Opponent and other news and results 2025-2026

[Trotsky]

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

That link is fantastic, Adam!

[adamw]

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

That link is fantastic, Adam!

just replaced the pairwise link that was there for 20+ years?  but hey - glad you caught up

[jtwcornell91]

Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine?  Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.

Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

So this sounds like the "recursive RPI" that we were discussing on HOCKEY-L 20-odd years ago.  I didn't realize the NCAA was already doing something like this in other sports.

[Dafatone]

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

That link is fantastic, Adam!

just replaced the pairwise link that was there for 20+ years?  but hey - glad you caught up

What am I supposed to do with all the headspace I've devoted to remembering pairwise intricacies?

Also, you've explained it to me in fairly convincing detail before, but 1.2 to 0.8 still feels like too much weight for home/away advantage.

[stereax]

The BU-Maine game is fuckin batty. I advise you watch it.

[CU2007]

Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine?  Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.

Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.

Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?

Is

[adamw]

Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine?  Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.

Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.

Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?

Is

yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution.  As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.

[CU2007]

Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine?  Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.

Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.

Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?

Is

yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution.  As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.

Makes sense, thanks

[Chris '03]

The BU-Maine game is fuckin batty. I advise you watch it.

I caught the third. And did not appreciate the facemasking flashbacks thank you very much.

[upprdeck]

The question will still be is a flawed computer based system better than a flawed human based system.

[BearLover]

Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine?  Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.

Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.

Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?

Is

yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution.  As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.

What is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.

As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.

Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?

(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)

My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.

*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.

[adamw]

What is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.

As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.

Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?

(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)

My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.

*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.

Well - it wasn't my decision.  But if the "real" home/road is really like 1.02/0.98 - then it most certainly is a punishment for earning home ice advantage. The 1.2/0.8 was put in to encourage top teams to schedule road non-league games.  It wasn't meant to be mathematically accurate.

Your argument about 4/5 logic being backwards would be true if the 1.2/0.8 was real.

The rest - we'll see how it plays out.  Cornell is going to get other advantages from the new system.

[BearLover]

What is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.

As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.

Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?

(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)

My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.

*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.

Well - it wasn't my decision.  But if the "real" home/road is really like 1.02/0.98 - then it most certainly is a punishment for earning home ice advantage. The 1.2/0.8 was put in to encourage top teams to schedule road non-league games.  It wasn't meant to be mathematically accurate.

Your argument about 4/5 logic being backwards would be true if the 1.2/0.8 was real.

The rest - we'll see how it plays out.  Cornell is going to get other advantages from the new system.

What is the accurate home/away split? You'd think someone would have figured it out by now. One crude way to do it would be to take all ECAC teams and compare their in-conference home record to their in-conference away record. 1.2/0.8 sounds large (that seems to indicate a team at home is 50% more likely to win than when they're away?). I.e., Cornell winning 4/10 games on the road is as easy as them winning 6/10 games at home.

As for the change to the playoff weighting—-it seems incorrect to say the old formula "punished" or "dinged" teams for getting home games. Rather, the old formula included ann equalizing factor of home games with respect to the pairwise/NPI rankings, and the new formula removes this equalizing factor. Which is to say, if the home/away split was accurate, there was no "punishment." And if it was inaccurate, then the fix should be changing the split to make it more accurate.

Your conclusion about the tooth-and-nail 4/5 playoff series seems backwards. If a team gets the 4-seed and get home ice, isn't that a big advantage, and now, under the new rule, the 5-seed gets severely punished for barely missing out on home ice because they are no longer are protected by the home/away split?

(Plus, the 4-seed still gets the bonus of home games with respect to actually winning your conference tournament. Now, they get this benefit AND they get the benefit that they are more likely to win for their NPI ranking.)

My issue with the new rule is it disproportionately benefits teams who play their conference semis/finals at home sites. Now these teams get the benefit of home ice for up to two extra rounds, without their advantage being accounted for in the NPI. Whereas a team like Cornell is actually disadvantaged, relatively speaking.

*we do benefit in a vacuum from this new rule in the sense that we usually get a round of ECAC home games. But other teams who are competitive for an at-large spot benefit more.

Well - it wasn't my decision.  But if the "real" home/road is really like 1.02/0.98 - then it most certainly is a punishment for earning home ice advantage. The 1.2/0.8 was put in to encourage top teams to schedule road non-league games.  It wasn't meant to be mathematically accurate.

Your argument about 4/5 logic being backwards would be true if the 1.2/0.8 was real.

The rest - we'll see how it plays out.  Cornell is going to get other advantages from the new system.

Choosing teams for the national tournament based on a formula that is designed to maximize things other than picking the most qualified teams is absolutely nuts! I'm wondering how off the 1.2/0.8 split is though. I could imagine it's close to the "true" advantage...

[Dafatone]

Clarkson has beaten PSU/NDAK and also got dominated by a bad RIT team and lost to Canisius who also beat Colgate, but Colgate has tied BU and beaten Maine?  Canisius lost to LIU which is that teams only win.

Also since NPI has replaced the pairwise. What tweaks were made to make that different?

It's complicated

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=npi

Adam - I found the summary useful but noted the following line regarding home and away game weightings: For postseason conference tournament games, there is no weighting.

Is this true if the game is played at the home rink of the higher seed rather than a neutral site? And if so, what is the rationale there?

Is

yes it's true for all conference tournament games. The rationale stems from conversations with CC coach Kris Mayotte on our podcast a couple seasons ago, after his team barely lost out on an NCAA bid because it lost a best-of-3 home playoff series. He thought the team was getting punished for earning home ice, and then losing a tooth-and-nail 4/5 series. I thought he had a great point and it wasn't just sour grapes - and was glad to see it get taken to the Committee and go from there. Other coaches had said similar things over the years, but none had suggestion that kind of specific solution.  As you know 1.2/0.8 isn't really an accurate home/away split as it is, so to get dinged for it in a 4/5 series in the postseason seems pretty unfair.

I find references to Kris Mayotte triggering after watching him put up like 50something saves beating us at Lynah one year while I couldn't figure out wtf was on his mask.

It might have been a chocobo?

[Iceberg]

Dartmouth throttling Yale in what's actually a non-conference game. I'll be surprised if Yale doesn't finish in last place this year given that it seems like every other team has improved in some way