2012-13 Polls Men & Women

Trotsky

RichH
I would have used CHN's history page

AHEM!

Edit: oh shit, that is incomplete too. But still...

Sorry, I only go there when I'm in the mood to spend a lot of time wading through your "data goulash."

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad
It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

Yes. Let's strive to be like Ferris St. They are truly a historical juggernaut of a program every school looks to emulate. What with all those NCAA tournament apparances. Both of them. With FSU sitting at 21 in the PWR, I treat their nice run last year as a "lightning in a bottle" tournament. Good for them, but wanting to trade CU's record for Ferris's is just silly. (NB: I would have used CHN's history page, but FSU hasn't been credited with their 2012 performance. Adam.)

Sorry, I didn't want to undercut your point, but I just had to comment on what a short-term memory people have about what constitutes a dominant, always-near-the-top national program. Ten years ago, everybody in the East wanted to be like UNH. Six years ago it was Maine, now it's BC. Teams hit cycles.

Yeah, Ferris was probably not the best example but by the metric I used they ranked higher (3 wins, 67% beats 2 wins and 40%). Here is the top 20 in order.

BC
Minn Duluth
Miami
Notre Dame
N. Dak
Mich
BU
Wisc.
Ferris
UNH
RIT
VT
Union
Minn.
Bemidgi
Yale
Cornell
Lowell
Denver
St Cloud

Let's face the facts, it has been 40 years since anyone has wanted to be like us.

Not really, as I posted on another thread about Mich football and the Bo Schembechler era, there are a lot of teams below us who would love to be like us. In fact, I think many Harvard fans, all 2, would trade with us. Which is why I can't understand why they continue to get such good talent, and it goes to waste. But that's a topic for a different thread.

I can name that thread in two words.

TWO words? You mean it's not pronounced "Harvardsucks"????

Towerroad

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad
It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

Yes. Let's strive to be like Ferris St. They are truly a historical juggernaut of a program every school looks to emulate. What with all those NCAA tournament apparances. Both of them. With FSU sitting at 21 in the PWR, I treat their nice run last year as a "lightning in a bottle" tournament. Good for them, but wanting to trade CU's record for Ferris's is just silly. (NB: I would have used CHN's history page, but FSU hasn't been credited with their 2012 performance. Adam.)

Sorry, I didn't want to undercut your point, but I just had to comment on what a short-term memory people have about what constitutes a dominant, always-near-the-top national program. Ten years ago, everybody in the East wanted to be like UNH. Six years ago it was Maine, now it's BC. Teams hit cycles.

Yeah, Ferris was probably not the best example but by the metric I used they ranked higher (3 wins, 67% beats 2 wins and 40%). Here is the top 20 in order.

BC
Minn Duluth
Miami
Notre Dame
N. Dak
Mich
BU
Wisc.
Ferris
UNH
RIT
VT
Union
Minn.
Bemidgi
Yale
Cornell
Lowell
Denver
St Cloud

Let's face the facts, it has been 40 years since anyone has wanted to be like us.

Not really, as I posted on another thread about Mich football and the Bo Schembechler era, there are a lot of teams below us who would love to be like us. In fact, I think many Harvard fans, all 2, would trade with us. Which is why I can't understand why they continue to get such good talent, and it goes to waste. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Harvard has 2 fans? That means they doubled their fan base.

Perhaps the better way to state the case is, "If you were a middling team with an institutional mandate to improve would you choose to emulate Cornell or some team on the top 10 of my list?"

Another way to ask the question is: Is there anyone on the top 10 list that plays the same sort of defense first, endless cycle, puck control hockey we want to play? I am asking for real here if they do we might reasonably ask what they are doing better than we are.

In broad strokes, Wisconsin, for sure. 2006 was like watching an intra-squad scrimmage with ridiculously high stakes, and the handful of more recent NCAA games I was able to catch suggested that they haven't changed their M.O. They are a lot better through the neutral zone than Cornell, but I don't know if that's game plan or talent. By reputation Notre Dame and UMD might qualify, but I've only seen parts of games featuring those teams.

What those teams are doing is they're giving scholarships and getting better talent, not necessarily in that order (although of course the former helps with the latter). It's possible that Cornell could do a better job of developing the talent it has, but what I saw up through about 2010 suggests otherwise. I haven't seen enough of the current Cornell teams to be able to comment on their development.

If the goal is to make Cornell a team with a legitimate national title shot every 2-4 years, it just won't happen. Cornell would have to leave the Ivy League first, and that's a lot bigger than hockey. Consistent title hopes are difficult to sustain for the Minnesotas of the world. Add in Ivy restrictions and you're looking at a real long shot before anybody has even gone out recruiting. I'm not saying Cornell Hockey has been performing at its absolute peak over the last 10-15 years, but it's pretty darn close.

I would love to see Schafer catch lightning in a bottle and get a national title run.

Tom Lento

Towerroad

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad
It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

Yes. Let's strive to be like Ferris St. They are truly a historical juggernaut of a program every school looks to emulate. What with all those NCAA tournament apparances. Both of them. With FSU sitting at 21 in the PWR, I treat their nice run last year as a "lightning in a bottle" tournament. Good for them, but wanting to trade CU's record for Ferris's is just silly. (NB: I would have used CHN's history page, but FSU hasn't been credited with their 2012 performance. Adam.)

Sorry, I didn't want to undercut your point, but I just had to comment on what a short-term memory people have about what constitutes a dominant, always-near-the-top national program. Ten years ago, everybody in the East wanted to be like UNH. Six years ago it was Maine, now it's BC. Teams hit cycles.

Yeah, Ferris was probably not the best example but by the metric I used they ranked higher (3 wins, 67% beats 2 wins and 40%). Here is the top 20 in order.

BC
Minn Duluth
Miami
Notre Dame
N. Dak
Mich
BU
Wisc.
Ferris
UNH
RIT
VT
Union
Minn.
Bemidgi
Yale
Cornell
Lowell
Denver
St Cloud

Let's face the facts, it has been 40 years since anyone has wanted to be like us.

Not really, as I posted on another thread about Mich football and the Bo Schembechler era, there are a lot of teams below us who would love to be like us. In fact, I think many Harvard fans, all 2, would trade with us. Which is why I can't understand why they continue to get such good talent, and it goes to waste. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Harvard has 2 fans? That means they doubled their fan base.

