An early look at 2019-2020

One chapter closes another begins.

Sorry to see the departure of a terrific senior class, and we’ll be especially hit on the back line. But we seem to have another nice group of recruits, and of course our goaltending corps will be back.

At this point I’m assuming Barron will be back. If so at forward we’ll have the following:

Barron-Locke-Donaldson
Mullin-Betts-Bauld
Motley-Murphy-Malott
Andreev-Bramwell-Regush

The forward recruits are Ben Berard, the Tukper twins, and Jack Malone. They’ve all put up good numbers in Juniors, but my guess is Berard and Malone are bigger offensive threats. This looks like the deepest and best forward corps we’ve had in some time.

The returnees on defense:

Kaldis-Haiskenan
Leahy-Green
Cairns-Song

No surprise Schafer has a big defensive class coming in: Travis Mitchell and Sebastian Dirven from the USHL, Jack Lagerstrom and Peter Muzyka from the BCHL, and Sam Malinski from the NAHL. It’s possible one of them might defer, with Lagerstrom being the most likely candidate. Malinski and Dirven seem to be the most offensive minded of the group.

Mitchell and Jack Malone both played on the goal medal winning USA team at the World Junior A Challenge and are probably the best pro prospects of the incoming group.

I don’t foresee Song contributing anytime soon, so I would think we’ll have 9 guys likely filling what should be 7 spots on a nightly basis, assuming Schafer goes with 7 defensemen as he usually has this year. It will be interesting to see if Cairns is able to secure a regular spot in the top 6, or if he is supplanted by the freshmen.

I do hope Barron comes back, as I think he can continue to grow as a player at the college level.

Looking at the potential roster, their’s reason for plenty of optimism looking ahead to next season. In the ECAC’s it looks like QU and Clarkson should be pretty strong, although they both will have some big losses (looks like Nico Sturm is leaving Clarkson for the pros). If Adam Fox stays Harvard will be dangerous, as they have a lot of young talent, athough their goaltending looks iffy. Union loses a lot and doesn’t seem to have a great recruiting class, so they may take a step back. Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth look to be middle-of-the-pack teams, although we’ll have to see if Brown can build on their momentum or if they pull a Princeton. Colgate, Princeton, RPI and SLU look likely to be the bottom feeders. But every year one team seems to be a big surprise; maybe Yale overcomes losing Snively and moves back into the upper echelon, or Dartmouth surpasses their typical mediocrity.

No reason we shouldn’t be favored again next year, although as we know we’ll have to prove it on the ice.

Great summary.

scoop85
In the ECAC’s it looks like QU and Clarkson should be pretty strong, although they both will have some big losses (looks like Nico Sturm is leaving Clarkson for the pros).

QU, like us, loses three big-minute senior D.

Barron would be crazy to leave. IMHO if you don’t dominate at this level you’re not close to nhl ready. Morgan is good but hardly dominant. Yesterday was invisible. If he want to spend two years in the AHL that’s another matter.

After watching the East Regional, I started thinking about Cornell's results over the last 20 years. It seems that we have a very consistent team over the long term, usually finishing the season within a fairly tight range ranked between maybe 8 and 24 just to guess. In a typical year, we can expect to have a bye and a good chance at making the ECAC title game along with one game in the NCAA's. In a slightly off year, we just miss the ECAC final four and end up being a few spots out of the NCAA's. In a slightly good year, we are playing in the ECAC title game and win one NCAA game, like this year. In a very rare year, we are way out of the running in everything or we win the league and are in the Frozen Four like 2003.

I am not the statistician that many of you are. I would be curious to see how this perception lines up with a bell curve and what would be our mean and median season.

I think we are out playing out talent.. we dont have the top end talent guy but we have loads of solid players. if we could get that big time player thru admissions one of these years it would help.. being solid means maybe not the highest high, but we seldom fall back too far.

Hockey is a game where 1-2 plays makes a game if you are staying close.. sometime you make the play sometimes the other teams missed the play. prov was the better team yesterday but 2 goals scored on just good puck bounces and our 2 best chances went the other way.. it was still a game of inches

A hot goalie helps too.. ask RPI

arugula
Barron would be crazy to leave. IMHO if you don’t dominate at this level you’re not close to nhl ready. Morgan is good but hardly dominant. Yesterday was invisible. If he want to spend two years in the AHL that’s another matter.

Barron was one of the best players on the ice yesterday. I have no idea what game you were watching. At times he and Beau were our only effective forwards.

"Barron was one of the best players on the ice yesterday," that's a mighty low bar for him being ready for the NHL. To be honest, the only forward who made a positive impression on me yesterday was Andreev. While Barron was (sort of) involved, he showed no hands and had little impact--but that was essentially the whole team. Maybe if I hadn't sat so close and either watched from a higher angle or on TV, I would've been impressed, but from 8th row, blue line I wasn't.

Again, note where my bar is: to play in the NHL, you need to dominate at this level, not be one of the best players in a terrible performance.

For context, lucky me, I attended likely the two worst performances of the year-this and at Yale. At Yale, I thought Barron was actually very good--using his size to control the boards and get to the front. Not yesterday, or perhaps minimally.

I think Barron is fine in tight spaces at the college level.. but does he have NHL talent or just AHL talent? You dont see him dominant every shift. he has his moments though. I think andreev and Reggish might have more top end.

arugula
"Barron was one of the best players on the ice yesterday," that's a mighty low bar for him being ready for the NHL. To be honest, the only forward who made a positive impression on me yesterday was Andreev. While Barron was (sort of) involved, he showed no hands and had little impact--but that was essentially the whole team. Maybe if I hadn't sat so close and either watched from a higher angle or on TV, I would've been impressed, but from 8th row, blue line I wasn't.

I was 7 rows in front of you and you are either blind or a very silly person.

I have a very hard time telling any player not to go pro as soon as they can. I'm not convinced that staying in college longer is a better route for development than jumping to the AHL. Even if a player never makes the NHL, a career in the AHL and/or European leagues still pays. Players can always finish up their degrees down the road.

That being said, of course I want ever Cornell player to stay 4 years (and every opposing player to leave right away).

upprdeck
I think Barron is fine in tight spaces at the college level.. but does he have NHL talent or just AHL talent? You dont see him dominant every shift. he has his moments though. I think andreev and Reggish might have more top end.

Barron is Vanderlaan+. He has Mitch's ability to see the play develop but he also has the stick skills to finish plays. He was also displaying leadership during the more difficult times last night and that was good to see.

The guys who were in fact invisible against Providence were Mitch and Cam, because Providence played them beautifully with that relentless "Cornell circa 2008" defense. It was funny to hear the boobs in the crowd booing as we set up behind the net, when every lane was covered by the PC trap. Leaman had an ideal game plan against us, quite reminiscent of his UC teams.

Max did look good, although he still hasn't gotten all the way back to Pre-Injury Max (which is not surprising). The guy we could have really used against all that bruising Friar hitting was Malott. As it was, Mullin did yeoman's work, but for a variety of reasons we just never got in front of the play except for those 5 sweet up-tempo minutes as we were changing the momentum right up until the lethal 3rd goal.

Dafatone
I have a very hard time telling any player not to go pro as soon as they can. I'm not convinced that staying in college longer is a better route for development than jumping to the AHL. Even if a player never makes the NHL, a career in the AHL and/or European leagues still pays. Players can always finish up their degrees down the road.

That being said, of course I want ever Cornell player to stay 4 years (and every opposing player to leave right away).

This and this.

BTW, note the Opponents thread. You just got your way with Clarkson. Twice.

Trotsky

arugula
"Barron was one of the best players on the ice yesterday," that's a mighty low bar for him being ready for the NHL. To be honest, the only forward who made a positive impression on me yesterday was Andreev. While Barron was (sort of) involved, he showed no hands and had little impact--but that was essentially the whole team. Maybe if I hadn't sat so close and either watched from a higher angle or on TV, I would've been impressed, but from 8th row, blue line I wasn't.

I was 7 rows in front of you and you are either blind or a very silly person.

My wife would agree that I am a very silly person and my opthamologist would agree that my vision ain't great. That said, sitting in the first row as I guess you were is hardly an ideal view of anything, so not sure how you reached that your conclusions. Also, I noted that I liked Andreev's play, an opinion which you liked when written by Upprdeck, so I guess I'm not always silly. In any event, I just wasn't impressed by Morgan's play yesterday, shoot me.

