Cornell Women's Hockey

[jtwcornell91]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pwr_w.php?grid=1

Harvard did well in non-conference games, which means that their Ratings Percentage Index, which is based on all games and not only ECAC games, was better, which helped them win pairwise comparisons over Cornell as well as UConn and Wisconsin, which Cornell loses.

I believe the selection criteria are the same as in the men's game.

[dag14]

Seeding in the women's tournament is all about the statistics....

[Al DeFlorio]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

Because Harvard is ranked higher in the pairwise comparisons...you know, that wonderful formula that everyone is so happy to have had replace the kind of human judgment that you allude to above.::help::

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pwr_w.php

Seriously, I'm guessing Harvard's win and tie with Minnesota helped them a lot whereas our three-game losing streak to Syracuse and Providence, twice, hurt.  Bottom line, their out-of-conference record was better.

[Jim Hyla]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

Because Harvard is ranked higher in the pairwise comparisons...you know, that wonderful formula that everyone is so happy to have had replace the kind of human judgment that you allude to above.::help::

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pwr_w.php

Seriously, I'm guessing Harvard's win and tie with Minnesota helped them a lot whereas our three-game losing streak to Syracuse and Providence, twice, hurt.  Bottom line, their out-of-conference record was better.

Not just better, but much better. As mentioned they beat and tied Minny ,the third ranked team, tied UHN, a tourny team, and beat PU, UConn, BU, and Northeastern. Very good.

[snert1288]

hey so i'm a student at CU right now and i'm going to be in boston this upcoming weekend and would love to go support Big Red.  Does anyone know anything about ticket sales?  Will i be able to get some through cornell athletics department?

[Tom Lento]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

Because Harvard is ranked higher in the pairwise comparisons...you know, that wonderful formula that everyone is so happy to have had replace the kind of human judgment that you allude to above.::help::

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pwr_w.php

Seriously, I'm guessing Harvard's win and tie with Minnesota helped them a lot whereas our three-game losing streak to Syracuse and Providence, twice, hurt.  Bottom line, their out-of-conference record was better.

Not just better, but much better. As mentioned they beat and tied Minny ,the third ranked team, tied UHN, a tourny team, and beat PU, UConn, BU, and Northeastern. Very good.

Cornell, on the other hand, went 1-6-0 out of conference in the regular season. Cornell's NC slate wasn't terrible - two games against #1 Mercyhurst, 2 more against a respectable Providence squad, and 3 against Syracuse and Niagara teams that were not top contenders but weren't chopped liver either. Even so, only winning 1 of those games really hurts.

If Cornell hadn't been playing with a depleted roster against Syracuse and PC then things might have been different in the pairwise, but they don't seed based on what might have happened. There is a silver lining - home ice hasn't historically been as big an advantage for women's teams, and Harvard is a pretty good match-up for Cornell. It's definitely a winnable first round game, home or away, although Harvard is a tough team and has the edge in NCAA experience.

[billhoward]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

Title IX of the something or other act of 1972 afforded women equal opportunies in sports. Here, to get hosed in seedings and playoff sites with the same regularity as the men's teams. The NCAA can point to PWR ratings to explain.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

Simple Math::whistle::

Harvard had a much better out of conferenece record. That boosted their RPI and TUC wins significantly.  So they won the Paiwise comparison with us, Clarkson and UHN.

[nyc94]

I dont really follow the women's team so maybe you guys can explain this, how does Cornell beat Harvard once here, tie them in OT there, win the regular season, win the conference tournament while Harvard finishes 3rd in the conference and yet Cornell has to go play Harvard @Harvard in the 1st round??

Title IX of the something or other act of 1972 afforded women equal opportunies in sports. Here, to get hosed in seedings and playoff sites with the same regularity as the men's teams. The NCAA can point to PWR ratings to explain.

At least they didn't get sent to Minnesota.

[Trotsky]

Title IX of the something or other act of 1972 afforded women equal opportunies in sports. Here, to get hosed in seedings and playoff sites with the same regularity as the men's teams.

