Polls 2/28

[KeithK]

Overall poll rank depends on the summation of all votes, not just first place votes.  #1 is 15 points, #2 is 14 points, etc.  So even though more voters voted Cornell #1 than CC, the Tigers must've been ranked higher on the ballots that didn't put them #1.  

[dss28]

Ah, thank you.

One of these days I really am going to read up on the methods for all these ranking systems... until then, I thank you.

[Trotsky]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 does anyone else find it the least bit interesting the same two teams are atop both polls splitting votes as was the case at the end of the '02-03 season? it's been mentioned above and i echo the sentiment any exposure for the program (deserved or not) is good exposure ... and noting it's happening on a consistant basis should be telling to those who think the Red are a fluke.[/q]

I don't think anybody's claiming Cornell is a fluke.  I think the (ignorant, SOB, camel's breath) doubters are claiming Cornell is overrated due to running up their record against cupcakes (c.f., Nebraska football).  You can be overrated for years.  Decades.  Look at Harvard's academic reputation.

Personally, I'd like to see Cornell as a highly overrated national champion. :-D

[ninian '72]

Cornell's been a target all year, according to Mike.  This is just more of the same.

[Josh '99]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in the polls this week since Cornell is off and Denver and CC play each other.  If either team manages to sweep I expect that team to be the consensus #1 (and deservedly so).  If the series is split, then it's an open question.  Cornell could sneak up to #1 or drop to #3 if the two games were close and competitive.[/q]Given how the poll votes have trended in the past couple of weeks, I'm going to guess that if it's a split, CC will stay at #1 and Cornell will stay at #2.  The Western voters will continue to believe that CC is #1 and DU is #2 and Cornell is #11 or whatever.

[ben03]

someone please correct my math ... [553 - (21*15)] / 19 = 12.53
do we really get that little respect from the western voters?  ::screwy::  ::help::  ::screwy::

[Beeeej]

12.53 is a solid average of between third place (13 points) and fourth place (12 points).  That's not a heck of a lot of disrespect in my book.

Beeeej

[ben03]

ah ha, my bad ... big ol'brain fart ... thinking ranking not points.

[billhoward]

There is a historical bias against Ivy Schools and Ivy athletes in national polling. A most egregious case was the 1971 Heisman Tropy. Pat Sullivan, the eventual winner, was on most everyone's top three ballot among voters, including in the Northeast, even if it was 2nd or 3rd to Ed Marinaro '72. But in the south especially (Sullivan played at Auburn), many voters left Marinaro off the ballot entirely. Some might see bias in that. If it was truly random, then if Sullivan was not cited on 10% of the Northeast's ballots, you'd expect Marinaro would have been omitted from 10% of the South's ballots. He was left a *lot* of them. That I believe was the margin of victory: Marinaro's omission from distant ballots.

Could be the same thing here: Eastern voters respect Cornell and CC, Western voters respect only CC.

[KeithK]

[q]Could be the same thing here: Eastern voters respect Cornell and CC, Western voters respect only CC.[/q]I think that would be an exaggeration.  I think the math (see posts by Ben and Beeeej above) indicates that we're still ranked 3 or 4 on most non-first place ballots.  A more accurate guess might be, eastern voters respect Corenll and CC, western voters respect CC, Denver and then Cornell with BC or Michigan thrown in between on some ballots.

[billhoward]

Keith, there you go again, throwing in facts to try to prove your point. That is so unfair.

(But it is one of those bizarre things to see CU almost double CC on first place points and still be in second.)

CC seems like a pretty classy school and with, what, just 2000 students, has some real disadvantages compared to say Denver or Wisconsin. And it also seems academically minded. My dream would have been to have played CC for the title in 2003 ... and for this to be the rematch year when CC tries to get the upper hand to make up for LeNeveu's 2-0 shutout.

[KeithK]

[q]CC seems like a pretty classy school and with, what, just 2000 students, has some real disadvantages compared to say Denver or Wisconsin. And it also seems academically minded. My dream would have been to have played CC for the title in 2003 ... and for this to be the rematch year when CC tries to get the upper hand to make up for LeNeveu's 2-0 shutout.[/q]I kind of had the same though about the Tigers, even if Sejna did steal the Hobey two years ago. :-/   As for your scenario, how about having the 2006 title game as the rematch, with CC trying to avenge McKee's 2-0 shutout?   (Just fantasizing on a boring afternoon at work...)

[Josh '99]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I kind of had the same though about the Tigers, even if Sejna did steal the Hobey two years ago.  :-/[/q]  In retrospect, Lenny was unlucky to have had his great season when he did.  (I probably made this same point right about Hobey time last year, but I feel like repeating it.  :-P)  If he'd stayed and put up the same numbers last year, he might've won it.   In 02-03, Sejna and Chris Kunitz stood head and shoulders above the remaining non-goalies (with 1.95 and 1.88 points per game and nobody else above 1.67) just as we all know Lenny stood head and shoulders above all the other goalies.  But in 03-04, no forward topped 1.61 points per game (five players were over that number in 02-03) and no player from a Big Four team topped 1.49 (nine players, including Dominic Moore, beat that in 02-03).

Of course, to play devil's advocate, Jim Howard bettered Lenny's 02-03 GAA and SV% in 03-04 and wasn't even a finalist, possibly because he only played half of Maine's minutes, and (if I'm not mistaken) fewer than half in the regular season.  Yann Danis did make it to the final 3 with a SV% that was slightly better than Lenny's in 02-03, although a GAA that was significantly worse.

What does this mean?  It means that, IMO, a goalie from the ECAC would need to not split playing time (see: Jim Howard, 03-04; Wade Dubielewicz, 01-02), AND to stand out from all other goalies (see: Yann Danis 03-04, Ryan Miller 99-00), AND for it to be a down year for forwards (see: Dave LeNeveu 02-03), in order to win the Hobey.  Oh, and also not have a down year as compared to a previous outstanding season (see: Ryan Miller, 01-02).

[jy3]

[Q]What does this mean?  It means that, IMO, a goalie from the ECAC would need to not split playing time (see: Jim Howard, 03-04; Wade Dubielewicz, 01-02), AND to stand out from all other goalies (see: Yann Danis 03-04, Ryan Miller 99-00), AND for it to be a down year for forwards (see: Dave LeNeveu 02-03), in order to win the Hobey.  Oh, and also not have a down year as compared to a previous outstanding season (see: Ryan Miller, 01-02).[/q]

could that be this year?

[Josh '99]

[Q]jy3 Wrote:
could that be this year?[/q]Doubt it.  I think Sertich has to be the odds-on favorite.  Best player in the country (numbers-wise, at any rate) on the best team in the country.  McKee's got the great GAA, as we all know, but Hyphen having a better SV% is a mark against him.  I wouldn't hold my breath.

(Please note:  I'm not saying I don't think McKee deserves recognition, because he's been absolutely amazing this year.  I'm just making a prediction.)