Recruits 2024 and Beyond

[upprdeck]

umass is a big one in itself. that being a win moves us up enough. But we had 2 goals leads twice vs ASU we let get away.

Everyone has wins and losses that change the PWR. In the long run we only have control over what we did.

If the discussion is about how weak the league is, then not winning those games that flip the power hurt even more,

Just don't lose the Clarkson game and PWR would have been enough.  Coming back for STL the next night helped

[Dafatone]

I'm just going to consider it encouraging that our losses were almost all games that we could have / should have won.

[Trotsky]

This discussion is demoralizing.  

You can't say "if we didn't blow that one easy game."  We are what our record says we are.  Full stop.  You can hypothesize about future events and non-happening (i.e., "hypothetical" ) events, but you can't rewrite history -- the actuals must be a given, or then we have no reason to privilege one coulda shoulda from one or more in the opposite direction.

And you all should know that.

[Pghas]

I'll get yelled at for saying this, but...turns out having five draft picks in your freshman class (maybe six, if Robertson gets picked this year) is a good thing. And, in another one of BearLover's Classic Takes, the conference being weak this year helped us too...to win a championship, the teams we had to beat were ranked 50th, 29th, and 43rd in the PWR...

Ah, but the fact that the conference was so weak was the very reason why we *HAD* to win the championship. We basically had to run the table, even WITH an unbeaten OOC record in order to grab an at-large bid. We didn't, but came close. Meanwhile, UMass got one because they were in a strong league, despite having a poor record vs. top 15. That we avoided playing the top team in our league was pretty fortunate.

No. The pairwise accounts for strength of schedule. If our conference were better, our SOS would be higher but our win percentage would be worse. You can't assume a world where our conference is better but we win just as many games.

The difference between being in the two conferences is the "bad night" effect. If UMass plays Maine and they have a bad night they lose, and if they have a good night, they probably still lose, but they gain by having a higher SOS. If Cornell plays Colgate and they have a bad night and they lose to a team they would normally beat, they take a hit with the loss and a hit with SOS.

The win percentage/SOS balance only works when there's consistency in play throughout the season. The guys are still maturing. They will, individually and as a team, have bad nights. It's better to have bad nights in Hockey East than in the ECAC.

This is pretty spot on.  When the league is weak you have to win every game which is tough when your team is so young.  Tougher league is more forgiving of a few extra losses as long as you're not getting blown out.

[BearLover]

I'll get yelled at for saying this, but...turns out having five draft picks in your freshman class (maybe six, if Robertson gets picked this year) is a good thing. And, in another one of BearLover's Classic Takes, the conference being weak this year helped us too...to win a championship, the teams we had to beat were ranked 50th, 29th, and 43rd in the PWR...

Ah, but the fact that the conference was so weak was the very reason why we *HAD* to win the championship. We basically had to run the table, even WITH an unbeaten OOC record in order to grab an at-large bid. We didn't, but came close. Meanwhile, UMass got one because they were in a strong league, despite having a poor record vs. top 15. That we avoided playing the top team in our league was pretty fortunate.

No. The pairwise accounts for strength of schedule. If our conference were better, our SOS would be higher but our win percentage would be worse. You can't assume a world where our conference is better but we win just as many games.

The difference between being in the two conferences is the "bad night" effect. If UMass plays Maine and they have a bad night they lose, and if they have a good night, they probably still lose, but they gain by having a higher SOS. If Cornell plays Colgate and they have a bad night and they lose to a team they would normally beat, they take a hit with the loss and a hit with SOS.

The win percentage/SOS balance only works when there's consistency in play throughout the season. The guys are still maturing. They will, individually and as a team, have bad nights. It's better to have bad nights in Hockey East than in the ECAC.

This is pretty spot on.  When the league is weak you have to win every game which is tough when your team is so young.  Tougher league is more forgiving of a few extra losses as long as you're not getting blown out.

I think you guys are reaching for a justification (worse league=more punishment for off nights) for a pre-existing belief (we would be better off if the ECAC were better). Couldn't you just as easily say that, when your opponent is weak, you have more room for error, and you could still win when some of your freshmen have an off night? Couldn't you say that, for purposes of building freshmen confidence, it's a lot harder when you're going up against players like Celebrini/Gauthier every night?

At the end of the day, there are all sorts of reasons one could come up with for why Cornell would end up with a better or worse PWR if it were in a harder league. I don't find these reasons convincing, tbh. If we're being subjective, though, we should ask ourselves: do we truly feel, if Cornell were in Hockey East/the Big 10/the NCHC, that we would have gotten an at-large bid this year? I have a very difficult time believing that...

