Cornell - Northeastern

So, we've got a game coming up, huh?

Galajda is doubtful for the Huskies. Boo.

ugarte
So, we've got a game coming up, huh?

Galajda is doubtful for the Huskies. Boo.

Not surprising, unfortunately. Hopefully McGrath can replicate his performance against Harvard at Lynch East.

scoop85
Hopefully McGrath can replicate his performance against Harvard at Lynch East.

Tonight on "Unfortunate Autocorrect"

playoffstatus calculates the following probabilities:

     1R QF SF  F
Qpc  56 27 14 06
Clk  54 25 10 05
Cor  45 20 09 04
Hvd  39 19 07 03

Trotsky
playoffstatus calculates the following probabilities:

     1R QF SF  F
Qpc  56 27 14 06
Clk  54 25 10 05
Cor  45 20 09 04
Hvd  39 19 07 03

I personally think Qpc probability for 1R should be significantly higher.

toddlose

Trotsky
playoffstatus calculates the following probabilities:

     1R QF SF  F
Qpc  56 27 14 06
Clk  54 25 10 05
Cor  45 20 09 04
Hvd  39 19 07 03

I personally think Qpc probability for 1R should be significantly higher.

Agreed. ASU is likely the 2nd weakest team in the field

scoop85

toddlose

Trotsky
playoffstatus calculates the following probabilities:

     1R QF SF  F
Qpc  56 27 14 06
Clk  54 25 10 05
Cor  45 20 09 04
Hvd  39 19 07 03

I personally think Qpc probability for 1R should be significantly higher.

Agreed. ASU is likely the 2nd weakest team in the field

Lines just came out on William hill site. Qpac is -200 money line.

Seems an appropriate time to remind folks what happened when Touchdown met a husky in 1915.
"At the Cornell vs. Pennsylvania game of 1915, Touchdown was led out on the football field to meet the Penn mascot of the day, a large Husky. Just after this photo was taken, Touchdown raised his paw and smacked the other animal hard enough to send it tumbling to the ground."

Bahnstorm

REX036_087.jpg

Seems an appropriate time to remind folks what happened when Touchdown met a husky in 1915.
"At the Cornell vs. Pennsylvania game of 1915, Touchdown was led out on the football field to meet the Penn mascot of the day, a large Husky. Just after this photo was taken, Touchdown raised his paw and smacked the other animal hard enough to send it tumbling to the ground."

Where was PETA when you needed them

cornell was 20-1 last week to win title

upprdeck
cornell was 20-1 last week to win title

And?

i got the 20-1 which is good . not there this week to see if it changed though

upprdeck
i got the 20-1 which is good . not there this week to see if it changed though

Currently 18-1

They are 25:1 by the .04 odds above.

Not being a betting person at all this is probably a dumb question. When Cornell is 18-to-1 to win can you bet against that event (win $1 or pay out $18)? If so I would think you could get rich just betting against popular teams based on their delusional-fan-goosed odds.

But I'm still never betting on anything.

Trotsky
They are 25:1 by the .04 odds above.

Not being a betting person at all this is probably a dumb question. When Cornell is 18-to-1 to win can you bet against that event (win $1 or pay out $18)? If so I would think you could get rich just betting against popular teams based on their delusional-fan-goosed odds.

But I'm still never betting on anything.

Sports books set their odds with such delusions in mind - but more importantly, they also reserve the right to change the odds on the fly if the betting skews one particular direction (e.g., because the delusions are stronger than usual). Changing the odds doesn't affect the odds early bettors got, but it affects the odds for new bets, so don't worry, they're pretty sure always to make a profit, and you're pretty sure to end up in the hole.

Beeeej

Trotsky
They are 25:1 by the .04 odds above.

Not being a betting person at all this is probably a dumb question. When Cornell is 18-to-1 to win can you bet against that event (win $1 or pay out $18)? If so I would think you could get rich just betting against popular teams based on their delusional-fan-goosed odds.

But I'm still never betting on anything.

