ELynah Forum

I think it looks better when the color is set to red, but the color seems to reset to blue every time I visit the page.

Quote from: The Rancor on September 30, 2025, 10:26:50 PMFirst time in a while that we had a single Captain and two Alternates?

First time since 2023-24.

Quote from: adamw on September 30, 2025, 01:41:50 AM

Quote from: BearLover on September 29, 2025, 04:46:58 PMAny idea how "Quality win base" and "quality win multiplier" work exactly? I know the general concept behind quality wins, but not sure what these numbers mean.

Overtime 3x3 down to 60/40 sounds fairer than the 65/35 we the had last few years, I like it.

The fact the home/away weighting goes away in the postseason benefits teams like us that get home playoff games. But I guess not really since most teams competing for a at-large will have home playoff games. (Actually, doesn't this now hurt good teams that have playoff games at neutral sites? So the new rule most helps teams like Minn State that get home ice and play their entire tournament in conference rinks.) Still not sure where the 1.2/.8 weighting in the regular season comes from; is there any scientific basis for those numbers?

Removing the .500 threshold is weird. Has that ever even been relevant?

The QWB base and multiplier is not a whole lot different than it was for RPI. Instead of starting with wins against teams in the top 20 of RPI, it will start with wins against teams with a 51.0 NPI - and the multiplier just means the sliding scale.

So let's say Cornell defeats the #1, #10, and #40 team in the NPI. How much of a bonus do we get for each win?

Any idea how "Quality win base" and "quality win multiplier" work exactly? I know the general concept behind quality wins, but not sure what these numbers mean.

Overtime 3x3 down to 60/40 sounds fairer than the 65/35 we the had last few years, I like it.

The fact the home/away weighting goes away in the postseason benefits teams like us that get home playoff games. But I guess not really since most teams competing for a at-large will have home playoff games. (Actually, doesn't this now hurt good teams that have playoff games at neutral sites? So the new rule most helps teams like Minn State that get home ice and play their entire tournament in conference rinks.) Still not sure where the 1.2/.8 weighting in the regular season comes from; is there any scientific basis for those numbers?

Removing the .500 threshold is weird. Has that ever even been relevant?

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: chimpfoodWe are third in the ECAC preseason poll. https://cornellbigred.com/news/2025/9/25/mens-ice-hockey-2025-26-ecac-hockey-preseason-poll-release.aspx

Clarkson ahead of Cornell doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me

Most the league isn't up Cornell's ass as far as we here are, and they see Cornell losing half their team and their GOAT coach.

Unless you are saying it could have been Dartmouth 2nd.  I could see that.

I am just saying that Cornell looks like a better team than Clarkson (and also Dartmouth for that matter). From a quick skim of who these teams added and who they lost, Clarkson (and certainly Dartmouth) still seem a step behind Cornell. Obviously I don't have much to go off of here but the USCHO poll which has Cornell 17 and Clarkson 22 seems more reasonable.

Quote from: chimpfoodWe are third in the ECAC preseason poll. https://cornellbigred.com/news/2025/9/25/mens-ice-hockey-2025-26-ecac-hockey-preseason-poll-release.aspx

Clarkson ahead of Cornell doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me

Quote from: Old Red

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: BearLoverThere's a strange fixation on this forum about Q's questionable academic standards when in reality almost every school in the country, including almost every D-1 hockey school and some in our own conference, has a similar lack of standards, especially for those on the hockey team.

I think it is born, at least in part, from the ECAC's traditional positioning as a conference of schools that take academics seriously. Adding Q rather than RIT or Holy Cross undermined that positioning.*

That's at least in part because Q is so insufferable in it's marketing of itself. If the university positioned itself more as a serious school and not as a boarding school for wealthy kids to drink in new haven (or was quieter generally), it'd probably be less of an issue too.  My experience in fairfield county is that it's not taken super seriously and is wildly too expensive.  They run billboards bragging that they were included in USNWR rankings. Not where they rank just that the magazine includes them. It's be great if they improved their academic profile but for a lot of folks they'll always be seen as the diploma mill Trotsky sees.

*- yes I know it wasn't strictly a choice of those three at the time to replace UVM. But the perception at the time was that RIT and HC would be better cultural fits for the conference than Q.

