trotsky on January 03, 2026, 09:28:02 AM 6 Dartmouth
10 Quinnipiac
12 Cornell
13 Harvard
16 Princeton
It is better to be in this position, where the mere act of playing in conference does not pull us down into a gravity well.
We're up to 12 in npi? Great.
It's volatile. We had dropped as low as 17 after That Didn't Happen in Potsdam.
BearLover mentioned reversion to the mean for Dartmouth in another thread. If true, it sure is nice for the league they over-performed in their out-of-conference games. It would be highly entertaining if we have something like this at year end; fans of other conferences would lose their minds.
At the moment, we are 11th.
From a USCHO post (https://fanforum.uscho.com/threads/chl-to-ncaa-recruiting-megathread.36913/post-2952354)
Rights to 08 F Anthony Dontigny (Cornell) traded to Rimouski and he will join the team from BCHL West Kelowna once Hockey Canada processes the transaction.
Quote from: ursusminor on January 05, 2026, 02:22:12 PMFrom a USCHO post (https://fanforum.uscho.com/threads/chl-to-ncaa-recruiting-megathread.36913/post-2952354)
Rights to 08 F Anthony Dontigny (Cornell) traded to Rimouski and he will join the team from BCHL West Kelowna once Hockey Canada processes the transaction.
Not exactly meeting the BearLover point producer standards. Or anyone's. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=290852
Quote from: ugarte on January 05, 2026, 02:33:25 PMQuote from: ursusminor on January 05, 2026, 02:22:12 PMFrom a USCHO post (https://fanforum.uscho.com/threads/chl-to-ncaa-recruiting-megathread.36913/post-2952354)
Rights to 08 F Anthony Dontigny (Cornell) traded to Rimouski and he will join the team from BCHL West Kelowna once Hockey Canada processes the transaction.
Not exactly meeting the BearLover point producer standards. Or anyone's. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=290852
As a center?
Is he good at faceoffs or shutdown or something? Why would he make the jump from BCHL to QMJHL...
Quote from: ursusminor on January 05, 2026, 02:22:12 PMFrom a USCHO post (https://fanforum.uscho.com/threads/chl-to-ncaa-recruiting-megathread.36913/post-2952354)
Rights to 08 F Anthony Dontigny (Cornell) traded to Rimouski and he will join the team from BCHL West Kelowna once Hockey Canada processes the transaction.
Sorry that I somehow posted this on the wrong thread.
Neglected to post our big jump in the polls (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_History.html):
14 in USCHO up from 17
12 in USA Hockey up from 17
So...currently ninth in NPI.
I'm wondering if one of the PWR (now NPI) gurus might be able to compute where we'd be right now if we:
--had won in OT last night (second Alaska game)
--had tied in OT last night (second Alaska game)
Thanks (if anyone feels like doing this.)
Quote from: andyw2100 on January 11, 2026, 06:54:45 PMSo...currently ninth in NPI.
I'm wondering if one of the PWR (now NPI) gurus might be able to compute where we'd be right now if we:
--had won in OT last night (second Alaska game)
--had tied in OT last night (second Alaska game)
Thanks (if anyone feels like doing this.)
So I found the spot on CHN that actually allows you to customize the NPI numbers by changing past results and/or inputting future results. (Very cool! Thanks, Adam!)
A tie or an OT win would have had us at 10th. An OT loss would have had us at 11th. A regulation loss would have seen us at 15th. (I had actually expected more of a drop from the first three possible outcomes.)
I had the second Colgate-UNH game on today, and the NESN commentators made the point that if UNH had held on to go into OT the night before (Colgate got the game winner with 73 seconds left in regulation), it would have really helped the Wildcats in NPI.
I believe you mean UHN. 8)
If Cornell had won at MSG in regulation, we'd be #4 in NPI, or #5 with an OT win.
Quote from: ebilmes on January 16, 2026, 10:29:37 PMIf Cornell had won at MSG in regulation, we'd be #4 in NPI, or #5 with an OT win.
Too bad Stanley's shot with two minutes to go rang off the crossbar.
