Wallowing

[Towerroad]

BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less.  The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds.  There are two groups

Code Select Expand



THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin


Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks.  If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

I must be misunderstanding the table.  Why is Minnesota missing?

Because I suck.  Minnesota, with 9, is floating in between the two groups.

I started a similar analysis about a month ago but only went back 5 years and used Tournament Wins and Win% as the gauge of quality. That put us as a middle of the Tournament Pack team 2 wins and 40%

My List:

Teams      Wins Pct
BC         12   92%
Minn Dul    6   75%
Miami       6   55%
Notre D     5   65%
N Dak       5   50%
Mich        5   50%
BU          4   80%
Wisc        4   67%
Ferris      3   75%
UNH         3   43%
RIT         2   67%
Vt          2   50%
Bemidgi     2   50%
Yale        2   40%
Cornell     2   40%
Mass Lowell 1   50%
Denver      1   50%
A bunch of other also rans

[Trotsky]

There is a difference in how well a team plays throughout the season.  "Hotness" and "coldness" are problematic terms at best and straw man concepts at worst.  Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.  But claiming that at any given instant a team is equally likely to perform well, independent of recent history of performing well or poorly, is every bit as silly.

[Chris '03]

BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less.  The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds.  There are two groups

Code Select Expand



THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin


Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks.  If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

I must be misunderstanding the table.  Why is Minnesota missing?

Because I suck.  Minnesota, with 9, is floating in between the two groups.

I started a similar analysis about a month ago but only went back 5 years and used Tournament Wins and Win% as the gauge of quality. That put us as a middle of the Tournament Pack team 2 wins and 40%

My List:

Teams      Wins Pct
BC         12   92%
Minn Dul    6   75%
Miami       6   55%
Notre D     5   65%
N Dak       5   50%
Mich        5   50%
BU          4   80%
Wisc        4   67%
Ferris      3   75%
UNH         3   43%
RIT         2   67%
Vt          2   50%
Bemidgi     2   50%
Yale        2   40%
Cornell     2   40%
Mass Lowell 1   50%
Denver      1   50%
A bunch of other also rans

1. BC is ridiculous.
2. Union has two wins too.

[Ben]

Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.

If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.

[Trotsky]

Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.

If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.

Math "memory" (function differs over time) not wetware memory.

[css228]

Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.

If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.

Teams also stay consistently terrible because they get bad talent too. So what is this, a lack of talent,  or a poor work ethic?

[Towerroad]

Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.

If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.

Math "memory" (function differs over time) not wetware memory.

Long term performance (decades) is an indication of institutional (AD, President, Students, Trustees, Alumni) performance
Medium term performance (years) is an indication of departmental (read coach) performance
Season performance (months) is an indication of the players performance.

[Jim Hyla]

I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

Code Select Expand


   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

[Scersk '97]

That Princeton number looks like LYING.  Typical.

[David Harding]

I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

Code Select Expand


   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

Interesting!  Was that this year or averaged over multiple years?  If the latter, what's the standard deviation?

[Jim Hyla]

I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

Code Select Expand


   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

Interesting!  Was that this year or averaged over multiple years?  If the latter, what's the standard deviation?

This year.

[French Rage]

I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

Code Select Expand


   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

So free pizza equals 900 more fans for Colgate?

[Towerroad]

I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

Code Select Expand


   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

So free pizza equals 900 more fans for Colgate?

What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets. Maybe they practice some special math.

[Trotsky]

What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets.

Servants.

[billhoward]

Three things jump out. Princeton stat has to be wrong. The place is lightly attended except for Harvard and Cornell. For Cornell to draw less than the average ... implausible.

Might average home attendance refer to seats sold, not occupied? Maybe fans buy a ticket package and are more likely to use them when Cornell or Q come to play.

Q draws draws on average 200 more than capacity and Cornell draws 300 more than that. Q does have a nice, wide walkway at the top of the rink that allows standing room without affecting people walking to concession stands, finding restrooms, etcetera, the etcetera probably including leaving early to get to the good parties.