Perhaps the better way to state the case is, "If you were a middling team with an institutional mandate to improve would you choose to emulate Cornell or some team on the top 10 of my list?"

Another way to ask the question is: Is there anyone on the top 10 list that plays the same sort of defense first, endless cycle, puck control hockey we want to play? I am asking for real here if they do we might reasonably ask what they are doing better than we are.

In broad strokes, Wisconsin, for sure. 2006 was like watching an intra-squad scrimmage with ridiculously high stakes, and the handful of more recent NCAA games I was able to catch suggested that they haven't changed their M.O. They are a lot better through the neutral zone than Cornell, but I don't know if that's game plan or talent. By reputation Notre Dame and UMD might qualify, but I've only seen parts of games featuring those teams.

What those teams are doing is they're giving scholarships and getting better talent, not necessarily in that order (although of course the former helps with the latter). It's possible that Cornell could do a better job of developing the talent it has, but what I saw up through about 2010 suggests otherwise. I haven't seen enough of the current Cornell teams to be able to comment on their development.

If the goal is to make Cornell a team with a legitimate national title shot every 2-4 years, it just won't happen. Cornell would have to leave the Ivy League first, and that's a lot bigger than hockey. Consistent title hopes are difficult to sustain for the Minnesotas of the world. Add in Ivy restrictions and you're looking at a real long shot before anybody has even gone out recruiting. I'm not saying Cornell Hockey has been performing at its absolute peak over the last 10-15 years, but it's pretty darn close.

I would love to see Schafer catch lightning in a bottle and get a national title run.

I think we are roughly on the same page. The logical parts of our respective brains says that Cornell is and will continue to be roughly #15 in the country if we keep doing what we are doing. The reality is we are Tournament fodder.

Our hearts of course dream of a Championship.

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad
It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

I don't really think a new coach and staff is a steep price to pay for more success. In fact, I think it's about the cheapest way to get more success. Obviously, the other stuff ranges from somewhat to completely objectionable (or impossible in the case of the last one), but think a lot of people would be more than happy if firing Schafer resulted in a national success (for the record, I don't think it would).

jtn27

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad
It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

I don't really think a new coach and staff is a steep price to pay for more success. In fact, I think it's about the cheapest way to get more success. Obviously, the other stuff ranges from somewhat to completely objectionable (or impossible in the case of the last one), but think a lot of people would be more than happy if firing Schafer resulted in a national success (for the record, I don't think it would).

Thanks for adding that. Keeping a good/great coach in the ECAC, say nothing of Ivy, is tough. Just look at Union. The first year of great sucess, he's off to Providence. Where he's doing a good job, so far.

We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

jtn27

Towerroad

Trotsky

Towerroad
It is an open question in my mind as to whether we want to pay the price to move up on the list.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Here are a few. I think you will see why I made the comment

New Coach and Staff
Build a Hockey Pleasure Palace
Lower Academic Standards for Recruits
Leave the Ivy League
Offer Athletic Scholarships
Dig up Ned and see if we could get a little DNA

So, we are what we are a middling good hockey program. In a good year we are Tournament fodder. I am not sure we want to pay the price to be like N.DAK or BU or Ferris.

I don't really think a new coach and staff is a steep price to pay for more success. In fact, I think it's about the cheapest way to get more success. Obviously, the other stuff ranges from somewhat to completely objectionable (or impossible in the case of the last one), but think a lot of people would be more than happy if firing Schafer resulted in a national success (for the record, I don't think it would).

Yep. It's a simple equation, really. New coaching staff = instant success. Just ask the Cornell football team.

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

We seem very schizophrenic, we want to be thought of as a serious program with national ambitions but when we compare our selves we always look at the ECAC. There is nobody from the ECAC on my top 10 list. Union is the highest at #13. If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

Towerroad

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

We seem very schizophrenic, we want to be thought of as a serious program with national ambitions but when we compare our selves we always look at the ECAC. There is nobody from the ECAC on my top 10 list. Union is the highest at #13. If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. I just hope we can win a game.

Towerroad
If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

It doesn't follow that if we compare ourselves against the ECAC we can't also compare ourselves against the NCAA. We are 8-9 against opponents in the NCAAs since 1996. None of those teams were from the ECAC. That's a rough 50/50 against the very best opposition college hockey can provide. Not dominant, but not shabby by any stretch.

The comparison with the rest of the ECAC, and with the other Ivies in particular, provides the only meaningful standard for what is possible given the additional academic hurdles for those subsets of teams. We will never be North Dakota and accept every athlete who can sign his name. We will never be BC and hand every freshman a degree. The only other schools with the degree of rigor that we impose on our student-athletes are the other ECAC members, and you get an idea of what's possible when you look at their success. We are blowing that standard out of the water.

I'd LOVE to see us win an NCAA title -- I'm one of the oldest people on the board who hasn't seen that, and note to team: I'm not getting any younger! But I also don't think that sticking your chest out and bellowing "We can do better!" constitutes a CONOPS, and I have not seen one tangible suggestion about what we could be doing that we are not, short of turning the meteorology students loose on improving the Ithaca weather.

css228

Towerroad

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

We seem very schizophrenic, we want to be thought of as a serious program with national ambitions but when we compare our selves we always look at the ECAC. There is nobody from the ECAC on my top 10 list. Union is the highest at #13. If we want to be honest with ourselves AND want to think about Cornell Hockey as a serious national program then we need to start comparing ourselves to the best programs in the nation and that those are not the ones we play against in our league.

Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. I just hope we can win a game.

You play. To win. The game.

Towerroad

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more. Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in. 2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem? Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward. All I can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs. This coach has done that over half the time. How many coaches can say that?

RichH
I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed. And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

Robb

RichH
I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed. And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

No, right now I'm beeatching that he is presiding over a team that nearly made the Frozen Four last year, but is now all but in the bottom four of the ECAC, despite only losing four players to graduation.

css228

Robb

RichH
I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed. And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

No, right now I'm beeatching that he is presiding over a team that nearly made the Frozen Four last year, but is now all but in the bottom four of the ECAC, despite only losing four players to graduation.

I think you mean "a team that barely made the ncaa tournament, got lucky to have beat a no. 1 seed before losing a regional final few thought they would make and us now struggling in a conference with a few teams that are at least as good if not clearly better than they are."

