Cornell-SLU post-game thread

[KenP]

LSSU will need to play and beat stronger teams than UAF to gain .0161 RPI points.

[Ack]

Maybe they were reacting to "ugly-sweater guy"?   Speaking of which...didn't Vermont's "the man in the yellow hat" sit in the same place?

[billhoward]

PWR and TUC is so much more confusing than just yelling LGR. Basically, you want to beat everybody, then hope everybody you beat does well, plus especially people you split a series with, which means you didn't beat everybody, and then you want to root for NYS and Ivy and ECAC teams but only once you have trounced them (or at least shut them out). and you wonder if your PWR might be helped by splitting a series with Colgate because if they lose too much they're not a good team even if they were a good team. You want everybody to beat Harvard because they're Harvard and then hope you meet them in the ECAC title game but only so long as they're injury depleted.

This has the ring of Who's on First.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 I find regular season titles to be somewhat irrelevant.[/q]

But the better we finish in the regular season, the better seed we get for the ECACs, which are relevant, meaning weaker quarterfinal opponents and last line change in Albany.  The race for 4th place is probably a bigger deal than the race for 1st.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 I find regular season titles to be somewhat irrelevant.[/q]
CSTV seems to think they're relevant, showing Clarkson with 9 ECACHL "championships" and Cornell with 7 on a graphic Friday night--clearly referring to #1 seeds, not championships.  Even that, I think, was wrong.  Clarkson's had the top seed 10 times, according to TBRW (and I'm too lazy to check anywhere else).

[HeafDog]

adamw Wrote:

I find regular season titles to be somewhat irrelevant.

I guess this means that the regular season ECAC crown no longer gets an automatic tourney bid, eh?  That question came up at the CU-Clarkson game on TV in NY on Fri., and I told whomever I was talking to that it still got a bid, but I guess I must've been wrong.  When was the change made?

[Greg Berge]

The NCAA decreed that every conference gets an auto bid and the conference decides how to award it, as long as the criteria is in place prior to the season.  The ECAC, and every other conference, went with tourny champion, in part because that maximizes the chance for more bids, and in part to give the conference tourny meaning.

[RichH]

[Q]HeafDog Wrote:

I guess this means that the regular season ECAC crown no longer gets an automatic tourney bid, eh?  That question came up at the CU-Clarkson game on TV in NY on Fri., and I told whomever I was talking to that it still got a bid, but I guess I must've been wrong.  When was the change made?[/q]
From the USCHO FAQ on the selection process, http://www.uscho.com/FAQs/?data=selection:
[q]Q: How are the tournament teams determined?

A: Each established conference receives one automatic bid. Currently this includes all six Division I conferences. The rest of the teams are selected through a series of mathematical and other criteria. Either way, there is no subjectivity in the process of selecting teams for the tournament. See below for details.

Q: How do you receive an automatic bid?

A: Starting with the 2000-2001 season, the committee has elected to revert back to the practice of awarding only one automatic bid to each conference. Also starting with 2000-2001, the MAAC (now known as Atlantic Hockey) was awarded an automatic bid; and in 2002-2003, the CHA received its automatic bid. That places the total number of auto bids at six. Each of the conferences have elected to award their automatic bid to their postseason tournament champion.

Q: What is the "Colorado College rule"?

A: In 1994, Colorado College won the regular-season WCHA title, but did not receive a berth to the NCAA tournament. That's when the rule was put in awarding a second automatic bid to a conference's regular-season champion, and was thus nicknamed the Colorado College rule. That rule has since been rescinded.

Q: What is the "Clarkson rule"?

A: The so-called Clarkson rule said that any team which won its regular-season and conference tournament championship, would automatically be awarded a first-round bye in the NCAA tournament. This rule is no longer in effect.[/q]

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

 The NCAA decreed that every conference gets an auto bid and the conference decides how to award it, as long as the criteria is in place prior to the season.  The ECAC, and every other conference, went with tourny champion, in part because that maximizes the chance for more bids, and in part to give the conference tourny meaning.[/q]
Seems to me they dropped the auto-bid for regular-season "champion" when the two new conferences came into being.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]RichH Wrote:

 From the USCHO FAQ on the selection process, :

Q: What is the "Colorado College rule"?

A: In 1994, Colorado College won the regular-season WCHA title, but did not receive a berth to the NCAA tournament. That's when the rule was put in awarding a second automatic bid to a conference's regular-season champion, and was thus nicknamed the Colorado College rule. That rule has since been rescinded.

[/Q]
[/q]
So being regular-season "champion" meant something in terms of an auto-bid for six years:  1995-2000.  RIP, "Colorado College rule."

[JDeafv]

Avash - It's nice to see you doing the writeups for the Cornell home games on USCHO, it's nice not to see "Compiled by USCHO Staff."

I don't think Sasha is an NHL draft pick (being one of two starting defensemen who missed the game).  Unless the two defensemen you were talking about were not Gleed and Pokulok, but our other drafted D-man is O'Byrne who I thought played last night.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]JDeafv Wrote:

 Avash - It's nice to see you doing the writeups for the Cornell home games on USCHO, it's nice not to see "Compiled by USCHO Staff."

I don't think Sasha is an NHL draft pick (being one of two starting defensemen who missed the game).  Unless the two defensemen you were talking about were not Gleed and Pokulok, but our other drafted D-man is O'Byrne who I thought played last night.

[/q]
I think you're right.  But if there is an NHL, I suspect Sasha will be drafted.

[JDeafv]

I totally agree that with a draft Sasha will be taken, perhaps as high as the 3rd round.

[ben03]

[Q]JDeafv Wrote:

 I totally agree that with a draft Sasha will be taken, perhaps as high as the 3rd round.[/q]
if we're talking about the same Sasha ... perhaps as low as the 3rd round. i' d bet on him going in the top 50 picks.

[calgARI '07]

He's 6'5 with an excellent offensive skills.  Pokuluk will go first round.  If he played for Michigan or BC, etc. and came out of the NDP, he would go top 10.  He is better than Whitney was a couple years ago when Whitney was taken 5th overall.