Bitching is a fundamental human right.  I think it's in the UN Charter.

[Robb]

Yeah, but they probably call it "petitioning for redress of grievances" or something stupid like that.  Jerks.

[ithacat]

Simple Math::whistle::

Yep...where less than 25% of the season counts for more than the remainder.  ::screwy::

[Jim Hyla]

Simple Math::whistle::

Yep...where less than 25% of the season counts for more than the remainder.  ::screwy::

Not quite accurate, since some of our season games were they same. OOC they were 6-0-1 and we were 1-6-0 against similar competition. In conf they were 13-6-3 and we were 14-2-6. They lost in the semi and we won the finals, that's effectively 2 more. So even if you compare these games equally, we have about 4 more wins in conf and they have 5 more OOC. Thus they have an overall record 1 game better than us, 20-7-5 vs 19-8-6. Now you may want to say the ECAC record or our H2H record is more important, but they don't. They look at all games, so we lose.

[jtwcornell91]

Simple Math::whistle::

Yep...where less than 25% of the season counts for more than the remainder.  ::screwy::

Not quite accurate, since some of our season games were they same. OOC they were 6-0-1 and we were 1-6-0 against similar competition. In conf they were 13-6-3 and we were 14-2-6. They lost in the semi and we won the finals, that's effectively 2 more. So even if you compare these games equally, we have about 4 more wins in conf and they have 5 more OOC. Thus they have an overall record 1 game better than us, 20-7-5 vs 19-8-6. Now you may want to say the ECAC record or our H2H record is more important, but they don't. They look at all games, so we lose.

Thanks for saying that more clearly and less combatively than I would have.  Bottom line, Harvard has a better overall record against a comparable schedule.  That's why they have a better RPI (and incidentally also a better KRACH).  Most of the complaints about Harvard being seeded higher seem to involve consideration of only a subset of the games played (ECAC games and head-to-head games), and in fact the pairwise comparison does give those extra consideration in the form of the common opponents and head-to-head criteria, but that's offset by Harvard's better record vs TUC (a different subset of the games) and RPI (again, something based on all of the games).

[RichH]

Simple Math::whistle::

Yep...where less than 25% of the season counts for more than the remainder.  ::screwy::

Not quite accurate, since some of our season games were they same. OOC they were 6-0-1 and we were 1-6-0 against similar competition. In conf they were 13-6-3 and we were 14-2-6. They lost in the semi and we won the finals, that's effectively 2 more. So even if you compare these games equally, we have about 4 more wins in conf and they have 5 more OOC. Thus they have an overall record 1 game better than us, 20-7-5 vs 19-8-6. Now you may want to say the ECAC record or our H2H record is more important, but they don't. They look at all games, so we lose.

Thanks for saying that more clearly and less combatively than I would have.  Bottom line, Harvard has a better overall record against a comparable schedule.  That's why they have a better RPI (and incidentally also a better KRACH).  Most of the complaints about Harvard being seeded higher seem to involve consideration of only a subset of the games played (ECAC games and head-to-head games), and in fact the pairwise comparison does give those extra consideration in the form of the common opponents and head-to-head criteria, but that's offset by Harvard's better record vs TUC (a different subset of the games) and RPI (again, something based on all of the games).

Translation: why has jtw (and others) been wasting his breath all these years about the process on the Men's side, if people aren't going to understand the exact same process for the Women's tournament?

Oh, and I've been meaning to post this:

We're the ECAC Champions!?!!! HOLY CRAP!!!! Repeat:

::banana::Cornell Women's Hockey won the ECAC Championship!!::banana::

I mean that is insane! Not enough congratulations are going out there, IMO. Bitching about a ho-hum NCAA bid. Seriously, I know that what used to be the de-facto National Championship isn't what it used to be, but come on!  6-8 years ago, this wouldn't have been fathomable.  

Tremendous job, ladies. I'm extremely proud of this.  CELEBRATE!  WOOO!!!