From Chatgpt:

ECACHL Schools:

Ivies:

| School               | Approximate Recent Acceptance Rate                     |
| -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Brown University** | \\~5.6% for Class of 2029 ([The Brown Daily Herald][1]) |
| Yale University      | \\~3.7% (Class of 2028) ([Crimson Education][2])        |
| Harvard University   | \\~3.6% (Class of 2028) ([Crimson Education][2])        |
| Columbia University  | \\~3.85% (Class of 2028) ([Crimson Education][2])       |
| Princeton University | \\~4.62% (Class of 2028) ([Crimson Education][2])       |
| Dartmouth College    | \\~5.3% (Class of 2028) ([Crimson Education][2])        |
| Cornell University   | \\~8.41% (Class of 2028) ([Crimson Education][2])       |

[1]: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/03/brown-admits-565-of-applicants-to-class-of-2029?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Brown admits 5.65% of applicants to class of 2029 - The Brown Daily Herald"
[2]: https://www.crimsoneducation.org/ge/blog/ivy-league-acceptance-rates/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Ivy League Acceptance Rates For The Class of 2028 - Crimson Education GE"

Non-Ivies:
| School                                 | Approximate Acceptance Rate           |
| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| Clarkson University                    | \\~77% ([U.S. News & World Report][1]) |
| Colgate University                     | \\~12% ([U.S. News & World Report][2]) |
| Quinnipiac University                  | \\~77% ([U.S. News & World Report][3]) |
| Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) | \\~58% ([Niche][4])                    |
| St. Lawrence University                | \\~58% ([U.S. News & World Report][5]) |
| Union College (NY)                     | \\~44% ([U.S. News & World Report][6]) |

[1]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/clarkson-university-2699?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Clarkson University - Profile, Rankings and Data | US News Best Colleges"
[2]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/colgate-university-2701?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Colgate University - Profile, Rankings and Data | US News Best Colleges"
[3]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/quinnipiac-university-1402/applying?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Quinnipiac University Admissions - US News Best Colleges"
[4]: https://www.niche.com/colleges/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute/admissions/facts/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Admissions & Acceptance - Niche"
[5]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/st-lawrence-university-2829?utm_source=chatgpt.com "St. Lawrence University - Profile, Rankings and Data | US News Best Colleges"
[6]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/union-college-new-york-2889?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Union College (NY) - Profile, Rankings and Data | US News Best Colleges"


Notes:
1. Sorry for the formatting. I'm still working my way into the 21st Century.
2. I realize admission rates are not a very good measure of academic quality. And there may be considerable self-selection. E.g., Clarkson's emphasis on technology may screen applicants without considerable STEM backgroun in high school.

Yikes! Is admitting less than ten percent of your applicants something to be proud of?  Something that makes these schools better than others?  Or is it just bad marketing that wastes the time and resources of the AI admissions bots?

I think it would be better to target the proper audience and admit somewhere between 30% and 60% of their applicants.  We are clearly wasting the time and maybe even the hopes of 75% of our applicants.

A better measure of school quality for me would be the number of accepted students who decide to attend.  That reflects on the safety school considerations.

The Ivies could enroll an equally qualified class five times over.

Ivy yield rates for class of 2029 based on random website I found:
Cornell 64%
Dartmouth 71%
Columbia 61%
Yale 68%
Harvard 85%
Princeton 75%
Brown 73%
Penn 69%

Harder to find the yield rates for other ECAC schools but they seem to be much lower, between 10% (Quinnipiac, Clarkson) and 28% (Colgate).

Becoming an adult is realizing that none of this actually matters.

There's a strange fixation on this forum about Q's questionable academic standards when in reality almost every school in the country, including almost every D-1 hockey school and some in our own conference, has a similar lack of standards, especially for those on the hockey team.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: BearLoverCounterarguments:

2. Many other teams did the exact same thing, or more, following the CHL/transfer portal opening up a new universe of recruits. So while Cournoyer was a huge net add for us, it is still less than what our opponents did. (See late additions by PSU, UMich, Providence Quinnipiac, etc.)

I note that none of the other opponents you list are subject to the stringent admissions standards that Casey has to contend with. It's just a fact that needs to be acknowledged, and one that you seem to ignore. Bringing in Cournoyer, along with transfers Ashton and Fischer, was a great piece of work.

I acknowledged this relative limitation on Cornell earlier in this very thread.

Quote from: scoop85Casey's always been able to recruit. After last season we were all wondering about our goaltending, and Casey goes out and brings in Cournoyer to help shore up that critical position. Last night I happened to catch a segment of Hockey Prospect radio where the hosts were discussing the 2025 drafts of the Atlantic Division teams.  When discussing Montreal's draft, Brad Allen, who is one of NHL Radio's draft gurus, said he thought Cournoyer was an excellent pick in the 5th round. Allen said Cournoyer has a terrific glove hand and was one of Allen's top 10 goalie prospects in the draft.

