2004 frozen four

[Robb]

Yeah!  Whoo-hoo!  I'm king of the geeks!  ::rock::



Post Edited (05-02-03 14:52)

[jtwcornell91]

I haven't crunched any of the numbers, but I would have to think our ECAC opponents will end up with higher RPIStrs next year than they did this year, so while our non-conference schedule will be considerably weaker, our conference schedule will be somewhat stronger.

[jtwcornell91]

Greg wrote:
That was one of the most impressive displays of proactive geekiness I've ever seen here, and that includes the efforts of Mr. Whelan, myself, and others.

That's Professor Whelan to you, buddy! :-P

Or Dr. Whelan, I suppose.  None of my students actually calls me Professor Whelan.  Mr. Whelan was either my father the Social Studies teacher or my uncle the Math teacher.  I think I was out of grad school before anyone felt the need to call me anything other than John or Arthur or Shaggy.



Post Edited (05-02-03 15:20)

[Robb]

I sure as heck HOPE the overall conference RPI of the ECAC rises (how could it fall?), but I'm not counting on a lot of help from those @#$@% slackers.   ::worry::

[CUundergrad/MIgrad]

I like to think our chances next year are better than most people think.  Remember, 2 years back, the expectations on the national level were not very high and we came within an inch of making the final 4.

To continue the pattern...  Maybe next year, we'll make it to the finals and lose to UNH, then in 2005, we'll win it and UNH won't make the tournament.  (The thought of UNH winning makes me sick.)

In reality, this year was our year and we couldn't do it.  I feel like if that disallowed goal counts, we're NCAA champs.  Any one else feel that way?  (maybe wishful thinking.)  Depressing.

Addendum: I can't stand the phrase "Frozen Four."  Just call it the "Final Four."  Who's with me?  We can win this fight against gimmicky NCAA marketing.

[jtwcornell91]

CUundergrad/MIgrad wrote:
Addendum: I can't stand the phrase "Frozen Four."  Just call it the "Final Four."  Who's with me?  We can win this fight against gimmicky NCAA marketing.

Actually, the phrase was initially popularized on by college hockey fans on the Hockey-L mailing list, as a protest/joke in response to the NC$$ having trademarked the phrase "Final Four" to refer to the men's and women's basketball championship.  ("Phinal Phour" was also used for the same reason.)  Then, after we'd been using it for three or four years, the NC$$ goes and trademarks "Frozen Four".  The unpleasant NC$$ marketing was to co-opt the geeky hockey fan phrase.

The earliest mention I can find of "Frozen Four":

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9404&L=Hockey-L&P=R2054&I=-3

A Hockey-L FAQ table of contents containing a "Phinal Phour" question

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9505&L=Hockey-L&P=R8400&I=-3

The explanation of "Phinal Phour" from an old Hockey-L FAQ which mentions "Frozen Four" (which I just noticed was posted by me)

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9805&L=Hockey-L&P=R3283&I=-3&m=31561

First use of the term "Phinal Phour":

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9201&L=Hockey-L&P=R5831&I=-3

First use of the term "Phrozen Phour"

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9602&L=Hockey-L&P=R23461&I=-3

A forwarded newspaper excerpt on the NC$$'s Final Four trademark

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9504&L=Hockey-L&D=0&I=-3&P=19711

The beginning of the NC$$'s search for an official name for the hockey tournament

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9606&L=Hockey-L&P=R8875&I=-3

I'm still trying to find the link to when the NC$$ officially stol--adopted the "Frozen Four" name.  I think it was fall 1998, since it was already official as of the following post from current ECAC Hockey Czar S.Hagwell:

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9902&L=Hockey-L&P=R18510&I=-3

[Robb Newman]

geez - I think my title as KOTG only lasted about 4 hours....  ;-)

[jtwcornell91]

Robb Newman wrote:
geez - I think my title as KOTG only lasted about 4 hours....  ;-)

Hail to the King, baby!

[Section A]

CUundergrad/MIgrad wrote:

>>In reality, this year was our year and we couldn't do it. I feel like if that disallowed goal counts, we're NCAA champs. Any one else feel that way? (maybe wishful thinking.) Depressing.


I agree, although sometimes I also feel like if Palahicky had deflected that shot wide (i.e. the shot never went in), we would never have lost momentum and we very well may have put one in on the next shift or the shift after that.

And damn it, the Flyers just scored.....

[Al DeFlorio]

Avash '05 wrote:
I agree, although sometimes I also feel like if Palahicky had deflected that shot wide (i.e. the shot never went in), we would never have lost momentum and we very well may have put one in on the next shift or the shift after that.

I feel the same way.  Why couldn't that shot have hit Ayers in the helmet? ::worry::

[CUundergrad/MIgrad]

I agree.  It wasn't the fact that it wasn't a goal that turned the tide, it was the fact that the review took so much time.

I'm just being bitter, but...

1) If a goal review takes nearly 10 minutes to decide that it wasn't a goal, to a certain extent, that is some indication that it may have been a goal in the first place.

1a) That said, what was the dynamic of the review?  Did they decide immediately that it wasn't a goal, then take the time to make sure they were correct?

2) Maybe some time limit should be instituted as per the NFL system.  After some period of time, if there is not conclusive evidence to overturn a goal, the ruling on the ice should stand.

2a) Without a time limit, no matter what the ruling after a lengthy delay, it likely hurts the team that (may have) scored.  It gives the team scored on the opportunity to regroup and make adjustments.  (Clearly that is what UNH was able to do.

Wow, I'm more bitter than I thought.  I need to stop thinking about this stuff.

[Section A]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard somewhere that there's a 3 minute time limit (or suggested time limit?) for a goal review.

Obviously the review in the UNH game took much longer than that...

[DeltaOne81]

It's a suggested time limit:

"The instant-replay official shall communicate a decision to the referee as quickly as possible and will attempt to complete the process within two minutes from the start of the review."

Appendix C - "Procedure (Video Review)"

I've had the rulebook on my desktop all season, am I Price of the Geeks?

[mike]

here are my predicitions for next years season.
for non conference record i say we go 5-2. sweep uwm, beat bowling green and mercheyhurst, beat nd in everblades, loose to maine in final and loose to ohio state.
as for ecac, i think you guys i thinking that these teams in the ecac are better than they actually are, i mean come on, were talking they have to play against the best fans in all of college hockey;-) i say we go 15-3 at home and we end up with a number 2 seed in the ecac. as for our road record, it wont be as good as are home record but i say we go 7-4 wich gives us a 22-7 record. and in the conference 17-5. for the uscho.com polls i say we maintain a number 7 seed most of the year.

Now for the ncaa tournament i think we will win the first game win the second one in an upset and loose in the frozen four.

[Robb Newman]

You're absolutely right in thinking that Cornell will be a better team than most of the ECAC teams (heck, even I picked us to finish 3rd), but Greg is also right that even when you're better than the other teams, it's darn near impossible to run the table.  Being "better" than another team just means that you have greater than a 50% probability of winning - that you would win a best-of-999999 series, not that you win every game of that series.  Even if a particular team has a 99% chance of winning every game (say, the Red Wings joined the ECAC), even they would only have a (.99)^22 = 80% chance of going undefeated in a 22 game season.  

This is the same effect that caused Cornell to be ranked #1 going into the NCAA tournament even though "we hadn't played anybody."  It's pretty unlikely that a merely "good" team can rack up a 29-4-1 record against mediocre competition - it's more likely that a team that can achieve that record is a truly great team.