I strongly disagree with your take on PC's trap. The way to beat a trap is with speed and short passes not by setting up and slowing things down the way the Red did. Not sure what that was about, but it felt like capitulation. The PC fans booing the Red slowdown there were boobs because they should've been happy.

arugula

Trotsky

arugula
"Barron was one of the best players on the ice yesterday," that's a mighty low bar for him being ready for the NHL. To be honest, the only forward who made a positive impression on me yesterday was Andreev. While Barron was (sort of) involved, he showed no hands and had little impact--but that was essentially the whole team. Maybe if I hadn't sat so close and either watched from a higher angle or on TV, I would've been impressed, but from 8th row, blue line I wasn't.

I was 7 rows in front of you and you are either blind or a very silly person.

My wife would agree that I am a very silly person and my opthamologist would agree that my vision ain't great. That said, sitting in the first row as I guess you were is hardly an ideal view of anything, so not sure how you reached that your conclusions. Also, I noted that I liked Andreev's play, an opinion which you liked when written by Upprdeck, so I guess I'm not always silly. In any event, I just wasn't impressed by Morgan's play yesterday, shoot me.

I strongly disagree with your take on PC's trap. The way to beat a trap is with speed and short passes not by setting up and slowing things down the way the Red did. Not sure what that was about, but it felt like capitulation. The PC fans booing the Red slowdown there were boobs because they should've been happy.

Silly in this context is not a pejorative. This is eLF, after all.

We tried every way possible to break the trap and PC managed to stop us at every turn. The homerun passes certainly didn't pull it apart the way we hoped. We weren't able to get up ice quickly enough for short passing because we had forecheckers in our sweaters all night. It truly was like playing us ten years ago.

Q played that weird ass pressure forecheck against us and it worked well, but it was far more fluid. PC's was jerky and of course it had ferocious hitting. I guess the way to break it would have been to score on those early powerplays and make them afraid to go to the box.

I was SO close to Barron (we became very good friends when he nearly went through the boards into my lap against NU) that I got to watch him play "inside the phone booth" from closer in than most of the guys on the ice. He is a magician. It's not just his hands, it's also footwork and mostly it's his initial positioning. If Mitch, who was also strong with it, had a flaw it was that he typically had to enter those situations late and at a disadvantage. Barron had the whole thing scoped out 3 seconds before contact even started. He already knew what he was gonna do. In that he was like Riley Nash but then he was also able to execute it, like Nash often couldn't (unaccountably, to me).

The other guy who stood out to me against PC was Murphy for this reason, which is going to sound like a dig but isn't: Connor has no idea that he isn't as good as he thinks he is. But because of this he has so much confidence and initiative that half the time he manages to just dog it through and create something. It's bizarre. And apparently it's also contagious because damned if Joe Leahy isn't doing exactly the same thing at the blueline (note: this is also scary as shit, because the consequences for a blown play are so much more lethal).

Anyway, I saw a bunch of players who showed me something Sunday. Yes, yes, losing sucks and losing like that is deflating. But it was NOT a merit-less performance. The two rout loses in the ECAC finals to Yale -- those were merit-less performances. But despite the score and the shitty way the game felt, there were still more than a handful of good individual performances. The genius of Leaman's plan was it turned every one of our guys into a little isolated atomic unit. Those performances never linked up and we were not a team. And that's why they advanced -- the fuckers earned it.

Trotsky

arugula

Trotsky

arugula
"Barron was one of the best players on the ice yesterday," that's a mighty low bar for him being ready for the NHL. To be honest, the only forward who made a positive impression on me yesterday was Andreev. While Barron was (sort of) involved, he showed no hands and had little impact--but that was essentially the whole team. Maybe if I hadn't sat so close and either watched from a higher angle or on TV, I would've been impressed, but from 8th row, blue line I wasn't.

I was 7 rows in front of you and you are either blind or a very silly person.

My wife would agree that I am a very silly person and my opthamologist would agree that my vision ain't great. That said, sitting in the first row as I guess you were is hardly an ideal view of anything, so not sure how you reached that your conclusions. Also, I noted that I liked Andreev's play, an opinion which you liked when written by Upprdeck, so I guess I'm not always silly. In any event, I just wasn't impressed by Morgan's play yesterday, shoot me.

I strongly disagree with your take on PC's trap. The way to beat a trap is with speed and short passes not by setting up and slowing things down the way the Red did. Not sure what that was about, but it felt like capitulation. The PC fans booing the Red slowdown there were boobs because they should've been happy.

Silly in this context is not a pejorative. This is eLF, after all.

We tried every way possible to break the trap and PC managed to stop us at every turn. The homerun passes certainly didn't pull it apart the way we hoped. We weren't able to get up ice quickly enough for short passing because we had forecheckers in our sweaters all night. It truly was like playing us ten years ago.

Q played that weird ass pressure forecheck against us and it worked well, but it was far more fluid. PC's was jerky and of course it had ferocious hitting. I guess the way to break it would have been to score on those early powerplays and make them afraid to go to the box.

I was SO close to Barron (we became very good friends when he nearly went through the boards into my lap against NU) that I got to watch him play "inside the phone booth" from closer in than most of the guys on the ice. He is a magician. It's not just his hands, it's also footwork and mostly it's his initial positioning. If Mitch, who was also strong with it, had a flaw it was that he typically had to enter those situations late and at a disadvantage. Barron had the whole thing scoped out 3 seconds before contact even started. He already knew what he was gonna do. In that he was like Riley Nash but then he was also able to execute it, like Nash often couldn't (unaccountably, to me).

The other guy who stood out to me against PC was Murphy for this reason, which is going to sound like a dig but isn't: Connor has no idea that he isn't as good as he thinks he is. But because of this he has so much confidence and initiative that half the time he manages to just dog it through and create something. It's bizarre. And apparently it's also contagious because damned if Joe Leahy isn't doing exactly the same thing at the blueline (note: this is also scary as shit, because the consequences for a blown play are so much more lethal).

Anyway, I saw a bunch of players who showed me something Sunday. Yes, yes, losing sucks and losing like that is deflating. But it was NOT a merit-less performance. The two rout loses in the ECAC finals to Yale -- those were merit-less performances. But despite the score and the shitty way the game felt, there were still more than a handful of good individual performances. The genius of Leaman's plan was it turned every one of our guys into a little isolated atomic unit. Those performances never linked up and we were not a team. And that's why they advanced -- the fuckers earned it.

The best answer I could come up with was to dump and chase a whole lot more. But they defended that well, and it is by far the least sexy way to play hockey

Dafatone
The best answer I could come up with was to dump and chase a whole lot more. But they defended that well, and it is by far the least sexy way to play hockey

And when we tried they beat us back there. Or it was so sporadic to actually clear our zone that when we dumped we had to change and not pursue.

The brief time in which we actually were starting to look like we could come back we were doing precisely you suggest. That was also when PC had let up a little, and when Regush and Locke were making those condor-like wide sweeps around the boards and coming careening in to jam up / free up the puck behind the net.

But then the next thing you look for in those situations is the elegantly twirling oak tree rooted in the high slot to receive a pass (note to Devin Brosseau: may you burn in hell) or put the wind up the goalie, and we never had anybody out front there because Max is almost surely still hurt and Malott is in traction or something.

The guy to spring it to was probably Kaldis, but between him and our behind net puck handlers there were usually 3 black sweaters.

Anyway, since this is supposed to be the forward-looking thread, I see no reason why "more of that and bring in more depth because guys are made of glass now" won't bring us right back to Placid and the NC$$ next year, and perhaps deeper still. I have heard our incoming frosh are studs. If that's true and we can by hook or crook cover for our D inexperience prior to New Years effectively enough not to kill the season before it starts, perhaps we can take the next step and kick out the jams in the Motor City.

It will be the 50th anniversary of the last title. I've never seen one. I'm old. Let's fucking get it done.

Trotsky
Anyway, since this is supposed to be the forward-looking thread, I see no reason why "more of that and bring in more depth because guys are made of glass now" won't bring us right back to Placid and the NC$$ next year, and perhaps deeper still. I have heard our incoming frosh are studs. If that's true and we can by hook or crook cover for our D inexperience prior to New Years effectively enough not to kill the season before it starts, perhaps we can take the next step and kick out the jams in the Motor City.

It will be the 50th anniversary of the last title. I've never seen one. I'm old. Let's fucking get it done.

