Casey Lewis
Joe Boloukos
Kevin Nee
3-0 at the end of the first
Greenhalgh
Nee
5-3 at halftime
Haswell
Nee
Greenhalgh
Dartmouth has scored 2 in a row in the 2nd, 4-2
Dartmouth has scored the only 2 in the second half. 5-5 early in the 4th.
Haswell gets cornell on the board in the second half off of a drop by Boloukos. 6-5 Cornell
8-5 with 6 minutes left in the game.
Now 8-7 Cornell with 1:58 -- hold onto your hats ::help::
Dartmouth scores 2. 8-7 cornell with 1:58 left. Cornell wins the faceoff and the coach calls a timeout before cornell almost loses the ball for coming out of the box.
1:06 left, cornell still with posession. Dartmouth timeout.
Cornell holds on for the win 8-7. This likely means they'll get the AQ for the ivies.
Fabulous wins back-to-back on the road. With Brown and Princeton left on the Ivy schedule, however (even though Princeton isn't Princeton this year, they still scare me), a bit too early to project that the AQ is in the bag.
[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:
This likely means they'll get the AQ for the ivies.[/q]
Way too soon to think that.
Fine, maybe i'll take my woof back.
Princeton is burying Harvard. Brown snuck past Penn. The Ivy race is still very much up for grabs. Yale, at 3-1, is still in it with only Harvard and Dartmouth to play.
Syracuse is routing Rutgers, 8-1 in the second, and Duke is crushing Virginia, 14-2.
[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote: Fine, maybe i'll take my woof back.[/q]
Maybe??? Dude, if Princeton beats us (and they'll be snorting fire), they're totally in the driver's seat. The best thing Cornell can say is "we control our own destiny," but Princeton and Brown can say the exact same thing. They win the AQ if they win out too.
Edit: I forgot Yale beat both Princeton and Brown, so the Tigers and Bears both need Yale to lose one more. Even so, the AQ ain't even close to Cornell's yet.
I actually thought Princeton already had 2 ivy losses which was most of the reason I was pretty confident. I just looked it up and I guess I was wrong. So the only 2 teams we have left to play in the league each have 1 ivy loss. Guess it will be closer than I thought. How do tie breakers work for the AQ?
Tie breaker is head to head, so a two way tie is simple. Three way ties where the head to heads do not settle the issue are decided by....a coin toss. That is how Dartmouth got the AQ two years ago.
Dartmouth still has to play Yale, Brown (both this week) and Princeton.
Brown has Dartmouth, Princeton, and Cornell.
Princeton has Brown, Cornell and Dartmouth.
All things considered, Cornell is in a very good position following today's game. Great win on the road.
So i guess that means that a Cornell win over Princeton, and a Dartmouth win over Brown will clinch the Ivy title for Cornell, because worst possible result would be a two-way tie with Dartmouth, and we beat them
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
So i guess that means that a Cornell win over Princeton, and a Dartmouth win over Brown will clinch the Ivy title for Cornell, because worst possible result would be a two-way tie with Dartmouth, and we beat them[/q]
Right.
Dartmouth and Brown still have to play Princeton, too.
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
So i guess that means that a Cornell win over Princeton, and a Dartmouth win over Brown will clinch the Ivy title for Cornell, because worst possible result would be a two-way tie with Dartmouth, and we beat them[/q]If I'm not mistaken, in that scenario (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Brown then beats us and we and Dartmouth both finish 5-1), it's a shared Ivy title but we get the automatic bid.
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
So i guess that means that a Cornell win over Princeton, and a Dartmouth win over Brown will clinch the Ivy title for Cornell, because worst possible result would be a two-way tie with Dartmouth, and we beat them[/q]
Wouldn't want to see it, but I think it's possible to have a five-way tie at 4-2. Would be some coin flip. ::nut::
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
[Q2]nshapiro Wrote:
So i guess that means that a Cornell win over Princeton, and a Dartmouth win over Brown will clinch the Ivy title for Cornell, because worst possible result would be a two-way tie with Dartmouth, and we beat them[/Q]
Wouldn't want to see it, but I think it's possible to have a five-way tie at 4-2. Would be some coin flip.[/q]
For those of us not in the know for Lax, is there a historical reason for the coin-flip?
I've always assumed it was because with a three or more-way tie, a playoff is impractical given the length of the season and proximity of the tournament to the end of the regular season.
Or it could just be an Ivy thing.
[Q]peterg Wrote:
I've always assumed it was because with a three or more-way tie, a playoff is impractical given the length of the season and proximity of the tournament to the end of the regular season.
Or it could just be an Ivy thing.[/q]
Yeah, but there's no reason they couldn't do a few more tiebreakers, like H2H goal differential. At least that would *probably* break any tie.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
[Q2]peterg Wrote:
I've always assumed it was because with a three or more-way tie, a playoff is impractical given the length of the season and proximity of the tournament to the end of the regular season.
Or it could just be an Ivy thing.[/Q]
Yeah, but there's no reason they couldn't do a few more tiebreakers, like H2H goal differential. At least that would *probably* break any tie.[/q]
At least one conference uses overall RPI to award the auto-bid in case of a tie like that.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
[Q2]peterg Wrote:
I've always assumed it was because with a three or more-way tie, a playoff is impractical given the length of the season and proximity of the tournament to the end of the regular season.