Quote from: ebilmes on January 16, 2026, 10:29:37 PMIf Cornell had won at MSG in regulation, we'd be #4 in NPI, or #5 with an OT win.
But we didn't.
We're still 9th, right? Or 10th? That's just fine. Still will get into the dance with that.
I cant complain about close losses after our last two games came down to the wire but we pulled out regulation wins. I think we've been pretty lucky this season, or maybe being clutch is real.
1. We have been as lucky as unlucky.
2. Clutch isn't real.
We are 9th, but closer to 4th than 11th.
Following Q's loss to UConn, Cornell moves to 9th and Q falls to 10th in the NPI by a difference of one-hundredth of a point (55.93 vs 55.92). Still, I believe it would have been better for Cornell in the long run if Q had won.
Wisconsin loses to Penn State and is now in 10th (55.58). Q at 8th (55.93) and Cornell in 9th (55.90)
Barring a collapse, we should get a top 4 ECAC seed and first round bye. We are in the driver's seat for the 2-seed, which would allow us to avoid Q until the final.
In the NPI the teams are tightly packed together. Only 65 hundredths of a point separates Q in 8th place (55.89) from Denver in 13th place (55.24). Given that going forward we will mostly be playing lowly ranked teams, there's potential for us to drop to 13th or so with one loss and then outside the bubble with another loss. (Of course, we can offset this by stacking wins outside those losses.)
To my eye, this past weekend was by far the best we looked the whole year and the first time I felt we looked the part of an NCAA team. If we keep it up, we will be in the dance. But there are no guarantees in hockey. I just hope this weekend was our true selves and not the breakout-challenged/turnover-prone team that preceded it.
Quote from: BearLover on January 25, 2026, 10:25:58 AMIn the NPI the teams are tightly packed together. Only 65 hundredths of a point separates Q in 8th place (55.89) from Denver in 13th place (55.24). Given that going forward we will mostly be playing lowly ranked teams, there's potential for us to drop to 13th or so with one loss and then outside the bubble with another loss. (Of course, we can offset this by stacking wins outside those losses.)
You're right that the low ranking of our future opponents puts us at NPI risk. I feel like we run into this every year with the ECAC.
An upside from an NPI perspective that is unique to this year, as I believe you have mentioned elsewhere, is that 70% of our regular season games going forward are on the road (that feels absurd to say on January 25). Road wins count 50% more than road losses (excluding neutral sites). From a location perspective, there was a concentration of "NPI risk" the past four weekends that we got through in good shape.
Doesn't mean there isn't ANY potential for bad losses at Lynah this year (looking at you, St. Lawrence), but I'd speculate we've gotten through more than typical at this point in the season (2x Alaska, 2x UNO, Brown, Yale, Union, RPI)
Quote from: BearLover on January 25, 2026, 10:25:58 AMBarring a collapse, we should get a top 4 ECAC seed and first round bye. We are in the driver's seat for the 2-seed, which would allow us to play the winner of the Pecknold Cup in the final.
FYP.
As we wait in joyful hope (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll), note we have not been top 10 since November 18, 2024 (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_History.html).
We have not been top 10 during the regular season as late as January 26 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OxKx6zKkQ) since COVID.
The Pecknold Cup (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_Pecknold_Cup.html), for newbies.
Having a voters' poll at the same time as having the NPI makes no sense—really just clickbait at this point.
Quote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 12:07:52 PMThe Pecknold Cup (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_Pecknold_Cup.html), for newbies.
I love this.
Quote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 12:07:52 PMThe Pecknold Cup (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_Pecknold_Cup.html), for newbies.
I spent way too long on TBRW yesterday or the day before looking for this, LMAO.
Quote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 02:51:08 PMHaving a voters' poll at the same time as having the NPI makes no sense—really just clickbait at this point.
Eh, I don't see it that way. (I'm guessing you felt the same with PWR, but if you didn't, I'd be curious what is different). I think of the NPI as trying to approximate who "deserves" to go to the NCAAs, which should be based on results, while the poll is ranking the teams relative to each other as to who is overall a "stronger/better" team. As more games are played in a season you'd expect those to converge, but teams can over/under-achieve over long stretches, plus the NPI has at least one known thumb on the scale, that being the extra weight given to road wins.
