Cornell vs Denver, NC$$ First Round, 3/27/26

[BearLover]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

[scoop85]

Red-hot Denver pounding the defending champion WMU 4-1 late in the 1st period.

[Chris H82]

FYI for all - this is what the rink looked like on Friday, just before game time.
Delayed post - I had to sit at a real computer to figure out the guidance that stereax gave me for positing images, but even if I'd known this on Friday, I ain't no lemur on coke!

[BearLover]

FYI for all - this is what the rink looked like on Friday, just before game time.
Delayed post - I had to sit at a real computer to figure out the guidance that stereax gave me for positing images, but even if I'd known this on Friday, I ain't no lemur on coke!

The atmosphere didn't really come through on the broadcast. I didn't hear much crowd noise except when Denver scored. Did you get the sense it was a significant home-style atmosphere for Denver? FWIW the atmosphere at the other regionals was mostly completely nonexistent except maybe during the two North Dakota games in Sioux Falls.

[Chris H82]

FYI for all - this is what the rink looked like on Friday, just before game time.
Delayed post - I had to sit at a real computer to figure out the guidance that stereax gave me for positing images, but even if I'd known this on Friday, I ain't no lemur on coke!

The atmosphere didn't really come through on the broadcast. I didn't hear much crowd noise except when Denver scored. Did you get the sense it was a significant home-style atmosphere for Denver? FWIW the atmosphere at the other regionals was mostly completely nonexistent except maybe during the two North Dakota games in Sioux Falls.

Yeah, there were a ton of Denver fans. They would get somewhat stirred up when Denver would have an opportunity. And during play there was the occasional "Let's go Pios" chant. We did some "Let's  go Red" for our guys.
But with the incessant piped-in music at stoppages, there didn't seem to be any dynamic of the DU supporters doing any cheers. Maybe it's different for games in their own arena?

[Tom Lento]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't really know how to discount the stats accordingly so unless someone wants to do a more rigorous analysis this will all be on vibes.

My take after a quick look at today's Corsi/Fenwick numbers is still that Cornell (~12th on aggregate possession metrics) was a solid top 15 but probably not a top 10. That's not bad for a rebuilding year, and getting that big incoming class an up close look at a title contender is a real positive even if the game itself was pretty rough.

[BearLover]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't really know how to discount the stats accordingly so unless someone wants to do a more rigorous analysis this will all be on vibes.

My take after a quick look at today's Corsi/Fenwick numbers is still that Cornell (~12th on aggregate possession metrics) was a solid top 15 but probably not a top 10. That's not bad for a rebuilding year, and getting that big incoming class an up close look at a title contender is a real positive even if the game itself was pretty rough.

Cornell had a below average SOS. I think last I looked it was like 34th, but I can't seem to find it now on CHN. I'm not sure how you account for that exactly, but if a team that's eg. 16th in possession metrics has the 5th hardest SOS, they should be ahead of Cornell. @sezenack is an RPI fan who maintains a blog and I think he was tracking SOS-adjusted possession stats. @ursusminor, perhaps you can ping him? Would be interesting to see.

[Tom Lento]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't really know how to discount the stats accordingly so unless someone wants to do a more rigorous analysis this will all be on vibes.

My take after a quick look at today's Corsi/Fenwick numbers is still that Cornell (~12th on aggregate possession metrics) was a solid top 15 but probably not a top 10. That's not bad for a rebuilding year, and getting that big incoming class an up close look at a title contender is a real positive even if the game itself was pretty rough.

Cornell had a below average SOS. I think last I looked it was like 34th, but I can't seem to find it now on CHN. I'm not sure how you account for that exactly, but if a team that's eg. 16th in possession metrics has the 5th hardest SOS, they should be ahead of Cornell. @sezenack is an RPI fan who maintains a blog and I think he was tracking SOS-adjusted possession stats. @ursusminor, perhaps you can ping him? Would be interesting to see.

Would be interesting for sure. Just eyeballing it though I think Cornell is in a pretty fair rating band. You can definitely make the case for a few teams with good possession numbers vs tougher schedules, but Union and Bowling Green are ranked ahead of Cornell as is so i suspect it all comes out in the wash (in this case).

[marty]

FYI for all - this is what the rink looked like on Friday, just before game time.
Delayed post - I had to sit at a real computer to figure out the guidance that stereax gave me for positing images, but even if I'd known this on Friday, I ain't no lemur on coke!

The atmosphere didn't really come through on the broadcast. I didn't hear much crowd noise except when Denver scored. Did you get the sense it was a significant home-style atmosphere for Denver? FWIW the atmosphere at the other regionals was mostly completely nonexistent except maybe during the two North Dakota games in Sioux Falls.

FWIW, BLer wasn't at any of the regionals. Not sure what atmosphere he's been sniffing.

[ursusminor]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't really know how to discount the stats accordingly so unless someone wants to do a more rigorous analysis this will all be on vibes.

My take after a quick look at today's Corsi/Fenwick numbers is still that Cornell (~12th on aggregate possession metrics) was a solid top 15 but probably not a top 10. That's not bad for a rebuilding year, and getting that big incoming class an up close look at a title contender is a real positive even if the game itself was pretty rough.

Cornell had a below average SOS. I think last I looked it was like 34th, but I can't seem to find it now on CHN. I'm not sure how you account for that exactly, but if a team that's eg. 16th in possession metrics has the 5th hardest SOS, they should be ahead of Cornell. @sezenack is an RPI fan who maintains a blog and I think he was tracking SOS-adjusted possession stats. @ursusminor, perhaps you can ping him? Would be interesting to see.

You can send a message to him yourself as I would have to decypher messages which I have not been reading. He is often a slow respondent because he works for a living.

[BearLover]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't really know how to discount the stats accordingly so unless someone wants to do a more rigorous analysis this will all be on vibes.