If you were in Placid last year, you at least got to touch Lord Stanley's trophy. The picture of our son and me also includes my hero of dozens of the Stanley Cup finals - the guy who watches and guards over it. (I think there's two in rotation.)

Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

Gee, if only we'd had the "stronger OOC opponents" suggestion and discussion before.

Beeeej

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

Gee, if only we'd had the "stronger OOC opponents" suggestion and discussion before.

I'm sorry I haven't memorized every chat over the last 20 years. In any event, doesn't make it less relevant. And what was your solution then?

The precis is that Schafer has a longstanding rule to schedule teams which will do home-and-homes. Some HE and most western teams do not do this for economic reasons. Minny isn't burning a precious NC game at Lynah when they can put 15k or whatever into Mariucci and soak them for soda, brats, and what not.

Another problem is the most convenient slot for NC games is the early November week before the ECAC season starts, but that would be putting us with 0 GP against a power team that already has played one or more weekends. Michigan State swept us at Lynah this year, then went on to finish dead last in the Big.

The gist is that it is hard to get non-suicidal NC matches with quality teams.

arugula

Beeeej

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

Gee, if only we'd had the "stronger OOC opponents" suggestion and discussion before.

I'm sorry I haven't memorized every chat over the last 20 years. In any event, doesn't make it less relevant. And what was your solution then?

I'm not suggesting you should've memorized every chat over the last 20 years, I'm suggesting it's crazy for anyone to think that Coach hasn't thought of this and tried his damndest to make it happen. Basically, the same 40 teams want to schedule the semi-perennially stronger 20 teams all the time, and only a small handful of those 40 - e.g., Schafer - require the teams of whom they're asking a favor they don't have to grant to commit to home-and-home series in order to make it happen. That puts us at a disadvantage, and yet Schafer has still managed to schedule some pretty big firepower to host us and then visit Lynah (or vice versa) over the past several years. The last two seasons have been rough OOC-wise, but we still had a pair against Arizona State while they were ranked, and it should have benefited us to host Michigan State (but boy howdy, did it not); but the previous several years, if you include the Florida tourney, we played UNH, Merrimack (when they were pretty good), Miami, Colorado College, Providence, Ohio State, BU, Omaha, Penn State, Denver, Lake State, Maine, Michigan, Ferris State...

Getting rid of the Florida tourney also seems to make it tougher to schedule OOC, but good riddance anyway.

Other than dropping the home-and-home requirement that makes, e.g., Wisconsin fly to Ithaca in November when we're not really ready to play a strong team five games further into their season anyway, do you have any suggestions for getting stronger opposition onto our schedule? You want it to happen, what steps would you take?

(Last note - suggesting our NCAA regional loss to Ferris State was problematic in some way is ridiculous. It was essentially 2012-style Cornell playing 2012-style Cornell, and it went exactly like everyone knew it would, a one-goal game where the team that had a couple of better bounces won.)

Got it. So assuming that's the case, getting MSU to do the home and home was an anomaly, yet Colorado College came a few years back, North Dakota too so it's not impossible. I just don't get the dearth of HE teams. Is it just the long bus ride? I guess, as Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton all play HE teams, not to mention Harvard's cross town games with BC and BU, plus the Beanpot.

I know the holiday tourneys are a mixed bag, but it usually got at least one decent opponent in a NC$$ like setting-ie. half empty "neutral site" arena.

arugula
Got it. So assuming that's the case, getting MSU to do the home and home was an anomaly, yet Colorado College came a few years back, North Dakota too so it's not impossible. I just don't get the dearth of HE teams. Is it just the long bus ride? I guess, as Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton all play HE teams, not to mention Harvard's cross town games with BC and BU, plus the Beanpot.

I know the holiday tourneys are a mixed bag, but it usually got at least one decent opponent in a NC$$ like setting-ie. half empty "neutral site" arena.

Colorado College hosted us for a pair in 2012, visited us for a pair in 2013.
North Dakota hosted us for a pair in 2009, visited us for a pair in 2010.
New Hampshire hosted us for a game in 2010, visited us for a game in 2011.

Those were home-and-homes, not anomaly one-off visits.

And yeah, many of the other strong teams were Florida tourney appearances.

No, it's not impossible, it's just not easy. So how would you make it happen?

I know those were home and homes, that was my point, though I may have been less than clear. I still don't get the lack of HE teams.

How would I do it? Now, it's my job? How I would do it is irrelevant, aside from the fact that I'm not in that business, that's for the program to figure out. My job is to drive 8 hours round trip in the rain (well the rain was only about 5 hours) to see lousy hockey.

However they managed to get it done the previous times sounds like a good template. Other Ivies manage it, we've managed it, so why can't it be done?

upprdeck
I think we are out playing out talent.. we dont have the top end talent guy but we have loads of solid players. if we could get that big time player thru admissions one of these years it would help.. being solid means maybe not the highest high, but we seldom fall back too far.

Hockey is a game where 1-2 plays makes a game if you are staying close.. sometime you make the play sometimes the other teams missed the play. prov was the better team yesterday but 2 goals scored on just good puck bounces and our 2 best chances went the other way.. it was still a game of inches

A hot goalie helps too.. ask RPI

This is how I see it too. We have lots of B+ talent but don’t get the highest level guys. Of course the blue bloods who have all the 1st and 2nd round draft picks (BC, BU, UND, Minn) did not do so well this year, likely because they have had too much turnover with early departures. Teams like Providence and Duluth have found the right balance with plenty of high level guys but “system” players too, and UMASS this year caught lightning in a bottle with Makar being one of the best college players in a decade.

Had we beat MSU, or brown we get a 2 seed not a 3 and probably end up in the same place, the schedule isnt hurting us in PWR, winning is.

as to whether its helping or hurting us in the long run.. NE finished ahead of Prov and we handled them well.. who knows how much not having the ability to watch film and prepare hurt us.. we played fine the 3rd period so maybe the figure it out.. just needed our puck luck to go in and their skate luck to not too..

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And this year, at least in two regions, being a #1 seed didn’t get you a patsy. There’s parity.

But the ones playing next weekend are a bit above the rest, at least this time of year.

Remember we were missing three key players, when going into the finals at LP we were almost back to full strength. This takes its toll as others have to play harder.

Looking ahead, we’re losing some great senior leadership and esp. three strong defensemen. But we’ve a strong class coming in, one that’s larger than what we’re losing. If there’s one position I’d trust Shaffer to bring along, it’s D. If the incoming frosh can develop the way the current sophomores have, we should more than reload.

That’s crazy to think about. This team with a #1 seed.

But also, those are a lot of results to flip. Any three individually, sure. But that many...

Scersk '97
QU, like us, loses three big-minute senior D.

Make that three seniors and one junior: Rafferty jumped.

If they lose Shortridge as well, we might have a situation on our hands hee-ah.

Swampy

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And this year, at least in two regions, being a #1 seed didn’t get you a patsy. There’s parity.

But the ones playing next weekend are a bit above the rest, at least this time of year.

Remember we were missing three key players, when going into the finals at LP we were almost back to full strength. This takes its toll as others have to play harder.

Looking ahead, we’re losing some great senior leadership and esp. three strong defensemen. But we’ve a strong class coming in, one that’s larger than what we’re losing. If there’s one position I’d trust Shaffer to bring along, it’s D. If the incoming frosh can develop the way the current sophomores have, we should more than reload.

We can shoulda, woulda, coulda all we want. Our record was not appreciably different than any other team in the middle of the pairwise. Sure if we won a couple of the games that we tied, we'd have been higher, but of course, if we won those games, we would have deserved to be higher.

As to match-ups for next year, we know there's MSU in Lansing, NMU at Lynah, BU at the Garden (I believe), and then the Vegas tournament. Anybody know who's in that tournament next year besides us?

Much as in the NHL, seeds are less important than in the other sports. Just get on the dance card.

Here are the regional seeds of the national champions since we went to 4 regionals in 2003:



03 1 Minnesota
04 2 Denver
05 1 Denver
06 1 Wisconsin
07 3 Michigan State
08 2 BC
09 1 BU
10 1 BC
11 3 Minn-Duluth
12 1 BC
13 4 Yale
14 1 Union
15 4 Providence
16 1 North Dakota
17 1 Denver
18 3 Minn-Duluth

1 9
2 2
3 3
4 2

Trotsky
Much as in the NHL, seeds are less important than in the other sports. Just get on the dance card.