Quote from: stereax on January 26, 2026, 03:06:17 PMQuote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 12:07:52 PMThe Pecknold Cup (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_Pecknold_Cup.html), for newbies.
I spent way too long on TBRW yesterday or the day before looking for this, LMAO.
Apologies. Added to TBRW Topic Index (http://www.tbrw.info/?/tbrw_Indexes/tbrw_Topic_Index.html).
Anytime anybody wants an addition / direct link please just let me know. It's my own fault for not understanding indexing and key words.
I am sure 97% of what I do by hand can be automated and made much better. Particularly formatting.
Quote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 02:51:08 PMHaving a voters' poll at the same time as having the NPI makes no sense—really just clickbait at this point.
It was during the days of PWR too. It's fun. It's totally dumb because none of the voters have seen more than 1 game or 2 from more than half the teams, if even that many. It just becomes a game of Groupthink and as the season winds down it converges with the PWR "magically."
The coaches and assistants don't even vote. They pawn it off on the SID, who doesn't know
anything and just gives it to an intern who almost certainly looks up PWR and then moves teams around according to I dunno uniform color or flow.
Flow rankings would be valuable, OTOH.
Quote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 11:59:30 AMAs we wait in joyful hope (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll), note we have not been top 10 since November 18, 2024 (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_History.html).
We have not been top 10 during the regular season as late as January 26 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OxKx6zKkQ) since COVID.
And that foot is me (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll).
6 Qpc
10 Cor
15 Drt
23 Hvd
24 Uni
32 Prn
Quote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 02:51:08 PMHaving a voters' poll at the same time as having the NPI makes no sense—really just clickbait at this point.
polls and scientific rankings have been clickbait since the days of wire service dominance and newspapers using movable type.
Let's all take a moment to celebrate that this 10th-ranked team started this season with 12 true freshmen and 2 sophomore transfers including the primary goalie, 5 of the top 9 forwards and 3 of the top 6 defensemen.
That is gelling very well very quickly.
And now we get to enjoy them for the remainder of this season and (most of them) 3 further seasons where they get stronger and more experienced.
We could be at the beginning of a special run.
< surveys Hubei wet markets nervously >
Quote from: ugarte on January 26, 2026, 03:39:36 PMQuote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 02:51:08 PMHaving a voters' poll at the same time as having the NPI makes no sense—really just clickbait at this point.
polls and scientific rankings have been clickbait since the days of wire service dominance and newspapers using movable type.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749389
Quote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 03:44:56 PMLet's all take a moment to celebrate that this 10th-ranked team started this season with 12 true freshmen and 2 sophomore transfers including the primary goalie, 5 of the top 9 forwards and 3 of the top 6 defensemen.
That is gelling very well very quickly.
And now we get to enjoy them for the remainder of this season and (most of them) 3 further seasons where they get stronger and more experienced.
We could be at the beginning of a special run.
This is going to be so much fun.
Man, I love this team.
Quote from: JasonN95 on January 26, 2026, 03:11:05 PMQuote from: scoop85 on January 26, 2026, 02:51:08 PMHaving a voters' poll at the same time as having the NPI makes no sense—really just clickbait at this point.
Eh, I don't see it that way. (I'm guessing you felt the same with PWR, but if you didn't, I'd be curious what is different). I think of the NPI as trying to approximate who "deserves" to go to the NCAAs, which should be based on results, while the poll is ranking the teams relative to each other as to who is overall a "stronger/better" team. As more games are played in a season you'd expect those to converge, but teams can over/under-achieve over long stretches, plus the NPI has at least one known thumb on the scale, that being the extra weight given to road wins.
Yes, I felt the same way with PWR. I'll qualify my point to say it doesn't make sense to have a voters' poll after the 1st half of the season, when the NPI is more baked in with sufficient results.
