Opponent and other news and results 2025-2026

[marty]

Somewhere in all the yelling Adam pointed out that the heavier home/road weighting helps incentivize big teams to play small teams on the road sometimes rather than just say, "we're [insert traditional powerhouse], you gotta come to us if you want to play us."

That's a good enough reason for me to be okay with it.

But I'm thinking this should only be used during inter-league play. I guess the powers wouldn't consider a different multiplier during league matchups.

[Trotsky]

RPI with their second win of the season stuns Clarkson who was relying on their backup goalie. 5-1.

My almost 3 year old grandson's first 2 periods watching NCAA Hockey.

Claimed he liked the puck drop but I think he liked playing with the chairs and watching the Zambonis.

To be fair, you are never too old to like watching the Zambonis.

[BearLover]

Misconception means you had the wrong idea.

Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.

Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.

Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.

for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.

Pretty childish tbh. Usually once you hit adulthood you learn to attack the argument, not the person making it. I guess not in everyone's case though.

[BearLover]

Just to clarify what I mean above—

KRACH (and the Pairwise, and the NPI) are built to pick the 16 teams most deserving of the NCAA tournament (and their order). That is a very different thing than a predictive model. KRACH may well be the best model we have at choosing NCAA teams, but it's not built to be predictive and shouldn't be used that way.

KRACH et al are mostly just a function of winning percentage and strength of schedule. As they should be, because that's how we should choose who has earned an NCAA bid. But you get absurd results when you extrapolate that to future performance. With a large enough, and representative enough, sample, this would start to even out, but in college hockey this isn't possible (because seasons are very short and teams only play a small subset of other teams). 

You can't just plug in two teams' win% and SOS and try to predict which one will win. (Try doing that with college hockey games, you'd lose a ton of money.) There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factors that affect the tiny sample of games on which win% and SOS are based. Again, this is not a knock on KRACH-it's doing its job just fine. Its job is not to predict future performance.

You continue to make a really odd assertion that we (I) don't seem to know this. We're not curing cancer dude. Our Probability Matrix, which I assume you refer to, is just for poops and giggles.  That said, it does provide some utility, because it plays out the schedule based on who wins and loses, including conference tournament brackets. That could get pretty complicating to do by hand. Ergo - SOMETHING has to be used to pick the winner of each game. Thus KRACH. And with 10,000 simulations, it gives people an idea.

No one - ever - claimed that KRACH was some magic potion that predicted the future. You're arguing straw men.

This is also why myself - and others - have been working on using better models, with KRACH as the starting point. But we all have other lives, and it's not easy. There's also no sense of urgency, because the state of the world won't change based upon whether our Matrix is improved.

Other sites have simply taken all the possible win/loss combinations and played things out. Our Matrix decided to do Monte Carlo simulations instead, which allowed us to play out the season much further in advance. That's pretty much it. And I never claimed otherwise.

Actually I was not at all referring to the matrix, which I've said enough about. I was referring to abmarks wanting to use KRACH to determine how much a team "should" win absent home-ice advantage.

[Trotsky]

I wonder when the last time was Dartmouth was the highest ranking team in the polls from the ECAC.  Early 60s I would guess.  Eddie Jeremiah.  https://www.ushockeyhall.com/page/show/3003325-edward-jeremiah

Not that they will be this week, though they should certainly be in the teens and ahead of us.

[stereax]

#20 this week in the polls. Dartmouth at 19.

[Trotsky]

Misconception means you had the wrong idea.

Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.

Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.

Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.

for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.

Pretty childish tbh. Usually once you hit adulthood you learn to attack the argument, not the person making it. I guess not in everyone's case though.

This is an honest question, BL.  Does it give you pause that you get in fights with EVERYONE on this forum?

I get in fights fairly frequently with 2 people, and just that makes me assume I am the problem and makes me try to really cool it down and play nicer.  Sorry, ugarte.

[BearLover]

Misconception means you had the wrong idea.

Being misled implies that someone was actually leading you in that direction. That your misconception was due to others.

Misinterpreting means you made an assumption that was incorrect. So your misconception was due to your own misinterpretation.

Unless you can show where you were led astray, I think that you misinterpreted and weren't misled.

for some people to admit this, would actually require an iota of humility. So - don't hold your breath.

Pretty childish tbh. Usually once you hit adulthood you learn to attack the argument, not the person making it. I guess not in everyone's case though.

This is an honest question, BL.  Does it give you pause that you get in fights with EVERYONE on this forum?

Far from everyone, but yes, a lot more than most. It gives me slight pause but seems too difficult to correct at this point. I usually only post when I disagree strongly enough with what others are saying (if I'm just agreeing with the masses, doesn't really seem worth posting). I've actually tried to temper this impulse, but I've noticed a lot of people reading negativity or criticism into my posts when there isn't any. For example, adamw thought my post in this thread was about him, a bunch of people thought my call for Casey to use the transfer portal was a criticism of Schafer, somebody interpreted my point that $400 season tickets is a lot for locals as coming from a place of extreme privilege and ignorance. Many such cases. For every one of my nine positive or neutral posts there's one negative post, but the nine are forgotten while the one is confirmation bias.

It is what it is. I'm gonna keep posting my thoughts. I'm not trying to provoke people but I'm also not trying to win a popularity contest.

The coaching staff blew it by not bringing in Pelletier this season.

[The Rancor]

Wow.

[BearLover]

Wow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

[The Rancor]

Wow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

You need a better hobby.

[marty]

Wow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

51 across in today's (11-11-2025) WSJ crossword.

[ugarte]

Wow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

51 across in today's (11-11-2025) WSJ crossword.

i think it was in the NYT this past week too

[Trotsky]

Wow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

IMHO, FWIW, when you post straight without trolling your observations about games, and in particular your observations about our recruiting and our prospects' performance for their pre-Cornell teams, are excellent.  You have a lot to contribute.  But, much like me, when you try to be funny you miss, and when you provide criticism you have a lead foot and/or embarrass yourself.  Nobody asked me, but if you stick to matters of fact you are a high value contributor.  If your intent with criticism is to provide clarity you are washing windows with bricks.

Mostly I suppose I just miss being unquestionably the most unnecessarily caustic prick here.  It was all I had, man.  Don't take that from me.

[Dafatone]

Wow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

IMHO, FWIW, when you post straight without trolling your observations about games, and in particular your observations about our recruiting and our prospects' performance for their pre-Cornell teams, are excellent.  You have a lot to contribute.  But, much like me, when you try to be funny you miss, and when you provide criticism you tend to veer into ad hom and/or embarrass yourself.  Nobody asked me, but if you stick to matters of fact you are a high value contributor.  If your intent is provide clarity then you are washing our windows with bricks.

Mostly I suppose I just miss being unquestionably the most unnecessarily caustic prick here.  It was all I had, man.  Don't take that from me.

I feel like someone had you (and BL) beat about 15 years ago, but I'm not certain on the name details.