Michigan already assuming victoy over Cornell

[css228]

5) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.

Hunwick is a senior and was pretty clearly one of the 10 best goalies in the NCAA this season.  Does it matter that he was a walk-on four years ago?  The comparison was drawn because they're both small workhorse goalies (Hunwick lists at 5'7", 166).  Seems apt to me.

They also aren't remotely similar in terms of style.Iles flops a lot more than Hunwick. Hunwick, as they noted, is a far more aggressive goaltender, probably due to the fact that he is a bit smaller (isn't Iles 5'9, not the 5'8 the preview lists him as?). Hunwick also handles the puck much better than Iles. Furthermore, Iles is a classic streak goalie who'll steal games for you one night, but eventually have a brutal night here or there. Hunwick seems a lot more of a consistent goalie to me. I always think he'll give up 1-2 goals per game I just think the comparison was a bit lazy because it purely relies on size and minutes played, nothing about style and approach.Those are important differences, and they're not just dopplegangers, no matter what their height sheet tells you. I think of Iles more as a Hasek style goalie with tremendous athleticism ad instincts who happens to be a bit small. I look at Hunwick and I see a fantastic goalie who relies less on instinct and reactions and more on positioning and aggressively cutting off angles> I could be wrong, as I've only seen Hunwick play twice, but it doesn't strike me at all that he's a similar goalie to Iles beyond the height factor.

Fair enough - I've never seen Hunwick play, so I really have no idea what to expect.  You may very well be right that they're not at all comparable, but I maintain that the fact that Hunwick was a walk-on isn't really relevant to the comparison.  :-}

Only reason I said that was more along the lines of that he doesn't have the kind of pure talent that Iles has that makes him stand out immediately. Not to say that he isn't a great college goalie, but there's a reason he was overlooked and Iles wasn't, and I think it has to do with Iles penchant for the spectacular and Hunwick's more consistent approach. Either way, it was lazy of me not to expand that thought all the way out.

[css228]

3) Unrelated to the actual preview, but isn't CHN's suggestion to use KRACH to replace the RPI criteria of the PWR, not PWR altogether? To me that makes more sense then when blogs like this talk about replacing PWR with KRACH, because they aren't attempting to measure the same thing, while RPI and KRACH do.

CHN's position is that the PWR should be simply replaced with KRACH:

Q: What about all of the other PairWise components besides RPI? Are they still needed?

A: You could theoretically take each PairWise component -- record in Last 16 games, record vs. common opponents, head-to-head record, record vs. other Teams Under Consideration -- and "KRACH-ify" them. In other words, use KRACH's strength of schedule method to modify those criteria.

But straight KRACH is much simpler -- a simple list of all the teams, ranked in order. This has the effect of eliminating some ambiguities in the comparison system, which is not transitive. For example, if Team A beats Team B in a head-to-head comparison, and Team B beats Team C ... that does not necessarily mean Team A beats Team C. This kind of issue leads to complications.

As a result, straight KRACH is preferred.

Emphasis mine. Source.

Thanks I guess I got the question from the FAQ and their actual position mixed up. Either way would probably make more sense than the current system, not that I'm complaining with the results its brought this year.

[Trotsky]

I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever.  While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3.  I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC.  In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.

The ECAC has won 7 national championships.  

Current member schools have won 5 total (4 while in conference).  List here.

[Jim Hyla]

I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever.  While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3.  I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC.  In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.

5 - 2 each for Cornell and RPI, one for Sucks.

To be fair snert1288 is correct, the first RPI NCAA win was before the ECAC was born. They were in a different league then, so you really can't count it. So 4.

edit: That's why I hope they post Adam's ECAC history online. Yes, I've asked.

[gjk22]

Even the Michigan fans are feeling bad karma with this one, haha.



"I love the puck previews, but this is way premature!  There is absolutely no reason to post this, the last thing we want is a jinx!  This is single-elimination playoff college hockey for crying out loud!  TAKE THIS GODDAMN POST DOWN NOW!  And hopefully put it back up Saturday."

[Robb]

I believe they also say that the ECAC has only won 3 national championships ever.  While the ECAC is not taking the championship often we do have more than 3.  I believe 4 were won by current members of the ECAC while in the ECAC.  In addition to that RPI has one from the 1950's and BU won a few while in the ECAC.

5 - 2 each for Cornell and RPI, one for Sucks.

To be fair snert1288 is correct, the first RPI NCAA win was before the ECAC was born. They were in a different league then, so you really can't count it. So 4.

edit: That's why I hope they post Adam's ECAC history online. Yes, I've asked.

Well, that seems like shortchanging ourselves a bit.  If we don't get to count RPI's in 1954, then it would seem fair to count BU in 71, 72, and 78, so 7. :-P

[ajh258]

At the end of the day, talk is just talk. Our team needs to show up and bring its A-game this weekend. Anything less is a one way ticket to the golf course. All if this advanced scouting is useless if players can't perform on game day.

