2005-06 Schedule

[Josh '99]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
The problem is that, for reasons gone into ad infinitum on other threads, we can't get reciprocal agreements with strong teams.  Strong teams tend to have huge buildings, sacrificing a game date to travel to Ithaca costs them a lot of cash.  So there is no reason to believe this will ever change.[/q]On the other hand, there are some traditionally strong teams that will travel.  In the last three years, Denver has played at Northeastern on two separate occasions; CC has played at Clarkson; UND has played at Northeastern, Yale and Princeton; UMD has played at Union and RPI.  Plenty of Western teams will come East (although you're not likely to pull in Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin).

Therefore, the alternate explanation I choose to accept is that they're afraid to play at Lynah.  :-D

[Will]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 [Q2]Trotsky Wrote:
The problem is that, for reasons gone into ad infinitum on other threads, we can't get reciprocal agreements with strong teams.  Strong teams tend to have huge buildings, sacrificing a game date to travel to Ithaca costs them a lot of cash.  So there is no reason to believe this will ever change.[/Q]
On the other hand, there are some traditionally strong teams that will travel.  In the last three years, Denver has played at Northeastern on two separate occasions; CC has played at Clarkson; UND has played at Northeastern, Yale and Princeton; UMD has played at Union and RPI.  Plenty of Western teams will come East (although you're not likely to pull in Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin).

Therefore, the alternate explanation I choose to accept is that they're afraid to play at Lynah.   [/q]

Almost right.  I think the alternate explanation is that they appear to be afraid to come east and play genuinely good teams that aren't the Hockey East Big Four.  (Denver and North Dakota visited BC and Minnesota visited BU this season.)  Let's face it, Northeastern, Clarkson, Yale, Princeton, Union, and RPI haven't had the best seasons these past few years.  They're probably safe bets for easy cupcake wins, while teams like Cornell and Harvard and whatever Hockey East Non-Big-Four team is doing well in a particular year (this year it was UMass-Lowell, who went unbeaten in nonconference play for the season) are actually likely to put up a fight.  So, yeah, they're probably afraid to play at Lynah, but they're probably afraid to play at Bright as well (as silly a proposition as that seems in most years :-P).

[ithacat]

[Q]Will Wrote:

 [Q2]jmh30 Wrote:

 [Q2]Trotsky Wrote:
The problem is that, for reasons gone into ad infinitum on other threads, we can't get reciprocal agreements with strong teams.  Strong teams tend to have huge buildings, sacrificing a game date to travel to Ithaca costs them a lot of cash.  So there is no reason to believe this will ever change.[/Q]
On the other hand, there are some traditionally strong teams that will travel.  In the last three years, Denver has played at Northeastern on two separate occasions; CC has played at Clarkson; UND has played at Northeastern, Yale and Princeton; UMD has played at Union and RPI.  Plenty of Western teams will come East (although you're not likely to pull in Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin).

Therefore, the alternate explanation I choose to accept is that they're afraid to play at Lynah.   [/Q]
Almost right.  I think the alternate explanation is that they appear to be afraid to come east and play genuinely good teams that aren't the Hockey East Big Four.  (Denver and North Dakota visited BC and Minnesota visited BU this season.)  Let's face it, Northeastern, Clarkson, Yale, Princeton, Union, and RPI haven't had the best seasons these past few years.  They're probably safe bets for easy cupcake wins, while teams like Cornell and Harvard and whatever Hockey East Non-Big-Four team is doing well in a particular year (this year it was UMass-Lowell, who went unbeaten in nonconference play for the season) are actually likely to put up a fight.  So, yeah, they're probably afraid to play at Lynah, but they're probably afraid to play at Bright as well (as silly a proposition as that seems in most years ).[/q]

Is this known or is it speculation? Has Cornell seriously attempted to schedule a 2-and-2 with Minny or UND or Denver? Did Clarkson, Union, etc have to schedule 2-and-4 with CC? At this stage of Cornell's program development I'd take a 2a-2h-2a with an elite program (if that's the best I could do), especially if they'd agree to pay associated travel costs and agree to return the favor if Cornell splits the 4 away games (is that too much like betting?). Or, if money's really the issue, what if it was a 2-2-2-2 deal and one of Cornell's home games gets played in either Rochester's BCA or Buffalo's HSBC, with some of the extra gate going back to the other school.