[Dafatone]

I'll get yelled at for saying this, but...turns out having five draft picks in your freshman class (maybe six, if Robertson gets picked this year) is a good thing. And, in another one of BearLover's Classic Takes, the conference being weak this year helped us too...to win a championship, the teams we had to beat were ranked 50th, 29th, and 43rd in the PWR...

Ah, but the fact that the conference was so weak was the very reason why we *HAD* to win the championship. We basically had to run the table, even WITH an unbeaten OOC record in order to grab an at-large bid. We didn't, but came close. Meanwhile, UMass got one because they were in a strong league, despite having a poor record vs. top 15. That we avoided playing the top team in our league was pretty fortunate.

No. The pairwise accounts for strength of schedule. If our conference were better, our SOS would be higher but our win percentage would be worse. You can't assume a world where our conference is better but we win just as many games.

The difference between being in the two conferences is the "bad night" effect. If UMass plays Maine and they have a bad night they lose, and if they have a good night, they probably still lose, but they gain by having a higher SOS. If Cornell plays Colgate and they have a bad night and they lose to a team they would normally beat, they take a hit with the loss and a hit with SOS.

The win percentage/SOS balance only works when there's consistency in play throughout the season. The guys are still maturing. They will, individually and as a team, have bad nights. It's better to have bad nights in Hockey East than in the ECAC.

This is pretty spot on.  When the league is weak you have to win every game which is tough when your team is so young.  Tougher league is more forgiving of a few extra losses as long as you're not getting blown out.

I think you guys are reaching for a justification (worse league=more punishment for off nights) for a pre-existing belief (we would be better off if the ECAC were better). Couldn't you just as easily say that, when your opponent is weak, you have more room for error, and you could still win when some of your freshmen have an off night? Couldn't you say that, for purposes of building freshmen confidence, it's a lot harder when you're going up against players like Celebrini/Gauthier every night?

At the end of the day, there are all sorts of reasons one could come up with for why Cornell would end up with a better or worse PWR if it were in a harder league. I don't find these reasons convincing, tbh. If we're being subjective, though, we should ask ourselves: do we truly feel, if Cornell were in Hockey East/the Big 10/the NCHC, that we would have gotten an at-large bid this year? I have a very difficult time believing that...

If you accept the premise that RPI is an accurate reflection of team quality, then I'll say yes based on where our RPI wound up.

[Al DeFlorio]

Cornell would be better prepared for tomorrow night's game if we had played a Hockey East schedule this year.  Four HEA teams made the NCAAs this year.  Had Q won the ECACs, there would have been one ECAC team, and it wouldn't have been Cornell, despite a twenty win season.  I don't buy your self-serving logic, BearLover, one bit.  

Winning the ECACs was much more satisfying when Cornell had to beat Fred Bassi and the BU pinball line, or BC's Cunniff/Dyer/Mullin line or Harvard's Corkery/Hynes/McManama line, then beating Dartmouth and SLU no-names.  And Cornell's teams were stronger as a result entering the NCAAs.

Tell me again how Yale's championship, or Union's, resulted in a dynasty.  I need s good laugh.

[RichH]

I'll get yelled at for saying this, but...turns out having five draft picks in your freshman class (maybe six, if Robertson gets picked this year) is a good thing. And, in another one of BearLover's Classic Takes, the conference being weak this year helped us too...to win a championship, the teams we had to beat were ranked 50th, 29th, and 43rd in the PWR...

Ah, but the fact that the conference was so weak was the very reason why we *HAD* to win the championship. We basically had to run the table, even WITH an unbeaten OOC record in order to grab an at-large bid. We didn't, but came close. Meanwhile, UMass got one because they were in a strong league, despite having a poor record vs. top 15. That we avoided playing the top team in our league was pretty fortunate.

No. The pairwise accounts for strength of schedule. If our conference were better, our SOS would be higher but our win percentage would be worse. You can't assume a world where our conference is better but we win just as many games.

The difference between being in the two conferences is the "bad night" effect. If UMass plays Maine and they have a bad night they lose, and if they have a good night, they probably still lose, but they gain by having a higher SOS. If Cornell plays Colgate and they have a bad night and they lose to a team they would normally beat, they take a hit with the loss and a hit with SOS.

The win percentage/SOS balance only works when there's consistency in play throughout the season. The guys are still maturing. They will, individually and as a team, have bad nights. It's better to have bad nights in Hockey East than in the ECAC.

This is pretty spot on.  When the league is weak you have to win every game which is tough when your team is so young.  Tougher league is more forgiving of a few extra losses as long as you're not getting blown out.

I think you guys are reaching for a justification (worse league=more punishment for off nights) for a pre-existing belief (we would be better off if the ECAC were better). Couldn't you just as easily say that, when your opponent is weak, you have more room for error, and you could still win when some of your freshmen have an off night? Couldn't you say that, for purposes of building freshmen confidence, it's a lot harder when you're going up against players like Celebrini/Gauthier every night?