Quote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 03:44:56 PMLet's all take a moment to celebrate that this 10th-ranked team started this season with 12 true freshmen and 2 sophomore transfers including the primary goalie, 5 of the top 9 forwards and 3 of the top 6 defensemen.
That is gelling very well very quickly.
And now we get to enjoy them for the remainder of this season and (most of them) 3 further seasons where they get stronger and more experienced.
We could be at the beginning of a special run.
< surveys Hubei wet markets nervously >
Assuming the transfer portal plus NIL plus early entries don't become a thing
Quote from: underskill on January 26, 2026, 06:23:37 PMQuote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 03:44:56 PMLet's all take a moment to celebrate that this 10th-ranked team started this season with 12 true freshmen and 2 sophomore transfers including the primary goalie, 5 of the top 9 forwards and 3 of the top 6 defensemen.
That is gelling very well very quickly.
And now we get to enjoy them for the remainder of this season and (most of them) 3 further seasons where they get stronger and more experienced.
We could be at the beginning of a special run.
< surveys Hubei wet markets nervously >
Assuming the transfer portal plus NIL plus early entries don't become a thing
Yes, Giant Meteor is always a possibility. cf. the serenity prayer.
(https://cdn.customsigns.com/media/catalog/product/c/s/cs_ys-pol-meteor_on-white_800.jpg)
Quote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 06:34:48 PMQuote from: underskill on January 26, 2026, 06:23:37 PMQuote from: Trotsky on January 26, 2026, 03:44:56 PMLet's all take a moment to celebrate that this 10th-ranked team started this season with 12 true freshmen and 2 sophomore transfers including the primary goalie, 5 of the top 9 forwards and 3 of the top 6 defensemen.
That is gelling very well very quickly.
And now we get to enjoy them for the remainder of this season and (most of them) 3 further seasons where they get stronger and more experienced.
We could be at the beginning of a special run.
< surveys Hubei wet markets nervously >
Assuming the transfer portal plus NIL plus early entries don't become a thing
Yes, Giant Meteor is always a possibility. cf. the serenity prayer.
(https://cdn.customsigns.com/media/catalog/product/c/s/cs_ys-pol-meteor_on-white_800.jpg)
The poll loses all credibility when Harvard continues to receive votes.
Quote from: arugula on January 26, 2026, 11:32:05 PMThe poll loses all credibility when Harvard continues to receive votes.
I didn't know that it ever had credibility.
I thought the poll was only useful when we're above all our rivals, and otherwise it's fake.
Quote from: stereax on January 27, 2026, 09:32:59 AMI thought the poll was only useful when we're above all our rivals, and otherwise it's fake.
-- #nopolitics
Up (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html) to 9 in USCHO (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll), 8 in USA Hockey, along with 7 in NPI (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_History.html).
At this time last year, in USCHO we were in the bottom of RV at 33rd (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/2025-02-03).
Quote from: Trotsky on February 02, 2026, 03:06:06 PMUp (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_Block.html) to 9 in USCHO (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll), 8 in USA Hockey, along with 7 in NPI (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Poll_History.html).
At this time last year, in USCHO we were in the bottom of RV at 33rd (https://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/2025-02-03).
Fire Schafer
Does anyone know the "last team in" by computer rankings in the current format? Or how often it has been each ranking? I assume it's something like 13,13,13,14,12,13,14,15,13 etc but was wondering what the realistic cutoff to feel safe might be.
Usually 14 I think. Atlantic Hockey steals a bid then one from another league. But I think in 2023 it might've gotten down to 12? I just remember Alaska was the last team out thanks to Colgate beating Harvard.
if you go thru the leagues
Atlantic will get 1
B10 has 3 that would have to lose before Wisc at 14
CCHA has two teams 13-15
ECAC has 3 before you get to Harv 21
HE has 2 before you get to Uconn
NCHC has 4
You can see Uconn or Mass, Miami, Minn St, Wisc stealing bids, Harvard as a stretch
so that means 10-11th is the worst cutoff?
Odds of all those multi bid conf having a total WC is low.