I just think Cornell has more to gain from playing the premier programs than those programs have to lose by playing at Lynah. A Minny loss at Lynah wouldn't necessarily hurt their season, nor would a win help them any more than one at UND would, given the schedule they usually play. On the other hand, Cornell coming into Mariucci and potentially winning or playing the Gophers even in front of all those great HS hockey players, and media, and powers that rule the icy universe...well, what if that actually got people thinking Cornell can really play with the big boys. :`(  What would be next, would one of those eastern pretenders actually expect to win a Hobey? ::rolleyes::

[KeithK]

I'm sure the fact that Cornell can't play hockey games in October makes it very hard to schedule WCHA teams, even if they were willing to come to Lynah.  I would expect to play some games against MTU (Jamie Russell) at some point if their schedule weren't largely filled with non-conf games against archrival NMU.

[Trotsky]

In Schafer's interview w/ Age, Schafer explicitly states that the need to bring money into the program is one of the main factors behind his insistence on reciprocal scheduling.  I don't know what governs whether the visiting team gets any of the take in a college hockey game, but it does not appear that hockey has the same "will travel for a big check" that you see in college football, where obscure teams sacrifice themselves to big schools -- I'm looking at you, Nebraska -- in order to finance their entire season plus the music department.

[billhoward]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:  In Schafer's interview w/ Age, Schafer explicitly states that the need to bring money into the program is one of the main factors behind his insistence on reciprocal scheduling.  I don't know what governs whether the visiting team gets any of the take in a college hockey game, but it does not appear that hockey has the same "will travel for a big check" that you see in college football, where obscure teams sacrifice themselves to big schools -- I'm looking at you, Nebraska -- in order to finance their entire season plus the music department.[/q]
The numbers can't be as big in ice hockey as football or basketball. Cornell travels to Michigan State and plays in a 6170-seat arena (twice) and single tickets are $18 (students half that with ID, season tickets a bit less), so if the blended average of season tickets and student tickets is $12, the total ticket revenue is and there are no TV or radio reveues to speak of.

Being cannon fodder for a name opponent at their facility keeps small programs going. But there's less revenue potential in hockey than in football or basketball, which have bigger arenas, higher ticket prices, and TV revenue. Consider Cornell playing hockey vs. playing football at Michigan State (well, we did play at Stanford a few years back).

Visitor playing at Michigan State
SPORT  HOCKEY   FOOTBALL
SEATS   6,170     72,027
PRICE   $8-$18   $41 (mostly)-$70 
REVENUE   $70,040   $2,953,107
(Revenue based on full house, $12/hockey seat (blended average), $41/football seat) 

You can see how Cornell has a disadvantage bringing a team into Lynah with Lynah's capacity of 3836 and a blended ticket price of what, $10 a seat, which would generate maybe $40,000 in ticket revenue.

[billhoward]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:  In Schafer's interview w/ Age, Schafer explicitly states that the need to bring money into the program is one of the main factors behind his insistence on reciprocal scheduling.  I don't know what governs whether the visiting team gets any of the take in a college hockey game, but it does not appear that hockey has the same "will travel for a big check" that you see in college football, where obscure teams sacrifice themselves to big schools -- I'm looking at you, Nebraska -- in order to finance their entire season plus the music department.[/q]Being cannon fodder for a name opponent at their facility keeps small programs going. But there's less revenue potential in hockey than in football or basketball, which have bigger arenas, higher ticket prices, and TV revenue. And there's less potential for a name school already filling the arena at home as Cornell does. Consider Cornell playing hockey vs. playing football at Michigan State (well, we did play football at Stanford a few years back).

