Cornell 0 RPI 2

[Give My Regards]

[quote Dafatone]Anyone know if we win a tiebreaker against harvard?[/quote]

If the tie is with just Harvard (for third place), Cornell wins on the second tiebreaker, record against top 4 -- which would mean record against Dartmouth and Colgate, the top two teams in this case.  Cornell would be 3-1, Harvard 2-2.  If St. Lawrence makes it a three-way tie, then Cornell gets seeded behind Harvard. (see above)

[DeltaOne81]

[quote fenwick]
Your seedings are correct, but the procedure in a three-way tie is a bit different.  As noted above, Harvard gets the third seed based on head-to-head record among the three teams.  The process then starts over from the beginning to break the (now) fourth-place tie between Cornell and St. Lawrence.  Cornell wins this one based on head-to-head.  The starting-over step doesn't make a difference here, but it's not hard to come up with a scenario in which it would change the order of the seedings.[/quote]

I thought you only started over if there was still a tie while knocking one off.

I.e. if Harvard won but Cornell and SLU tied in the H2H category, Harvard would get third, and instead of going on to record against top 4, you would start over with Cornell/SLU H2H.

But if the 3 way tiebreaker separates a 1/2/3 on its own then no reason to start over.

But I could be wrong

[Chris 02]

Post moved to the postgame thread.

[Give My Regards]

[quote DeltaOne81]I thought you only started over if there was still a tie while knocking one off.

I.e. if Harvard won but Cornell and SLU tied in the H2H category, Harvard would get third, and instead of going on to record against top 4, you would start over with Cornell/SLU H2H.

But if the 3 way tiebreaker separates a 1/2/3 on its own then no reason to start over.

But I could be wrong [/quote]

Nope, they always start over with the remaining teams.  The idea is not to give a team a higher seeding in a three-way tie than they would have gotten if the tie were between only two teams.  Of course, it doesn't work in this case -- Cornell would beat Harvard in a two-way tie but gets seeded behind the Crimson in a three-way.

[billhoward]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote DeltaOne81][quote Dafatone]So, we do anything wrong?  This sounded like Lange was just a wall.[/quote]
Somehow I'm beginning to get skeptical that every single goalie we face is virtually a wall against us. Out offense is just pathetic on some nights.[/quote]
Right.  RPI'd given up 2.7 goals per game and we manage one in two games.[/quote]
a) Lange was good
b) It seemed as if we had two kinds of shots, those just wide (as mentioned on radio) and those right dead center on goal, where Lange was positioned.

McKee had one awesome save 8 minutes into the third. The puck was airborne, headed straight up after a blocked shot, Mckee turned around thinking it was behind, lost sight, it came down about 20 feet in front of the net in traffic, there must have been a pattern he saw even if not the shot coming, and McKee reflexively stuck out his left skate and pad and that's where the shot hit. Maybe lucky, maybe good. Come playoff time, he's going to be an asset.

[Trotsky]

[quote fenwick]Nope, they always start over with the remaining teams.  The idea is not to give a team a higher seeding in a three-way tie than they would have gotten if the tie were between only two teams.[/quote]

That may be the idea, but if the three-way tie is caused by A>B, B>C, C>A, and A wins the first pass tiebreaker, then they have indeed been placed higher than C than they would have if it had only been a two-way tie.

It is totally arbitrary that if you get a first pass rank ordering of, say, A, C, B, you wouldn't just stick with it.  Having multiple passes is as silly as, say, using the first pass to determine the *worst* finisher, and then going up the chain with the next passes.  In fact, that would make more sense, since you'd get a supposedly "better" ordering at the top, which one would think would matter more.

[andyw2100]

Three weeks ago tonight, after beating Colgate in Hamilton, did anyone here think that less than three weeks later we'd be discussing tiebreakers for fourth place?

[redhair34]

[quote andyw2100]Two weeks ago tonight, after beating Colgate in Hamilton, did anyone here think that less than two weeks later we'd be discussing tiebreakers for fourth place?[/quote]

Gosh no...watching McCutcheon score the GWG at Starr was definitely the highlight of the season so far.  If our team can get back to the level we were playing that weekend, we'll be in great shape.

[Trotsky]

[quote andyw2100]Three weeks ago tonight, after beating Colgate in Hamilton, did anyone here think that less than three weeks later we'd be discussing tiebreakers for fourth place?[/quote]

Did anyone think 75% of the on-the-ice-time of the defensemen would be in sick bay?

If anybody has a tradition of winning the ECACs from a non-pole position, it's Cornell.