Opponents and Others, 2022-23

[Dafatone]

I've never been to North Dakota.  How bad can it be?  I've been to Potsdam.

I really liked Fargo for the two nights I was there. Couple fun bars, surprisingly good sushi.

The drive there was pretty desolate, and that's coming from someone who lives in a pretty desolate place.

How did you end up there?

Moved to South Dakota for graduate school, went to Fargo for a regional conference in my (then) field.

I'm still here. There are some major issues, but as someone who grew up in east coast suburban sprawl, I like the openness.

[Trotsky]

If the West captures your soul, you won't be genuinely happy anywhere else.

Once I felt that openness, everywhere else feels like living under a low, grubby ceiling.

[nshapiro]

I assume after this weekend's games are all complete, someone smarter than I am could figure out what needs to happen for us to get in IF we were to lose to Harvard?

We are currently 12th in the pairwise. Minnesota State is 13th. They're on to the CCHA finals. They'll only pass us if they win and we lose next round, in which case they get an autobid anyway. Alaska is 14th. They're done playing for the season, and we have enough of an RPI lead that we should remain ahead of them if we lose next round.

15th is Merrimack. They're in OT against BC right now, but I think they fall into the same "gotta win their tourney to pass us" territory that Minnesota State does, though maybe not. Let's go BC.

16th is Michigan State, they're losing to Minnesota. Same deal, they'd have to win two at which point they are in anyway.

Where I'm going with this is that we are likely finishing 12th, with some possible autobids finishing ahead of us to push us backwards which is a wash. If we lose next round, it all comes down to how many teams outside the top 16 get autobids. Atlantic Hockey is a given. CCHA hurts us cause it's either Northern Michigan stealing a spot or Minnesota State likely passing us and stealing a spot. So we're rooting for favorites everywhere else.

Go Denver. EDIT: Or Saint Cloud State. Root for BU (if we can stomach it). Root for Colgate to not win the ECAC. Root for Minnesota to beat MSU or, if they lose, Michigan to beat MSU. I think if two of those four things happen, we are in good shape.

Or we could just win a game or two next weekend.

MSU lost, so there will be no autobid outside the top 12 from the Big 10. Seems like at this point, for Cornell to miss, all the following would need to occur:
(1) Cornell loses to Harvard
(2) Colgate wins the ECAC
(3) BU does not win Hockey East*
(4) Denver/SCSU does not win the NCHC

*maybe this could also be satisfied by Merrimack winning the semis and then losing to BU in the finals, i.e. they pass us for an at-large bid. So we want Merrimack to lose next round to be sure.

CHN's probability matrix today gives us a 99.7% chance of making the NCAAs based on 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations

Not sure if trolling.

Don't look at the matrix.

It severely overestimates the likelihood of higher seeds winning (i.e., auto-bids outside the top 16). Our chances are high, but not that high.

No, not trolling. I'm not a stats guy but 20,000 Monte Carlo simualtions, I presume, accounts for all types of outcomes. But it does seem anecdotally to be too high.

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of trolling. This has been discussed in some other threads in the last week or so. The issue is that the model relies on KRACH rankings to predict the likelihood of different outcomes. So the 20,000 simulations are based on flawed probabilities.

Sure, the data coming out is only as good as the data going in.

I don't think that the 99.7% probability is so crazy.

If we just set some simple assumptions:

Probability of
#1 seed winning tournament = 40%
#2 seed winning tournament = 30%
#3 seed winning tournament = 20%
#4 seed winning tournament = 10%

#2 seed beating #3 seed    = 60%

then the probability of each of these failing is:

1. We beat Harvard              60%
2. BU wins HE                   60%
3. Denver or SCSU wins NCHC     30%
4. Colgate does not win ECAC    10%

so probability of all failing is .6 * .6 * .3 * .1 = .0108  = 1.08%
so probability of Cornell advancing = 100 - 1.08 = 98.92%

Which is 0.78% off of the Monte Carlo result...
of course, it also gives Cornell almost 3x the odds that we miss the tournament than the Monte Carlo does,

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Trotsky]

The 1 and 4 conditions are loosely related (Gate has a slightly higher chance of winning the tournament if we beat Harvard) so you can't just multiply out the probabilities as if they were independent.

[nshapiro]

The 1 and 4 conditions are loosely related (Gate has a slightly higher chance of winning the tournament if we beat Harvard) so you can't just multiply out the probabilities as if they were independent.