13th is probably safe, but 12th is probably 90% safe
There are 6 auto bids. There are 16 slots.
10th is safe. Be 10th or better when the frost clears.
10th is safest. 16th is out because of Atlantic. Usually the cutoff is between 13 and 14, because Atlantic takes one and then you tend to get an upset or three in the other conferences. B10, ECAC, NCHC should all have their winner in the top 16. HEA is a mess this year and CCHA is a tossup. So realistically 13+ should get us in. But yeah, 10+ is best.
How about we simply do not lose bad games? I think that will do wonders.
if they do the job vs the bottom teams and lose to Quin, getting to the Semis should be enough. but there is a 1-2 seed there for the taking.
just the BU game flip makes them a 1 seed.
Quote from: stereax on February 03, 2026, 07:18:25 PMHow about we simply do not lose bad games? I think that will do wonders.
We'll almost certainlty lose at least one bad game. ALMOST everybody (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_H2H_by_Standing.html) does.
Quote from: Trotsky on February 04, 2026, 10:49:25 AMQuote from: stereax on February 03, 2026, 07:18:25 PMHow about we simply do not lose bad games? I think that will do wonders.
We'll almost certainlty lose at least one bad game. ALMOST everybody (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_H2H_by_Standing.html) does.
For sure, realism is absolutely a thing and it's way more likely than not we cough up an extra game or two. On paper, though, the biggest "trap" games on the docket are Princeton and Clarkson. Besides the Q game, we can absolutely sweep the rest of the regular season.
Quote from: stereax on February 04, 2026, 11:53:48 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 04, 2026, 10:49:25 AMQuote from: stereax on February 03, 2026, 07:18:25 PMHow about we simply do not lose bad games? I think that will do wonders.
We'll almost certainlty lose at least one bad game. ALMOST everybody (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_H2H_by_Standing.html) does.
For sure, realism is absolutely a thing and it's way more likely than not we cough up an extra game or two. On paper, though, the biggest "trap" games on the docket are Princeton and Clarkson. Besides the Q game, we can absolutely sweep the rest of the regular season.
You're not implying that we can't sweep including Q, are you?
Quote from: Jim Hyla on February 09, 2026, 07:03:22 PMQuote from: stereax on February 04, 2026, 11:53:48 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 04, 2026, 10:49:25 AMQuote from: stereax on February 03, 2026, 07:18:25 PMHow about we simply do not lose bad games? I think that will do wonders.
We'll almost certainlty lose at least one bad game. ALMOST everybody (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_H2H_by_Standing.html) does.
For sure, realism is absolutely a thing and it's way more likely than not we cough up an extra game or two. On paper, though, the biggest "trap" games on the docket are Princeton and Clarkson. Besides the Q game, we can absolutely sweep the rest of the regular season.
You're not implying that we can't sweep including Q, are you?
We
can absolutely win Q. I would like to. But they match us well and it's not the game I would bet on us to win 😅
Speaking of NPI, Harvard winning bronze bumped us from 56.11 to 56.17 in the NPI, I'm pretty sure.
Quote from: stereax on February 09, 2026, 08:24:09 PMSpeaking of NPI, Harvard winning bronze bumped us from 56.11 to 56.17 in the NPI, I'm pretty sure.
Also bumped Dartmouth .06 - Q hasn't played them twice so they got a smaller increase.
Quote from: marty on February 09, 2026, 08:40:56 PMQuote from: stereax on February 09, 2026, 08:24:09 PMSpeaking of NPI, Harvard winning bronze bumped us from 56.11 to 56.17 in the NPI, I'm pretty sure.
Also bumped Dartmouth .06 - Q hasn't played them twice so they got a smaller increase.
BU on track to lose this. That would drop us to 56.14. If BU manages to come back and win this, we go up to 56.19. It's all so marginal.
Just gotta play them one game at a time.
And the good lord willing...
Quote from: stereax on February 09, 2026, 09:47:26 PMQuote from: marty on February 09, 2026, 08:40:56 PMQuote from: stereax on February 09, 2026, 08:24:09 PMSpeaking of NPI, Harvard winning bronze bumped us from 56.11 to 56.17 in the NPI, I'm pretty sure.