Here are the regional seeds of the national champions since we went to 4 regionals in 2003:



03 1 Minnesota
04 2 Denver
05 1 Denver
06 1 Wisconsin
07 3 Michigan State
08 2 BC
09 1 BU
10 1 BC
11 3 Minn-Duluth
12 1 BC
13 4 Yale
14 1 Union
15 4 Providence
16 1 North Dakota
17 1 Denver
18 3 Minn-Duluth

1 9
2 2
3 3
4 2

In the same period for men's basketball:
1 10
2 2
3 3
7 1

Jeff Hopkins '82
As to match-ups for next year, we know there's MSU in Lansing, NMU at Lynah, BU at the Garden (I believe), and then the Vegas tournament. Anybody know who's in that tournament next year besides us?

I think both Northern Michigan and BU are going to be in rebuilding mode next year, but those games at Munn are going to be tough. Let's hope the Vegas field is good.

We also seem to be moving towards greater parity over time.

Mean champion seed, 16-team period:

Years 01-08: 1.50
Years 09-16: 2.25

Consider that a completely random result would be 2.50

In 2003 the bottom teams by RPICH were: Findlay, AIC, Iona, Air Force, UConn (in their 5th year as a D-1 program), Princeton, and Fairfield. This year they were: Canisius, Merrimack, Holy Cross, Ferris State, UAH, St. Lawrence, and UAA. The bottom tier of the NC$$ is clearly much stronger now, and I think that's true commensurately throughout the entire breadth of college hockey.

arugula
I know those were home and homes, that was my point, though I may have been less than clear. I still don't get the lack of HE teams.

How would I do it? Now, it's my job? How I would do it is irrelevant, aside from the fact that I'm not in that business, that's for the program to figure out. My job is to drive 8 hours round trip in the rain (well the rain was only about 5 hours) to see lousy hockey.

However they managed to get it done the previous times sounds like a good template. Other Ivies manage it, we've managed it, so why can't it be done?

I didn't say it was your job, either, but you're asking for a better OOC schedule seemingly without much conception of what's involved. If you think there's something Coach Schafer hasn't tried, I'd love to hear it, that's all. If not, all you're basically saying is, "I wish things were better." You're certainly entitled to that feeling, and I even understand and relate to it.

As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

Beeeej
As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

My quote is actually "I'd also like a redhead."

Trotsky

Beeeej
As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

My quote is actually "I'd also like a redhead."

They are over-rated

nshapiro

Trotsky

Beeeej
As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

My quote is actually "I'd also like a redhead."

They are over-rated

Shun the non-believer. Shun. Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

BMac
That’s crazy to think about. This team with a #1 seed.

But also, those are a lot of results to flip. Any three individually, sure. But that many...

I think it only would've taken a couple of flips. You can play with the tools on CHN to find out.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Swampy

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And this year, at least in two regions, being a #1 seed didn’t get you a patsy. There’s parity.

But the ones playing next weekend are a bit above the rest, at least this time of year.

Remember we were missing three key players, when going into the finals at LP we were almost back to full strength. This takes its toll as others have to play harder.

Looking ahead, we’re losing some great senior leadership and esp. three strong defensemen. But we’ve a strong class coming in, one that’s larger than what we’re losing. If there’s one position I’d trust Shaffer to bring along, it’s D. If the incoming frosh can develop the way the current sophomores have, we should more than reload.

We can shoulda, woulda, coulda all we want. Our record was not appreciably different than any other team in the middle of the pairwise. Sure if we won a couple of the games that we tied, we'd have been higher, but of course, if we won those games, we would have deserved to be higher.

My point in making that remark, was to demonstrate that winning a few more games that slipped away - against bottom-rung teams - would've moved Cornell up considerably. It was to counterpoint the assertion that Cornell needs to schedule top-run teams, and lose to them, and that that will somehow improve their Pairwise. That was my only point there.

Jeff Hopkins '82
We can shoulda, woulda, coulda all we want. Our record was not appreciably different than any other team in the middle of the pairwise. Sure if we won a couple of the games that we tied, we'd have been higher, but of course, if we won those games, we would have deserved to be higher.

As di bubbe volt gehat beytsim volt zi gevain mayn zaidah

Every team has some results they think should have been different. If we had won all those crazy games, it would have been because we were the kind of team that didn't put itself in the position to lose a lot of crazy games. But I also take adamw's point.

Scersk '97
I think both Northern Michigan and BU are going to be in rebuilding mode next year

Over the weekend BU lost their fifth early departure to the pros. From a team that went 16-18-4. They're fucked.

nshapiro

Trotsky

Beeeej
As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

My quote is actually "I'd also like a redhead."

They are over-rated

Between a pony and a redhead?

adamw

Jeff Hopkins '82

Swampy

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And this year, at least in two regions, being a #1 seed didn’t get you a patsy. There’s parity.

But the ones playing next weekend are a bit above the rest, at least this time of year.

Remember we were missing three key players, when going into the finals at LP we were almost back to full strength. This takes its toll as others have to play harder.

Looking ahead, we’re losing some great senior leadership and esp. three strong defensemen. But we’ve a strong class coming in, one that’s larger than what we’re losing. If there’s one position I’d trust Shaffer to bring along, it’s D. If the incoming frosh can develop the way the current sophomores have, we should more than reload.

We can shoulda, woulda, coulda all we want. Our record was not appreciably different than any other team in the middle of the pairwise. Sure if we won a couple of the games that we tied, we'd have been higher, but of course, if we won those games, we would have deserved to be higher.

My point in making that remark, was to demonstrate that winning a few more games that slipped away - against bottom-rung teams - would've moved Cornell up considerably. It was to counterpoint the assertion that Cornell needs to schedule top-run teams, and lose to them, and that that will somehow improve their Pairwise. That was my only point there.

It's interesting that we are talking about seeding. I thought the original point was that we were ill prepared and playing more Hockey East teams would prepare us better for the tournament. It wouldn't have been better to come into Providence (as a #1) and lose to Providence College (as a #4) on day one of the tourney.

My belief is that the injury bug finally bit us to a point of no recovery. I could see having Malott, Haiskanen, and either healthy goalie bringing a result more like last year which I look at as a winnable game.

marty

adamw

Jeff Hopkins '82

Swampy

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And this year, at least in two regions, being a #1 seed didn’t get you a patsy. There’s parity.

But the ones playing next weekend are a bit above the rest, at least this time of year.

Remember we were missing three key players, when going into the finals at LP we were almost back to full strength. This takes its toll as others have to play harder.

Looking ahead, we’re losing some great senior leadership and esp. three strong defensemen. But we’ve a strong class coming in, one that’s larger than what we’re losing. If there’s one position I’d trust Shaffer to bring along, it’s D. If the incoming frosh can develop the way the current sophomores have, we should more than reload.

We can shoulda, woulda, coulda all we want. Our record was not appreciably different than any other team in the middle of the pairwise. Sure if we won a couple of the games that we tied, we'd have been higher, but of course, if we won those games, we would have deserved to be higher.

My point in making that remark, was to demonstrate that winning a few more games that slipped away - against bottom-rung teams - would've moved Cornell up considerably. It was to counterpoint the assertion that Cornell needs to schedule top-run teams, and lose to them, and that that will somehow improve their Pairwise. That was my only point there.

It's interesting that we are talking about seeding. I thought the original point was that we were ill prepared and playing more Hockey East teams would prepare us better for the tournament. It wouldn't have been better to come into Providence (as a #1) and lose to Providence College (as a #4) on day one of the tourney.

My belief is that the injury bug finally bit us to a point of no recovery. I could see having Malott, Haiskanen, and either healthy goalie bringing a result more like last year which I look at as a winnable game.

I also remember somewhere Schafer was quoted that a couple of guys came down with the flu. If that's true, a few more could have been infected without major symptoms. That could certainly slow them down.

Who knows, we just didn't play as well as we could have and I suspect there were multiple reasons, most of which we'll never know. I mean whoever expected that McGrath was needing surgery?

Jeff Hopkins '82

Swampy

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And this year, at least in two regions, being a #1 seed didn’t get you a patsy. There’s parity.

But the ones playing next weekend are a bit above the rest, at least this time of year.

Remember we were missing three key players, when going into the finals at LP we were almost back to full strength. This takes its toll as others have to play harder.

Looking ahead, we’re losing some great senior leadership and esp. three strong defensemen. But we’ve a strong class coming in, one that’s larger than what we’re losing. If there’s one position I’d trust Shaffer to bring along, it’s D. If the incoming frosh can develop the way the current sophomores have, we should more than reload.

