Where you went wrong: you expected something from the ECAC...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
#2
I can think of one "good" reason for keeping the bonus amounts secret. The selection show airs on TV, right? (ESPN2?) Maybe either the NC$$ or the network feels that they'll get better ratings if they add some uncertainty into the process. Seems like a stupid reason to cloud up the process and possibly piss people off later (why didn't my team get in?), but I can see why some beancounters might want to do it this way.
BRA, you're right - it may well be entirely objective and deterministic. But the way they're doing it gives the impression of subjectivity. So whatever they do will look like a fudge.
BRA, you're right - it may well be entirely objective and deterministic. But the way they're doing it gives the impression of subjectivity. So whatever they do will look like a fudge.
#3
Hockey / Re: League play
March 04, 2003, 01:14:18 PM
No!
To elaborate, I like the travel partner setup. It's nice to see two different teams every week. More importantly, a balanced schedule is very desirable. I don't want teams competing for the same title playing different schedules. Why change a nice, balanced round-robin?
The ECAC league schedule is probably the best in college hockey. The main reason the WCHA wants two game sets is that the travel distances are so large out west. You can't very well team Anchorage with anyone.
Would it be great to have Harvard in town for two games? Well the playoff matchups have been fun, but I think that having one game to focus the excitement on might be better. Also, with the unbalanced schedule you're talking about there'd probably be years where Harvard doesn't come to Lynah at all. Which would suck. Unless the scheduling arangement grouped the Ivies together or some such, which would be a terrible idea, IMSHO.
To elaborate, I like the travel partner setup. It's nice to see two different teams every week. More importantly, a balanced schedule is very desirable. I don't want teams competing for the same title playing different schedules. Why change a nice, balanced round-robin?
The ECAC league schedule is probably the best in college hockey. The main reason the WCHA wants two game sets is that the travel distances are so large out west. You can't very well team Anchorage with anyone.
Would it be great to have Harvard in town for two games? Well the playoff matchups have been fun, but I think that having one game to focus the excitement on might be better. Also, with the unbalanced schedule you're talking about there'd probably be years where Harvard doesn't come to Lynah at all. Which would suck. Unless the scheduling arangement grouped the Ivies together or some such, which would be a terrible idea, IMSHO.
#4
I for one would love to see a #1 ranking. We all know polls don't mean much compared to trophies, but being able to say that you were the top ranked team in the nation at the end of a season has to be a help in recruiting (and for school and league pride anyway). I doubt it would add any more pressure over the current #2 vote and #3 ranking.
That said, it's going to take more than a split with a Top 10 team to drop CC below us at this point. This week's poll results are right about what I expected. Notice that CC didn't get a vote below second place in either poll this week (easy to show). Another split against Denver next week might push over the top, but it would again be close since we don't play.
That said, it's going to take more than a split with a Top 10 team to drop CC below us at this point. This week's poll results are right about what I expected. Notice that CC didn't get a vote below second place in either poll this week (easy to show). Another split against Denver next week might push over the top, but it would again be close since we don't play.
#5
Hockey / Who do we want to play
March 03, 2003, 08:10:37 PM
Does anyone really think that this team shouldn't be able to beat any of the bottom five teams in the conference? I don't think it's woofing to say that, if this team is really a national contender, it should put away any of those five. The first two of the four wins needed should come regardless of who we have to play. No counting your chickens and all that, but I'd still rather see Colgate come into town than Princeton or RPI.
Feel free to flagellate me if you think this will anger the hockey gods...
Feel free to flagellate me if you think this will anger the hockey gods...
#6
Hockey / Re: Most likely upset this weekend
March 03, 2003, 04:34:56 PM
I don't nkow if there wil be any upsets but please, I hope not. Below are the current RPIStr numbers for the five teams we can play in the second round:
Having to play two more games against Princeton could seriously hurt our RPI numbers.
Colgate .4729 33
Vermont .4234 44
St. Lawrence .4001 48
RPI .3728 51
Princeton .2593 60
Having to play two more games against Princeton could seriously hurt our RPI numbers.