Also bumped Dartmouth .06 - Q hasn't played them twice so they got a smaller increase.
BU on track to lose this. That would drop us to 56.14. If BU manages to come back and win this, we go up to 56.19. It's all so marginal.
Just for completeness, since I said this in the other thread—the important thing here was BC losing which would hurt their NPI, more so than BU winning (barely) helping ours.
Quote from: Trotsky on February 09, 2026, 10:32:16 PMJust gotta play them one game at a time.
And the good lord willing...
Write it down!
They're your friends.
Weekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Quote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win, which is much closer to a tie than a loss.
One of the issues with college hockey counting OT results differently from regulation results is that we don't have the right verbiage for these results. While most sources such as the Sun and CHN treat an OT loss as a "loss" (eg. references to our record treat it as a loss), I think it's a lot more accurate to treat it as a tie. More accurate from an NPI perspective and also for judging the team, given 3x3 OT is not representative.
Basically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
Quote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
feels like it didn't hurt us a lot in the standings but did hurt us in the way that you see a fading luger's split times and hope that there's enough track left for course correction on the bottom turns if that analogy is relevant to your february 2026 viewing experience
Quote from: ugarte on February 15, 2026, 11:33:57 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
feels like it didn't hurt us a lot in the standings but did hurt us in the way that you see a fading luger's split times and hope that there's enough track left for course correction on the bottom turns if that analogy is relevant to your february 2026 viewing experience
Agree, we are not in Mikaela Shiffrin or Ilia Malinin territory.
It feels silly to talk about any of this given that our own play is by far the biggest determinant of whether we make the NCAAs, and we played like garbage this weekend. But, looking at the NPI now, there's a huge gap between Wisconsin at 15th and Mankato at 16th. Meanwhile, 10 (us) through 15 are bunched closer together than the difference between 15 and 16. If you assume 10-15 are the bubble teams, then we have to beat out X of these other five teams, where X is the number of teams outside the top 15 who get an automatic bid minus 1.
For example, if the Atlantic Hockey winner is the only autobid outside the top 15, then we don't have to finish better than any of these five teams. If Atlantic Hockey and the CCHA both get an automatic-bid, then we have to beat one of these five teams. Etc.
From that perspective, this is very doable.
Quote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 01:09:46 PMIt feels silly to talk about any of this given that our own play is by far the biggest determinant of whether we make the NCAAs, and we played like garbage this weekend. But, looking at the NPI now, there's a huge gap between Wisconsin at 15th and Mankato at 16th. Meanwhile, 10 (us) through 15 are bunched closer together than the difference between 15 and 16. If you assume 10-15 are the bubble teams, then we have to beat out X of these other five teams, where X is the number of teams outside the top 15 who get an automatic bid minus 1.
For example, if the Atlantic Hockey winner is the only autobid outside the top 15, then we don't have to finish better than any of these five teams. If Atlantic Hockey and the CCHA both get an automatic-bid, then we have to beat one of these five teams. Etc.
From that perspective, this is very doable.
It would be deeply surprising if NCHC or B1G's autobids aren't a top 16 team. Atlantic obviously will not be. CCHA, I'd wager wouldn't be - only St Thomas is still in the top 16, and Augustana, Mich Tech, and Bowling Green are clumped in 17-19. That being said, whoever wins the CCHA might climb the NPI anyways, so who knows. Hockey East is a massive tossup, and it truly wouldn't surprise me if a Maine, a BU, an NEU, or a Merrimack made a surprise championship run. Really, anyone in that hellhole could do it. ECAC
should be one of us, Q, or D, but it's also a tossup given D hasn't been great either recently and Q chokes like it's going out of style. So doing that math, - 10+ is automatically in no matter what. 11-12 is almost assuredly safe. 13-14 is the worry zone, 15 or down and we're probably out.
