Polls 2019-20

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

ajh258
But this is giving me a boost.

Given the news in the real world the past few years. Cornell hockey is what's kept me out of the booby hatch.

You and me both, friend.

Make it 3.

Regarding the women’s poll, I’m a little surprised the women didn’t at least leapfrog over Northeastern given their dominance the past 2 weekends. But I’m too lazy to see what Northeastern did this past weekend.

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

ajh258
But this is giving me a boost.

Given the news in the real world the past few years. Cornell hockey is what's kept me out of the booby hatch.

You and me both, friend.

Make it 3.

Regarding the women’s poll, I’m a little surprised the women didn’t at least leapfrog over Northeastern given their dominance the past 2 weekends. But I’m too lazy to see what Northeastern did this past weekend.

Northeastern swept UVM 4-0 and 10-2.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

ajh258
But this is giving me a boost.

Given the news in the real world the past few years. Cornell hockey is what's kept me out of the booby hatch.

You and me both, friend.

+10

30/34 first place votes in USA Today (88%)
40/50 first place votes in USCHO (80%)

These are our highest first place vote totals in the history of these polls.

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
January 27, 2020
	Team	              Points  (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	Cornell University 	502	(30)	1	14-1-4	17
2	University North Dakota 471	(4)	2	19-3-3	13
3	Minnesota State Univer 	439		3	23-4-1	17
4	University of Denver 	421		5	17-4-5	17
5	Boston College 	        355		4	15-7-0	14
6	University Massachusetts303		7	16-8-2	17
7	Clarkson University 	297		8	17-6-2	17
8	Providence College 	252		10	14-6-5	14
9	Penn State University 	248		9	17-8-1	17
10	Univer Minnesota Duluth 206		11	13-9-2	17
11	Ohio State University 	197		6	15-8-3	17
12	Arizona State University131		13	16-9-3	5
13	Northeastern University 108		14	13-7-2	17
14	Uni Massachusetts Lowell 50		12	13-7-5	11
15	Northern Michigan Univer 43		15	14-8-4	2

Others receiving votes: Michigan State University 26, University of New Hampshire 13, 
Quinnipiac University 6, Harvard University 6, Western Michigan University 3, 
Sacred Heart University 2, University of Maine 1.

NCAA Tournament Pairwise Comparison Ratings

Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	North Dakota 	59 	.6149 	1 	.0060 	19-3-3 	.8200 	.8319
2 	Cornell 	58 	.6089 	2 	.0068 	14-1-4 	.8421 	.8457
3 	Minnesota State 57 	.6032 	3 	.0067 	23-4-1 	.8393 	.8298
4 	Denver 	        56 	.5889 	4 	.0065 	17-4-5 	.7500 	.7559
5 	Boston College 	55 	.5663 	5 	.0037 	15-7-0 	.6818 	.6842
6 	Penn State 	54 	.5576 	6 	.0013 	17-8-1 	.6731 	.6614
7 	Massachusetts 	53 	.5510 	7 	.0045 	16-8-2 	.6538 	.6641
8 	Clarkson 	52 	.5502 	8 	.0012 	17-6-2 	.7200 	.7143
9 	Providence 	51 	.5495 	9 	.0063 	14-6-5 	.6600 	.6434
10 	Ohio State 	50 	.5484 	10 	.0022 	15-8-3 	.6346 	.6375
11 	Arizona State 	49 	.5460 	11 	.0044 	16-9-3 	.6250 	.6360
12 	Minnesota-Duluth48 	.5457 	12 	.0042 	13-9-2 	.5833 	.5763
13 	Northeastern 	47 	.5393 	13 	.0032 	13-7-2 	.6364 	.6442
14 	New Hampshire 	46 	.5388 	14 	.0071 	13-9-2 	.5833 	.5893
15 	Northrn Michigan44 	.5370 	15 	.0026 	14-8-4 	.6154 	.6136
16 	Mass.-Lowell 	44 	.5355 	16 	.0050 	13-7-5 	.6200 	.6063
17 	Maine 	        43 	.5342 	17 	.0062 	12-9-4 	.5600 	.5965
18 	Michigan State 	42 	.5331 	18 	.0046 	13-12-1 .5192 	.5118
19 	Quinnipiac 	41 	.5324 	19 	.0018 	14-9-1 	.6042 	.6195
20 	Bemidji State 	39 	.5311 	20 	.0022 	14-8-4 	.6154 	.6260
21 	Harvard 	39 	.5303 	21 	.0040 	9-6-4 	.5789 	.5781
22 	Western Michigan37 	.5260 	22 	.0034 	11-9-4 	.5417 	.5342
23 	Dartmouth 	37 	.5241 	23 	.0039 	10-6-4 	.6000 	.6087
24 	Michigan 	35 	.5229 	24 	.0054 	10-11-3 .4792 	.4874
25 	Nebraska-Omaha 	35 	.5223 	25 	.0057 	11-10-5 .5192 	.5263
26 	Minnesota 	35 	.5210 	26 	.0033 	10-10-4 .5000 	.4746
27 	Notre Dame 	33 	.5200 	27 	.0039 	11-11-4 .5000 	.4841
28 	Boston Univer 	32 	.5185 	28 	.0044 	9-8-6 	.5217 	.5140
29 	Michigan Tech 	32 	.5169 	29 	.0029 	14-12-3 .5345 	.5364
30 	Sacred Heart 	30 	.5114 	30 	.0004 	16-8-2 	.6538 	.6403