Sports books set their odds with such delusions in mind - but more importantly, they also reserve the right to change the odds on the fly if the betting skews one particular direction (e.g., because the delusions are stronger than usual). Changing the odds doesn't affect the odds early bettors got, but it affects the odds for new bets, so don't worry, they're pretty sure always to make a profit, and you're pretty sure to end up in the hole.

I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

Trotsky

Beeeej

Trotsky
They are 25:1 by the .04 odds above.

Not being a betting person at all this is probably a dumb question. When Cornell is 18-to-1 to win can you bet against that event (win $1 or pay out $18)? If so I would think you could get rich just betting against popular teams based on their delusional-fan-goosed odds.

But I'm still never betting on anything.

Sports books set their odds with such delusions in mind - but more importantly, they also reserve the right to change the odds on the fly if the betting skews one particular direction (e.g., because the delusions are stronger than usual). Changing the odds doesn't affect the odds early bettors got, but it affects the odds for new bets, so don't worry, they're pretty sure always to make a profit, and you're pretty sure to end up in the hole.

I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

Yeah but I made $12 last time I played poker.

Dafatone
Yeah but I made $12 last time I played poker.

I'll alert statisticians to consider that when defining expected value.

Trotsky

Beeeej

Trotsky
They are 25:1 by the .04 odds above.

Not being a betting person at all this is probably a dumb question. When Cornell is 18-to-1 to win can you bet against that event (win $1 or pay out $18)? If so I would think you could get rich just betting against popular teams based on their delusional-fan-goosed odds.

But I'm still never betting on anything.

Sports books set their odds with such delusions in mind - but more importantly, they also reserve the right to change the odds on the fly if the betting skews one particular direction (e.g., because the delusions are stronger than usual). Changing the odds doesn't affect the odds early bettors got, but it affects the odds for new bets, so don't worry, they're pretty sure always to make a profit, and you're pretty sure to end up in the hole.

I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

[www.cbsnews.com]

Does betting on college hockey rank higher or lower on the degenerate scale than, say, NFL preseason week 4 games?

Signed,
Craps degenerate

is betting $10 to win a game any different than going to a movie for $10? you get some emotional value from a movie, you may win thousands from a game and still get emotional value.

betting thinking you will win, probably not

betting as entertainment, its not any worse than drinking or movies or books.

as someone who is far enough ahead i can never get behind, i think gambling is great.

upprdeck
i think gambling is great.

Oh, so do I.

CU2007
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sports-bettor-billy-walters-winning-streak-13-01-2011/

Do you believe it, though? Or is it more likely that a particular businessman selectively alters/reports his numbers and that an industry which depends on people thinking that betting can have a positive ROI actively assists him?

Math + sociology + business tells me it's the latter.

if you listen to VSIN, the best of the best are lucky to win 55% of the time.

Trotsky

CU2007
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sports-bettor-billy-walters-winning-streak-13-01-2011/

Do you believe it, though? Or is it more likely that a particular businessman selectively alters/reports his numbers and that an industry which depends on people thinking that betting can have a positive ROI actively assists him?

Math + sociology + business tells me it's the latter.

I love conspiracy theories but no, I’m not buying that it’s all a massive fraud.

Playing poker is different than most other betting, because you are playing against other individuals and the house just takes a percentage of the pot, so if you are significantly better than the other players, over time, you can win.

In my youth I was in a season long pool in which each week you were given 20 games to pick against the spread. The top 3 players out of 80 managed to win enough to cover the vig, and would have beaten the bookie. The other 77 would lose to the bookie.

Soooo there's an important hockey game on Saturday. Has anyone seen northeastern play at all this year?

Chris '03
Soooo there's an important hockey game on Saturday. Has anyone seen northeastern play at all this year?

I've only seen clips, but I know they have two star players: defenseman Davies and goalie Primeau. They've won a lot of one-goal games, so they may be worse than their record suggests. (Meanwhile, Cornell has lost more one-goal games than they've won, so they may be better than their record.) Unfortunately, though, Cornell will be considerably shorthanded and NEU will not, as I am not aware of any of their players being injured.