Visitor playing at Michigan State
SPORT   HOCKEY   FOOTBALL
SEATS   6,170     72,027
PRICE   $8-$18   $41 (mostly)-$70 
REVENUE   $70,040   $2,953,107
(Potential revenue total gate is WAG based on full house, $12/hockey seat (blended average), $41/football seat) 

But the visitor may negotiate a fixed amount and it's not an equal amount to what the host holds on to. So even with Lynah's capacity of 3836 and a blended ticket price of, what, $10 a seat, there's probably more money in it for Cornell to play at home than to go on the road to a 6,000- or 10,000-seat arena. And there's a lot less money in it for a big-arena school to come to Ithaca. Plus there's a good chance they'll come out without a win. Much as it would be great to get a rotating schedule of Michigan, North Dakota, Denver, etcetera, we're doing pretty well getting Michigan State instead of a (no offense but they don't have quite the cachet) Western Michigan or Ferris State. It's possible Mike Schafer is doing this for the quaintest of reasons - for the good of college hockey.

[Scersk '97]

After a few years of getting indignant about these scheduling issues, I am beginning to believe that they are here to stay.  To insist upon complete equality in the face of obvious structural differences (i.e., big arenas, statewide fan bases, and money) seems a bit idealistic.

Still, a "gentlemen's agreement" across college hockey could help things.  Why not agree that teams should not prostitute themselves in "one and done" arrangements?  Instead, a 2-1 ratio (or 3-2, or whatever--debatable) should become the minimum agreement.  Sure, this situation will still screw the small, AHA-type schools, but money differentials always end up with somebody getting screwed.

Basically, you have to make sure that schools aren't undercutting each other with their whorishness.  For every Canisius (which insisted that North Dakota travel to Buffalo at some point, it seems) there is a St. Lawrence.  (Not that Marsh is a bad guy, but his team has seemed to be whoring itself out more than normal the last few years.)  Teams should not be able to just stay home and eat cupcakes.

So, the question becomes, is it worth it?  I think, in our case, that we should be happy with what we've got.  Michigan State is a good get, and, if we can continue to get everyone but the absolute majors (Michigans, Minnesotas, Wisconsins), we should be happy.   The tournament in Florida seems to be a real asset in periodically getting good teams to come to Lynah.  Myself, I'd just like to see a bit of variation.  It seemed like a bit too much of Maine, Ohio State, Western, and Ferris for a while.  As I said, Michigan State is a step in the right direction.

Teams I'd like to see in Lynah, knowing we can't get the majors to come:

CC and Denver (home and home with Colgate to share the plane charter)
Michigan Tech (though they have about 1 NC game outside of the Northern Mich series)
Providence (whom we haven't played at Lynah in ages)
Northeastern (ditto)
Nebraska-Omaha (their fans would probably travel)

And shame Parker into making the trip again.  Maybe his boys won't get destroyed this time.  :-D

[ursusminor]

A suggestion. If there were factors in the various components of PWR that take into account where the games are played, then the Minnesotas and Michigans of the world might be more inclined to travel. That is, if they gain more by beating an opponent on the road (and lose more by losing at home), they would be more likely to travel. The factors should be even larger than what is necessary to take account for the historical difference between home and away winning percentages.

There already is such a factor in the quality-win part of RPI. Of course, we don't know what those percentages are.

[Chris 02]

Going back to a point Schafer brought up in the interview is the issue of finding time to schedule opponents...and so that opponents aren't conflicted by their own schedule.  If we look at this year's schedule, there are only 3 weekends we can schedule non-conference games.  Those are currently filled with Michigan State, Niagara and RIT.  Since Cornell can't play any games in October, tries to avoid playing games during exams and then has the ECAC schedule the rest of the time, they're very limited.  