We can shoulda, woulda, coulda all we want. Our record was not appreciably different than any other team in the middle of the pairwise. Sure if we won a couple of the games that we tied, we'd have been higher, but of course, if we won those games, we would have deserved to be higher.

As to match-ups for next year, we know there's MSU in Lansing, NMU at Lynah, BU at the Garden (I believe), and then the Vegas tournament. Anybody know who's in that tournament next year besides us?

Do we know for sure about those OOC games and that the tourney is next year? There is also ASU. All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

I have not heard it confirmed if either is next yr.. ASU gets their new arena in 2 yrs could be waiting for that.

Jim Hyla
All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news. I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten). Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas. I'll bet they could get anybody there.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news. I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten). Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas. I'll bet they could get anybody there.

[icevegasinvitational.com]

Beeeej

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news. I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten). Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas. I'll bet they could get anybody there.

[icevegasinvitational.com]

Where is Cornell on the 2019 schedule? What am I missing?

Do they still have nickel slots in Vegas?

Swampy

Beeeej

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news. I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten). Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas. I'll bet they could get anybody there.

[icevegasinvitational.com]

Where is Cornell on the 2019 schedule? What am I missing?

The part where Trotsky asked if this was part of a new tournament, and I responded. The 2019 tournament has already passed, as it was in January; we may or may not be in the 2020 or 2021.

marty

nshapiro

Trotsky

Beeeej
As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

My quote is actually "I'd also like a redhead."

They are over-rated

Between a pony and a redhead?

A red-haired pony?

Swampy

marty

nshapiro

Trotsky

Beeeej
As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

My quote is actually "I'd also like a redhead."

They are over-rated

Between a pony and a redhead?

A red-haired pony?

There's always Steinbeck but not my choice in red.

Beeeej

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news. I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten). Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas. I'll bet they could get anybody there.

[icevegasinvitational.com]

Thank you.

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

My point wasn't that losing to a UMass would be better than beating Canisius for PWR purposes (although it may), just that it should make you a better team.

Beeeej

arugula
I know those were home and homes, that was my point, though I may have been less than clear. I still don't get the lack of HE teams.

How would I do it? Now, it's my job? How I would do it is irrelevant, aside from the fact that I'm not in that business, that's for the program to figure out. My job is to drive 8 hours round trip in the rain (well the rain was only about 5 hours) to see lousy hockey.

However they managed to get it done the previous times sounds like a good template. Other Ivies manage it, we've managed it, so why can't it be done?

I didn't say it was your job, either, but you're asking for a better OOC schedule seemingly without much conception of what's involved. If you think there's something Coach Schafer hasn't tried, I'd love to hear it, that's all. If not, all you're basically saying is, "I wish things were better." You're certainly entitled to that feeling, and I even understand and relate to it.

As Trotsky is fond of saying, I'd also like a pony.

Honestly have no idea what Schafer or the school has or hasn't tried. I'm not a college sports administrator or coach so i do not know what goes into scheduling and how it gets done. But isn't it possible that for many reasons-expense, won-lost, travel-Cornell may prefer not doing home and homes with more difficult opponents. So, yes, I wish Cornell played a tougher schedule but I'd love to know why it doesn't.

arugula

adamw

arugula
Good breakdown of yesterday, just a bit rosy for me. As I said elsewhere, I wish the OOC schedule were stronger. How do we not play HE teams, except BU every other year. No NCHC. Rarely Big 10. And when we do, it's Merrimack or Michigan State, and not stronger teams. We should drop the Atlantic hockey teams and avoid WCHA. Losses to top teams are better that beating Niagara. We pay for that in PWR and, more important, not being ready in the tournament. Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

It's demonstrably untrue that losing to top teams is better than beating Niagara. Entirely false. There is no magic formula. Win games, that's it.

If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

My point wasn't that losing to a UMass would be better than beating Canisius for PWR purposes (although it may), just that it should make you a better team.

You specifically wrote: "We pay for that in PWR"
That's what I was replying to

Right and then I wrote “more important not being ready for the tournament”

arugula
Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

I think Providence is that good. They're in Hockey East, they have the second-longest active streak of making the NCAAs, they won a national championship five years ago, they have nine draft picks, they play smart. What I mean to say is, this is one of the best programs in the country and certainly one that is ahead of Cornell. Cornell is going to be disadvantaged against all of these big-time scholarship programs loaded with NHL talent. It's almost hard to believe that Cornell can compete with these teams at all, that they could thump Northeastern the day before. It's even somewhat hard to understand how they have largely had the better of Harvard, who recruits considerably better talent than Cornell does.

Now, there are ways around our lack of blue-chip prospects: targeting somewhat older, more developed players; recruiting good students who value an Ivy League education and want to stay four years; taking advantage of our defense-first system to attract some of the best goalies in the country--it helps when the position your school is best known for is the most important position in hockey. And I don't think the last few recruiting classes have been bad by any means, just not at the level of the schools we want to compete with. And when we have gotten elite players--Vanderlaan, Kaldis, Barron--they've been diamonds in the rough rather than heavily recruited prospects from top junior teams. As scoop85 said, we get a lot of B+ players, and the last two years when healthy we've been able to roll four lines that can score, six very capable defensemen, and a superb goalie.

For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

BearLover
I think Providence is that good. They're in Hockey East, they have the second-longest active streak of making the NCAAs, they won a national championship five years ago, they have nine draft picks, they play smart. What I mean to say is, this is one of the best programs in the country and certainly one that is ahead of Cornell. Cornell is going to be disadvantaged against all of these big-time scholarship programs loaded with NHL talent. It's almost hard to believe that Cornell can compete with these teams at all, that they could thump Northeastern the day before.

Great post.

Teams with the longest current streaks of making the NC$$:

12 Denver
 6 Minn-Duluth
 6 Providence
 3 Cornell
 3 Notre Dame
 3 Ohio State

arugula
We pay for that in PWR

AW: Not true

arugula
My point wasn't that losing to a UMass would be better than beating Canisius for PWR purposes

AW: yeah that was in your point

arugula
Right and then...

AW: SMH

BearLover
For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Although it's not plug and play I can see Andreev take Starrett's slot and Regush take Vanderlaan's. Ironic since Max plays similar to Mitch and Regush to Beau.

The more the season went on the more Regush looked like a great sleeper. As good as Max looked early, Regush looked even better, and more complete, in crunch time. Max was certainly impeded both in growth and then execution by his injury so I hope next year he can flourish uninterrupted.

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

* Both Heisenberg and Elite Prospects are projecting O'Leary for Fall 2019.

Trotsky

BearLover
For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Although it's not plug and play I can see Andreev take Starrett's slot and Regush take Vanderlaan's. Ironic since Max plays similar to Mitch and Regush to Beau.

The more the season went on the more Regush looked like a great sleeper. As good as Max looked early, Regush looked even better, and more complete, in crunch time. Max was certainly impeded both in growth and then execution by his injury so I hope next year he can flourish uninterrupted.

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

* Both Heisenberg and Elite Prospects are projecting O'Leary for 2019.

It must be a tough balancing act for the coaches to ensure sufficient depth (as we found out this year) and not having too many guys that can lead to a lot of disgruntled players and guys jumping ship. And of course it's hard to predict early departures to the pros.

scoop85
It must be a tough balancing act for the coaches to ensure sufficient depth (as we found out this year) and not having too many guys that can lead to a lot of disgruntled players and guys jumping ship. And of course it's hard to predict early departures to the pros.

We saw that with Brakel this year, or anyway that was the rumor. He might have missed his girlfriend or something. It was deeply ironic that pretty much from the moment he left the wave of injuries would have made him a starter for the rest of the season.

Doing some TBRW cleanup and entry last night I was blown away by this: Luc Lalor and Chad Otterman would have graduated with this class. Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?