They had that incredible offense at one point. Did they all graduate / jump?

Trotsky
They had that incredible offense at one point. Did they all graduate / jump?

Aston-Reese, Gaudette, Stevens, Sikura all gone.

The forwards did get Tyler Madden as a freshman - his father John Madden was very good in the NHL for a long time. Tyler may turn out better. Was on Team USA for World Juniors this year.

adamw

Trotsky
They had that incredible offense at one point. Did they all graduate / jump?

Aston-Reese, Gaudette, Stevens, Sikura all gone.

The forwards did get Tyler Madden as a freshman - his father John Madden was very good in the NHL for a long time. Tyler may turn out better. Was on Team USA for World Juniors this year.

Thanks.

did well in hockey east

Lost to union twice at home early on

struggled to beat RIT at home

Beat RPI 3-2 in a tourney

beat st cloud 3-2
split with Umass


lost to Uconn once

have 1 win vs a top 20 team since Nov 1st (1-4) we are 6-2-2 since Nov 1st..

upprdeck
did well in hockey east

Lost to union twice at home early on

struggled to beat RIT at home

Beat RPI 3-2 in a tourney

beat st cloud 3-2
split with Umass


lost to Uconn once

have 1 win vs a top 20 team since Nov 1st (1-4) we are 6-2-2 since Nov 1st..

this is interesting. i know how i usually am on here so let me be clear that i mean this.

ugarte

upprdeck
did well in hockey east

Lost to union twice at home early on

struggled to beat RIT at home

Beat RPI 3-2 in a tourney

beat st cloud 3-2
split with Umass


lost to Uconn once

have 1 win vs a top 20 team since Nov 1st (1-4) we are 6-2-2 since Nov 1st..

this is interesting. i know how i usually am on here so let me be clear that i mean this.

meh.

They were swept by Providence, split with UMass, and I guess you are not using pairwise rankings since I can't find the 4th loss since Nov. 1 vs. top 20 Pairwise team on their schedule.

Your Nov. 1 cutoff also excludes their Oct. 27 win over #1 St. Cloud State.

Our record vs. top 20 pairwise would include 4 wins over Union and 2 over Arizona State, as well as 3-3-2 vs. Hahvahd, Clarkson and Q.

The only thing I feel certain about is that attendance at Allentown will be terrible.

Let's use the women's team's 2019 NCAA win against Northeastern as a good sign.

Trotsky
I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

I don't know. I always win playing the slots. Always, 100%, not kidding. Here's how:

1. Go to the bank and get $5 worth of nickels.
2. Go to a casino that has nickel slots.
3. Play them.
4. When the cocktail waitresses come by, always order a complimentary cocktail.

Because you're starting with 100 nickels, you'll probably play for over an hour. That should be good for 1-3 drinks at least. Even the watered down bourbons they serve are a bargain at the price (free!). Because playing the slots is like a random walk, there's a good chance your net winnings will be positive over any finite time. If not, quit when your roll runs out, and you've spent $5.00 on drinks. If your winnings are positive, quit while you're ahead, any time after you've bet your first 100 nickels.

Swampy

Trotsky
I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

I don't know. I always win playing the slots. Always, 100%, not kidding. Here's how:

1. Go to the bank and get $5 worth of nickels.
2. Go to a casino that has nickel slots.
3. Play them.
4. When the cocktail waitresses come by, always order a complimentary cocktail.

Because you're starting with 100 nickels, you'll probably play for over an hour. That should be good for 1-3 drinks at least. Even the watered down bourbons they serve are a bargain at the price (free!). Because playing the slots is like a random walk, there's a good chance your net winnings will be positive over any finite time. If not, quit when your roll runs out, and you've spent $5.00 on drinks. If your winnings are positive, quit while you're ahead, any time after you've bet your first 100 nickels.

