ECAC 2024 Discussion Thread

[marty]

The only good thing about the ECAC being so mediocore this year is that with the exception of games involving Q, there is a lot of parity in the league. Friday night, for example, Yale gave up the tying goal late in the third period only to respond with the winning goal just 40 seconds later. Brown, meanwhile, tied RPI on an extra-attacker goal with just 26 seconds remaining and then won the game in OT.
It wasn't an ECAC game, but if Cornell ends up sneaking into the NCAAs by a few hundredths of a point in the PWR, that might be because UConn somehow failed to score on a 2-on-0 breakaway against UMass in OT. Although UConn won the ensuing shootout, that won't have an effect on the PWR. UMass didn't get the win, but at least it didn't get a loss either.

Yes, except Brown did that to Union and Yale had RPI.

[BearLover]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

[Dafatone]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

That's a good point about doing better in a weaker conference, but I think with in-conference coaches knowing each other better, you get a little more parity in in-conference games. Kind of like how divisional NFL games always seem more random than non-divisional.

Point taken, though. We are having a real weird one where we are doing very well out of conference and kinda badly so far in conference.

[Trotsky]

Because this is always such a popular feature, Cornell currently has a 15% chance of winning the title in Lake Placid, and a 23% chance of making the NC$$ tournament, according to PlayoffStatus.com.

PlayoffStatus.com: because that aneurism isn't going to trigger itself.

[Trotsky]

If you hate Union like, oh I dunno, this friend of mine, you enjoyed this weekend.

[chimpfood]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

[BearLover]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

[chimpfood]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

yeah good point, I don't really know what I'm saying, I'm just biased toward whatever will help Cornell.

[ugarte]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

No! The good teams don't "adjust" to play bad teams. Sure, you prepare for specific opponents but to the extent that bad teams adjust to good teams in hockey, the idea is to make the game a slog, maybe a violent one. You can't really "adjust" to that so much as endure it. The good teams usually win anyway because ... they are the good teams.

[BearLover]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

No! The good teams don't "adjust" to play bad teams. Sure, you prepare for specific opponents but to the extent that bad teams adjust to good teams in hockey, the idea is to make the game a slog, maybe a violent one. You can't really "adjust" to that so much as endure it. The good teams usually win anyway because ... they are the good teams.

That may be easier said than done. Cornell probably would have liked to make their game against BU this year a slog, but they couldn't, because BU is too fast and skilled. So BU ended up getting like 12 grade-A chances and a ton of O-zone time (luckily only one goal went in).

It seems like almost every year, it's easy for the best ECAC team to dominate the weaker teams. For example, this season Quinnipiac is 7-0-1 in the ECAC, outscoring its opponents 43-14.

[upprdeck]

so far cornell has played Quin/Mass/Ariz st/Bu and only 1 game did they really lose control

Lets see what happens again vs ASU.

[Dafatone]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

No! The good teams don't "adjust" to play bad teams. Sure, you prepare for specific opponents but to the extent that bad teams adjust to good teams in hockey, the idea is to make the game a slog, maybe a violent one. You can't really "adjust" to that so much as endure it. The good teams usually win anyway because ... they are the good teams.

That may be easier said than done. Cornell probably would have liked to make their game against BU this year a slog, but they couldn't, because BU is too fast and skilled. So BU ended up getting like 12 grade-A chances and a ton of O-zone time (luckily only one goal went in).

It seems like almost every year, it's easy for the best ECAC team to dominate the weaker teams. For example, this season Quinnipiac is 7-0-1 in the ECAC, outscoring its opponents 43-14.

If the BU announcers were to be believed, the size, grit, and defensive effort of BU was up against the firepower of Cornell.

[abmarks]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

yeah good point, I don't really know what I'm saying, I'm just biased toward whatever will help Cornell.

Bear eats Chimp

[ugarte]

If the PWR is doing its job, i.e. accurately ranking teams, then how good or bad the ECAC is should not affect Cornell's odds of an at-large bid. This is because, if the ECAC is bad, Cornell should have a better record in-conference (and vice versa). Obviously, holding constant Cornell's odds of beating (for example) Union, we'd rather Union perform well out of conference to bolster Cornell's RPI. But if Union were better, then Cornell would be less likely to beat them.

The ECAC being weak actually helps Cornell overall, because Cornell thereby has a better shot of winning the ECAC tournament. (On the other hand, you could argue that the ECAC being good helps Cornell's recruiting. It doesn't seem to me that this has been true in practice, but the point has been argued about on here enough times that it's not worth relitigating.)

I think that the pairwise does accurately rank how good teams are (to an extent) but I think it doesn't realize how hard it is to play and beat bad teams week after week, especially ones that are familiar with your play style.

That should go both ways though, right? The best teams also know how to play against the bad teams. Cornell, Harvard, and especially Quinnipiac have had multiple seasons in recent history where they nearly went undefeated over the full ECAC season.

No! The good teams don't "adjust" to play bad teams. Sure, you prepare for specific opponents but to the extent that bad teams adjust to good teams in hockey, the idea is to make the game a slog, maybe a violent one. You can't really "adjust" to that so much as endure it. The good teams usually win anyway because ... they are the good teams.

That may be easier said than done. Cornell probably would have liked to make their game against BU this year a slog, but they couldn't, because BU is too fast and skilled. So BU ended up getting like 12 grade-A chances and a ton of O-zone time (luckily only one goal went in).

That's MY point! They don't "know how to play against the bad teams," they are "better at hockey than the bad teams."

[Trotsky]

First weekend with all 12 ECAC teams playing each other in quite a while.

There's 14 games to go, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.