Last year's team wasn't exactly the second coming of 1970.

RichH

Towerroad

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more. Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in. 2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem? Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward. All I can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs. This coach has done that over half the time. How many coaches can say that?

I have a particular aversion to the "anything can happen", "bounce of the puck" argument. Sure there is a random component and there is a reason why the games are played. The random component works in our favor just as much as it works against us. I do not believe in bad luck or good luck. Every bad bounce for us is a good bounce for our opponent and vice versa.

The reason I did the analysis was to try and understand where our program stands in the recent past. I come to the following conclusions:

1. The definition of a successful Cornell season is making it to the regional championship game.

2. Our program in recent years is reasonably ranked at about #15 nationally. We are not among college hockey's elites.

3. The only other comparable team that plays under the same constraint we do is Yale and they have the same 5 yr NCAA record we do.

4. The Coach may in fact be doing as well as can be reasonably be expected given the constraints (Academic, Scholarship, Number of Games, League) that he operates under. Certainly there is no example of any other coach in the Ivy's in recent time that has produced more.

This years team performance to date is well off where our long term expectations should be. Since the Coach recruits the players, trains the players, sets the roster and lines, determines the style of play, and is paid to produce results he should be held accountable for this deviation from our longer term performance.

Like everyone on this page I hope the coach rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more. Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in. 2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem? Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward. All I can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs. This coach has done that over half the time. How many coaches can say that?

I have a particular aversion to the "anything can happen", "bounce of the puck" argument. Sure there is a random component and there is a reason why the games are played. The random component works in our favor just as much as it works against us. I do not believe in bad luck or good luck. Every bad bounce for us is a good bounce for our opponent and vice versa.

The reason I did the analysis was to try and understand where our program stands in the recent past. I come to the following conclusions:

1. The definition of a successful Cornell season is making it to the regional championship game.

2. Our program in recent years is reasonably ranked at about #15 nationally. We are not among college hockey's elites.

3. The only other comparable team that plays under the same constraint we do is Yale and they have the same 5 yr NCAA record we do.

4. The Coach may in fact be doing as well as can be reasonably be expected given the constraints (Academic, Scholarship, Number of Games, League) that he operates under. Certainly there is no example of any other coach in the Ivy's in recent time that has produced more.

This years team performance to date is well off where our long term expectations should be. Since the Coach recruits the players, trains the players, sets the roster and lines, determines the style of play, and is paid to produce results he should be held accountable for this deviation from our longer term performance.

Like everyone on this page I hope the coach rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

The people near me in section M at Lynah are starting to make noises that a new coach should be brought in. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but my question to them when considering a coaching change is: "Who can Cornell get that would do a better job?"

Seriously, who can CU lure in that would deal with the restrictions mentioned, accept the pay that would be offered (I assume that the compensation would be much less the say BU, Michigan, etc.) and can be reasonably expected do a better job? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I think would be willing to accept the job and that I would prefer to be the coach.

Chris '03

css228

Robb

RichH
I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

Indeed. And if that had been the case, but Cornell went on to lose the national semifinals in both of those years, then merely making the Frozen Four would be the "new normal" and people would be beeatching that Schafer couldn't break THAT ceiling to win the title.

No, right now I'm beeatching that he is presiding over a team that nearly made the Frozen Four last year, but is now all but in the bottom four of the ECAC, despite only losing four players to graduation.

I think you mean "a team that barely made the ncaa tournament, got lucky to have beat a no. 1 seed before losing a regional final few thought they would make and us now struggling in a conference with a few teams that are at least as good if not clearly better than they are."

Last year's team wasn't exactly the second coming of 1970.

How about "a team that missed out on the regular season title by two points last season and will be lucky to get a home playoff game if they keep as they have been". Other teams have gotten better, and we've gotten worse.

MattS
The people near me in section M at Lynah are starting to make noises that a new coach should be brought in. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but my question to them when considering a coaching change is: "Who can Cornell get that would do a better job?"

Seriously, who can CU lure in that would deal with the restrictions mentioned, accept the pay that would be offered (I assume that the compensation would be much less the say BU, Michigan, etc.) and can be reasonably expected do a better job? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I think would be willing to accept the job and that I would prefer to be the coach.

This is why I'm in the "Schafer, what happened? Figure it out" camp and not the "Schafer out" camp.

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad

Trotsky
We are not "tournament fodder." During Schafer's tenure we are 8-9 in the NCAAs. The rest of the current conference membership is 7-27 over that span.

Let me be clear what I mean by Tournament Fodder. Tournament fodder is a team that when they make the tournament plays in the regionals and then goes home. That is us for better and worse. We are not a program that makes the Frozen Four 2 or 3 years out of 10.

By that definition half of every Frozen Four is taken up by "tournament fodder." I know it's a cliche, but once you get to the NCAA, "anything can happen." That time of year, luck matters more. Those "bounces of the puck" happen more. Just about all the players/teams are playing at the top of their game and emptying the tank. You regularly see an RIT or Bemidji or Ferris slip in. 2003 is considered to be matter-of-factly "of course we made it that year," but I bet BC fans see 2003 differently. One weird bounce in either OT, and that's just another regional failure. I bet if you watched the '05 and '06 OTs, you would see a handful of times it could have gone the other way.

You make it sound like all we have is a regional final "ceiling" because that's all the coaching can give us. Since Schafer took the reins, Cornell has made seven NCAA regional finals. In six of them, the score has been tied in the 3rd period. Additionally, they've played in six overtime periods with a trip to the FF on the line, but the hypothesis is that it's a coaching problem? Think about it...a Schafer team advances to the regional final in 40% of his seasons here. I would bet every team in the country would sign up for that opportunity from this day forward. All I can ask of a coach is give a team the opportunity to go that deep, then it's up to the players to come through.

Look, my freshman year, we didn't even make the conference playoffs (one of three teams that didn't). Most of my college career, I dreamed about how amazing it would be just to MAKE the NCAAs. This coach has done that over half the time. How many coaches can say that?

I have a particular aversion to the "anything can happen", "bounce of the puck" argument. Sure there is a random component and there is a reason why the games are played. The random component works in our favor just as much as it works against us. I do not believe in bad luck or good luck. Every bad bounce for us is a good bounce for our opponent and vice versa.