At the end of the day, there are all sorts of reasons one could come up with for why Cornell would end up with a better or worse PWR if it were in a harder league. I don't find these reasons convincing, tbh. If we're being subjective, though, we should ask ourselves: do we truly feel, if Cornell were in Hockey East/the Big 10/the NCHC, that we would have gotten an at-large bid this year? I have a very difficult time believing that...

Having a belief "pre-existing" or otherwise is formed based on experience and observation, not some conjured up thing implanted at birth. Laying out these arguments aren't "justification" but...arguments of a position. That's how debate works.

Your pre-existing belief argument notwithstanding, Cornell has demonstrated that we can compete and win vs top teams. Put us in a tough league and this team would come out with more quality wins than we would in a weaker league, which helps with selection criteria.

We had 1 loss in 7 games vs top-20 teams. I'm optimistic about how we would have fared in a tough league. The experience would also prepare us better for the national tournament. I continue to pull for the ECAC not to be seen as full of cupcakes.

[BearLover]

Cornell would be better prepared for tomorrow night's game if we had played a Hockey East schedule this year.  Four HEA teams made the NCAAs this year.  Had Q won the ECACs, there would have been one ECAC team, and it wouldn't have been Cornell, despite a twenty win season.  I don't buy your self-serving logic, BearLover, one bit.  

Winning the ECACs was much more satisfying when Cornell had to beat Fred Bassi and the BU pinball line, or BC's Cunniff/Dyer/Mullin line or Harvard's Corkery/Hynes/McManama line, then beating Dartmouth and SLU no-names.  And Cornell's teams were stronger as a result entering the NCAAs.

Tell me again how Yale's championship, or Union's, resulted in a dynasty.  I need s good laugh.

It's your call if you didn't enjoy our championship last weekend as much as you'd have liked. I personally was over the moon. Would it have been *even better* had we beaten two great teams in Lake Placid to do it? I guess, but only by a tiny bit. At the end of the day, after all it had been through the past few seasons, I knew Schafer and Cornell deserved a championship, and I didn't care how we got it. I don't really care that the refs may have missed a tripping penalty by Penney with a minute to go, or that Bancroft may have iced the puck on the O'Leary empty-netter, or (most importantly) that we didn't have to go through Quinnipiac. In a dark and twisted way, I actually LIKE these things, because of all the shitty stuff outside of its control Cornell hockey has had to endure the past few years. It felt like the universe balancing itself out.

You can argue all you want about whether a better or worse ECAC benefits Cornell overall. My point about a weak ECAC helping us this season is limited to a very narrow scope: if you need to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAAs (or if you just want to win a championship), as was the case for Cornell, and ten other teams in our league, you are much better off if your league is bad. This point isn't debatable, it's just a fact.

[Swampy]

We didn't need to win the conf title to get in with PWR if we don't blow any one of about 6 other games,

^^This^^

nope.  it's the other way around. let's get cause and effect in proper order.   Which is to say that bearlover's good takes arrive highly correlated with full eclipses.  I actually agree with him.

-cause: We punted 6 games.

-Effect: therefore had to win conference to get to the tournament

Therefore, bearlover is correct in saying:

All I know is that, if you need to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAAs, as we did this year, you better hope your league isn't good.

because the worse your league on the whole, the better your chances are of winning the league tourny.

p.s.  Also agree with bearlover that draft picks matter, harvard's horrid start this year notwithstanding. ( i think that I gave him my semi-annual stamp of approval at least in part when he posted about Harvard's picks before the season)

But the results this year demonstrate that COACHING >> # OF PICKS in determining outcomes.

[BearLover]

We didn't need to win the conf title to get in with PWR if we don't blow any one of about 6 other games,

^^This^^

nope.  it's the other way around. let's get cause and effect in proper order.   Which is to say that bearlover's good takes arrive highly correlated with full eclipses.  I actually agree with him.

-cause: We punted 6 games.

-Effect: therefore had to win conference to get to the tournament

Therefore, bearlover is correct in saying:

All I know is that, if you need to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAAs, as we did this year, you better hope your league isn't good.

because the worse your league on the whole, the better your chances are of winning the league tourny.

p.s.  Also agree with bearlover that draft picks matter, harvard's horrid start this year notwithstanding. ( i think that I gave him my semi-annual stamp of approval at least in part when he posted about Harvard's picks before the season)

But the results this year demonstrate that COACHING >> # OF PICKS in determining outcomes.