Yes, I think the Cournoyer commitment may turn out to be the highest leverage commitment in many years. By which I mean: the 2025-26 team has lots of good players at F and D, but goaltending was a clear issue, perhaps enough to curtail the season, and it seemed too late in the recruitment cycle to get anyone for next season. The fact we were able to pull a drafted goalie out of thin air may prove very important for next season.

Counterarguments:
1. Cournoyer was drafted based on a very small sample size of game action in junior hockey
2. Many other teams did the exact same thing, or more, following the CHL/transfer portal opening up a new universe of recruits. So while Cournoyer was a huge net add for us, it is still less than what our opponents did. (See late additions by PSU, UMich, Providence Quinnipiac, etc.)
3. With three other goalies on the roster, there's a solid chance one of them would have been more than serviceable anyway

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLoverI'm not even convinced yet he's a great coach—I mean, he probably is a good coach, but what basis do we have? A slightly over .500 record in 12 years at Clarkson? Let's have a good season or two before we start talking about national championships.  

The college hockey landscape has completely changed the last few years. ASU just signed a kid straight out of the AHL. Casey is going to need to revamp how Cornell recruits if we want to compete nationally.

The sky continues to fall.

No. It wasn't falling under Schafer and there are no indications it will fall under Casey—just a lot of uncertainty.

You have a pretty impressive streak going. 150 straight forums posts that have added literally nothing to the conversation other than commentary on my posting style.

I think you missed the point on Al's post, as well as on Trotsky's.

Since Trotsky's is the oldest, let's start there.

In talking about national championships he was in no way referring to the coach's past or future performance.

His mention of National Championship was as an "aim", or if you prefer, a "goal", it was not a prediction.

So if you're going to criticize it, you are criticizing it as a goal.

Second, Al's mention of "The sky continues to fall" had nothing to do with the team's, or coach's performance.

Go back and read "Henny Penny", or if you prefer "Chicken Little".

The phrase "the sky is falling" refers to the chicken, or in this case the person (you) who always comes up with the negative in any situation.

So Al's use is referring to your constant posting about the negatives of situations, not about coach's performance.

You are reading my posts too literally. I was well aware of what both meant. This should be obvious, as I replied to Al's post to quip about him always complaining about my posting style (i.e.,that it's too pessimistic). When I said the sky isn't falling, I meant that *I* don't believe the sky is falling and that I never said as much.

With respect to Trotsky's post, it is important to set attainable/realistic goals. It would be ridiculous for a Brown hockey fan to post their goal this season is winning the national title. And that is precisely because of past performance. Again, I think this should be fairly obvious. Every team's goal could be to win the championship, but if that's not realistic, then what is the point of stating it in lieu of an attainable goal?

For the record, I do believe it's plausible we win the national championship, but given the massive levels of uncertainty right now I don't think it's worth thinking too much about. But yes, that is my ultimate hope/goal for Cornell hockey.

I appreciate your posting Jim, including your pleasantness and refusal to name-call, but you are being a bit obtuse here.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: BeeeejThat's the wonderful and yet horrible thing about the NCAA tournament - anything can happen over the course of four single-elimination games. Allain was capable of leading that Yale team to a third-place finish in the ECAC with a reasonably decent 18-12-3 record, yet a loss in the conference tourney semifinals. They were literally the last at-large team into the NCAA tourney. But once you're in, you just have to win four in a row (two of which they did win handily, the other two in overtime). They deserved the championship because they won the four games they had to win, but it was definitely closer to the fluke end of the scale - stepping up in a big moment - than Quinnipiac's title was in 2023.

Indeed, Allain probably should've won with the 2010 team, which laid an egg in the ECACs, affecting their seeding, or the 2011 team, which lost a barnburner to BC in the regional final. So 2013 was like winning the Oscar for the great movie that didn't win two years ago but that probably would've won in any other year. A lifetime achievement award, of sorts.

There's survivorship bias in looking at Allain as an example of an ECAC/Ivy coach winning it all. For every Allain, there are 10+ coaches in similar positions who never sniff an NCAA title. Even very successful coaches like Schafer more often than not never win a national title. So I don't really see the brief success of Yale or Union as indicative of anything rather than that it's technically possible for such a team to win an NCAA title. It's now been over 10 years since Yale and Union won and both programs have been overall mediocre in that time.