The reason I did the analysis was to try and understand where our program stands in the recent past. I come to the following conclusions:

1. The definition of a successful Cornell season is making it to the regional championship game.

2. Our program in recent years is reasonably ranked at about #15 nationally. We are not among college hockey's elites.

3. The only other comparable team that plays under the same constraint we do is Yale and they have the same 5 yr NCAA record we do.

4. The Coach may in fact be doing as well as can be reasonably be expected given the constraints (Academic, Scholarship, Number of Games, League) that he operates under. Certainly there is no example of any other coach in the Ivy's in recent time that has produced more.

This years team performance to date is well off where our long term expectations should be. Since the Coach recruits the players, trains the players, sets the roster and lines, determines the style of play, and is paid to produce results he should be held accountable for this deviation from our longer term performance.

Like everyone on this page I hope the coach rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

I really like the points you've raised throughout this thread. Most years, and this one in particular, the rhetoric at the start of the year is "Watch out NCAA. We had an amazing recruiting class, our key players are back, and THIS is the year we will make a big splash." And things go well at first. And then the wheels fall off and we're forced to admit to our team's continued status as non-elite.

Do we have a good team? Sure! And I won't be surprised if we make it to the ECAC Semis or maybe the finals, or gods-be-willing even further. Are they playing up to and beyond their potential, showing the excitement, commitment and passion required of a Top5 or Top10 team? Absolutely not. That's what I saw when Douglas anchored our D and we rivaled Minnesota, Wisconsin, BC, UNH etc, and is what's been missing in Ithaca the past xx years.

Towerroad
Like everyone on this page I hope the coach [Schafer] rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

Tough crowd.

I went to TBRW and noticed the absence of a needed but missing set of data: number of elf.elynah posts plotted against points recorded the past 1, 2, or 3 weekends. There are way more posts and the knives come out when we're playing less than .667 hockey. Otherwise, the site is pretty complete.

billhoward

Towerroad
Like everyone on this page I hope the coach [Schafer] rights the ship. If not, I for one would not remove him this year. His long term record deserves the benefit of the doubt. Two years of this type of performance, however, would be a different story.

Tough crowd.

I went to TBRW and noticed the absence of a needed but missing set of data: number of elf.elynah posts plotted against points recorded the past 1, 2, or 3 weekends. There are way more posts and the knives come out when we're playing less than .667 hockey. Otherwise, the site is pretty complete.

An action passed is an action completed.

We are below the TUC line and falling.

Cornell has dropped out of even the Also Receiving Votes ranks this week. A long fall from the first post of the thread that has us No. 6 just behind the Wolverines. Quinnipiac, No. 20 then, is a solid No. 2 this week with 20 of the 50 first place votes.

The Cornell women are No. 4 in USCHO, No. 5 in coaches/USA Today.

[www.uscho.com] USCHO 2/4/13

[www.uscho.com] Coaches

Jim Hyla
We are below the TUC line and falling.

In the "game of inches" department, if you flip one DU game and the Yale game to wins, Cornell would be 17th in PW....

For what it's worth I'll continue to post them.

    

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
February 04, 2013
	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(30)	18- 4-4	978	1
2	Quinnipiac	(20)	19- 3-4	967	2
3	Miami		        17- 6-5	876	4
4	New Hampshire		16- 7-2	804	3
5	Boston College		15- 7-2	798	5
6	Western Michigan	17- 6-5	770	6
7	North Dakota		14- 8-6	659	7
8	St. Cloud State		17-10-1	603	12
9	Denver		        15- 8-4	596	10
10	Yale		        13- 6-3	587	8
11	Minnesota State		16- 9-3	421	15
11	Notre Dame		16-11-1	421	9
13	Boston University	13-10-1	412	11
14	Nebraska-Omaha		16-10-2	352	14
15	Niagara		        17- 4-5	328	17
16	Massachusetts-Lowell	14- 9-2	280	13
17	Dartmouth		11- 8-3	190	16
18	Union		        13- 8-5	168	18
19	Wisconsin		11- 9-6	97	19
20	Merrimack		12-10-5	61	NR
Others receiving votes: Alaska 46, Colgate 46, Ferris State 17, 
Providence 13, Ohio State 4, St. Lawrence 2, Bowling Green 1, Holy Cross 1, Northern Michigan 1.


Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA Men's Poll - Week 17: February 4, 2013
 	Team 	Points (First) Record Last Poll 
1  Minnesota	  494 (21)     18-4-4  1
2  Quinnipiac	  488 (13)     19-3-4  2
3  Miami	  427          17-6-5  3
4  Boston College 400          15-7-2  5
5  New Hampshire  375          16-7-2  4
6  Western Mich   337          17-6-5  6
7  North Dakota	  274          14-8-6  8
8  Denver	  240          15-8-4 10
9  Yale	          238          13-6-3  7
10 St. Cloud St   233          17-10-1 13
11 Boston Univer  149          13-10-1 9
12 Notre Dame	  104          16-11-1 11
13 Minnesota St    98          16-9-3  15
14 Niagara	   85          17-4-5  NR
15 Nebraska-Omaha  63          16-10-2 14

Others receiving votes: UMass-Lowell, 39; Union College, 12;
University of Alaska, 7; Dartmouth College, 7; 
Ferris State University, 6; Merrimack College, 3; Ohio State University, 1. 

 