My take after a quick look at today's Corsi/Fenwick numbers is still that Cornell (~12th on aggregate possession metrics) was a solid top 15 but probably not a top 10. That's not bad for a rebuilding year, and getting that big incoming class an up close look at a title contender is a real positive even if the game itself was pretty rough.

Cornell had a below average SOS. I think last I looked it was like 34th, but I can't seem to find it now on CHN. I'm not sure how you account for that exactly, but if a team that's eg. 16th in possession metrics has the 5th hardest SOS, they should be ahead of Cornell. @sezenack is an RPI fan who maintains a blog and I think he was tracking SOS-adjusted possession stats. @ursusminor, perhaps you can ping him? Would be interesting to see.

You can send a message to him yourself as I would have to decypher messages which I have not been reading. He is often a slow respondent because he works for a living.

No worries. I meant ping him somewhere other than this forum, which I assume he never checks. Hopefully he checks it again someday.

[ursusminor]

Harvard/Dartmouth was their best weekend for sure, but it was also their only great weekend the entire season. This never felt like a top 10 team. That's how the computer rankings shook out, though. KRACH has us down at 12 but that's still really good. I don't believe our underlying metrics were that great even if our results (wins and losses, accounting for SOS) were very good.

I haven't looked since a few weeks before the end of the RS, but at least in aggregate Cornell's advanced metrics seemed to me to be in line with a solidly top 15 team. Top 10 in the ratings was maybe lucky, but not egregiously so.

If you've gone through the numbers a bit more it'd be interesting to get more detail there. I didn't get to watch the team much this season but I got the feeling from following along here and checking some xG/Corsi/Fenwick data that Cornell's play style results in more possession than it seems based on the eye test.

That may be because they've got a metrics-sound approach that doesn't yield enough sustained pressure (from what I understand Corsi and Fenwick, in particular, can suffer from this), or it may be because everybody around here got used to watching Schafer's endless cycle approach to puck possession, or it may just be noise.

If you're looking at the publicly available data on eg. CHN, those aren't adjusted for SOS. So top 15 possession metrics in the ECAC is in reality worse than top 15. I don't have access to anything better than what's publicly available, and even the CHN xG stat is not precise as it does not take into account type of shot, so I can't really comment with any greater degree of certainty.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't really know how to discount the stats accordingly so unless someone wants to do a more rigorous analysis this will all be on vibes.

My take after a quick look at today's Corsi/Fenwick numbers is still that Cornell (~12th on aggregate possession metrics) was a solid top 15 but probably not a top 10. That's not bad for a rebuilding year, and getting that big incoming class an up close look at a title contender is a real positive even if the game itself was pretty rough.

Cornell had a below average SOS. I think last I looked it was like 34th, but I can't seem to find it now on CHN. I'm not sure how you account for that exactly, but if a team that's eg. 16th in possession metrics has the 5th hardest SOS, they should be ahead of Cornell. @sezenack is an RPI fan who maintains a blog and I think he was tracking SOS-adjusted possession stats. @ursusminor, perhaps you can ping him? Would be interesting to see.

You can send a message to him yourself as I would have to decypher messages which I have not been reading. He is often a slow respondent because he works for a living.

No worries. I meant ping him somewhere other than this forum, which I assume he never checks. Hopefully he checks it again someday.

He will get a message from eLynah if you send him a PM using the link you posted to his eLynah page.

[billchu]

Yeah, there were a ton of Denver fans. They would get somewhat stirred up when Denver would have an opportunity. And during play there was the occasional "Let's go Pios" chant. We did some "Let's  go Red" for our guys.
But with the incessant piped-in music at stoppages, there didn't seem to be any dynamic of the DU supporters doing any cheers. Maybe it's different for games in their own arena?
[/quote]

Lots of Denver fans.  Probably 8:1 or 10:1.  I'm surprised that Denver doesn't have a pep band. They did have cheerleaders though which was annoying.

[BearLover]

Yeah, there were a ton of Denver fans. They would get somewhat stirred up when Denver would have an opportunity. And during play there was the occasional "Let's go Pios" chant. We did some "Let's  go Red" for our guys.
But with the incessant piped-in music at stoppages, there didn't seem to be any dynamic of the DU supporters doing any cheers. Maybe it's different for games in their own arena?

Lots of Denver fans.  Probably 8:1 or 10:1.  I'm surprised that Denver doesn't have a pep band. They did have cheerleaders though which was annoying.

I know the place was almost all Denver fans, but I was surprised by the lack of atmosphere on the broadcast. No crowd noise except after goals. Not sure what it was like in person. The rink itself was heavily mic'd—-you heard very loudly the sounds on the ice like the sticks, the boards, the saves—-and maybe that masked the crowd noise.

[billchu]

Yeah, there were a ton of Denver fans. They would get somewhat stirred up when Denver would have an opportunity. And during play there was the occasional "Let's go Pios" chant. We did some "Let's  go Red" for our guys.
But with the incessant piped-in music at stoppages, there didn't seem to be any dynamic of the DU supporters doing any cheers. Maybe it's different for games in their own arena?

Lots of Denver fans.  Probably 8:1 or 10:1.  I'm surprised that Denver doesn't have a pep band. They did have cheerleaders though which was annoying.

I know the place was almost all Denver fans, but I was surprised by the lack of atmosphere on the broadcast. No crowd noise except after goals. Not sure what it was like in person. The rink itself was heavily mic'd—-you heard very loudly the sounds on the ice like the sticks, the boards, the saves—-and maybe that masked the crowd noise.

The crowd was mostly older fans (as witnessed by the lines to the men's room).  DU also had spring break 3/21 - 3/29 so a lot of students were gone.  There were very few organized cheers on either side.