If we can pull off a win against Q next week, that will be HUGE. Otherwise, we just have to stay the course, not cough up (m)any more easy points, and pray on a bunch of teams' downfalls. Ideally make a deep ECAC run anyway. None of this autobid business even matters if we win at Placid, but it'd be nice to have that security going up there.
Quote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win, which is much closer to a tie than a loss.
One of the issues with college hockey counting OT results differently from regulation results is that we don't have the right verbiage for these results. While most sources such as the Sun and CHN treat an OT loss as a "loss" (eg. references to our record treat it as a loss), I think it's a lot more accurate to treat it as a tie. More accurate from an NPI perspective and also for judging the team, given 3x3 OT is not representative.
Basically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
You're right - it's a pain in the ass. But we have to treat it like a loss, because that's what goes in the team's official record, and coach's record, for example.
There are numerous places on the site where we separate out these things into distinct columns or put OT records in parentheticals.
Quote from: adamw on February 15, 2026, 06:56:39 PMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win, which is much closer to a tie than a loss.
One of the issues with college hockey counting OT results differently from regulation results is that we don't have the right verbiage for these results. While most sources such as the Sun and CHN treat an OT loss as a "loss" (eg. references to our record treat it as a loss), I think it's a lot more accurate to treat it as a tie. More accurate from an NPI perspective and also for judging the team, given 3x3 OT is not representative.
Basically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
You're right - it's a pain in the ass. But we have to treat it like a loss, because that's what goes in the team's official record, and coach's record, for example.
There are numerous places on the site where we separate out these things into distinct columns or put OT records in parentheticals.
Adam and Bearlover in agreement! Who says there's no chance for peace in the Middle East?!
Quote from: CU2007 on February 15, 2026, 10:10:32 PMQuote from: adamw on February 15, 2026, 06:56:39 PMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win, which is much closer to a tie than a loss.
One of the issues with college hockey counting OT results differently from regulation results is that we don't have the right verbiage for these results. While most sources such as the Sun and CHN treat an OT loss as a "loss" (eg. references to our record treat it as a loss), I think it's a lot more accurate to treat it as a tie. More accurate from an NPI perspective and also for judging the team, given 3x3 OT is not representative.
Basically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
You're right - it's a pain in the ass. But we have to treat it like a loss, because that's what goes in the team's official record, and coach's record, for example.
There are numerous places on the site where we separate out these things into distinct columns or put OT records in parentheticals.
Adam and Bearlover in agreement! Who says there's no chance for peace in the Middle East?!
It's a trap. My money's on Adam laying the kill shot if bearlover.is kures in by false sense of security.
Quote from: abmarks on February 16, 2026, 06:32:11 AMQuote from: CU2007 on February 15, 2026, 10:10:32 PMQuote from: adamw on February 15, 2026, 06:56:39 PMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win, which is much closer to a tie than a loss.
One of the issues with college hockey counting OT results differently from regulation results is that we don't have the right verbiage for these results. While most sources such as the Sun and CHN treat an OT loss as a "loss" (eg. references to our record treat it as a loss), I think it's a lot more accurate to treat it as a tie. More accurate from an NPI perspective and also for judging the team, given 3x3 OT is not representative.
Basically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
You're right - it's a pain in the ass. But we have to treat it like a loss, because that's what goes in the team's official record, and coach's record, for example.
There are numerous places on the site where we separate out these things into distinct columns or put OT records in parentheticals.
Adam and Bearlover in agreement! Who says there's no chance for peace in the Middle East?!
It's a trap. My money's on Adam laying the kill shot if bearlover.is kures in by false sense of security.
Frozen Four is in Vegas and no one will be betting on BearLover.
Quote from: marty on February 16, 2026, 06:49:20 AMQuote from: abmarks on February 16, 2026, 06:32:11 AMQuote from: CU2007 on February 15, 2026, 10:10:32 PMQuote from: adamw on February 15, 2026, 06:56:39 PMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win, which is much closer to a tie than a loss.
