Q Game Thread

[jkahn]

Saw the drop in the pwr.  Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

[arugula]

But shouldn't the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter?  They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn't want the technical explanation. I know that.  I wanted a sensible explanation.

[Dafatone]

But shouldn't the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter?  They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn't want the technical explanation. I know that.  I wanted a sensible explanation.

It should matter. But it's three factors. Your record. Your opponents' record. Your opponents' opponents' record. The first factor doesn't care about who you play. The second and third don't care if you win or lose.

[djk26]

But shouldn't the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter?  They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn't want the technical explanation. I know that.  I wanted a sensible explanation.

It should matter. But it's three factors. Your record. Your opponents' record. Your opponents' opponents' record. The first factor doesn't care about who you play. The second and third don't care if you win or lose.

Soooo...I take this to mean Quinnipiac's opponents have a bad record?

[billhoward]

But shouldn't the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter?  They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn't want the technical explanation. I know that.  I wanted a sensible explanation.

Gad, you sound like me, just feels better to have won at home in OT, ignore the logic at least while we savor victory for one night. But nice to be reminded how not winning outright bites us in the butt.

[CU2007]

Any way you slice it, we should not be going down in the Pairwise based on the result of tonight's game against Qpac. The formula clearly needs some "tweaking", to put it mildly.

[billhoward]

Soooo...I take this to mean Quinnipiac's opponents have a bad record?

They have a worse record than before playing Q, now with two exceptions.

No matter what PWR says, it's going to be a long 4-1/2-hour bus ride back to Hamden.

The Bobcat skaters can take some measure of solace from this Quinnipiac student's challenging senior week.
Dropout calls in graduation bomb threat to hide from family

[upprdeck]

someone needs to explain why Cornell limited students to 50 per section for safety but then decides those 50 can all sit in the same 20 sq ft? if thats the case then why did numbers matter at all?

[BearLover]

someone needs to explain why Cornell limited students to 50 per section for safety but then decides those 50 can all sit in the same 20 sq ft? if thats the case then why did numbers matter at all?

The rules make absolutely no sense and never have. It's all "doing something" for the sake of saying they're doing something.

[BearLover]

Nice job by undermanned Cornell to gut out a tie/OT win in a game where they were badly outmatched. Shane was incredible. Quinnipiac is the best opponent I have seen in years at taking away time and space. Cornell was outshot 2:1 in regulation, which felt like a good approximation of possession. Maybe with Andreev and Stienburg back, Cornell could put up more of a fight at maintaining possession, but I think this year Q is just way better.

[redice]

someone needs to explain why Cornell limited students to 50 per section for safety but then decides those 50 can all sit in the same 20 sq ft? if thats the case then why did numbers matter at all?

The rules make absolutely no sense and never have. It's all "doing something" for the sake of saying they're doing something.

So typical of the Cornell Ticket Office, throughout the past several regimes.   Probably things dictated from above.

[ugarte]

Saw the drop in the pwr.  Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

the formula should not result in an OT win at home being worth less than a neutral site tie. that's dumb. (not your math, the rules that led to your math).

[BearLover]

Saw the drop in the pwr.  Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

the formula should not result in an OT win at home being worth less than a neutral site tie. that's dumb. (not your math, the rules that led to your math).

The home/away formula is dumb, and possibly not rooted in reality (is it actually that much harder to win on the road?), but from what I understand, it isn't actually competitively unfair. The formula might bias more against home teams than home-ice advantage is actually worth in reality. But such bias kicks in whether the home team wins, loses, or ties. So, for instance, Cornell might not have gotten as many points for an OT tie thanks to this bias, but this same bias would have hurt Cornell just the same had it lost in OT, or lost in regulation. The delta between outcomes (win, tie, loss) is no different whether you're at home or on the road. The home/away bias means there is more to lose at home, and more to gain on the road, but the absolute stakes are exactly the same. Therefore, from a competition standpoint, assuming all teams play the same ratio of home and away games, this weird quirk in the formula should be a wash.

The 55/45 breakdown on OT win/OT loss is a subjective weighting of how much 3v3 overtime should count. Personally, I'm okay with this weighting. 3v3 OT is exciting and fans hate ties; but it's a gimmick, and should not be afforded nearly the same weight as a game decided in regulation. But a slight effect on the PWR makes the OT at least somewhat meaningful.

Does it feel strange that Cornell beat a top team (#6 in the PWR prior to tonight) and dropped in the PWR? Sure, but the same quirks in the PWR that caused us to drop with an OT win would have caused us to drop more with an OT loss, and quite a bit more with a regulation loss. Those are the alternatives Cornell was facing tonight, and why the outcome was still just as important as that of any other game (actually slightly more important given the quality win bonus).

[adamw]

Bottom line - it isn't really a "win" as far as Pairwise is concerned. That's why the team dropped. Quinnipiac result was a net negative - just like the Brown win and Alaska wins were. You can partially blame ECAC - including Cornell - for these "rules." ECAC fought hard to have home/road weightings in the RPI because it felt like it was always being hurt in Pairwise by playing so many road non-league games -- because the "big" schools wouldn't come to play at their arenas. And Mike Schafer was among the big advocates for a tiny bump -- 55/45 -- for 3x3 OT wins. And I don't blame him - because 3x3 is a jokey gimmick and isn't a real win anyway.

It's basically a tie - which is what the game really was.  The other shenanigans are not the game.

If you want to get credit for winning the game - win the actual hockey game. Not the other exercises.

So - yeah, it's weird that it feels good to "win" against Quinnipiac, but really have it not be good. But reality is, it's a net negative. What can I tell ya.

[BearLover]

Bottom line - it isn't really a "win" as far as Pairwise is concerned. That's why the team dropped. Quinnipiac result was a net negative - just like the Brown win and Alaska wins were. You can partially blame ECAC - including Cornell - for these "rules." ECAC fought hard to have home/road weightings in the RPI because it felt like it was always being hurt in Pairwise by playing so many road non-league games -- because the "big" schools wouldn't come to play at their arenas. And Mike Schafer was among the big advocates for a tiny bump -- 55/45 -- for 3x3 OT wins. And I don't blame him - because 3x3 is a jokey gimmick and isn't a real win anyway.

It's basically a tie - which is what the game really was.  The other shenanigans are not the game.

If you want to get credit for winning the game - win the actual hockey game. Not the other exercises.

So - yeah, it's weird that it feels good to "win" against Quinnipiac, but really have it not be good. But reality is, it's a net negative. What can I tell ya.

It's a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative. The baseline against which we should compare tonight's game isn't the outcome of some game in a vacuum against a random opponent. Instead, the baseline should be the possible outcomes of a home game against the #6 pairwise team. So, it really isn't worth dwelling on whether tonight was a net negative. The likely outcome heading into the game was a loss and a resulting bigger tumble in the pairwise, and that is the baseline against which we should compare tonight's OT win and two spot fall in the pairwise. I.e., not a bad outcome.