[Swampy]

I've gotta say, that's some really thorough research and analysis.

Yeah, a few things which I'll gladly not correct them on.
1) They underestimate Iles. The .918 SV% really doesn't speak to how good he's been the majority of this year.
2) Dutchmen weren't a dominant #1 in the ECAC this year. It bothers me when Union fans say it and it bothers me when Michigan fans say it. Union only got 1 point from us this season, we outplayed them both times we played them, and heading into the last day of the season we had the inside track at the #1 seed. Not that I particularly care about the regular season results, but there was clearly a time where Cornell was running away with the league, and we squandered that lead by blowing leads in numerous games. If you assume we hold all games of 2+ goal lead entering the third, like we usually do, we run away with the league. I know I'm using counter-factual history, but if Union were really a dominant #1 in the league all of my "If only's" would be resulting in Cornell maybe having a shot at the one seed, not Cornell running away with it like they clearly could have.
3) Unrelated to the actual preview, but isn't CHN's suggestion to use KRACH to replace the RPI criteria of the PWR, not PWR altogether? To me that makes more sense then when blogs like this talk about replacing PWR with KRACH, because they aren't attempting to measure the same thing, while RPI and KRACH do.
4) Cornell has no real top line per say. In terms of production it has to be the Miller line, but the Collins line is first on the depth chart.
5) Once again, Iles and Hunwick isn't really a good comparison. Hunwick was a walk on. Iles was the hottest goalie recruit in the country.
6) You think it would be unwise for them to do most of their analysis of Cornell based on their worst game all season, the BU game, and two games at altitude, but they do.
7) "Drawing an ECAC team is usually good news" ...unless its Cornell. We all know this. Michigan fans seem not to.
Overall, am I optimistic about us winning, no, but I think we could beat Michigan 3-4 times our of 10. So I'd put my money on Michigan, but I'm not going to be shocked if we win. We have a young, but very talented hockey team that a lot of the country seems to be overlooking. PWR mean very little to me, as changing one result could have made us a 1 seed instead of a 4. For fans of a team that just lost to the 14th ranked team in the PWR they just seem overconfident to me. I see that they admit that they could lose, but it was more along the lines of a, if Cornell wins it will be a lucky win type thing. Truth is we could lose 6-1 again, but we could also come out and just outclass them off the ice. These are two relatively evenly matched teams, not Denver-Huntsville (and even there...). I seriously doubt Red will let his team be unprepared, but if they are, it could be a great Friday night in GB.

Your last point is key, and the blog doesn't mention it. We have an exceptionally young but talented team. One would expect a team this young to have a steep learning curve over the course of a season. So season-long stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. (Anyone want to do a statistical comparison of the season by halves or thirds?) The Mercyhurst loss, for example, is meaningless in this context.

Young teams are also volatile, and the RPI and Harvard losses are reflections of this. As others have pointed out, if the older-but-wiser Big Red team shows up, Michigan may be in for a surprise. (But damn, I wish Ferlin could play.)

[Robb]

Cornell under Schafer has only upset 2 teams in the NCAA tournament, Miami in 1997 (6 over 3, so 12 overall vs 5 overall at best) and Northeastern in 2009 (3 over 2, so again perhaps 12 over 5).  #14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.

Aside: does anyone know of a site which archives the final PWR as used for tournament selection for each year?

Edit: found them back to 2002 on tbrw.  The win over NE was actually #11 over #6.

[Trotsky]

Edit: found them back to 2002 on tbrw.

Thanks for reminding me, I need to find the 2009 and 2011 ones.

[Give My Regards]

Cornell under Schafer has only upset 2 teams in the NCAA tournament, Miami in 1997 (6 over 3, so 12 overall vs 5 overall at best)

This one technically wasn't an upset.  Yes, Miami was a 3 and Cornell a 6, but the NCAA did something odd that year that I don't recall them doing before and I'm pretty sure they haven't done since.  For first-round matchups, they used the individual head-to-head comparison between the two teams to determine which one got the higher seed.  In 1997, Cornell finished higher in the PWR than Miami, but Miami won the individual comparison between the two and thus got the #3 seed.  (The overall PWR matchup between the two was very close; I don't recall why this was a 3-6 game rather than a 4-5, but it probably had something to do with the desire to avoid, as much as possible, intra-conference matchups in the tournament.)

[ajh258]

#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.

Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.

[KenP]

If we play well, get some scoring and hold on, I think we can have a lead heading into the 3rd period.  If that happens, I'll bet the farm that the blow the lead, and it'll come down to a crapshoot for who moves on.

[Robb]

#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.

Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.  ::rolleyes::

[Rosey]

#14 over #2 is an awfully tall order.

Are you saying I came all the way from Ithaca to Green Bat for nothing? Might as well tell Schafer before the game so they can get a head start on packing the bags.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.  ::rolleyes::

In this case, we both know Cornell is relatively mediocre.