This is the saddest thing I've read all week.

ugarte

Swampy

Trotsky
I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

I don't know. I always win playing the slots. Always, 100%, not kidding. Here's how:

1. Go to the bank and get $5 worth of nickels.
2. Go to a casino that has nickel slots.
3. Play them.
4. When the cocktail waitresses come by, always order a complimentary cocktail.

Because you're starting with 100 nickels, you'll probably play for over an hour. That should be good for 1-3 drinks at least. Even the watered down bourbons they serve are a bargain at the price (free!). Because playing the slots is like a random walk, there's a good chance your net winnings will be positive over any finite time. If not, quit when your roll runs out, and you've spent $5.00 on drinks. If your winnings are positive, quit while you're ahead, any time after you've bet your first 100 nickels.

This is the saddest thing I've read all week.

Sadder than Barr's summary letter of the Mueller report?

scoop85

ugarte

Swampy

Trotsky
I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

I don't know. I always win playing the slots. Always, 100%, not kidding. Here's how:

1. Go to the bank and get $5 worth of nickels.
2. Go to a casino that has nickel slots.
3. Play them.
4. When the cocktail waitresses come by, always order a complimentary cocktail.

Because you're starting with 100 nickels, you'll probably play for over an hour. That should be good for 1-3 drinks at least. Even the watered down bourbons they serve are a bargain at the price (free!). Because playing the slots is like a random walk, there's a good chance your net winnings will be positive over any finite time. If not, quit when your roll runs out, and you've spent $5.00 on drinks. If your winnings are positive, quit while you're ahead, any time after you've bet your first 100 nickels.

This is the saddest thing I've read all week.

Sadder than Barr's summary letter of the Mueller report?

Please leave politics at the door.

Swampy

Trotsky
I've always assumed betting is a tax on the stupid, like the lottery, or MLM. It's one of the billions of ways people have come up with to suck the pockets dry of people who think "I know I can beat an industry where the house is guaranteed to win because I am smarter than the other bettors," which is demonstrably proven false by the fact that the people smarter than the other bettors are the ones not betting.

I don't know. I always win playing the slots. Always, 100%, not kidding. Here's how:

1. Go to the bank and get $5 worth of nickels.
2. Go to a casino that has nickel slots.
3. Play them.
4. When the cocktail waitresses come by, always order a complimentary cocktail.

Because you're starting with 100 nickels, you'll probably play for over an hour. That should be good for 1-3 drinks at least. Even the watered down bourbons they serve are a bargain at the price (free!). Because playing the slots is like a random walk, there's a good chance your net winnings will be positive over any finite time. If not, quit when your roll runs out, and you've spent $5.00 on drinks. If your winnings are positive, quit while you're ahead, any time after you've bet your first 100 nickels.

I like the cut of your jib !

CHA's Preview of the Regional:

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

One added benefit while you risk your 100 nickels in a slot machine: you will be surrounded by the shrewdest leading geniuses in your vicinity.

osorojo
One added benefit while you risk your 100 nickels in a slot machine: you will be surrounded by the shrewdest leading geniuses in your vicinity.

Reminds me of a comedy routine circa 2000. "People voted for him because they thought he'd be a good guy to have a beer with. Next time you're at a bar, look around. See any presidents?"

Christopher Boulay
Arguably the strongest team not named St. Cloud State or Minnesota-Duluth this season, the Mavericks are in prime position to make a run.

So you're arguing that the third-ranked team in the country may be the strongest team that isn't the first- or second-ranked team? Interesting take.

Greenberg '97

Christopher Boulay
Arguably the strongest team not named St. Cloud State or Minnesota-Duluth this season, the Mavericks are in prime position to make a run.

So you're arguing that the third-ranked team in the country may be the strongest team that isn't the first- or second-ranked team? Interesting take.

I also like how in the middle of the Cornell write-up, the CHN writer starts three out of four sentences with the word "However". That's bad writing, but a good metaphor for Cornell hockey, especially this year--this is a team of "Howevers".