Rk	Team	       PCWs	W-L-T	Win %	Rk	RPI	Rk
1	Quinnipiac	30	19-3-4	.808	1	.5846	1
2	Minnesota	29	18-4-4	.769	2	.5693	2
3	Miami	        27	17-6-5	.696	4t	.5623	3
4	Boston College	27	15-7-2	.667	7	.5525	5
5	New Hampshire	26	16-7-2	.680	6	.5580	4
6	Western Mich	25	17-6-5	.696	4t	.5491	7
7	Yale	        23	13-6-3	.659	8	.5497	6
8	St. Cloud State	22	17-10-1	.625	10t	.5443	8
9	Niagara	        21	17-4-5	.750	3	.5427	9
10	North Dakota	21	14-8-6	.607	12t	.5393	11
11	Denver	        18	15-8-4	.630	9	.5420	10
12	Minnesota State	17	16-9-3	.625	10t	.5349	12
13	Boston Univer	17	13-11-1	.540	22	.5251	18
14	Alaska-Fairbanks17	12-10-4	.538	23t	.5247	19
15	Dartmouth	16	11-8-3	.568	20	.5302	13
16	Notre Dame	16	16-11-1	.589	17	.5299	14
17	Colgate	        15	13-9-4	.577	18t	.5215	20
18	Mass.-Lowell	14	14-9-2	.600	14t	.5294	15
19	Union	        13	13-8-5	.596	16	.5266	17
20	Northern Mich	13	11-12-4	.481	31	.5128	23
21	Nebraska-Omaha	11	16-10-2	.607	12t	.5289	16
22	Wisconsin	9	11-9-6	.538	23t	.5167	21
23	Merrimack	8	12-10-5	.537	26	.5139	22
24	Ferris State	8	13-11-4	.536	27	.5126	24
25	Ohio State	6	11-11-6	.500	29t	.5122	25
26	Providence	5	10-10-5	.500	29t	.5081	26
27	Robert Morris	5	14-9-2	.600	14t	.5080	27
28	St. Lawrence	3	12-10-4	.538	23t	.5052	28
29	Rensselaer	2	10-11-5	.481	32t	.5045	29
30	Holy Cross	1	14-10-2	.577	18t	.5024	30
31	Massachusetts	0	10-12-2	.458	36	.5014	31
T U C   L i n e
	Brown		         8-9-5	.477	34	.4950	32

At least the Women can make us happy.
Yeah, OK, no double entendre.

   

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
February 04, 2013
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	28- 0-0	150	1
2	Boston College		20- 4-2	132	2
3	Boston University	18- 3-3	109	4
4	Cornell		        19- 4-0	104	5
5	Harvard		        17- 2-2	98	3
6	Clarkson		21- 7-0	67	6
7	Mercyhurst		21- 5-1	60	7
8	Wisconsin		15- 9-2	46	8
9	North Dakota		18-10-0	39	9
10	Minnesota-Duluth	13-10-3	14	10
Others receiving votes: Northeastern 3, St. Lawrence 2, Providence 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Week 17: Women's College Hockey Poll

USA Women's Poll - Week 17: Feb. 5, 2013
      Team   Points (First) Record Last Poll 
1  Minnesota      190 (19)  28-0-0   1
2  Boston College 170       20-4-2   2
3  Boston Univer  139       18-3-3   3
4  Cornell	  130       19-4-0   5
5  Harvard	  125       17-2-2   4
6  Clarkson	   91       21-7-0   6
7  Mercyhurst	   80       21-5-1   7
8  North Dakota	   52       18-10-0  9
9  Wisconsin	   43       15-9-2   8
10 Minn Duluth	   14       13-10-3 10

Others receiving votes: St. Lawrence University, 7; 
Northeastern University, 3; Providence College, 1.

Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings

Rank	Team	        PWR	W-L-T	Win %	Win % Rank	RPI	RPI Rank	vs. TUC	TUC %
1	Minnesota	11	28-0-0	1.000	1	.7391*	1	14-0-0	1.000
2	Boston College	10	20-4-2	.8077	6	.6322*	2	9-3-1	.7308
3	Boston Univer    9	18-3-3	.8125	5	.6296*	4	6-2-3	.6818
4	Cornell	         8	19-4-0	.8261	4	.6308*	3	7-4-0	.6364
5	Harvard	         7	17-2-2	.8571	3	.6215*	5	3-2-0	.6000
6	Clarkson	 6	21-7-0	.7500	8	.5936*	6	7-6-0	.5385
7	Mercyhurst	 5	21-5-1	.7963	7	.5835*	7	2-3-0	.4000
8	North Dakota	 4	18-10-0	.6429	9	.5653*	8	4-8-0	.3333
9	Wisconsin	 3	15-9-2	.6154	10	.5636*	9	3-7-0	.3000
10	Minnesota-Duluth 2	13-10-3	.5577	17	.5539	10	3-7-2	.3333
11	St. Lawrence	 1	15-11-2	.5714	16	.5435	11	2-10-0	.1667
12	Northeastern	 0	14-10-2	.5769	15	.5370	12	1-9-0	.1000

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Q is first in USCHO poll. I'll post them later. Beating us is what did it.

Jim Hyla
Q is first in USCHO poll. I'll post them later. Beating us is what did it.

Be nice if an ECAC team brought glory to the ECAC in the NCAAs (say, by winning it). Yale and Union had their chances. Cornell last year.

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Q is first in USCHO poll. I'll post them later. Beating us is what did it.

Be nice if an ECAC team brought glory to the ECAC in the NCAAs (say, by winning it). Yale and Union had their chances. Cornell last year.

Be even nicer if I wake up tomorrow and this is all some crazy nightmare. Was hoping for that on Groundhog's day, too.

marty
Be even nicer if I wake up tomorrow and this is all some crazy nightmare. Was hoping for that on Groundhog's day, too.

These are the years that make the other ones so great.

Trotsky

marty
Be even nicer if I wake up tomorrow and this is all some crazy nightmare. Was hoping for that on Groundhog's day, too.

These are the years that make the other ones so great.

Greg, every time you post a link to your site, I end up seeing the same thing, the front page. I'm not using some exotic browser (Chrome) or configuration (OS X and Linux). It works with Firefox, but not with Chrome. Any ideas why?

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

marty
Be even nicer if I wake up tomorrow and this is all some crazy nightmare. Was hoping for that on Groundhog's day, too.

These are the years that make the other ones so great.

Greg, every time you post a link to your site, I end up seeing the same thing, the front page. I'm not using some exotic browser (Chrome) or configuration (OS X and Linux). It works with Firefox, but not with Chrome. Any ideas why?

The pages include the following javascript in the header that puts them back inside the top frame to ensure that the menubar is displayed. Perhaps Chrome doesn't support it? (I would think it would.)

<script type="text/javascript">
function loadInFrame() {
	var framePage = "[www.tbrw.info"]; 
	if (top.location == self.location)
	{
		window.location = framePage +'?'+ window.location.pathname
	}
}//end of loadInFrame()
</script>

...



<BODY onload="loadInFrame()">

I'm also using Chrome and it goes to the Games Over/Under .500 page for me. I'm on Chrome on OSX 10.8 - not sure if that makes a difference compared to what Kyle's running.