For some reason it won't let me post the Men's KRACH

Women's National Collegiate PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Wisconsin	40	23-2-1	0.9038	2	0.6987*	1
2	Cornell	        39	18-1-2	0.9048	1	0.6749*	2
3	Minnesota	38	20-4-3	0.7963	4	0.6544*	3
4	Northeastern	37	21-3-1	0.8600	3	0.6343*	4
5	Ohio State	36	16-6-4	0.6923	8	0.6236*	5
6	Princeton	35	14-4-1	0.7632	6	0.6118*	6
7	Clarkson	34	18-4-4	0.7692	5	0.5869*	7
8	Boston Univer   33	17-5-3	0.7400	7	0.5746*	8
9	Minnesota Duluth32	12-8-4	0.5833	12	0.5636	9
10	Harvard	        31	11-8-1	0.5750	16	0.5499*	10
11	Colgate	        30	13-11-4	0.5357	22	0.5438*	11
12	Quinnipiac	29	13-9-3	0.5800	13	0.5419*	12
13	Robert Morris	28	15-9-2	0.6154	9	0.5383*	13

KRACH: National Collegiate Women

Rank	Team	       Rating	RRWP Win % Rk	W-L-T	Win % Win Ratio	SOS Rk	SOS

1	Wisconsin	7194.	.9529	2	23-2-1	0.9038	9.400	3	765.3
2	Cornell	        3974.	.9217	1	18-1-2	0.9048	9.500	5	418.3
3	Minnesota	3534.	.9144	4	20-4-3	0.7963	3.909	2	904.1
4	Ohio State	2063.	.8752	8	16-6-4	0.6923	2.250	1	916.8
5	Princeton	1225.	.8282	6	14-4-1	0.7632	3.222	6	380.2
6	Northeastern	1060.	.8135	3	21-3-1	0.8600	6.143	15	172.6
7	Minnesota Duluth 666.0	.7613	12	12-8-4	0.5833	1.400	4	475.7
8	Clarkson	 639.9	.7565	5	18-4-4	0.7692	3.333	13	192.0
9	Bemidji State	 408.4	.6990	22	14-12-2	0.5357	1.154	7	353.9
10	Boston University374.7	.6874	7	17-5-3	0.7400	2.846	21	131.7
11	Harvard	         372.4	.6865	16	11-8-1	0.5750	1.353	10	275.2
12	Colgate	         353.2	.6793	22	13-11-4	0.5357	1.154	8	306.1
13	Robert Morris	 268.2	.6408	9	15-9-2	0.6154	1.600	16	167.6
14	Quinnipiac	 267.3	.6403	13	13-9-3	0.5800	1.381	12	193.5

+1

I just noticed that there are only two one loss teams in Division I college hockey, and they both play their home games at Lynah Rink. Pretty cool.

djk26
I just noticed that there are only two one loss teams in Division I college hockey, and they both play their home games at Lynah Rink. Pretty cool.

And they both have award wining goaltenders.