Beeeej
CHA's Preview of the Regional:

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

And USCHO’s

[www.uscho.com]

really it comes down to most do we get solid goalie play.. make them earn the goals and not be soft.

upprdeck
really it comes down to most do we get solid goalie play.. make them earn the goals and not be soft.

Agree with this. We have quite a talented team, particular the defensemen. If Matt were healthy I'd have no worries in net. If he's out then the forwards really need to step up, forecheck, and keep the puck 200 feet away from Austin as much as possible.

Any suggestions for Cornell-focused seating sections? I found out last night I was going to be able to go to the game and am just planning on getting tickets at the door.

Tickets from Cornell are in the 105-106 corner

Austin has played some solid games this year. Let's hope he has another one today.

The line up:

Is this game actually on ESPNews? I'm just seeing some weird documentary thing.

Same here.

Anyone know if we are starting on time? My dog is loving the weather and I want to stay out with her aslong as we can

I'm getting "Your event is about to start" on WatchESPN.

All I see is “Your event is about to begin. Please stand by”

abmarks
Anyone know if we are starting on time? My dog is loving the weather and I want to stay out with her aslong as we can

Supposedly 4:38.

LGR!!!

On now!

On now.

Puck bouncing everywhere.

That was a good first period overall. The forecheck was forcing quite a few NU turnovers

We sure dodged a bullet on that Barron penalty in the first.. Well called.. Except I think they could have called Davies for embellishment. Especially after the refs watched the replays.

Can’t take stupid penalties to let them back in this game.

toddlose
Can’t take stupid penalties to let them back in this game.

Betts and Kaldis penalties were in retaliation and totally inexcusable. But also bad calls. Refs missed the NEU guys crosschecking Kaldis and there's no way Betts gets a penalty if Cornell is behind.

I have basically listened to the games this season. Now sitting in a hotel room watching on my laptop. Defense looks very good. I'm glad we have found the back of NE's net. Dreaded 3 goal lead in Providence going into the third. Hope the D stays strong and we stay out of the damn box. Let's Go Red!

Great to have you watching, Rita

5-1 Cornell, 4 minutes to go.

Cornell will be higher seed and home team tomorrow night against Providence.

If I'm remembering right, is this (assuming current score holds) our first multi-goal NCAA win since Mankato in 2003?

Matching penalties, 4 on 4, Northeastern empty net. 2:00

Cornell 5-1 win, first tournament win since 2012. Congratulations to Austin Mcgrath and the Big Red.

Classy final 90 seconds by Cornell. Full control in the Northeastern end, zero shots.

This was refreshingly not close.

ugarte
So, we've got a game coming up, huh?

Galajda is doubtful for the Huskies. Boo.

ugarte is tapped to start the Providence thread.

Ditto.
A very nice win and McGrath and the D came up HUUGE.

I've been lurking on ELF and appreciate everyone's game comments and postings throughout the season.

LGR!

After disappointing 1st round exits the past 2 years-—especially last year—-this one feels really good

Solid D.. dont make the goalie have to make too many tough saves and bury just a few of the many chances they got in close..

lets try that again tomorrow..

still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

We've had good discussions about trading NCAA wins for an ECAC Championship.

Granted that your latest win seems the best win, but tonight proved to me that I'd trade the ECAC for an NCAA win.

upprdeck
still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

I don't buy that. You don't think that game could have gone the same way if it were played in Manchester or Worcester? AIC beat St. Cloud on Minnesota's porch. These games are intense and can turn on any bounce. The "home ice" effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.

RichH

upprdeck
still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

I don't buy that. You don't think that game could have gone the same way if it were played in Manchester or Worcester? AIC beat St. Cloud on Minnesota's porch. These games are intense and can turn on any bounce. The "home ice" effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.

I disagree. Once Providence got their second goal the crowd came alive and you could feel the electricity. I can't believe that the team didn't feel that and feed off of it.