Ones who went away, sorted by Freshman year (with career GP):

19: Chase Brakel (6)
18:
17: Corey Hoffman (2)
16: Trent Shore (14), Luc Lalor (6), Chad Otterman (0)
15: Dan Wedman (69)
14: Clint Lewis (32), Eric Sade (0)
13: Gavin Stoick (24)
12: Kevin Cole (2), Vincenzo Marozzi (0)
11:
10: Chris Moulson (6), Jarred Seymour (1)
09: Mike Garman (22)
08: Jordan Berk (31), Jacob Johnston (4)
07: Tony Romano (29), Justin Milo (24), Matt Hedge (0)
06: Ryan Kindret (15), Matt Connors (0)
05: Matt McKeown (0)
04: Kevin McLeod (13), Jan Pajerski (4)
03:
02:
01: Kelly Hughes (22), Scott Krahn (18), Jason Kuczmanski (11)
00:
99: Alex Gregory (41)
98: David Hovey (62), Niels Heilmann (23), Brian Telesmanic (24), Tyler Sutherland (4)
97: Levi Clegg (5)
96: Keith Peach (34), , Jesse Sampair (9), Jeff Maxwell (2)

I don't recall how many of these guys walked or were pushed, how many were disciplinary problems or academic casualties, etc. But it does show that any given recruiting class is at risk to lose 1-2 members.

Adam--OK you got me. Congratulations. Stop lawyering me. I get enough of that at work. Maybe we should go line by line and pick apart everything you've ever written for inconsistency. My point is that I think a tougher schedule may help. Doesn't seem that controversial.

adamw

arugula
We pay for that in PWR

AW: Not true

arugula
My point wasn't that losing to a UMass would be better than beating Canisius for PWR purposes

AW: yeah that was in your point

arugula
Right and then...

AW: SMH

Adam--OK you got me. Congratulations. Stop lawyering me. I get enough of that at work. Maybe we should go line by line and pick apart everything you've ever written for inconsistency. My point is that I think a tougher schedule may help. Doesn't seem that controversial.

BearLover

arugula
Providence isn't that good that we should've been so stymied. Other than perhaps the team was finally just plain spent. But hat doesn't explain past years. No problem losing to demonstrably better teams, but Providence is not 4-0 better than us. Frustrates the hell out me, all the NC$$ losses-UNH, Ferris, Bemidji--those are games you need to win. Wisconsin makes my head hurt, but that was Wisconsin, no shame there

I think Providence is that good. They're in Hockey East, they have the second-longest active streak of making the NCAAs, they won a national championship five years ago, they have nine draft picks, they play smart. What I mean to say is, this is one of the best programs in the country and certainly one that is ahead of Cornell. Cornell is going to be disadvantaged against all of these big-time scholarship programs loaded with NHL talent. It's almost hard to believe that Cornell can compete with these teams at all, that they could thump Northeastern the day before. It's even somewhat hard to understand how they have largely had the better of Harvard, who recruits considerably better talent than Cornell does.

Now, there are ways around our lack of blue-chip prospects: targeting somewhat older, more developed players; recruiting good students who value an Ivy League education and want to stay four years; taking advantage of our defense-first system to attract some of the best goalies in the country--it helps when the position your school is best known for is the most important position in hockey. And I don't think the last few recruiting classes have been bad by any means, just not at the level of the schools we want to compete with. And when we have gotten elite players--Vanderlaan, Kaldis, Barron--they've been diamonds in the rough rather than heavily recruited prospects from top junior teams. As scoop85 said, we get a lot of B+ players, and the last two years when healthy we've been able to roll four lines that can score, six very capable defensemen, and a superb goalie.

For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Get all your points about PC, OTOH, PC lost to a mediocre BC team four times. Of course, we also know that oodles of talent and draft picks doesn't per se mean wins-BC and BU for example. I recognize the obstacles we face, I'd just like to see us make the leap occasionally--Union managed to do it, more significantly Yale and Harvard have managed to do it operating under the same rules. We've lost five straight regional finals over the last 10-12 years. It's fantastic that the program is consistently excellent. It would just be nice to take the next step on occasion. Definitely key to keep players for four years, as in hoops, a B+Senior can beat an A+ Freshman

arugula

adamw

arugula
We pay for that in PWR

AW: Not true

arugula
My point wasn't that losing to a UMass would be better than beating Canisius for PWR purposes

AW: yeah that was in your point

arugula
Right and then...

AW: SMH

Adam--OK you got me. Congratulations. Stop lawyering me. I get enough of that at work. Maybe we should go line by line and pick apart everything you've ever written for inconsistency. My point is that I think a tougher schedule may help. Doesn't seem that controversial.

Correcting a statement that losing to a good team helps more than beating a bad team is more than just nitpicking. There have been cases in the NCAA where that was true, e.g., in lacrosse, where the selection criteria were so heavily weighted towards strength of schedule that the best schedule was one that let you go 6-5 with a 2-5 record vs top 10 teams. But when similar things have happened in hockey (beating a bad team is worse than not playing them at all) the NCAA has responded by tweaking the selection criteria (playing with RPI weightings and dropping "bad wins" to avoid that.

jtwcornell91

arugula

adamw

arugula
We pay for that in PWR

AW: Not true

arugula
My point wasn't that losing to a UMass would be better than beating Canisius for PWR purposes

AW: yeah that was in your point

arugula
Right and then...

AW: SMH

Adam--OK you got me. Congratulations. Stop lawyering me. I get enough of that at work. Maybe we should go line by line and pick apart everything you've ever written for inconsistency. My point is that I think a tougher schedule may help. Doesn't seem that controversial.

Correcting a statement that losing to a good team helps more than beating a bad team is more than just nitpicking. There have been cases in the NCAA where that was true, e.g., in lacrosse, where the selection criteria were so heavily weighted towards strength of schedule that the best schedule was one that let you go 6-5 with a 2-5 record vs top 10 teams. But when similar things have happened in hockey (beating a bad team is worse than not playing them at all) the NCAA has responded by tweaking the selection criteria (playing with RPI weightings and dropping "bad wins" to avoid that.

Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely. It's a moot argument as the team will schedule as they see fit.

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

adamw

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

From what I can tell, the best way to game the system is to play more road games than home games, and to do well in those games. If you're winning most of your games at home and on the road, more road games are going to help you in a big way. If I were in charge of everything, I'd lessen the reward for road wins and penalty for home losses.

As to scheduling, yeah, there's no way to tell who is gonna be good and who isn't. Add in all the troubles in scheduling and there isn't much to be done.

Dafatone

adamw

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

From what I can tell, the best way to game the system is to play more road games than home games, and to do well in those games. If you're winning most of your games at home and on the road, more road games are going to help you in a big way. If I were in charge of everything, I'd lessen the reward for road wins and penalty for home losses.

As to scheduling, yeah, there's no way to tell who is gonna be good and who isn't. Add in all the troubles in scheduling and there isn't much to be done.

You got it right there. The best way to game the system is to do well!!!! Home, road, good or bad teams, win and you'll be okay.

ASU showed this year that wining is the answer. Beat enough so-so teams and it doesn't matter that much that your record against the good teams is so-so. 2-10-1 against teams that ended up in top 20 of PWR. Overall record was 21-13-1, so 19-3-0 against the others.

We couldn't do as well against the teams we should have beaten, even though we didn't really have trouble with ASU. As previously noted by Adam, if we had beaten those teams, a lot higher PWR. So just win baby, win, even if all you schedule are the "cream puffs".

just dont lose those 3-4 games we totally dominated and everything else too care of itself..

Jim Hyla
ASU showed this year that wining is the answer. Beat enough so-so teams and it doesn't matter that much that your record against the good teams is so-so. 2-10-1 against teams that ended up in top 20 of PWR. Overall record was 21-13-1, so 19-3-0 against the others.

We couldn't do as well against the teams we should have beaten, even though we didn't really have trouble with ASU. As previously noted by Adam, if we had beaten those teams, a lot higher PWR. So just win baby, win, even if all you schedule are the "cream puffs".

I am sorry for my ignorance but what is the tool and the url for where I can go back and flip a result or two and see the consequences? (I want to flip both RPI games to wins and see what happens, but I figure I may want to mess about with it further.)

Trotsky

BearLover
For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Although it's not plug and play I can see Andreev take Starrett's slot and Regush take Vanderlaan's. Ironic since Max plays similar to Mitch and Regush to Beau.

The more the season went on the more Regush looked like a great sleeper. As good as Max looked early, Regush looked even better, and more complete, in crunch time. Max was certainly impeded both in growth and then execution by his injury so I hope next year he can flourish uninterrupted.

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

* Both Heisenberg and Elite Prospects are projecting O'Leary for Fall 2019.

Safe bet that a few underclassmen guys will not be back and potentially a deferral from a recruit up front

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
ASU showed this year that wining is the answer. Beat enough so-so teams and it doesn't matter that much that your record against the good teams is so-so. 2-10-1 against teams that ended up in top 20 of PWR. Overall record was 21-13-1, so 19-3-0 against the others.

