Quest for #1 seed

[nyc94]

And we still have a game with RPI Black Hole Princeton.

[Chris \'03]

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 And we still have a game with RPI Black Hole Princeton.[/q]

And their ugly step sister RPI #52 Yale..

[jy3]

[Q]Chris '03 Wrote:
And with a .005, 3, 1 bonus:
[/q]

is it 5/3/1 or 5/3/2?
not sure

nope in the bracketology your version is correct.

[Greg Berge]

The USCHO generator has us now winning all the pairwise comparisons except for those with the teams directly ahead of us: BC, CC, Minny, Denver.

[atb9]

Double post...sorry  :-(

[atb9]

Cornell vs. Denver in Amherst for the right to go to the FF would be awesome...not that I enjoy looking ahead or anything...  ::nut::

[Will]

For what it's worth...if Cornell simply makes the NCAA tournament this year, then I'll be happy.  A #1 seed would be nice, but I won't cry if we're a #2, #3, or #4 seed.  As long as we're there, that's all that matters to me.

[lhayes]

Early in the 3rd period, Denver PP scores on Univ. Alaska-Anchorage to go up 2-1 (audio feed via RealPlayer from UUA website).

[Mike Hedrick 01]

I just reloaded the USCHO PWR and now they have Michigan ahead of us again.  Did their game get added to the database late?

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:

 I just reloaded the USCHO PWR and now they have Michigan ahead of us again.  Did their game get added to the database late?[/q]
Western Michigan and/or Bowling Green must have snuck back into TUC status.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:

 I just reloaded the USCHO PWR and now they have Michigan ahead of us again.  Did their game get added to the database late?[/q]
I don't know for sure - but my money's on it being a secondary effect from someone else's game.

[mandervilleismyhero]

Can all you math geeks please quit it with this ridiculous thread?  Didn't you learn anything from 2 years ago???  If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game?

What does it matter if we are a 1 seed or not?  What matters is what happens on the ice, and whether the team plays strong down the stretch.  By the same token, bad losses down the stretch would be bad because they suggest that the team doesn't have what it takes to win it all, and NOT because they hurt the team's standing in some mathematical equation.  Win and everything else will take care of itself, 1 seed or not.  Now please cut it out with this mental masturbation and worry about something that matters.

[Beeeej]

[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:Can all you math geeks please quit it with this ridiculous thread?[/q]

So, you're new here, then?  :-D

Beeeej

[adamw]

You can't really look at it that way because a) Cornell may not have played BC ... and b) with last line change in a close game, perhaps BC DOES indeed win the game.

It is true, however, that a No. 1 seed is a longshot - and there's a long way to go to get one and the margin of error is extrememly slim ... And a No. 2 seed would be pretty darn good enough anyway.  But it's worth shooting for a No. 1.

[Beeeej]

Yes, a #1 seed is a longshot, and it's a little odd to discuss the mathematics of the process ad absurdum...

But seriously, mandervilleworshipper - the better seed we get, the more likely it is that we'll see "weaker" teams in the regionals.  And yes, the games have to be played on the ice, but I'd rather see Cornell face the #16 seed than the #1 seed any day of the week.

Beeeej