I know.
I thought about accounting for that, but then decided that it wasn't worth it given the completely arbitrary (but hopefully reasonable) estimates I made for everything.  I figured doing the simple calculation I did was sufficient to make my point.

[Trotsky]

The 1 and 4 conditions are loosely related (Gate has a slightly higher chance of winning the tournament if we beat Harvard) so you can't just multiply out the probabilities as if they were independent.

I know.
I thought about accounting for that, but then decided that it wasn't worth it given the completely arbitrary (but hopefully reasonable) estimates I made for everything.  I figured doing the simple calculation I did was sufficient to make my point.

I was being purposefully obnoxious.  A little something I like to call my brand.

[nshapiro]

I assume after this weekend's games are all complete, someone smarter than I am could figure out what needs to happen for us to get in IF we were to lose to Harvard?

We are currently 12th in the pairwise. Minnesota State is 13th. They're on to the CCHA finals. They'll only pass us if they win and we lose next round, in which case they get an autobid anyway. Alaska is 14th. They're done playing for the season, and we have enough of an RPI lead that we should remain ahead of them if we lose next round.

15th is Merrimack. They're in OT against BC right now, but I think they fall into the same "gotta win their tourney to pass us" territory that Minnesota State does, though maybe not. Let's go BC.

16th is Michigan State, they're losing to Minnesota. Same deal, they'd have to win two at which point they are in anyway.

Where I'm going with this is that we are likely finishing 12th, with some possible autobids finishing ahead of us to push us backwards which is a wash. If we lose next round, it all comes down to how many teams outside the top 16 get autobids. Atlantic Hockey is a given. CCHA hurts us cause it's either Northern Michigan stealing a spot or Minnesota State likely passing us and stealing a spot. So we're rooting for favorites everywhere else.

Go Denver. EDIT: Or Saint Cloud State. Root for BU (if we can stomach it). Root for Colgate to not win the ECAC. Root for Minnesota to beat MSU or, if they lose, Michigan to beat MSU. I think if two of those four things happen, we are in good shape.

Or we could just win a game or two next weekend.

MSU lost, so there will be no autobid outside the top 12 from the Big 10. Seems like at this point, for Cornell to miss, all the following would need to occur:
(1) Cornell loses to Harvard
(2) Colgate wins the ECAC
(3) BU does not win Hockey East*
(4) Denver/SCSU does not win the NCHC

*maybe this could also be satisfied by Merrimack winning the semis and then losing to BU in the finals, i.e. they pass us for an at-large bid. So we want Merrimack to lose next round to be sure.

CHN's probability matrix today gives us a 99.7% chance of making the NCAAs based on 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations

Not sure if trolling.

Don't look at the matrix.

It severely overestimates the likelihood of higher seeds winning (i.e., auto-bids outside the top 16). Our chances are high, but not that high.

No, not trolling. I'm not a stats guy but 20,000 Monte Carlo simualtions, I presume, accounts for all types of outcomes. But it does seem anecdotally to be too high.

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of trolling. This has been discussed in some other threads in the last week or so. The issue is that the model relies on KRACH rankings to predict the likelihood of different outcomes. So the 20,000 simulations are based on flawed probabilities.

Sure, the data coming out is only as good as the data going in.

I don't think that the 99.7% probability is so crazy.

If we just set some simple assumptions:

Probability of
#1 seed winning tournament = 40%
#2 seed winning tournament = 30%
#3 seed winning tournament = 20%
#4 seed winning tournament = 10%

#2 seed beating #3 seed    = 60%

then the probability of each of these failing is:

1. We beat Harvard              60%
2. BU wins HE                   60%
3. Denver or SCSU wins NCHC     30%
4. Colgate does not win ECAC    10%

so probability of all failing is .6 * .6 * .3 * .1 = .0108  = 1.08%
so probability of Cornell advancing = 100 - 1.08 = 98.92%

Which is 0.78% off of the Monte Carlo result...
of course, it also gives Cornell almost 3x the odds that we miss the tournament than the Monte Carlo does,

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I just realized that beating Hahvahd is not sufficient.  We could be 12th in PWR but there might be as many as 5 bid stealers below us if we lose to Colgate in the final

[Dafatone]

I assume after this weekend's games are all complete, someone smarter than I am could figure out what needs to happen for us to get in IF we were to lose to Harvard?

