Cornell Women's Hockey

[mattj711]

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.  CELE
BRATE!  WOOO!!!

100% agree!

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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).

I never said that how they calculate it accurately models current or future performance.  Or that I even like how they calculate it (in fact I don't).  All I said was that the methodology is defined and it explains why harvard is seeded above us.

[mattj711]

Article on incoming freshman Hayleigh Cudmore...

http://www.insidehalton.com/community/oakvillebeaver/article/647846

[David Harding]

Moved it to the Hockey Forum.