Do I think that is the reason they won? Only partially, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

I had a good discussion with Al, and I still don't think it's fair to put a #4 essentially at home, unless changing it would significantly upset others. I don't see how switching teams between Providence an Manchester would have hurt anyone except Providence.

down 3-0 away from home with 200 fans in the bldg doesnt happen often.

if you are going to seed teams then you cant make a 1 play in that type of spot..

If a host team didn't get to play at it's own site, no one would host.

The systems is as fair as it's going to get in the real world.

CU77
If a host team didn't get to play at it's own site, no one would host.

The systems is as fair as it's going to get in the real world.

Except that Brown is the host, not Providence.

Jim Hyla

RichH

upprdeck
still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

I don't buy that. You don't think that game could have gone the same way if it were played in Manchester or Worcester? AIC beat St. Cloud on Minnesota's porch. These games are intense and can turn on any bounce. The "home ice" effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.

I disagree. Once Providence got their second goal the crowd came alive and you could feel the electricity. I can't believe that the team didn't feel that and feed off of it.

Do I think that is the reason they won? Only partially, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

I agree with Jim. The home crowd definitely helped Providence once they scored their first goal. But after the 4th Mankato goal was waved off, they just stopped skating. Frankly, they looked slow.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Jim Hyla

RichH

upprdeck
still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

I don't buy that. You don't think that game could have gone the same way if it were played in Manchester or Worcester? AIC beat St. Cloud on Minnesota's porch. These games are intense and can turn on any bounce. The "home ice" effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.

I disagree. Once Providence got their second goal the crowd came alive and you could feel the electricity. I can't believe that the team didn't feel that and feed off of it.

Do I think that is the reason they won? Only partially, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

I agree with Jim. The home crowd definitely helped Providence once they scored their first goal. But after the 4th Mankato goal was waved off, they just stopped skating. Frankly, they looked slow.

From USCHO article:

Leaman said "Then Vimal’s goal got the building alive a little bit, and it got us going.”

Congratulations Cornell! Great game today, the best NCAA tournament game in the 20 years I have followed the team. The first NCAA win by more than one goal since 2003.

Trying to understand the “logic” behind how the powers that be assign block seating.

As a Cornell fan, I usually try to sit — maybe optimistically — by the blueline of the end we’ll be attacking for two of the three periods. But yesterday, at the Dunk, Cornell block seating (including the band) was at the end Cornell was defending for 2/3 of the game.

What explains this? Is there some hockey logic to it? Is it some quaint Rhode Island custom, like coffee milk and bubblas? Cluelessness?

Can we get Cornell Athletics to inform our hosts that our team intends to spend most of the game in its offensive zone, and our fans want to sit there so as to cheer their team on and not be bored?

Inquiring minds (with too much time on their hands) want to know.

Swampy
Trying to understand the “logic” behind how the powers that be assign block seating.

As a Cornell fan, I usually try to sit — maybe optimistically — by the blueline of the end we’ll be attacking for two of the three periods. But yesterday, at the Dunk, Cornell block seating (including the band) was at the end Cornell was defending for 2/3 of the game.

What explains this? Is there some hockey logic to it? Is it some quaint Rhode Island custom, like coffee milk and bubblas? Cluelessness?

Can we get Cornell Athletics to inform our hosts that our team intends to spend most of the game in its offensive zone, and our fans want to sit there so as to cheer their team on and not be bored?

Inquiring minds (with too much time on their hands) want to know.

What was strange was lower-seeded Providence shooting twice at the end where higher-seeded Northeastern shot. Benches were reversed in terms of seeding, too. Cornell had the Mankato bench. Entrances to the ice from locker rooms also reversed.

Maybe Providence was given the locker room used by Friar basketball that plays st the Dunk.

Swampy
Trying to understand the “logic” behind how the powers that be assign block seating.

As a Cornell fan, I usually try to sit — maybe optimistically — by the blueline of the end we’ll be attacking for two of the three periods. But yesterday, at the Dunk, Cornell block seating (including the band) was at the end Cornell was defending for 2/3 of the game.

What explains this? Is there some hockey logic to it? Is it some quaint Rhode Island custom, like coffee milk and bubblas? Cluelessness?