We are currently 12th in the pairwise. Minnesota State is 13th. They're on to the CCHA finals. They'll only pass us if they win and we lose next round, in which case they get an autobid anyway. Alaska is 14th. They're done playing for the season, and we have enough of an RPI lead that we should remain ahead of them if we lose next round.

15th is Merrimack. They're in OT against BC right now, but I think they fall into the same "gotta win their tourney to pass us" territory that Minnesota State does, though maybe not. Let's go BC.

16th is Michigan State, they're losing to Minnesota. Same deal, they'd have to win two at which point they are in anyway.

Where I'm going with this is that we are likely finishing 12th, with some possible autobids finishing ahead of us to push us backwards which is a wash. If we lose next round, it all comes down to how many teams outside the top 16 get autobids. Atlantic Hockey is a given. CCHA hurts us cause it's either Northern Michigan stealing a spot or Minnesota State likely passing us and stealing a spot. So we're rooting for favorites everywhere else.

Go Denver. EDIT: Or Saint Cloud State. Root for BU (if we can stomach it). Root for Colgate to not win the ECAC. Root for Minnesota to beat MSU or, if they lose, Michigan to beat MSU. I think if two of those four things happen, we are in good shape.

Or we could just win a game or two next weekend.

MSU lost, so there will be no autobid outside the top 12 from the Big 10. Seems like at this point, for Cornell to miss, all the following would need to occur:
(1) Cornell loses to Harvard
(2) Colgate wins the ECAC
(3) BU does not win Hockey East*
(4) Denver/SCSU does not win the NCHC

*maybe this could also be satisfied by Merrimack winning the semis and then losing to BU in the finals, i.e. they pass us for an at-large bid. So we want Merrimack to lose next round to be sure.

CHN's probability matrix today gives us a 99.7% chance of making the NCAAs based on 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations

Not sure if trolling.

Don't look at the matrix.

It severely overestimates the likelihood of higher seeds winning (i.e., auto-bids outside the top 16). Our chances are high, but not that high.

No, not trolling. I'm not a stats guy but 20,000 Monte Carlo simualtions, I presume, accounts for all types of outcomes. But it does seem anecdotally to be too high.

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of trolling. This has been discussed in some other threads in the last week or so. The issue is that the model relies on KRACH rankings to predict the likelihood of different outcomes. So the 20,000 simulations are based on flawed probabilities.

Sure, the data coming out is only as good as the data going in.

I don't think that the 99.7% probability is so crazy.

If we just set some simple assumptions:

Probability of
#1 seed winning tournament = 40%
#2 seed winning tournament = 30%
#3 seed winning tournament = 20%
#4 seed winning tournament = 10%

#2 seed beating #3 seed    = 60%

then the probability of each of these failing is:

1. We beat Harvard              60%
2. BU wins HE                   60%
3. Denver or SCSU wins NCHC     30%
4. Colgate does not win ECAC    10%

so probability of all failing is .6 * .6 * .3 * .1 = .0108  = 1.08%
so probability of Cornell advancing = 100 - 1.08 = 98.92%

Which is 0.78% off of the Monte Carlo result...
of course, it also gives Cornell almost 3x the odds that we miss the tournament than the Monte Carlo does,

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I just realized that beating Hahvahd is not sufficient.  We could be 12th in PWR but there might be as many as 5 bid stealers below us if we lose to Colgate in the final

I'll be damned. Beat Harvard, lose to Colgate, everything else goes wrong, and we are still out.

I'm not even sure our next game matters.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I assume after this weekend's games are all complete, someone smarter than I am could figure out what needs to happen for us to get in IF we were to lose to Harvard?

We are currently 12th in the pairwise. Minnesota State is 13th. They're on to the CCHA finals. They'll only pass us if they win and we lose next round, in which case they get an autobid anyway. Alaska is 14th. They're done playing for the season, and we have enough of an RPI lead that we should remain ahead of them if we lose next round.

15th is Merrimack. They're in OT against BC right now, but I think they fall into the same "gotta win their tourney to pass us" territory that Minnesota State does, though maybe not. Let's go BC.

16th is Michigan State, they're losing to Minnesota. Same deal, they'd have to win two at which point they are in anyway.

