2023-2024 Predictions

[BearLover]

—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you're suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

Didn't I just do that above? If you want me to go back and apologize for everything I've ever gotten wrong, you're gonna have to wait in line. But since you've put me on the spot, I'll say this—I appreciate sereznack showing his work. For that, I give him full credit for his prediction. On the other hand, while you seem to have gotten the right answer (let's hope Cornell doesn't crash and burn the rest of the season), you didn't really give any basis for it other than "every program always loses a ton of talent, that's no reason to pick against a team." As I said earlier in this thread, that just isn't true—compare the Cornell players who graduated in 2022 to the ones who graduated last season and you'll see why I was bullish on the team going into last year while (relatively) bearish going into this year.

[BearLover]

—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you're suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did.  Just who those folks are,  I'm not sure.  I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

Huh? When did I claim to speak for or represent the views of anybody else? What are you even talking about? I do enjoy that there are a few posters on here who are very dedicated to painting caricatures of me.

[marty]

—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you're suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did.  Just who those folks are,  I'm not sure.  I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

Huh? When did I claim to speak for or represent the views of anybody else? What are you even talking about? I do enjoy that there are a few posters on here who are very dedicated to painting caricatures of me.

That would be here!

The announcers have been repeating the same exact thing for about 5 minutes now.

They spent way too much time talking about the PWR. Though, it was refreshing to hear a focus on the PWR rather than the conference standings. The Cornell announcers spend way too much time on the ECAC standings when it's the PWR ranking that really matters. The Harvard announcers were also wrong that Cornell needs to win out for an at-large bid. Cornell has little margin for error but they definitely don't need to literally win out.

But to even go to the Pairwise topic when it's your opponent's important storyline is admirable. And what they said about winning out works for me.  It is close enough to the truth that it's ok.

It might be wrong but certainly all of this is speculation. I seem to remember people speculating that we'd be below 20.  Or was that just one guy?

A lot of smart people thought that

[BearLover]

—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you're suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

BL's BS on this topic is that a lot of folks thought the way he did.  Just who those folks are,  I'm not sure.  I think he sees one when he shaves but that's just a wild guess.

Huh? When did I claim to speak for or represent the views of anybody else? What are you even talking about? I do enjoy that there are a few posters on here who are very dedicated to painting caricatures of me.

That would be here!

The announcers have been repeating the same exact thing for about 5 minutes now.

They spent way too much time talking about the PWR. Though, it was refreshing to hear a focus on the PWR rather than the conference standings. The Cornell announcers spend way too much time on the ECAC standings when it's the PWR ranking that really matters. The Harvard announcers were also wrong that Cornell needs to win out for an at-large bid. Cornell has little margin for error but they definitely don't need to literally win out.

But to even go to the Pairwise topic when it's your opponent's important storyline is admirable. And what they said about winning out works for me.  It is close enough to the truth that it's ok.

It might be wrong but certainly all of this is speculation. I seem to remember people speculating that we'd be below 20.  Or was that just one guy?

A lot of smart people thought that

That was me poking fun at myself and trying to make a joke

[adamw]

—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you're suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

Didn't I just do that above? If you want me to go back and apologize for everything I've ever gotten wrong, you're gonna have to wait in line. But since you've put me on the spot, I'll say this—I appreciate sereznack showing his work. For that, I give him full credit for his prediction. On the other hand, while you seem to have gotten the right answer (let's hope Cornell doesn't crash and burn the rest of the season), you didn't really give any basis for it other than "every program always loses a ton of talent, that's no reason to pick against a team." As I said earlier in this thread, that just isn't true—compare the Cornell players who graduated in 2022 to the ones who graduated last season and you'll see why I was bullish on the team going into last year while (relatively) bearish going into this year.

yer funny.

You expect a statistical analysis to "prove" or "disprove" whether a team that lost a lot to graduation, would actually be fine?

It's called an opinion -- an educated one, I believe.

Why do you feel the world owes you detailed explanations of everything? You called me out the same way when I spoke about future coach.  Believe me or don't believe me - I don't care. I like my track record.  But I don't owe you a detailed thesis.

The explanation you quoted was sufficient. I knew the players they had coming in. I know Mike Schafer's ability to coach. I don't believe the lost players were that concerning, given that everyone else loses them. And I thought Shane had improved last year to the point where he could be relied upon every night.

Of course - you're right - this may all crash and burn and I may still be wrong eventually. And that would suck - for everyone, not just because I don't want to be wrong.

But this is more about how you annoy the pi** out of me (and everyone else).

[ugarte]

BL annoys me less than a lot of people on here even when i disagree with him. He's got strong opinions and way too much of the Need To Argue Pedantically about the same issues like he's got a calendar tickler, but the structure of eLF has too many windows for people to be throwing stones around.

[BearLover]

—Cornell has only 2 seniors, one of whom is the third string goalie. They do not have enough experience to compete for a national title this year. My best guess is the finish in the 20s in the Pairwise.