The sustained success of Quinnipiac is much more impressive, but even they wouldn't have won a national title if not for 7 fifth-year players and a phantom penalty call against Minnesota at the end of regulation. Harvard has been the other most successful league opponent during this time and they haven't even made the NCAA final.

Schafer did everything he could, and I don't blame him for the lack of NCAA success. He had great luck in the opening round and terrible luck in the second round. It would have been great to spread out the distribution a bit, but so it goes. Most other great coaches never win one either.

The goal as always is to get into the NCAA tournament and then pray things break your way. A weak ECAC helps (better chance at winning conference tournament). We've made the tournament so often lately that it makes sense to set higher goals, but I don't think that's realistic—I think the most realistic goal is to just make the tournament and pray.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: BearLoverI'm not even convinced yet he's a great coach—I mean, he probably is a good coach, but what basis do we have? A slightly over .500 record in 12 years at Clarkson? Let's have a good season or two before we start talking about national championships.  

The college hockey landscape has completely changed the last few years. ASU just signed a kid straight out of the AHL. Casey is going to need to revamp how Cornell recruits if we want to compete nationally.

why would anyone be convinced he's great yet? the only reason people are talking about championships is because he was part of a program that was an OT shot away from the Final Four last year with a well-regarded pipeline. The rules are changing, and it might be to our disadvantage, but the doomerism is a bit much when we've all got the same thin materiail to work with.

We'll still be a top team in our conference, but things are trending in the wrong direction nationally. We just can't take advantage of the same things that many other schools do, such as the transfer portal, NIL/revenue sharing, and loose admissions standards/willingness to bring in literally anybody (see ASU and Bemidji bringing in literal professional players). These are all new phenomena within the past few years. They aren't traditional material that all teams have been able to work with. Rather, they are new material that is available to some teams but not to us. (Well, loose admissions standards have always been a thing, but there are now way more avenues for abuse with CHL and pro players becoming eligible.)

A few months back I noted 3 things that I hoped Casey would focus on which I felt were lacking under Schafer.

The first was Lynah atmosphere/attendance, basically the same thing Trotsky said. Based on what people are saying in the 2025-26 Schedule thread, early returns are not good. I'm not sure how much of an effect Casey really has here, but he surely has some, and I was hopeful a fresh perspective could help. Reduce ticket prices, serve beer at the games, etc.—really need more people in the door. Our crowds are what set the program apart.

The second was greater use of the transfer portal. Some on this forum doubted this was possible, but Casey brought in two players immediately (two D with potential), the same number Schafer brought in over the past four seasons combined (Seger and a third string goalie). While it's clear we cannot use the portal as much as other programs, we can use it more than Schafer did. So far I'm overall happy with how portal use is going, though time will tell how good the new players are.

The third was putting together some kind of NIL plan. This is (as I acknowledged at the time) a pipe dream. I don't know how it would work given the total lack of institutional support. I believe revenue sharing (which the Ivy League opted out of) would have been a more effective means of paying players than NIL because donations would be tax deductible and payments would not be subject to the NIL clearinghouse approval. But we can't revenue share because the Ivy League won't allow it. So the only way to pay players would be NIL. As I said a few months ago, we have the wealthy donors, and there's nothing Cornell or the Ivy League could do to stop it. I have absolutely no hope this will happen within the next few years, but if college hockey continues in the direction it's headed, then in the not-too-distant-future paying players will be a necessity to stay relevant.

Cornell hockey offers something very unique which insulates the program from the downsides of this new world of college hockey. That is why I expect us to remain a top team in our conference. But to win a national title, business as usual won't cut it.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: BearLoverI'm not even convinced yet he's a great coach—I mean, he probably is a good coach, but what basis do we have? A slightly over .500 record in 12 years at Clarkson? Let's have a good season or two before we start talking about national championships.  

The college hockey landscape has completely changed the last few years. ASU just signed a kid straight out of the AHL. Casey is going to need to revamp how Cornell recruits if we want to compete nationally.

The sky continues to fall.

No. It wasn't falling under Schafer and there are no indications it will fall under Casey—just a lot of uncertainty.

You have a pretty impressive streak going. 150 straight forums posts that have added literally nothing to the conversation other than commentary on my posting style.

I'm not even convinced yet he's a great coach—I mean, he probably is a good coach, but what basis do we have? A slightly over .500 record in 12 years at Clarkson? Let's have a good season or two before we start talking about national championships.  

The college hockey landscape has completely changed the last few years. ASU just signed a kid straight out of the AHL. Casey is going to need to revamp how Cornell recruits if we want to compete nationally.