We couldn't do as well against the teams we should have beaten, even though we didn't really have trouble with ASU. As previously noted by Adam, if we had beaten those teams, a lot higher PWR. So just win baby, win, even if all you schedule are the "cream puffs".

I am sorry for my ignorance but what is the tool and the url for where I can go back and flip a result or two and see the consequences? (I want to flip both RPI games to wins and see what happens, but I figure I may want to mess about with it further.)

At CHN, go to customize. If we flip a very few reasonable results-split with MSU, get one off RPI, win Colgate, beat Dartmouth- we're like at 3 or 4.
[www.collegehockeynews.com]#

Seems we're mixing two different goals of scheduling that are better treated separately.

One is related to PWR and qualifying for the NC$$s. We've discussed this to death.

The other is developing the team over the season. I'm not the Cornell coach, and that's a very good thing, but I would want some early games against easier competition to (1) work on some things that the team needs to work on and that are not easily worked on without competition and (2) to experiment and see how some players do when they "play up" on lines they wouldn't ordinarily play on and against the other team's better players.

There's a reason why the team scrimmages other teams and plays generally weaker Canadian college teams before taking on better teams.

From a PWR standpoint, this year we dug ourselves a hole being swept by MSU. In hindsight, perhaps Mercyhurst or Canisius would have been wiser choices for opening weekend, given that the opposing team has the advantage of having 4-5 games under its belt.

OTOH, from a team-development standpoint, maybe being swept by a middling team was just what the doctor ordered to light a fire underneath the guys who were too complacently reading their press clippings,

Trotsky

BearLover
For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Although it's not plug and play I can see Andreev take Starrett's slot and Regush take Vanderlaan's. Ironic since Max plays similar to Mitch and Regush to Beau.

The more the season went on the more Regush looked like a great sleeper. As good as Max looked early, Regush looked even better, and more complete, in crunch time. Max was certainly impeded both in growth and then execution by his injury so I hope next year he can flourish uninterrupted.

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Schafer essentially said as much at the alumni dinner in New Haven.

Trotsky

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

Swampy

Trotsky

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

He started showing decommits a couple years ago for completeness (and it reduces confusion). As far as the increase in decommits, it seems to be NCAA-wide. I have no idea why it has accelerated. Perhaps players are committing earlier and then things change. Perhaps players and families are more witting about the process now and/or less willing to be fucked over by the schools.

Or maybe we're seeing guys who wanted to come but couldn't make the admissions standards. I mean, it does happen, presumably.

Swampy

Trotsky

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

A lot of those guys ditched the NCAA and opted for major juniors

scoop85

Swampy

Trotsky

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone) and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka). That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

A lot of those guys ditched the NCAA and opted for major juniors

But that's always happened.

adamw

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

In theory, you're right that the PWR perfectly accounts for the greater difficulty of harder opponents by weighting wins proportionally more and losses proportionally less, and vice versa for weaker opponents. But in practice, do we really have a sense of whether that weighting is correct? PWR is basically RPI, which CHN says is computed as follows:
(1) A team's own winning percentage (25%)
(2) The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%)
(3) The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%)

Do we actually have a good sense for whether these numbers are calibrated properly? I.e., is this truly the ideal ratio of (1), (2), and (3) for determining how good a team is? If the breakdown were 35/16/49, for instance, it would be more beneficial than it is now to schedule easier opponents. And the opposite would be true if the breakdown were 15/26/59. These are just hypothetical numbers; the the point is: what makes the 25/21/54 breakdown "right"? How did we arrive there? It's highly possible the numbers are off, and the ideal ratio of (1), (2) and (3) for evaluating teams is something else, such that under the current RPI it is beneficial to schedule easier opponents, or harder opponents.

The same goes for the home/away weighting, as Dafatone alluded to. I recall seeing somewhere that teams receive a 1.2x boost for an away win, and likewise suffer only .8x as much of an RPI hit for an away loss. Are these 1.2/.8 numbers based on a real study of the benefit of home-ice advantage, or just conjecture? Before we treat the PWR/RPI as the be-all-end-all, we should probably confirm the formulas on which they are based.

BearLover

adamw

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

In theory, you're right that the PWR perfectly accounts for the greater difficulty of harder opponents by weighting wins proportionally more and losses proportionally less, and vice versa for weaker opponents. But in practice, do we really have a sense of whether that weighting is correct? PWR is basically RPI, which CHN says is computed as follows:
(1) A team's own winning percentage (25%)
(2) The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%)
(3) The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%)

Do we actually have a good sense for whether these numbers are calibrated properly? I.e., is this truly the ideal ratio of (1), (2), and (3) for determining how good a team is? If the breakdown were 35/16/49, for instance, it would be more beneficial than it is now to schedule easier opponents. And the opposite would be true if the breakdown were 15/26/59. These are just hypothetical numbers; the the point is: what makes the 25/21/54 breakdown "right"? How did we arrive there? It's highly possible the numbers are off, and the ideal ratio of (1), (2) and (3) for evaluating teams is something else, such that under the current RPI it is beneficial to schedule easier opponents, or harder opponents.

The same goes for the home/away weighting, as Dafatone alluded to. I recall seeing somewhere that teams receive a 1.2x boost for an away win, and likewise suffer only .8x as much of an RPI hit for an away loss. Are these 1.2/.8 numbers based on a real study of the benefit of home-ice advantage, or just conjecture? Before we treat the PWR/RPI as the be-all-end-all, we should probably confirm the formulas on which they are based.

Agree and that's the rub. How do you do the confirmation, or do you use KRACH?

Personally I think that ASU showed this year that PWR is not the be-all and end-all. The question is, is it the best we can get?

Opponent news/not exactly early departure? Lackey you PC.

Michael Lackey will join @FriarsHockey next season as grad student. 6-foot-4 goalie had .918 save percentage for Harvard this season

— Mark Divver (@MarkDivver) April 4, 2019

?s=21

Beeeej

Swampy

Beeeej

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news. I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten). Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas. I'll bet they could get anybody there.

[icevegasinvitational.com]

Where is Cornell on the 2019 schedule? What am I missing?

The part where Trotsky asked if this was part of a new tournament, and I responded. The 2019 tournament has already passed, as it was in January; we may or may not be in the 2020 or 2021.

According to Annie and Ned Dykes, Schafer told CHA that we will be in the Vegas tournament next year and postpone the "and home" with ASU to the following year.

One begins to hope that the sirens of pro contracts sing unusually well toward Providence this year. Lots of drafted juniors…

BearLover

adamw

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

In theory, you're right that the PWR perfectly accounts for the greater difficulty of harder opponents by weighting wins proportionally more and losses proportionally less, and vice versa for weaker opponents. But in practice, do we really have a sense of whether that weighting is correct? PWR is basically RPI, which CHN says is computed as follows:
(1) A team's own winning percentage (25%)
(2) The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%)
(3) The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%)

Do we actually have a good sense for whether these numbers are calibrated properly? I.e., is this truly the ideal ratio of (1), (2), and (3) for determining how good a team is? If the breakdown were 35/16/49, for instance, it would be more beneficial than it is now to schedule easier opponents. And the opposite would be true if the breakdown were 15/26/59. These are just hypothetical numbers; the the point is: what makes the 25/21/54 breakdown "right"? How did we arrive there? It's highly possible the numbers are off, and the ideal ratio of (1), (2) and (3) for evaluating teams is something else, such that under the current RPI it is beneficial to schedule easier opponents, or harder opponents.

The same goes for the home/away weighting, as Dafatone alluded to. I recall seeing somewhere that teams receive a 1.2x boost for an away win, and likewise suffer only .8x as much of an RPI hit for an away loss. Are these 1.2/.8 numbers based on a real study of the benefit of home-ice advantage, or just conjecture? Before we treat the PWR/RPI as the be-all-end-all, we should probably confirm the formulas on which they are based.