This isn't just a reaction to last night - because I said it on our CHN podcast 2 weeks ago ... and if you want to hear it, go listen to the podcast

But all I'll say is - that prediction above will be seriously, seriously wrong

The prediction is looking wrong, alright—but not in the direction you're suggesting.

I notice you haven't corrected this one yet.

Didn't I just do that above? If you want me to go back and apologize for everything I've ever gotten wrong, you're gonna have to wait in line. But since you've put me on the spot, I'll say this—I appreciate sereznack showing his work. For that, I give him full credit for his prediction. On the other hand, while you seem to have gotten the right answer (let's hope Cornell doesn't crash and burn the rest of the season), you didn't really give any basis for it other than "every program always loses a ton of talent, that's no reason to pick against a team." As I said earlier in this thread, that just isn't true—compare the Cornell players who graduated in 2022 to the ones who graduated last season and you'll see why I was bullish on the team going into last year while (relatively) bearish going into this year.

yer funny.

You expect a statistical analysis to "prove" or "disprove" whether a team that lost a lot to graduation, would actually be fine?

It's called an opinion -- an educated one, I believe.

Why do you feel the world owes you detailed explanations of everything? You called me out the same way when I spoke about future coach.  Believe me or don't believe me - I don't care. I like my track record.  But I don't owe you a detailed thesis.

The explanation you quoted was sufficient. I knew the players they had coming in. I know Mike Schafer's ability to coach. I don't believe the lost players were that concerning, given that everyone else loses them. And I thought Shane had improved last year to the point where he could be relied upon every night.

Of course - you're right - this may all crash and burn and I may still be wrong eventually. And that would suck - for everyone, not just because I don't want to be wrong.

But this is more about how you annoy the pi** out of me (and everyone else).

Actually, I annoy the piss out maybe like four people here, and then there are another four or so posters who like piling on, but on the whole I think this forum enjoys my contributions despite my occasionally combative attitude. That's what you get when you grow up on the early days of internet fora, as I did, which were cesspools of kids with strong opinions trolling and screaming at each other. Unlike many on here, I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. Sadly, some people here are so invested in hating on me that clear attempts at self-deprecating humor are misinterpreted as genuine reflections of my horrible personality. (See above marty post which tried to frame my silly joke as a "gotcha" moment.) I think my takes are always reasonable and backed up with some kind of coherent justification, and I call out those takes which aren't. Unfortunately, yours was one of them.

[BearLover]

BL annoys me less than a lot of people on here even when i disagree with him. He's got strong opinions and way too much of the Need To Argue Pedantically about the same issues like he's got a calendar tickler, but the structure of eLF has too many windows for people to be throwing stones around.

I clearly suffer from too much Need To Argue Pedantically about stuff, which I acknowledge and have embraced by trying to turn it into a partially serious, partially humorous bit, but unfortunately it seems a lot of people here don't know I'm doing a bit. But enough about me. Let's go Red! There are too many big questions we need to get to the bottom of, and we waste precious time dwelling on the antics of one singular forum poster. The importance of draft picks, the accuracy of the pairwise probability matrix, how badly we want our conference opponents to lose in the NCAAs—these are the topics we should turn our attention to—not poor little BearLover.

[Trotsky]

As I have discovered over the years, bits aren't effective here.  And TBH bits are lazy and were old even before social media turned everybody into a wanna-be Oscar Wilde.

Simple, sincere sentences. Let the games be the entertainment.

[adamw]

Actually, I annoy the piss out maybe like four people here, and then there are another four or so posters who like piling on, but on the whole I think this forum enjoys my contributions despite my occasionally combative attitude. That's what you get when you grow up on the early days of internet fora, as I did, which were cesspools of kids with strong opinions trolling and screaming at each other. Unlike many on here, I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. Sadly, some people here are so invested in hating on me that clear attempts at self-deprecating humor are misinterpreted as genuine reflections of my horrible personality. (See above marty post which tried to frame my silly joke as a "gotcha" moment.) I think my takes are always reasonable and backed up with some kind of coherent justification, and I call out those takes which aren't. Unfortunately, yours was one of them.

as someone whose humor has definitely been known to be lost on the Webz -- I'll just leave it at this ... kumbaya, brother

[abmarks]

BL annoys me less than a lot of people on here even when i disagree with him. He's got strong opinions and way too much of the Need To Argue Pedantically about the same issues like he's got a calendar tickler, but the structure of eLF has too many windows for people to be throwing stones around.

I clearly suffer from too much Need To Argue Pedantically about stuff, which I acknowledge and have embraced by trying to turn it into a partially serious, partially humorous bit, but unfortunately it seems a lot of people here don't know I'm doing a bit. But enough about me. Let's go Red! There are too many big questions we need to get to the bottom of, and we waste precious time dwelling on the antics of one singular forum poster. The importance of draft picks, the accuracy of the pairwise probability matrix, how badly we want our conference opponents to lose in the NCAAs—these are the topics we should turn our attention to—not poor little BearLover.

You've written your own prescription. Much as a lot of smart people here are annoyed by your pedantic need to argue, at least it's obvious you're trying to argue a particular point.


But if you amt manage to