Where I'm going with this is that we are likely finishing 12th, with some possible autobids finishing ahead of us to push us backwards which is a wash. If we lose next round, it all comes down to how many teams outside the top 16 get autobids. Atlantic Hockey is a given. CCHA hurts us cause it's either Northern Michigan stealing a spot or Minnesota State likely passing us and stealing a spot. So we're rooting for favorites everywhere else.

Go Denver. EDIT: Or Saint Cloud State. Root for BU (if we can stomach it). Root for Colgate to not win the ECAC. Root for Minnesota to beat MSU or, if they lose, Michigan to beat MSU. I think if two of those four things happen, we are in good shape.

Or we could just win a game or two next weekend.

MSU lost, so there will be no autobid outside the top 12 from the Big 10. Seems like at this point, for Cornell to miss, all the following would need to occur:
(1) Cornell loses to Harvard
(2) Colgate wins the ECAC
(3) BU does not win Hockey East*
(4) Denver/SCSU does not win the NCHC

*maybe this could also be satisfied by Merrimack winning the semis and then losing to BU in the finals, i.e. they pass us for an at-large bid. So we want Merrimack to lose next round to be sure.

CHN's probability matrix today gives us a 99.7% chance of making the NCAAs based on 20,000 Monte Carlo simulations

Not sure if trolling.

Don't look at the matrix.

It severely overestimates the likelihood of higher seeds winning (i.e., auto-bids outside the top 16). Our chances are high, but not that high.

No, not trolling. I'm not a stats guy but 20,000 Monte Carlo simualtions, I presume, accounts for all types of outcomes. But it does seem anecdotally to be too high.

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of trolling. This has been discussed in some other threads in the last week or so. The issue is that the model relies on KRACH rankings to predict the likelihood of different outcomes. So the 20,000 simulations are based on flawed probabilities.

Sure, the data coming out is only as good as the data going in.

I don't think that the 99.7% probability is so crazy.

If we just set some simple assumptions:

Probability of
#1 seed winning tournament = 40%
#2 seed winning tournament = 30%
#3 seed winning tournament = 20%
#4 seed winning tournament = 10%

#2 seed beating #3 seed    = 60%

then the probability of each of these failing is:

1. We beat Harvard              60%
2. BU wins HE                   60%
3. Denver or SCSU wins NCHC     30%
4. Colgate does not win ECAC    10%

so probability of all failing is .6 * .6 * .3 * .1 = .0108  = 1.08%
so probability of Cornell advancing = 100 - 1.08 = 98.92%

Which is 0.78% off of the Monte Carlo result...
of course, it also gives Cornell almost 3x the odds that we miss the tournament than the Monte Carlo does,

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I just realized that beating Hahvahd is not sufficient. We could be 12th in PWR but there might be as many as 5 bid stealers below us if we lose to Colgate in the final

I'll be damned. Beat Harvard, lose to Colgate, everything else goes wrong, and we are still out.

I'm not even sure our next game matters.

I just ran a YATC which had us at 13th and out.  It had Merrimack winning HE, and all bid-stealers elsewhere.

[upprdeck]

QUin/Colgat kicks this off Friday..  I think it becomes a bit clearer before we even go on the ice.

[Al DeFlorio]

QUin/Colgat kicks this off Friday..  I think it becomes a bit clearer before we even go on the ice.

So I have to root for Q?  Argh!

[BearLover]

Wow. Okay. So really the key is Colgate not winning the ECAC.

[Dafatone]

QUin/Colgat kicks this off Friday..  I think it becomes a bit clearer before we even go on the ice.

So I have to root for Q?  Argh!

Gotta root for Q, then if the unthinkable happens, gotta root for Sucks. I hate it.

Also, anyone else think it's funny that, in a year where the ECAC was very bad, we are getting 2 to 3 NCAA spots while Hockey East might only get 1 spot or at most 2, CCHA is getting 2, and NCHC is getting 2 or 3?

Big Ten taking up all the spots with 4.

[BearLover]

Per nshapiro's assumptions, that gives us a 98.2% chance of making the NCAAs. The vast majority of that probability comes from Colgate not winning the ECAC. BTW, CHN's model, which gives Cornell a 99.7% shot, was quoted in the Daily Sun even though Cornell's chances of making the tournament are probably around six times lower than what the model says.

[upprdeck]

If colgate were to win and the other bid stealers fall short the ECAC could get 4.. But why play with fire; First goal is get Cornell in.