I agree that these numbers are somewhat arbitrary - which is why KRACH is better. But I can tell you that they are tested to find a reasonable equilibrium. It's basically fudging by hand until it makes sense. And they've been changed over the years, for a variety of reasons.

adamw

BearLover

adamw

arugula
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie? If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage. Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system. There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey. You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more. Either way, Pairwise is the same. But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up. There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

In theory, you're right that the PWR perfectly accounts for the greater difficulty of harder opponents by weighting wins proportionally more and losses proportionally less, and vice versa for weaker opponents. But in practice, do we really have a sense of whether that weighting is correct? PWR is basically RPI, which CHN says is computed as follows:
(1) A team's own winning percentage (25%)
(2) The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%)
(3) The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%)

Do we actually have a good sense for whether these numbers are calibrated properly? I.e., is this truly the ideal ratio of (1), (2), and (3) for determining how good a team is? If the breakdown were 35/16/49, for instance, it would be more beneficial than it is now to schedule easier opponents. And the opposite would be true if the breakdown were 15/26/59. These are just hypothetical numbers; the the point is: what makes the 25/21/54 breakdown "right"? How did we arrive there? It's highly possible the numbers are off, and the ideal ratio of (1), (2) and (3) for evaluating teams is something else, such that under the current RPI it is beneficial to schedule easier opponents, or harder opponents.

The same goes for the home/away weighting, as Dafatone alluded to. I recall seeing somewhere that teams receive a 1.2x boost for an away win, and likewise suffer only .8x as much of an RPI hit for an away loss. Are these 1.2/.8 numbers based on a real study of the benefit of home-ice advantage, or just conjecture? Before we treat the PWR/RPI as the be-all-end-all, we should probably confirm the formulas on which they are based.

I agree that these numbers are somewhat arbitrary - which is why KRACH is better. But I can tell you that they are tested to find a reasonable equilibrium. It's basically fudging by hand until it makes sense. And they've been changed over the years, for a variety of reasons.

Back when the weightings were 25-50-25 or 35-50-15, a good way to game the system (perhaps unintentionally) was to play a bunch of opponents who themselves had good records against weak schedules. That way, your opponents' winning percentage is high, even though your opponents themselves may not be so good. This is basically how Quinnipiac and Niagara got overrated in RPI, and therefore PWR, back in the early 00s. The problem is that while a team's RPI has a big strength of schedule component, RPI's assessment of that strength of schedule was almost all down to the winning percentage of opponents, not considering *their* strength of schedule very much (especially when the weights were changed to 35-50-15 to reduce the chance of dropping in RPI by beating a good team). The strength of an opponent was something like 67-33-00 or 77-23-00 in the old system. (50/(50+25)=.67 and 50/(50+15)=.77). With the new weights, however, the breakdown of record and schedule in evaluating an opponent is 28-72-00 (21/(21+54)=.28), which is a log closer to the 25% record and 75% strength of schedule used in RPI itself.

See the discussion/definition of "RPI Strength" at [elynah.com] versus [elynah.com] and [elynah.com]

adamw
If Cornell didn't have a crazy home tie to QU, a crazy home OT loss to Colgate and RPI, a crazy tie at Brown, and two bad home losses to Michigan State - they'd have been a No. 1 seed.

And then we might have run into Providence in the first game.

The other purpose of playing good teams is maybe you'll beat some of them. Doing that mid-fall when your opponent has played a half-dozen games, is a challenge.

and maybe play them in game 1 before so many got hurt and the ice sucked

Progression of Cornell GF and 10+ scorers:

2015    57    Hilbrich 10
2016    79    Angello 11, Kubiak 10
2017    99    Vanderlaan 15, Angello 12, Yates 12
2018   102    Angello 13, Yates 13, Rauter 11
2019   108    Barron 15, Donaldson 12, Regush 12, Vanderlaan 11

Trotsky
Progression of Cornell GF and 10+ scorers:

2015    57    Hilbrich 10
2016    79    Angello 11, Kubiak 10
2017    99    Vanderlaan 15, Angello 12, Yates 12
2018   102    Angello 13, Yates 13, Rauter 11
2019   108    Barron 15, Donaldson 12, Regush 12, Vanderlaan 11

If only.........

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Progression of Cornell GF and 10+ scorers:

2015    57    Hilbrich 10
2016    79    Angello 11, Kubiak 10
2017    99    Vanderlaan 15, Angello 12, Yates 12
2018   102    Angello 13, Yates 13, Rauter 11
2019   108    Barron 15, Donaldson 12, Regush 12, Vanderlaan 11

If only.........

Speaking of... most goals by a freshman:

2000    8    Matt McRae
2001    7    Vesce
2002    4    Knoepfli
2003   13    Moulson
2004    6    Carefoot
2005    5    Scott
2006    3    Kennedy
2007   11    Greening
2008   12    R. Nash
2009    3    Collins, Ross
2010    4    D'Agostino, Esposito
2011    3    Mowrey
2012    8    Ferlin
2013    2    Hilbrich, Knisley
2014    4    Buckles
2015    2    Bliss, Tschantz
2016   11    Angello
2017    6    Malott
2018    5    Barron, Betts
2019   12    Regush

On a team without Barron we'd all be insanely high on Regush.

For fun comparison:

1985   21    Nieuwendyk

in 29 games

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Progression of Cornell GF and 10+ scorers:

2015    57    Hilbrich 10
2016    79    Angello 11, Kubiak 10
2017    99    Vanderlaan 15, Angello 12, Yates 12
2018   102    Angello 13, Yates 13, Rauter 11
2019   108    Barron 15, Donaldson 12, Regush 12, Vanderlaan 11

If only.........

Speaking of... most goals by a freshman:

2000    8    Matt McRae
2001    7    Vesce
2002    4    Knoepfli
2003   13    Moulson
2004    6    Carefoot
2005    5    Scott
2006    3    Kennedy
2007   11    Greening
2008   12    R. Nash
2009    3    Collins, Ross
2010    4    D'Agostino, Esposito
2011    3    Mowrey
2012    8    Ferlin
2013    2    Hilbrich, Knisley
2014    4    Buckles
2015    2    Bliss, Tschantz
2016   11    Angello
2017    6    Malott
2018    5    Barron, Betts
2019   12    Regush

On a team without Barron we'd all be insanely high on Regush.

For fun comparison:

1985   21    Nieuwendyk

in 29 games

Great as Niuewendyk was, those were such radically different times for scoring. Just apples and oranges. Not uncommon then to see two points a game players, as Joe was the following two years.

arugula

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Progression of Cornell GF and 10+ scorers:

2015    57    Hilbrich 10
2016    79    Angello 11, Kubiak 10
2017    99    Vanderlaan 15, Angello 12, Yates 12
2018   102    Angello 13, Yates 13, Rauter 11
2019   108    Barron 15, Donaldson 12, Regush 12, Vanderlaan 11

If only.........

Speaking of... most goals by a freshman:

2000    8    Matt McRae
2001    7    Vesce
2002    4    Knoepfli
2003   13    Moulson
2004    6    Carefoot
2005    5    Scott
2006    3    Kennedy
2007   11    Greening
2008   12    R. Nash
2009    3    Collins, Ross
2010    4    D'Agostino, Esposito
2011    3    Mowrey
2012    8    Ferlin
2013    2    Hilbrich, Knisley
2014    4    Buckles
2015    2    Bliss, Tschantz
2016   11    Angello
2017    6    Malott
2018    5    Barron, Betts
2019   12    Regush

On a team without Barron we'd all be insanely high on Regush.

For fun comparison:

1985   21    Nieuwendyk

in 29 games

Great as Niuewendyk was, those were such radically different times for scoring. Just apples and oranges. Not uncommon then to see two points a game players, as Joe was the following two years.

I am !

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Progression of Cornell GF and 10+ scorers:

2015    57    Hilbrich 10
2016    79    Angello 11, Kubiak 10
2017    99    Vanderlaan 15, Angello 12, Yates 12
2018   102    Angello 13, Yates 13, Rauter 11
2019   108    Barron 15, Donaldson 12, Regush 12, Vanderlaan 11

If only.........

Speaking of... most goals by a freshman:

2000    8    Matt McRae
2001    7    Vesce
2002    4    Knoepfli
2003   13    Moulson
2004    6    Carefoot
2005    5    Scott
2006    3    Kennedy
2007   11    Greening
2008   12    R. Nash
2009    3    Collins, Ross
2010    4    D'Agostino, Esposito
2011    3    Mowrey
2012    8    Ferlin
2013    2    Hilbrich, Knisley
2014    4    Buckles
2015    2    Bliss, Tschantz
2016   11    Angello
2017    6    Malott
2018    5    Barron, Betts
2019   12    Regush

On a team without Barron we'd all be insanely high on Regush.

For fun comparison:

1985   21    Nieuwendyk

in 29 games

Well, all those other freshmen in double-digits had many more assists than Regush (3).