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
February 11, 2013
	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Quinnipiac	(41)	21- 3-4	983	2
2	Minnesota	( 9)	19- 5-4	949	1
3	Miami		        18- 7-5	874	3
4	Boston College		16- 7-2	819	5
5	New Hampshire		16- 7-3	779	4
6	Western Michigan	18- 7-5	748	6
7	North Dakota		16- 8-6	720	7
8	St. Cloud State		18-11-1	657	8
9	Minnesota State		18- 9-3	559	11
10	Yale		        13- 6-3	557	10
11	Denver		        15- 9-5	495	9
12	Notre Dame		18-11-1	478	11
13	Boston University	13-11-1	331	13
14	Massachusetts-Lowell	14- 9-2	317	16
15	Niagara		        18- 5-5	299	15
16	Nebraska-Omaha		16-12-2	274	14
17	Dartmouth		11- 8-4	216	17
18	Wisconsin		12- 9-7	158	19
19	Merrimack		13-10-5	151	20
20	Alaska		        13-11-4	57	NR
Others receiving votes: Union 40, Providence 16, Ferris State 12, 
Northern Michigan 5, Colgate 2, St. Lawrence 2, Holy Cross 1, Rensselaer 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA Men's Poll - Week 18: February 11, 2013
 	Team      Points (First) Record Last Poll 
1   Quinnipiac	     503 (28)    21-3-4   2
2   Minnesota	     470 (6)     19-5-4   1
3   Miami	     424         18-7-5   3
4   Boston College   402         16-7-2   4
5   New Hampshire    377         16-7-3   5
6   Western Michigan 338         18-7-5   6
7   North Dakota     316         16-8-6   7
8   St. Cloud State  259         18-11-1 10
9   Yale	     238         13-6-3   9
10  Minnesota State  185         18-9-3  13
11  Denver	     164         15-9-5   8
12  Notre Dame	     136         18-11-1 12
13  Boston University 78         13-11-1 11
14  Niagara	      70         18-5-5  14
15  UMass-Lowell      55         14-9-2  NR

Others receiving votes:University of Nebraska-Omaha, 29; 
Dartmouth College, 13; Merrimack College, 9; University of Alaska, 7; 
University of Wisconsin, 7.

PWR
Rk	Team	       PCWs	W-L-T	Win %	Rk	RPI	Rk
1	Quinnipiac	30	21-3-4	.821	1	.5884	1
2	Minnesota	29	19-5-4	.750	2	.5680	2
3	Miami	        27	18-7-5	.683	4t	.5577	3
4	Boston College	27	16-7-2	.680	6	.5524	5
5	New Hampshire	26	16-7-3	.673	7	.5548	4
6	North Dakota	25	16-8-6	.633	10	.5466	7
7	Western Michigan24	18-7-5	.683	4t	.5459	8
8	Yale	        23	13-6-3	.659	8	.5502	6
9	St. Cloud State	23	18-11-1	.617	11t	.5451	9
10	Minnesota State	19	18-9-3	.650	9	.5412	10
11	Niagara	        19	18-5-5	.732	3	.5381	11
12	Denver	        18	15-9-5	.603	13	.5348	12
13	Notre Dame	17	18-11-1	.617	11t	.5340	13
14	Alaska-Fairbanks17	13-11-4	.536	23t	.5237	16
15	Boston Univer	17	13-12-1	.519	28	.5175	18
16	Dartmouth	14	11-8-4	.565	18	.5287	14
17	Mass.-Lowell	14	14-9-2	.600	14	.5286	15
18	Northern Mich	12	12-13-4	.483	33	.5117	24
19	Nebraska-Omaha	11	16-12-2	.567	17	.5189	17
20	Merrimack	11	13-10-5	.554	19t	.5172	19
21	Union	        11	13-10-5	.554	19t	.5152	21
22	Wisconsin	 9	12-9-7	.554	19t	.5164	20
23	Rensselaer	 9	12-11-5	.518	29	.5142	22
24	Ferris State	 8	14-12-4	.533	27	.5135	23
25	Colgate	         7	13-11-4	.536	23t	.5116	25
26	Ohio State	 6	12-12-6	.500	30t	.5111	26
27	Providence	 4	10-10-6	.500	30t	.5086	27
28	St. Lawrence	 4	13-11-4	.536	23t	.5060	28
29	Holy Cross	 2	14-10-2	.577	15	.5045	29
30	Robert Morris	 2	15-11-2	.571	16	.5013	30
31	Colorado College 0	11-14-5	.450	37t	.5002	31
T U C   L i n e
	Brown		         8-9-5	.477	35	.4967	32
	Princeton		 9-10-4	.478	34	.4958	33
	Massachusetts		10-13-2	.440	43	.4948	34
	Mercyhurst		14-11-3	.554	19t	.4941	35
	Bowling Green		11-14-5	.450	37t	.4923	36
	Air Force		12-10-7	.534	26	.4879	37
	Lake Superior		13-16-1	.450	37t	.4845	38
	Connecticut		12-12-3	.500	30t	.4841	39
	Cornell		         8-13-2	.391	47	.4815	40

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
February 11, 2013
	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	30- 0-0	150	1
2	Boston College		21- 4-2	134	2
3	Boston University	18- 4-3	109	3
4	Cornell		        20- 5-0	104	4
5	Harvard		        17- 3-2	82	5
6	Clarkson		23- 7-0	76	6
7	Wisconsin		17- 9-2	50	8
8	North Dakota		20-10-0	49	9
9	Mercyhurst		22- 6-1	43	7
10	Northeastern		15-10-2	17	NR
Others receiving votes: Minnesota-Duluth 9, Quinnipiac 2.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA Women's Poll - Week 18: Feb. 12, 2013  
     Team    Points (First) Record Last Poll 
1  Minnesota	190 (19)    30-0-0   1
2  Boston Coll 171          21-4-2   2
3  Boston Univ 139          18-4-3   3
4  Cornell	126         20-5-0   4
5  Harvard	107         17-3-2   5
6  Clarkson	101         23-7-0   6
7  North Dakota	 63         20-10-0  8
8  Mercyhurst	 61         22-6-1   7
9  Wisconsin	 43         17-9-2   9
10 Northeastern	 18         15-10-0 NR
Others receiving votes: Minnesota Duluth, 10; Quinnipiac, 6.