#7
Hockey / Re: Sunday PWR: Big Doin's
March 03, 2003, 01:20:14 PM
Both Dartmouth and Harvard are long shots though. I don't think either can get in without help from one of the bubble teams. Conference tourneys could provide this help, but it won't be easy.
Harvard screwed themselves by losing all five of their decent non-conf matchups. If they'd just won one or two they'd be solidly in the tourney right now. (At one point I think their loss to Northern Michigan was actually keeping them out...)
Dartmouth screwed themselves by being unable to win on the road.
Harvard screwed themselves by losing all five of their decent non-conf matchups. If they'd just won one or two they'd be solidly in the tourney right now. (At one point I think their loss to Northern Michigan was actually keeping them out...)
Dartmouth screwed themselves by being unable to win on the road.
#8
Hockey / Re: Stupid Selection Committee Tricks?
February 26, 2003, 12:38:36 PM
USCHO is reporting on the stupid committee tricks:
http://uscho.com/news/2003/02/26_006290.php
Sounds like a poorly thought out idea to me. Adding a very crude modifier like "good road wins" and "bad home losses" is dumb. This criterion may be "objective" in the sense that the rules for applying it are cut and dried, but they're not telling anyone how it works so it might as well be back room subjectivity. Plus, eliminating the transparency of the process is a major step backwards, all in the name of "adding a little mystery". Don't they realize that hockey fans don't want mystery and excitement on selection day - they want a fair process that's clear and open.
As Greg says, this shouldn't hurt us as of the moment, unless other teams gain while we sit still. Still a very bad idea...
http://uscho.com/news/2003/02/26_006290.php
Sounds like a poorly thought out idea to me. Adding a very crude modifier like "good road wins" and "bad home losses" is dumb. This criterion may be "objective" in the sense that the rules for applying it are cut and dried, but they're not telling anyone how it works so it might as well be back room subjectivity. Plus, eliminating the transparency of the process is a major step backwards, all in the name of "adding a little mystery". Don't they realize that hockey fans don't want mystery and excitement on selection day - they want a fair process that's clear and open.
As Greg says, this shouldn't hurt us as of the moment, unless other teams gain while we sit still. Still a very bad idea...
#9
Hockey / Re: USCHO Poll 2/24
February 24, 2003, 08:15:43 PM
More likely they just spend waaaay too much time checking to see if the polls are up and try to post it the moment they see it. You guys need more real work to do! (he says, typing this from work... :-P )
#11
Hockey / Why oh why do we care?
February 24, 2003, 12:43:36 PM
To be honest I started trying to figure this out 'cuz I was bored at work. And I find solving mathematical problems - particularly those involving meaningless things like hockey polls - to be strangely intersting and fun. But hey, PhD rocket scientists are supposed to be geeks, right?
#12
Hockey / Would it be best if we lost?
February 24, 2003, 12:38:54 PM
No, we'd be better off just running the table through April...
Talking about whether we'd be better off losing is silly. We'll take the matchup we get. If we win out we have a not so terrible chance of getting matched up with a CHA/MAAC team anyway.
Talking about whether we'd be better off losing is silly. We'll take the matchup we get. If we win out we have a not so terrible chance of getting matched up with a CHA/MAAC team anyway.
#13
Hockey / Re: Ryan O'Byrne
February 24, 2003, 11:33:51 AM
I don't think the team could recruit a decent goalie while Lenny is around. I mean, if he stays then a new kid would be all but guaranteed to ride the pine for two years. Plus, with possibly four goalies around finding practice time for all of them would be difficult. If Lenny does decide to leave we may be in a bind, but there's not much that can be done about it.
#14
Hockey / Re: USCHO.com poll, 2/17
February 21, 2003, 04:07:38 PM
Simultaneous equations are easy to solve. Unfortunately we have far more variables (15 per team, or 14 since we know first place votes) than equations. So it's an underconstrained problem and not directly solvable.
#15
Hockey / Re: solving for votes
February 21, 2003, 02:35:54 PM
Naah. We're sharper than that (a little anyway). The point would be to put together a computer code that would solve for the votes given all the known data. I'm not sure it's really possible and I'm not really putting anymore time into it, but that was my original thought (aside from killing some time).
