PWR volatile, Cornell -> #8t

[French Rage]

Rancor, we still have another big chance with the Colgate weekend.  That will be huge, in terms of conference standings, RPI, especially TUCs, and the h2h matchup with them in the PWR.  That will definitely be the make or beak weekend in my opnion.

Also, keep rooting for Brown to win and Dartmouth to lose.

[billhoward]

Cornell seems to have a history of starting slow and finishing strong. Not just in hockey. Think lacrosse, too, both recent years and those Tim Goldstein - Joe Niewendyk (well, we could have hoped for Joe to play his other natural sport) teams circa 1987 that came from a just-over-.500 record to make the NCAA final four or almost make it.

Maybe it's just our imagination that it's a Cornell-specific disease. I certainly think it applies to northern teams in, say, lacrosse, where Carolina or Virginia is already looking at short sleeve weather (well, almost) in a couple weeks. And maybe in hockey because some of our competitors have played eight or ten games more. 24 vs. 15 games played at midseason is a big difference, compared to say 34 vs. 29 games played as the regular season ends. Plus I think Schafer's methodical (some say boring) style of play really catches on around February and that's when a) Cornell really gets tough and b) you start to think about all those silly losses on the road to the Vermonts or Dartmouths etcetera that shouldn't have happened.

The toughest barrier Cornell has to hurdle may be the law of averages: 58 teams looking for 16 playoff spots and four slots in the Frozen Four. And if you make the playoffs, you've got to win four not two games to be national champion, which means four not two chances for an underdog to get lucky and knock off a higher-ranked team, as it did the last couple years to North Dakota or Colorado College or (maybe) Cornell by UNH. OTOH in a year such as this when Cornell is odds on favorite to not win it all, at least there's a greater chance we get to go to the dance and who knows, maybe get lucky. Just as nobody wants to play Princeton in round one of the NCAA squeakball tournament, who'd want to try their luck against the Cornell D in the NCAAs if they could instead have, say, a Colgate or Clarkson to play?

[ben03]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
 Cornell seems to have a history of starting slow and finishing strong. Not just in hockey. Think lacrosse, too, both recent years and those Tim Goldstein - Joe Niewendyk (well, we could have hoped for Joe to play his other natural sport) teams circa 1987 that came from a just-over-.500 record to make the NCAA final four or almost make it. [/q]
 so which is it, did they make it or not? and if my math is correct you're speaking of the 13-1 runner-up team of 1987 ... somehow i don't think that's going to fit into the "just over .500" club.  someone call me crazy, pleeease???  ::nut::

now if you're speaking of the '86 and '88 (NCAA runner-up) teams being at or close to .500 [7-6 and 9-6 respectively] then you have a point ... but that's not how it reads in your post. it would appear you're trying to speak about a team within the same season, not those prior.

[KeithK]

[q] Cornell seems to have a history of starting slow and finishing strong. Not just in hockey. [/q]Um, I think you're off base here, at least regarding recent hockey history.  IIRC Cornell has been the last undefeated team in the nation on several occasions during Mike Schafer's tenure.  I'd say we generally have a tendency to start quite strong, at least as measured by wins and losses.  It just hasn't always carried over to the middle of the season.  (The early season success that I'm referring to has often been due to a weak schedule in November.)

[billhoward]

We definitely start out winning, if not necessarily strong, against soft teams like Army, Canisus, Sacred Heart, Mercyhurst, etcetera (except for the occasional upset) in the very first games. This year our status as the last unbeaten team was a combination of soft first couple games and everyone else playing 8-10 games (increasing the odds they'd lose one somewhere) as we got up to five games or so.

Last year, for instance, we started okay, then had the January troubles (~2-5-1), and kept climbing up the ladder with an excellent February, but not with quite enough points to overtake the regular season leader, Colgate. I believe Cornell was 7 of 8 of 8 of 9 in February and except for that bizarre 3-0 loss to Union, never gave up more than 2 goals. At the end of January 2004 we were ~one game above .500, at the end of the regular season we were 15-8-6.