Rank	Team	        PWR	W-L-T	Win %	Win % Rank	RPI	RPI Rank	vs. TUC	TUC %
1	Minnesota	11	30-0-0	1.000	1	.7310*	1	12-0-0	1.000
2	Boston College	10	21-4-2	.8148	4	.6353*	2	10-3-1	.7500
3	Boston Univer    9	18-4-3	.7800	6	.6173*	3	6-3-3	.6250
4	Cornell	         8	20-5-0	.8000	5	.6167*	4	5-5-0	.5000
5	Harvard	         7	17-3-2	.8182	3	.6108*	5	4-3-0	.5714
6	Clarkson	 6	23-7-0	.7667	8	.5943*	6	5-5-0	.5000
7	Mercyhurst	 5	22-6-1	.7759	7	.5770*	7	3-3-1	.5000
8	North Dakota	 4	20-10-0	.6667	9	.5676*	8	4-8-0	.3333
9	Wisconsin	 3	17-9-2	.6429	10	.5675*	9	3-7-0	.3000
10	Minnesota-Duluth 2	14-11-3	.5536	17	.5488	10	3-7-2	.3333
11	Quinnipiac	 1	17-9-3	.6379	11	.5464*	11	1-6-1	.1875
12	Northeastern	 0	15-10-2	.5926	14	.5462*	12	2-8-0	.2000

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Chrome for PC and Mac both work fine for me.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

marty
Be even nicer if I wake up tomorrow and this is all some crazy nightmare. Was hoping for that on Groundhog's day, too.

These are the years that make the other ones so great.

Greg, every time you post a link to your site, I end up seeing the same thing, the front page. I'm not using some exotic browser (Chrome) or configuration (OS X and Linux). It works with Firefox, but not with Chrome. Any ideas why?

The pages include the following javascript in the header that puts them back inside the top frame to ensure that the menubar is displayed. Perhaps Chrome doesn't support it? (I would think it would.)

<script type="text/javascript">
function loadInFrame() {
	var framePage = "[www.tbrw.info"]; 
	if (top.location == self.location)
	{
		window.location = framePage +'?'+ window.location.pathname
	}
}//end of loadInFrame()
</script>

...



<BODY onload="loadInFrame()">

I see something different:

<script type="text/javascript">
function setPage() {
	if (location.search)
	{
		var mypage = location.search.substring(1,location.search.length);
		TBRWViewer.location=mypage;
Uncaught ReferenceError: TBRWViewer is not defined
	}

} //end of setPage()
</script>

That "Uncaught ReferenceError" is an inline exception notification in the Chrome debugger. The problem is the script is being run before the TBRWViewer frame is available. I think you might be onloading from the wrong point (the frameset instead of the frame)? I'm not sure: this crap is tricky.

That said, writing Javascript directly to the browser's terrible event interface is frowned upon these days. You may want to look into replacing what you have with jQuery: it'll do exactly what you want on every browser without any tweaking, and it will greatly simplify whatever code you have in there. It also has plugins and modules to do some neat visualization that I think you in particular would love.

Kyle Rose
That said, writing Javascript directly to the browser's terrible event interface is frowned upon these days. You may want to look into replacing what you have with jQuery: it'll do exactly what you want on every browser without any tweaking, and it will greatly simplify whatever code you have in there. It also has plugins and modules to do some neat visualization that I think you in particular would love.

Thank you, I will check it out.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

marty
Be even nicer if I wake up tomorrow and this is all some crazy nightmare. Was hoping for that on Groundhog's day, too.

These are the years that make the other ones so great.

Greg, every time you post a link to your site, I end up seeing the same thing, the front page. I'm not using some exotic browser (Chrome) or configuration (OS X and Linux). It works with Firefox, but not with Chrome. Any ideas why?

On my Windows 8 with Chrome, I get both the front page showing for a half second and then the page that you linked to. Same thing with my Android tablet and Chrome but the switch to the correct page takes just a bit longer.

marty
On my Windows 8 with Chrome, I get both the front page showing for a half second and then the page that you linked to. Same thing with my Android tablet and Chrome but the switch to the correct page takes just a bit longer.

There is a very brief flash in the frame transition on my set up (Windows 8 with either Firefox or Chrome).

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
That said, writing Javascript directly to the browser's terrible event interface is frowned upon these days. You may want to look into replacing what you have with jQuery: it'll do exactly what you want on every browser without any tweaking, and it will greatly simplify whatever code you have in there. It also has plugins and modules to do some neat visualization that I think you in particular would love.

Thank you, I will check it out.

Better yet, use MooTools. I'm sure there's something Kyle and I agree on. Just haven't found it yet. Even better yet, don't use frames.

CowbellGuy
Even better yet, don't use frames.

I didn't want to be the person to say it...

CowbellGuy
Even better yet, don't use frames.

I am only a caveman. Your HTML5 frightens and confuses me.

CowbellGuy
Better yet, use MooTools. I'm sure there's something Kyle and I agree on. Just haven't found it yet. Even better yet, don't use frames.

I'm sure MooTools is fine; I'm just familiar with jQuery from having used it for several projects. I think we probably both agree that writing directly to the browser's API is a bad idea.

CowbellGuy
I'm sure there's something Kyle and I agree on. Just haven't found it yet.

I thought of one.

Polls out, Q first and in PWR. Women are fourth in poll and third in PWR. I'll post them later, or tomorrow.

So I decided to post the polls even though they mean nothing to us.