Can we get Cornell Athletics to inform our hosts that our team intends to spend most of the game in its offensive zone, and our fans want to sit there so as to cheer their team on and not be bored?

Inquiring minds (with too much time on their hands) want to know.

It's even weirder. The home team in the first game was on the side of the rink that the visiting team, Cornell, had for the second game. If they had been consistent with the locker rooms then things would have lined up the way we expect them to.

And yet the Mavericks and Friars were seated at the "wrong" end of the ice too. The rink manager should know better.

Jim Hyla

RichH

upprdeck
still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

I don't buy that. You don't think that game could have gone the same way if it were played in Manchester or Worcester? AIC beat St. Cloud on Minnesota's porch. These games are intense and can turn on any bounce. The "home ice" effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.

I disagree. Once Providence got their second goal the crowd came alive and you could feel the electricity. I can't believe that the team didn't feel that and feed off of it.

Do I think that is the reason they won? Only partially, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

This has nothing to do with my argument, Jim. I was only disputing the statement that "no chance Providence wins" if they aren't playing in Providence. That's insulting to the skill and talent of Providence. They could have won that game in Manchester, Allentown, or Fargo. I'm never going to dispute that a rocking, boisterous arena can provide some sort of advantage to a team. OF COURSE having a large partisan crowd can help with energy and intangibles, but to say it's not possible for them to win without it is wrong, IMO.

Heck, I'd say that when a team is down 3-0 and they score, even the non-partisans will respond with some noise, energy, and excitement (oh, and your very measurable and tangible quantity of "electricity", because neutral fans WANT to see a good, entertaining, close game. Nobody wants to go to a game where a team gets blown away, save for one team's fans.

If they had played this game in Manchester, guess who would STILL have a large majority of fan support in the building? Still Providence. Is that still unfair?

We played a school whose campus is 50 miles from the regional site. Is that also unfair?

I hope you don't get hurt from all that "electricity" tonight. Make sure you bring a grounding wire, I hear Providence lead Hockey East in current this season.

RichH
Nobody wants to go to a game where a team gets blown away, save for one team's fans.

Honestly, I find the rare blowout that we execute somewhat boring as well, unless it's against (in order of ascending glee):

• Dartmouth, for the Gaudet lulz
• Colgate, for historical reasons
• SLU, to stick it to those dumb, rich kids and some of the league's most annoying home fans
• Yale, because we owe them
• Clarkson, because it's always fun to dump on your most respected rival
• RPI, for all their accumulated cheap play over the years
• Union, because: Bennett
• BU, for the national inhale of shock
• Minnesota, to remind them of why their pride ought to stay on the links, and we owe them
• BC, who should go away already
• Harvard, obvs.
• Quinnipiac, for their accumulation of the worst trends in college hockey, their horrible rink culture, and—well—Rand

Each qualifying team has demonstrated it is dangerous either by solid play all year long or getting hot at AQ time. AIC (Springfield, MA) beat #1 St. Cloud in Fargo with no home advantage.

However, it is not fair for 1 seeds to travel long distances and play in the 4 seed's city or building. I understand why the NC$$ does it but it harms the competitive neutrality of the sport and that has to always be the sine qua non of sports. We would not tolerate them saying "we have to let colleges pay to provide 'host referees' in the real world" and host venues amount to the same thing.

(This is Trotsky, not Anne. Anne would have dropped the f bomb.)

Anne 85
Each qualifying team has demonstrated it is dangerous either by solid play all year long or getting hot at AQ time. AIC (Springfield, MA) beat #1 St. Cloud in Fargo with no home advantage.

However, it is not fair for 1 seeds to travel long distances and play in the 4 seed's city or building. I understand why the NC$$ does it but it harms the competitive neutrality of the sport and that has to always be the sine qua non of sports. We would not tolerate them saying "we have to let colleges pay to provide 'host referees' in the real world" and host venues amount to the same thing.

(This is Trotsky, not Anne. Anne would have dropped the f bomb.)