One of the issues with college hockey counting OT results differently from regulation results is that we don't have the right verbiage for these results. While most sources such as the Sun and CHN treat an OT loss as a "loss" (eg. references to our record treat it as a loss), I think it's a lot more accurate to treat it as a tie. More accurate from an NPI perspective and also for judging the team, given 3x3 OT is not representative.
Basically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
You're right - it's a pain in the ass. But we have to treat it like a loss, because that's what goes in the team's official record, and coach's record, for example.
There are numerous places on the site where we separate out these things into distinct columns or put OT records in parentheticals.
Adam and Bearlover in agreement! Who says there's no chance for peace in the Middle East?!
It's a trap. My money's on Adam laying the kill shot if bearlover.is kures in by false sense of security.
Frozen Four is in Vegas and no one will be betting on BearLover.
You should do stand-up, your material is incredible
Quote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMQuote from: Trotsky on February 15, 2026, 04:20:05 AMWeekend damage: we fall to 10th in NPI. Survivable if we don't make a habit of it.
Frankly I thought going L / T / L against three bad teams would hurt us more.
Notably we basically went T/T/L since the NPI treats an OT loss as 40% of a win
This is a good point, thank you.
Quote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMBasically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
Yes. I wonder if we polled the coaches and players they would vote to tie after 60, full stop.
Quote from: Trotsky on February 16, 2026, 11:21:57 AMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMBasically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
Yes. I wonder if we polled the coaches and players they would vote to tie after 60, full stop.
3v3 play is useful in that it prepares college athletes for NHL/similar league play, where OT proceeds the same way. Plus, strategy in 3v3 is markedly different than at 5v5.
That being said, the "possession game" OT has become fucking sucks to watch.
Quote from: stereax on February 16, 2026, 12:25:21 PMQuote from: Trotsky on February 16, 2026, 11:21:57 AMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMBasically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
Yes. I wonder if we polled the coaches and players they would vote to tie after 60, full stop.
3v3 play is useful in that it prepares college athletes for NHL/similar league play, where OT proceeds the same way. Plus, strategy in 3v3 is markedly different than at 5v5.
That being said, the "possession game" OT has become fucking sucks to watch.
3x3 OT sucks in the pros, too.
If nothing else, you should lose possession if you leave the offensive zone with the puck. Like a backcourt in basketball.
NHL players are also much better in open space than college players. But yea 3x3 sucks either way
Quote from: Dafatone on February 16, 2026, 12:56:18 PMQuote from: stereax on February 16, 2026, 12:25:21 PMQuote from: Trotsky on February 16, 2026, 11:21:57 AMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMBasically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
Yes. I wonder if we polled the coaches and players they would vote to tie after 60, full stop.
3v3 play is useful in that it prepares college athletes for NHL/similar league play, where OT proceeds the same way. Plus, strategy in 3v3 is markedly different than at 5v5.
That being said, the "possession game" OT has become fucking sucks to watch.
3x3 OT sucks in the pros, too.
If nothing else, you should lose possession if you leave the offensive zone with the puck. Like a backcourt in basketball.
It sucks full stop. But that's likely why the NCAA does it that way.
The NC$$ is aping NHL rules because they think it helps college players' prospects.
The only way to end shootout and 3x3 in NC$$ is uproot them everywhere.
(https://cdn.kobo.com/book-images/b75dfffc-c9ce-40c9-b5c4-669ddf38a3ce/353/569/90/False/world-socialist-revolution.jpg)
10 USCHO, 11 USA Hockey, 10 NPI
Q is 5 / 5 / 6
Quote from: Trotsky on February 16, 2026, 11:21:57 AMQuote from: BearLover on February 15, 2026, 11:29:00 AMBasically, if a game goes to OT, it should be referred to as a tie, unless you want to be granular and differentiate OT wins/losses from regulation wins/losses. But doing this differentiating is cumbersome and most sources don't bother.
Yes. I wonder if we polled the coaches and players they would vote to tie after 60, full stop.
If that were true, it would be the case. Because coaches are essentially the drivers as to what the rules are.
NPI with some games still in progress:
7 Qpc
10 Cor
11 Drt
21 Uni
27 Hvd
32 Prn