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
February 18, 2013

	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Quinnipiac	(34)	22- 4-4	974	1
2	Minnesota	(15)	20- 6-4	958	2
3	Miami		        19- 8-5	889	3
4	Boston College	( 1)	17- 8-3	826	4
5	New Hampshire		16- 8-4	757	5
6	North Dakota		16- 8-6	740	7
7	St. Cloud State		18-11-1	684	8
8	Western Michigan	18- 8-6	657	6
9	Minnesota State		20- 9-3	651	9
10	Denver		        15- 9-5	510	11
11	Notre Dame		19-12-1	491	12
12	Massachusetts-Lowell	16- 9-2	410	14
13	Yale		        13- 9-3	352	10
14	Nebraska-Omaha		18-12-2	333	16
15	Boston University	14-12-2	299	13
16	Niagara		        19- 6-5	243	15
17	Merrimack		14-10-6	230	19
18	Wisconsin		13-10-7	175	18
19	Dartmouth		12- 9-4	130	17
20	Union		        15-10-5	97	NR

Others receiving votes: Rensselaer 34, St. Lawrence 20, Providence 19,
Ferris State 9, Ohio State 7, Alaska 4, Colgate 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA Men's Poll - Week 19: February 18, 2013

   Team         Points (First) Record Last Poll 
1  Quinnipiac	   502 (26)   22-4-4   1
2  Minnesota	   480 (8)    20-6-4   2
3  Miami	   430        19-8-5   3
4  Boston College  407        17-8-3   4
5  New Hampshire   361        16-8-4   5
6  North Dakota	   324        16-8-6   7
7  Western Mich    276        18-7-5   6
8  St. Cloud State 269        18-11-1  8
9  Minnesota State 266        20-9-3  10
10 Denver	   186        15-9-5  11
11 Notre Dame	   164        19-12-1 12
12 UMass-Lowell	   112        16-9-2  15
13 Boston Univer    80        14-12-2 13
14 Yale	            76        13-6-3   9
15 Niagara	    44        19-6-5  14

Others receiving votes:Merrimack College, 37; University of Nebraska-Omaha, 28; 
Union College, 19; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 9; Dartmouth College, 6; 
University of Wisconsin, 3; Providence College, 1.

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
February 18, 2013

	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	32- 0-0	150	1
2	Boston College		23- 5-2	127	2
3	Cornell		        21- 5-1	116	4
4	Boston University	20- 5-3	95	3
5	Harvard		        19- 4-2	92	5
6	Wisconsin		19- 9-2	66	7
7	Clarkson		24- 8-0	57	6
8	North Dakota		22-10-0	54	8
9	Mercyhurst		24- 6-1	39	9
10	Northeastern		18-10-2	28	10

Others receiving votes: Minnesota-Duluth 1.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA Women's Poll - Week 18: Feb. 19, 2013

       Team   Points (First) Record  Last Poll 
1  Minnesota	190 (19)     32-0-0   1
2  Boston Col   168          23-5-2   2
3  Cornell	146          21-5-1   4
4  Boston Univ  119          20-4-3   3
5  Harvard	115          19-4-2   5
6  Clarkson	 78          24-8-0   6
7  North Dakota	 75          22-10-0  7
8  Wisconsin	 69          19-9-2   9
9  Mercyhurst	 53          24-6-1   8
10 Northeastern	 31          18-10-2 10

Others receiving votes: Minnesota Duluth, 1.

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
February 25, 2013

	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Quinnipiac	(37)	23- 4-5	975	1
2	Minnesota	(10)	21- 6-5	948	2
3	Miami	        ( 2)	21- 8-5	907	3
4	Boston College	( 1)	18- 8-3	835	4
5	New Hampshire		17- 8-5	770	5
6	North Dakota		17- 9-6	734	6
7	St. Cloud State		19-12-1	670	7
8	Western Michigan	18- 8-8	650	8
9	Minnesota State		20- 9-3	635	9
10	Denver		        16-10-5	515	10
11	Notre Dame		19-12-3	489	11
12	Massachusetts-Lowell	18- 9-2	487	12
13	Nebraska-Omaha		18-12-2	356	14
14	Niagara		        21- 6-5	335	16
15	Yale		        14-10-3	323	13
16	Wisconsin		14-10-7	237	18
17	Merrimack		14-11-6	199	17
18	Dartmouth		13-10-4	119	19
19	Boston University	14-14-2	112	15
20	Providence		13-10-7	80	NR

Others receiving votes: Rensselaer 57, St. Lawrence 36, 
Union 14, Ferris State 12, Alaska 3, Robert Morris 2.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

USA Men's Poll - Week 20: February 25, 2013
  
        Team      Points (First) Record Last Poll 
1  Quinnipiac	     506 (30)   23-4-5    1
2  Minnesota	     471 (3)    21-6-5    2
3  Miami	     447 (1)    21-8-5    3
4  Boston College    406        18-8-3    4
5  New Hampshire     368        17-8-5    5
6  North Dakota	     333        17-9-6    6
7  Minnesota State   261        20-9-3    9
8  Western Michigan  260        18-8-8    7
9  St. Cloud State   257        19-12-1   8
10 UMass-Lowell	     179        18-9-2   12  
11 Denver	     166        16-10-5  10  
12 Notre Dame	     134        19-12-3  11
13 Niagara	     107        21-6-5   15
14 Yale	              82        14-10-3  14  
15 Nebraska-Omaha     50        18-12-2  NR

Others receiving votes:Merrimack College, 24; Providence College, 12; 
Dartmouth College, 8; University of Wisconsin, 6; Boston University, 2; 
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1.

USCHO.com Division I Women's Poll
February 25, 2013

	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Minnesota	(15)	34- 0-0	150	1
2	Cornell		        23- 5-1	127	3
3	Boston College		25- 5-3	125	2
4	Boston University	23- 5-3	98	4
5	Clarkson		26- 8-0	84	7
6	Wisconsin		21- 9-2	65	6
7	Harvard		        20- 5-3	62	5
8	North Dakota		23-10-1	49	8
9	Mercyhurst		26- 6-1	38	9
10	Northeastern		21-10-2	27	10
Others receiving votes:

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Women's Poll - Week 20: Feb. 26, 2013

 	Team  Points (First) Record   Last Poll 
1  Minnesota	 190 (19)    34-0-0   1
2  Cornell	 163         23-5-1   3
3  Boston Coll   159         25-5-3   2
4  Boston Univer 118         23-4-3   4
5  Clarkson	 104         26-8-0   6
6  Harvard	  82         20-5-3   5
7  Wisconsin	  77         21-9-2   8
8  North Dakota	  64         23-10-1  7
9  Mercyhurst	  50         26-6-1   9
10 Northeastern	  35         21-10-2 10

Others receiving votes: Minnesota Duluth, 2; Quinnipiac, 1.

There, I'm done. Two weeks worth. Don't ask why. I need

Men are still unranked going into Quinnipiac. I expected a stray vote or two.

And yet Michigan got 3 votes?

The men's polls have marched forward through 3/25 without any votes for Cornell. I was kinda hoping for a stray vote just for the hell of it.