One thing they need to do is move the regionals a little more west, especially the Midwest.

The locations do change, and there are more teams in the Northeast. But every year it seems that at least two of the top four teams are from the NCHC, WCHA, or the Big10. Allentown might not be so bad for Penn State, but for most of the teams from those conferences, it's a trip.

When two top seeds are from Minnesota almost every year and one of them has to go pretty far East, troubles arise.

Plus the hosting thing. I know money and attendance > fairness, but a #4 seed shouldn't get a home crowd.

Kill the regionals with fire. Move the first two rounds to campus sites.

RichH

Jim Hyla

RichH

upprdeck
still no chance Prov wins today if they didnt have home ice.

I don't buy that. You don't think that game could have gone the same way if it were played in Manchester or Worcester? AIC beat St. Cloud on Minnesota's porch. These games are intense and can turn on any bounce. The "home ice" effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.

I disagree. Once Providence got their second goal the crowd came alive and you could feel the electricity. I can't believe that the team didn't feel that and feed off of it.

Do I think that is the reason they won? Only partially, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

This has nothing to do with my argument, Jim. I was only disputing the statement that "no chance Providence wins" if they aren't playing in Providence. That's insulting to the skill and talent of Providence. They could have won that game in Manchester, Allentown, or Fargo. I'm never going to dispute that a rocking, boisterous arena can provide some sort of advantage to a team. OF COURSE having a large partisan crowd can help with energy and intangibles, but to say it's not possible for them to win without it is wrong, IMO.

Heck, I'd say that when a team is down 3-0 and they score, even the non-partisans will respond with some noise, energy, and excitement (oh, and your very measurable and tangible quantity of "electricity", because neutral fans WANT to see a good, entertaining, close game. Nobody wants to go to a game where a team gets blown away, save for one team's fans.

If they had played this game in Manchester, guess who would STILL have a large majority of fan support in the building? Still Providence. Is that still unfair?

We played a school whose campus is 50 miles from the regional site. Is that also unfair?

I hope you don't get hurt from all that "electricity" tonight. Make sure you bring a grounding wire, I hear Providence lead Hockey East in current this season.

I agree that "no chance" is incorrect. However I'm still not sure what you mean by 'The home ice effect is minimized once you get this far, I think.'

Of course I think Providence would have had more fans in Manchester than Minny State, but I'm confident that it would have been many fewer than what they had yesterday.

My point is that it's not fair to give a #4 seed the home ice advantage. That's all.

From a hockey point of view, I think the playoffs should all be on "neutral ice". But I understand from a business point of view, why they put a host team at home. All Providence needed to do to be sure that they would be at the Dunk, was to put up the money and time to host.

As to your comment that you 'hope (I) don't get hurt from all that "electricity" tonight.', well I don't see what that has to do with your argument. If you meant it to be snarky, so be it.

For the umpteenth time, Providence was not the host.

Robb
For the umpteenth time, Providence was not the host.

And that is the point. Twice they have been given the host perk even though they refuse to host.

Robb
For the umpteenth time, Providence was not the host.

You know what we're saying.

Cornell wont go thru the effort of hosting, dont know why they dont try, or co host with RIT or Canisius or something in Roch. even the on Syracuse center sets 6k and would probably work .

It would be interesting to see what the real cost of hosting is, or what attendance makes it a break even. if the 150K and 80% of revenue numbers are true, you would think the 5-7K of tickets sold have to close to break even.

It might make for a good Sun article someday with a little investigation.

upprdeck
Cornell wont go thru the effort of hosting, dont know why they dont try, or co host with RIT or Canisius or something in Roch. even the on Syracuse center sets 6k and would probably work .

Can a team co-bost?

from last years notes:

Fairfield University and Yale University will co-host the 2018 Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Regional at Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport. The two schools also brought the regional to the state of Connecticut in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2014

no idea if 2 schools that both could qualify could do it.. but Syracuse/Cornell could do one or Cornell/UB/Buf St?