Quest for #1 seed

[Steve M]

Beyond the last line change, getting a #1 seed means assuring that Cornell will not go to Minnesota for the regionals if Minny also stays a #1 seed.  Also the 1st round opponent is weaker.

Denver is in OT vs. UAA.

Just as I post the above, DU wins in OT, bummer.

[mandervilleismyhero]

[Q]adamw Wrote:



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.[/q]

Agreed.  I like pulling for a 1 seed by pulling for the team to win every game through the rest of the season and let the chips fall where they may.  Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]jy3 Wrote:

 [Q2]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.[/q]

Any value you see in print for the bonuses is guesswork, since the NCAA refuses (for no good reason) to say what they are.

[Pete Godenschwager]

[Q]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? [/Q]

No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game.  BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?)  Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

 [Q2]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? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game.  BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?)  Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.

[KenP]

Western Mich is the borderline .5000 team.  Currently they stand at .5008.

So for the chips to fall right....
- Michigan State doing well against Michigan will REALLY help.
- Western Michigan losing TUC status will help
- All of this is irrelevant unless we can pass Denver in RPI.  For this to happen, (a) we have to raise our RPI by winning and not losing ground by playing weak ECAC teams, and (b) Denver needs to lose enough and not gain RPI by playing strong WCHA teams.

I'll be happy with a #3 seed.  A #4 or no seed will be a bit of a disappointment, and a #2 seed will be amazing.

[RichH]

[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:
rest of the season and let the chips fall where they may.  Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)[/q]

It may seem like a waste of time to you, but to some people on this forum, at USCHO, and on Hockey-L, analyzing mathematical ranking systems is a fun diversion/hobby.  Why demand that they stop having fun with it just becuase it doesn't interest you?  Nobody is forcing you to pay attention to it.  

In addition, I see two significant effects from this sort of work:

First, in years where teams we care about happen to be on the dreaded "bubble," it can be very valuable for even the casual fans to know what out-of-town results significantly help the cause for an at-large bid...sometimes this can actually be counter-intuitive.  Given the methodology that we do know, you can get pretty close to determining where the field stands.

Second, I feel that having a meticulous understanding of the system provides some level of accountability pressure to the NCAA selection committee, in a roundabout way.  Having a media presence to promote the work of "math geeks" certainly puts pressure on the committee to abandon any shady smoke-filled-room political decisions that surely were made in the past.

[Avash]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

 [Q2]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? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game.  BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?)  Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/Q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.[/q]


Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).

[French Rage]

[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:

 [Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

 [Q2]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? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game.  BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?)  Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/Q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.[/Q]
Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[/q]

But beat tham at tOSU in our first game of the year.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]French Rage Wrote:

 [Q2]Avash '05 Wrote:

Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[/Q]
But beat tham at tOSU in our first game of the year.[/q]

But had to come back to do it, and didn't play particularly well.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:

 Beyond the last line change, getting a #1 seed means assuring that Cornell will not go to Minnesota for the regionals if Minny also stays a #1 seed.  Also the 1st round opponent is weaker.
[/q]

Not to mention that if we get a #1 seeds and two ECAC teams get #4 seeds, we'll draw the CHA or AH champion by the same principle that stiffed us in the 2003 first-round draw.  OTOH, for that to happen, someone else would probably have to win the ECACs, which we obviously don't want.

[Pete Godenschwager]

[Q]Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking.[/Q]

Well, for the playoffs, it felt like a smoking.  Especially compared to the Brown, Harvard and BC games that took 5 years off my life. :-P

[jeh25]

[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:
  Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)[/q]

Find this discussion boring? Then don't read it. Problem solved.

Doncha think that asking others to stop talking about some that interests them because you don't find it interesting is just a bit self centered?

[Ken \'70]

The RPI hill is too steep and too long for Cornell to climb to make a #1 seed.  This is partcularly true given our remaining SOS.  Rough numbers: if we go 6 of 8 in remaining RS games (doesn't matter against who) our RPI will drop about .01.  The current top 4, including DU, beat us in all individual comparison catagories with the exception of the COP against BC.  There is no way we make top 4 without winning RPI comparisons, and that simply isn't possible.

What fans can realistically be hoping for in the stretch run is a seeding so the team stays east rather than being shipped west, which is what would happen now at PWR #6.

Best bracket would be if we ended up #5 and stayed east to play in Denver's (#4) bracket.  That means winning the MI comparison, which is possible if we stay ahead of them in RPI and flip the TUC comparison to our favor.  The latter is very doable since 4 of their 10 TUC wins are against BGSU and WMU who are barely holding on to TUC (.5009 and .5049 respectively).  We have 3 TUC chances left in RS, win two of three and have BGSU or WMU drop from TUC and that comparison could flip.  But holding onto the RPI against MI by regular season end will be difficult if they go 6 for 8, or better, themselves.

Best chance to stay east is to lose a couple TUC games, drop to 8th and end up in the BC bracket (anything that would drop the team from 6th would probably drop it right through 7th, so 8th is the most likely landing spot baring a complete meltdown).

Don't look at this scenario as rooting for your team to lose to Colgate or SLU, look at it as the very silver lining if they do.

[ben03]

Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both UHN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A

January 24, 2005
   Team        (First Place)    Record  Pts   Last Week
 1 Boston College       (29)    15-3-3  586     2 (W,W) UMass
 2 Colorado College     (10)    20-4-2  546     1 (W,W) Michigan Tech
 3 Wisconsin             (1)    19-6-1  490     5 â€"Idle-
 4 Michigan                     19-6-1  470     3 (L,W) N. Michigan
 5 Denver                       16-6-1  439     6 (W,W) Al. Anchorage
 6 New Hampshire                16-5-2  380     7 (L,W) Mass.-Lowell
 7 Minnesota                    18-9-0  361     4 (W,L) Minn.-Duluth
 8 Cornell                      13-4-2  341     9 (W,W) Clarkson, SLU
 9 Colgate                      18-6-0  254     8 (W,L) SLU Clarkson 
10 Ohio State                   16-7-3  245    10 (W,W) W. Michigan
11 Harvard                      10-5-2  149    13 (W,W) Princeton, Yale
12 North Dakota                14-10-2  147    12 (T,W) Bemidji State
13 Mass.-Lowell                 14-5-3  126    15 (W,L) UNH
14 Boston University           13-10-1  120    11 (W,W) Merrimack, Providence
15 Maine                        13-8-5   72    NR (W,T) Northeastern

Others Receiving Votes: Vermont 32 (W,W) RPI/Union, 
Northern Michigan 29 (W,L), Dartmouth 8(W,W) Union/RPI, Bemidji State 2 (T,L),
Michigan State 1 (L: U-18), Michigan Tech 1 (L,L), Nebraska-Omaha 1 (W,W)