Or it could just be an Ivy thing.[/Q]
Yeah, but there's no reason they couldn't do a few more tiebreakers, like H2H goal differential. At least that would *probably* break any tie.[/q]
Like I said, it could just be an Ivy thing (discouraging the unsportsmanlike spectacle of running up a score against an opponent, etc., etc., etc.?).
Or not really caring about athletics enough to come up with a realistic tiebreaker - that's an Ivy thing.
Hey, it's better than the way the Big 10 used to decide who to send to the Rose Bowl when teams tied for the conference championship in football. If there was a two or three-way tie, they'd send whoever had waited the longest since their last Rose Bowl appearance.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you Jeff, it seems like good tiebreakers are hard to come up with when you have a seven game schedule. Let me rephrase that. You can come up with plenty of valid criteria (goals margin, margin in H2H, record against top 4, etc.) but there's not a very large sample size. Using RPI means using out of conference games, which strikes me as the wrong approach when deciding the conference title (even if it's not strictly the title, just the AQ). Goals margin H2H isn't much less random as a coin flip in a three way tie like we've discussed. Record against Top 4, like the ECAC uses, devolves to record against #4 in this case. My point is not to say that a coin flip is wonderfully fair. It's just not as horrible as it might seem at first glance.
Presumably they'd do something like drawing straws with an odd number of teams. But maybe not. You could do something goofy like "who can pick more coins right out of 10 tries" with sudden death if needed after that. :-D
That actually makes a lot of sense for the conference as a whole (publicity for more teams)...and is at least easily predictable. Not fair to the players, though.
While goal diff may very possibly be nearly as random as a coin flip, at least it relates to something that actually happened *on the field*, as opposed to the wind and a thumb motion of an official.
As far as the 3-way "coin flip" goes, if I remember correct from the 3 way Cornell/Dartmouth/Princeton tie a couple years back, I'm pretty sure they just used a random number generator or something of the sort. So that would change my previous statement to "as opposed to the motion of certain electrons."
A 3 way actual coin flip wouldn't be too hard to do though. Just flip two coins (either simultaneously or sequentially) and make H,H Cornell, H, T Dartmouth, T, H Princeton, and T, T redo or such. 1/3rd chance each way around. Of course, they'd probably just do the random number generator cause then you can't blame human bias/poor flips. And concerns about imperfections in random # generators are probably above the level of athletes/coaches, even of the Ivy variety.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
While goal diff may very possibly be nearly as random as a coin flip, at least it relates to something that actually happened *on the field*, as opposed to the wind and a thumb motion of an official.
As far as the 3-way "coin flip" goes, if I remember correct from the 3 way Cornell/Dartmouth/Princeton tie a couple years back, I'm pretty sure they just used a random number generator or something of the sort. So that would change my previous statement to "as opposed to the motion of certain electrons."
[/Q]
Well, most random-number generators are actually pseudo-random, so it's probably more like "as opposed to the nth decimal place of a certail logarithm."
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
A 3 way actual coin flip wouldn't be too hard to do though. Just flip two coins (either simultaneously or sequentially) and make H,H Cornell, H, T Dartmouth, T, H Princeton, and T, T redo or such. 1/3rd chance each way around. Of course, they'd probably just do the random number generator cause then you can't blame human bias/poor flips. And concerns about imperfections in random # generators are probably above the level of athletes/coaches, even of the Ivy variety.[/q]
Or you could roll a d6 and assign 1 and 4 to Cornell, 2 and 5 to Dartmouth, and 3 and 6 to Princeton. No redos necessary. (When I get unbreakable ties in my ECAC tiebreaker stuff, I just go by alphabetical order, but I don't imagine the coaches would go for that.)
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
(When I get unbreakable ties in my ECAC tiebreaker stuff, I just go by alphabetical order, but I don't imagine the coaches would go for that.)[/q]
I'd go for it as long as Brown and Columbia weren't involved :-P
[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
Hey, it's better than the way the Big 10 used to decide who to send to the Rose Bowl when teams tied for the conference championship in football. If there was a two or three-way tie, they'd send whoever had waited the longest since their last Rose Bowl appearance.[/q]
Whoa, not so fast... In '73, tOSU and UM had identical conference records and shared the Big Ten Title. Ohio State went to the Rose Bowl. The following season, the scenario was identical, with Ohio State tying Michigan in the annual grudge match. The Big Ten Commissioners voted to send Ohio State to the Rose Bowl again. The vote was apparently influenced by news that Michigan quarterback Denny Franklin had broken his collarbone in the tOSU game and would be unlikely to play in Pasadena.
The folks in Ann Arbor handled this one about as well as Cornell hockey fans did when the team was sent to the Twin Cities this year. :-) It was a particularly bitter pill, because in those days, due to contractual relations with the Rose Bowl, everyone else in the Big Ten and Pac Ten stayed home.
http://www.umgoblue.com/HTML/Football/73/73umosu.htm