Bracketology 2016-17 Style

[Beeeej]

I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game?  Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Endless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.

It all came from the same article

Good for you, man. Good for you.

[Trotsky]

I wouldn't call the final either close or a blowout.  It was just a normal hockey game between two good teams where one of them is noticeably better.  A few lucky bounces for us and we're in it to the wire; a few lucky bounces for Harvard and it's a blowout; in the absence of either, a 3-goal game.

I think we will play them closer in Chicago in the final, after beating Union in the semi.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I wouldn't call the final either close or a blowout.  It was just a normal hockey game between two good teams where one of them is noticeably better.  A few lucky bounces for us and we're in it to the wire; a few lucky bounces for Harvard and it's a blowout; in the absence of either, a 3-goal game.

I think we will play them closer in Chicago in the final, after beating Union in the semi.

From your mouth, to God's ears.  ::banana::

[upprdeck]

Harvard played better but still they had a total fluke goal and we missed a complete open tap in  and then its a different game..

the one harvard goal where the pass came from behind and the kid roofed it backhand while covered well by the cornell D is a skill play, i doubt we could score from that spot and maybe only a few of their guys could either just happened one that could was in that spot.

we need to stop their PP and score on ours and that has been the issue that last couple times we played them. that is the biggest difference in the teams and where they really shine over us.

[adamw]

Splitting hairs between .002 percentage points of RPI is hardly a cause to get up in arms about - and pretty difficult to say the Committee dismissed "merit.' How do you determine "merit" when you're talking about such minute differences?  So - given that - I have zero problem with them moving things around to "maximize attendance," even if you think that's merely a euphemism for $$$$$$.  Who cares?  It's splitting hairs between all of these teams.  The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.  I would call the Harvard-Providence matchup an example of that - where they did nothing, and it thus created an injustice that was preventable.  But I don't expect much sympathy for Harvard here.

[Trotsky]

The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.

End hosts.  They are brutally stupid and unfair.

[marty]

On

The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.

End hosts.  They are brutally stupid and unfair.

But Providence is getting the benefit of being a host (without spending money or energy hosting) while Brown is (was?) the host.  I don't see it as silly this year as it was two years ago.  Back then I think they were in a position to go west and were given "home" ice.  

This time it makes sense for Harvard to be in Providence and the seed worked for Providence to be there too. So the screw to Harvard was by computer as much as by the committee.

[BearLover]

If someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

[Al DeFlorio]

This time it makes sense for Harvard to be in Providence and the seed worked for Providence to be there too. So the screw to Harvard was by computer as much as by the committee.

I agree.  Nothing to be whining over.  And calling it "egregious" is laughable, frankly.

[Tom Lento]

If someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

Someone tried to do this at some point years back and I think it was a measurable fraction of a goal in the men's game and neutral in the women's game. This was for all games, though, not neutral-site, so it's not clear how much of the advantage has to do with getting the last line change and how much has to do with home crowd effects. The neutrality of home ice for women's games suggests home crowd/home facility effects, because women's games at the time were poorly attended everywhere but Minnesota. However, at the time the women's game was also so top-heavy that most games had highly predictable outcomes, so it's hard to draw much of a conclusion there.

It would be interesting to see this done properly. I'm not about to do it, though.

[Trotsky]

If someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

The number +.3 goals comes up from the abyss of memory, but I won't vouch for authenticity.