Looking at this year's schedule, the following schools were playing league games.

On the Army and Sacred Heart weekend:

6 out of 10 WCHA
10 out of 12 CCHA
4 out of 9 HE

On the Michigan State weekend:

8 out of 10 WCHA
6/8 out of 12 CCHA
9 out of 9 HE

On the Cansius weekend:

4 out of 10 WCHA
6 out of 12 CCHA
2 out of 9 HE


Right there, you limit the number of teams you can play.  Of course, schedules change from year to year, so eventually we should be able to fit different teams in.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]ursaminor Wrote:

 A suggestion. If there were factors in the various components of PWR that take into account where the games are played, then the Minnesotas and Michigans of the world might be more inclined to travel. That is, if they gain more by beating an opponent on the road (and lose more by losing at home), they would be more likely to travel. The factors should be even larger than what is necessary to take account for the historical difference between home and away winning percentages.

There already is such a factor in the quality-win part of RPI. Of course, we don't know what those percentages are.[/q]

Yeah, but the quality-win hack is a hack.  There's a seamless way to do this by using KASA rather than KRACH:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=kasa

[KeithK]

The issue of free weekends is a big deal, obviously.  The easiest solution is to have the Ivy Presidents relax the restriction on the start date for Ivy winter sports.  Ain't gonna happen, unless Lehman is as big of a hockey fan as Greg or Age and can crosscheck the others into agreeing (or at least a hockey exemption).  One other option that's within the jurisdiction of the ECAC itself is to shorten the playoffs.  Get rid of the first round (bottom four miss the playoffs) and move the ECAC stretch drive to one week later.  That opens up another week  for non-conf scheduling.  This ain't going to happen either because I'm inclined to think that the ECAC schools are every bit as much money whores (and thus unwilling to give up playoff money) as the Big Ten schools just with less leverage.

[DeltaOne81]

Not only won't it happen for money reasons, but if it did I'm sure they would put it back to a 10 team playoff with a final 5 (ala the Lake Placid years or the WCHA) or a 12 team playoff with a final 6 (ala the CCHA) :: shudder ::

Plus, the bye round is also a hidden "RPI protector", so that #1 doesn't need to play two more games against #10 or #12. This doesn't matter as much since they added the postseason RPI protection to the definition of RPI, but it's still better to play a #8 that can *raise* your RPI a bit, then guarantee that it can't do any better than stay the same. Not only that, but by the time you face a #8, or even a #12, they've added two more wins to their record, for teams that have had has 2 to 10 wins all year long, this is a definite improvement to their RPI, and even more so to their all important RPIStrength.

[ursusminor]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 [Q2]ursaminor Wrote:

 A suggestion. If there were factors in the various components of PWR that take into account where the games are played, then the Minnesotas and Michigans of the world might be more inclined to travel. That is, if they gain more by beating an opponent on the road (and lose more by losing at home), they would be more likely to travel. The factors should be even larger than what is necessary to take account for the historical difference between home and away winning percentages.

There already is such a factor in the quality-win part of RPI. Of course, we don't know what those percentages are.[/Q]
Yeah, but the quality-win hack is a hack.  There's a seamless way to do this by using KASA rather than KRACH:[/q]

John,
I realize that KASA can take that into account seamlessly. I just think that it is more likely that the NCAA would put a further seam into the PWR than adopt an entirely different system.

[Drew]

[Q]ithacat Wrote:

 [ Did Clarkson, Union, etc have to schedule 2-and-4 with CC? ]






We had a 2 and 2 with Ohio State that they repaid by coming to Cheel last year.
We has a 2 and 2 with Niagara that we must repay by visiting them 2x this year.
We also had 1 and 1's with Providence and Umass Amherst that they are repaying by visiting us this year.

Next year, we have 1 and 1's visiting BGSU and Miami (Ohio)

also the UVM Tourney,----- Bemidji, UVM, Dartmouth.

Drew