PWR  (number of draft picks), teams who would have received an at-large bid:
1. BC (14)
2. BU (14)
3. Denver (12)
4. MSU (6)
5. Maine (1)
6. Nodak (11)
7. Minnesota (13)
8. Wisco (13)
9. Quinnipiac (3)
10. UMich (11)
11. Omaha (5)
12. Cornell (6)
13. Western Mich (6)
14. UMass (13)

The above list does not include players like Macklin Celebrini who will be taken in this year's draft.

[scoop85]

We didn't need to win the conf title to get in with PWR if we don't blow any one of about 6 other games,

^^This^^

nope.  it's the other way around. let's get cause and effect in proper order.   Which is to say that bearlover's good takes arrive highly correlated with full eclipses.  I actually agree with him.

-cause: We punted 6 games.

-Effect: therefore had to win conference to get to the tournament

Therefore, bearlover is correct in saying:

All I know is that, if you need to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAAs, as we did this year, you better hope your league isn't good.

because the worse your league on the whole, the better your chances are of winning the league tourny.

p.s.  Also agree with bearlover that draft picks matter, harvard's horrid start this year notwithstanding. ( i think that I gave him my semi-annual stamp of approval at least in part when he posted about Harvard's picks before the season)

But the results this year demonstrate that COACHING >> # OF PICKS in determining outcomes.

PWR  (number of draft picks), teams who would have received an at-large bid:
1. BC (14)
2. BU (14)
3. Denver (12)
4. MSU (6)
5. Maine (1)
6. Nodak (11)
7. Minnesota (13)
8. Wisco (13)
9. Quinnipiac (3)
10. UMich (11)
11. Omaha (5)
12. Cornell (6)
13. Western Mich (6)
14. UMass (13)

The above list does not include players like Macklin Celebrini who will be taken in this year's draft.

Maine and, to a lesser extent, QPAC are the outliers. Supports the idea that Ben Barr is a heckuva coach.

[ursusminor]

We didn't need to win the conf title to get in with PWR if we don't blow any one of about 6 other games,

^^This^^

nope.  it's the other way around. let's get cause and effect in proper order.   Which is to say that bearlover's good takes arrive highly correlated with full eclipses.  I actually agree with him.

-cause: We punted 6 games.

-Effect: therefore had to win conference to get to the tournament

Therefore, bearlover is correct in saying:

All I know is that, if you need to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAAs, as we did this year, you better hope your league isn't good.

because the worse your league on the whole, the better your chances are of winning the league tourny.

p.s.  Also agree with bearlover that draft picks matter, harvard's horrid start this year notwithstanding. ( i think that I gave him my semi-annual stamp of approval at least in part when he posted about Harvard's picks before the season)

But the results this year demonstrate that COACHING >> # OF PICKS in determining outcomes.

PWR  (number of draft picks), teams who would have received an at-large bid:
1. BC (14)
2. BU (14)
3. Denver (12)
4. MSU (6)
5. Maine (1)
6. Nodak (11)
7. Minnesota (13)
8. Wisco (13)
9. Quinnipiac (3)
10. UMich (11)
11. Omaha (5)
12. Cornell (6)
13. Western Mich (6)
14. UMass (13)

The above list does not include players like Macklin Celebrini who will be taken in this year's draft.

Maine and, to a lesser extent, QPAC are the outliers. Supports the idea that Ben Barr is a heckuva coach.

And he wanted to go to RPI, and we chose Smith instead.::cry::

[upprdeck]

5th yr and grad students can make up for draft picks.

[ugarte]

We didn't need to win the conf title to get in with PWR if we don't blow any one of about 6 other games,

^^This^^

nope.  it's the other way around. let's get cause and effect in proper order.   Which is to say that bearlover's good takes arrive highly correlated with full eclipses.  I actually agree with him.

-cause: We punted 6 games.

-Effect: therefore had to win conference to get to the tournament

Therefore, bearlover is correct in saying:

All I know is that, if you need to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAAs, as we did this year, you better hope your league isn't good.

because the worse your league on the whole, the better your chances are of winning the league tourny.

p.s.  Also agree with bearlover that draft picks matter, harvard's horrid start this year notwithstanding. ( i think that I gave him my semi-annual stamp of approval at least in part when he posted about Harvard's picks before the season)

But the results this year demonstrate that COACHING >> # OF PICKS in determining outcomes.

PWR  (number of draft picks), teams who would have received an at-large bid:
1. BC (14)
2. BU (14)
3. Denver (12)
4. MSU (6)
5. Maine (1)
6. Nodak (11)
7. Minnesota (13)
8. Wisco (13)
9. Quinnipiac (3)
10. UMich (11)
11. Omaha (5)
12. Cornell (6)
13. Western Mich (6)
14. UMass (13)

The above list does not include players like Macklin Celebrini and Ben Robertson who will be taken in this year's draft.

FYP, if there's at least one smart team.