1st round: Quinnipiac

[KeithK]

I was under the impression that Schafer thought the team's preformance at the entire Estero tournament was subpar, not just the OSU game (which I'm sure of).  But I missed both games so I may well be wrong.

[jy3]

hi all
greetings from college park (the DC metro rocks!)
just wanted to put my two cents in. Cornell needs to come out roaring saturday and get the forechecking working. good pressure --> good chances. they need to break the maac jinx that has plagued them of late.
you can do it boys!

[jtwcornell91]

Greg Berge wrote:

So, unless you buy that KRACH rating, QU is roughly a 4th/5th ECAC seed in quality.  Not at all a pushover.

Honestly, Greg, I have to imagine your KRACH-bashing is not going to convince many people considering you've basically admitted your preferred rating system is the one in which Cornell finishes highest.  But the flaws in RPI and PWR which cause MAAC teams to be over-rated are well-documented, and in just about any system which goes beyond simple winning percentage to evaluate the strength of a team's opponents, Q and the rest of the MAAC are at the bottom of the pile.  For instance, in the CCHP, Quinnipiac are #49 out of #60 (for comparison, Princeton are #43 and Vermont #52).

Incidentally, note that the ECAC as a whole was 10-1-1 against the MAAC as a whole, and that Q went 0-5 against teams from the four established conferences and 0-1 against CHA.

I also don't think we should overlook Quinnipiac, since upsets do happen (KRACH's odds scale has them as 27:1 underdogs), but it's silly to pretend they'd even be a playoff-caliber team in this year's ECAC.

[Anne 85]

> KRACH's odds scale has them as 27:1 underdogs

You think that if we played them 28 times we would go 27-1?  Realistically?

I absolutely state that whatever rating system puts us on top is the one that makes the most sense to me -- since all the ratings systems are equally silly.

But even if there is mathematical evidence to support one or the other system being a better fit for reality (something which you are a far better judge of than I), how can you defend a system that predicts that out of 56 possible points against us QU would get 2?

-- Greg

[Anne 85]

Editing works again!  Thanks Age!!!

[Al DeFlorio]

Anne '85 wrote:

>how can you defend a system that predicts that out of 56 possible points against us QU would get 2?

-- Greg

...and they already have one out of two--last year.

QU lost at MSU this year 3-1 and 4-1, and took RPI into OT.

[CowbellGuy]

I haven't even had a chance to look at it yet. I swear it's all in your heads.  ::twitch::

[cquinn]

An article with the QU coach's description of some of his players and his view on their chances:  http://www.canoe.ca/Slam020320/hky_ncaa-cp.html

[Greg Berge]

Roster comparison:

6'-3"+: Cornell 7, QU 5
210+ lbs: Cornell 5, QU 5

.75+ Pts/GP: Cornell 4, QU 6

Special teams:

Cornell pp: 37/135, 27.4%
Cornell pk: 105/120, 87.5%
Cornell pp+pk: 114.9%

QU pp: 37/138, 20.3%
QU pk: < 84.0%
QU pp+pk: < 104.3%

[Al DeFlorio]

Greg Berge wrote:

Roster comparison:

6'-3"+: Cornell 7, QU 5
210+ lbs: Cornell 5, QU 5

Does this mean they're slow, too?:-))