[added] I made of graph of Cornell's cumulative points in the regular season (it finished with 36) vs. the average over the season (1.24 ppg, or 36 points in 29 regular season games). It was a slow start. Except for a brief period in November, it was not until the Everblades championship game and the following Harvard game that Cornell was above the season pace (of 1.24 points times the number of games played so far). The January slump pushed Cornell to >4 points below the average and February was all uphill to reach the season average (although it was also chasing an eventual season season pace the got better each time Cornell won a game in February.) So, yes, last year at least, slow start, brief peak, slump, great final month ... and a roller coaster if you watched the PWR ratings.

[ninian '72]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 Cornell seems to have a history of starting slow and finishing strong. . .  Maybe it's just our imagination that it's a Cornell-specific disease.  [/q]

I suspect a lot of this pattern has to do with having superior coaching, in that staff is doing a good job in identifying weaknesses and fine tuning as the season progresses.  From that perspective the close games - even the losses - are helpful in highlighting problems that need work.  Blowouts mid-season are fun for the fans but generally not as much help in preparing for the "real" season.

[Will]

Well, blowouts are good for mid-season too if in fact we are truly that dominant. :-D  But I don't think that's happened in a while, if ever, not even in 02-03.

[French Rage]

With Brown and Union jumping into TUC territory, we get three more TUC wins to 5-3-2, and are 12th, ties with NoDak at 11th.

[Al DeFlorio]

Now in 11th, ahead of Sioux but trailing Harvard and Colgate.

[nyc94]

Cornell can flip the comparison with Mass.-Lowell by beating RPI AND after Lowell plays at Brown on Tuesday.  They are currently tied in the common opponents category at 2-2.  Of course, I don't know what will happen to Brown's RPI if they lose the game but if they are no longer a TUC then we lose out anyway.  I should probably stop looking ahead.

[Greg Berge]

Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, 3 of the top 10 PWR are ECAC after the early games of 1/15:

7: Harvard
8: Colgate
10: Cornell

Break up the ECAC!

[Chris \'03]

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 Cornell can flip the comparison with Mass.-Lowell by beating RPI AND after Lowell plays at Brown on Tuesday.  They are currently tied in the common opponents category at 2-2.  Of course, I don't know what will happen to Brown's RPI if they lose the game but if they are no longer a TUC then we lose out anyway.  I should probably stop looking ahead.




Edited 1 times. Last edit at 01/15/05 05:54PM by nyc94.[/q]

Maine is back in the RPI top 15, so that's bonus points for Cornell. Depending on how they determine the bonus, Cornell might actually win that comparison (with UML) if the season ended right now. Lowell has one quality home win (vs. colgate). Cornell has the one quality neutral ice win and trails in RPI by 0.0020. The fact that we may still be battling UML for positioning down the road only makes the Colgate series bigger for the COP calculation.

Of course all this will mean nothing by tuesday probably. It hardly means anything now.

[DeltaOne81]

It'd be great to move past UML and everything, but even if we stay exactly where we are, we're in great shape. If this team wants to go real far, then some impressive wins against 'gate, UMV, and Dartmouth in the 2nd half would go a long way.

But in a way, the goal is to get to the NCAAs with a team capable of hitting a hot streak. I know we're capable of doing it - although we haven't too much so far - and right now we're in great shape to make the NCAAs. Can't really complain about 11th, which is at large bid-land unless all 6 conferences are won by teams 12th or less. Not too likely.

[Al DeFlorio]

Of the top sixteen teams in PWR, Hockey East and WCHA have five, ECAC four, and CCHA two.  Not bad balance.

[Will]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 Of the top sixteen teams in PWR, Hockey East and WCHA have five, ECAC four, and CCHA two.  Not bad balance.[/q]

Well, it is for the CCHA. :-P