Combined PWR of this week's opponents:

 80   1. NoDak     CC (40) x2
 72   2. Cornell   at Quinnipiac (19), at Princeton (53)
114   3. Mankato   at UAA (57) x2
 24   4. Denver    Duluth (12) x2
 35   5. BC        at UMass (7), vs BU (28)

Rankings roundup: How the top 20 teams fared, Jan. 31-Feb. 1

No. 1 Cornell (15-2-4)
01/31/2020 – No. 1 Cornell 0 at No. 18 Quinnipiac 5
02/01/2020 – No. 1 Cornell 5 at Princeton 3

No. 2 North Dakota (21-3-3)
01/31/2020 – Colorado College 0 at No. 2 North Dakota 1
02/01/2020 – Colorado College 1 at No. 2 North Dakota 8

No. 3 Minnesota State (24-4-2)
01/31/2020 – No. 3 Minnesota State 7 at Alaska Anchorage 1
02/01/2020 – No. 3 Minnesota State 2 at Alaska Anchorage 2 (OT)

No. 4 Denver (17-6-5)
01/31/2020 – No. 10 Minnesota Duluth 3 at No. 4 Denver 2
02/01/2020 – No. 10 Minnesota Duluth 4 at No. 4 Denver 1

No. 5 Boston College (16-7-0)
01/31/2020 – No. 5 Boston College 3 at No. 7 Massachusetts 0

No. 6 Clarkson (19-6-2)
01/31/2020 – Yale 1 at No. 6 Clarkson 3
02/01/2020 – Brown 1 at No. 6 Clarkson 4

No. 7 Massachusetts (16-9-2)
01/31/2020 – No. 5 Boston College 3 at No. 7 Massachusetts 0

No. 8 Penn State (17-9-2)
01/31/2020 – RV Notre Dame 3 at No. 8 Penn State 3 (OT)
02/01/2020 – RV Notre Dame 4 at No. 8 Penn State 2

No. 9 Providence (14-7-5)
01/31/2020 – No. 9 Providence 3 at No. 13 Northeastern 4

No. 10 Minnesota Duluth (15-9-2)
01/31/2020 – No. 10 Minnesota Duluth 3 at No. 4 Denver 2
02/01/2020 – No. 10 Minnesota Duluth 4 at No. 4 Denver 1

No. 11 Ohio State (16-9-3)
01/31/2020 – No. 11 Ohio State 2 at RV Michigan 3
02/01/2020 – No. 11 Ohio State 4 at RV Michigan 1

No. 12 Arizona State (18-9-3)
01/31/2020 – Robert Morris 2 at No. 12 Arizona State 3
02/01/2020 – Robert Morris 4 at No. 12 Arizona State 5

No. 13 Northeastern (14-7-2)
01/31/2020 – No. 9 Providence 3 at No. 13 Northeastern 4

No. 14 UMass Lowell (13-7-5)
Did not play.

No. 15 Northern Michigan (16-8-4)
01/31/2020 – Ferris State 2 at No. 15 Northern Michigan 5
02/01/2020 – Ferris State 2 at No. 15 Northern Michigan 5

No. 16 Harvard (10-6-4)
01/31/2020 – No. 16 Harvard 8 at Union 5

No. 17 Michigan State (13-12-1)
Did not play.

No. 18 Quinnipiac (16-9-1)
01/31/2020 – No. 1 Cornell 0 at No. 18 Quinnipiac 5
02/01/2020 – Colgate 1 at No. 18 Quinnipiac 2

No. 19 Bemidji State (16-8-4)
01/31/2020 – RV Bowling Green 1 at No. 19 Bemidji State 4
02/01/2020 – RV Bowling Green 2 at No. 19 Bemidji State 4

No. 20 Sacred Heart (18-8-2)
01/31/2020 – No. 20 Sacred Heart 5 at Air Force 4 (OT)
02/01/2020 – No. 20 Sacred Heart 5 at Air Force 2

RV = Received Votes

I'll clean this up later.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - February 3, 2020
Rnk	Team	(First Place Votes)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	North Dakota	(49)	21-3-3	998	2
2	Cornell		15-2-4	913	1
3	Minnesota State	(1)	24-4-2	903	3
4	Boston College		16-7-0	839	5
5	Clarkson		19-6-2	768	6
6	Minnesota Duluth		15-9-2	749	10
7	Denver		17-6-5	739	4
8	Massachusetts		16-9-2	597	7
9	Penn State		17-9-2	535	8
10	Providence		14-7-5	497	9
11	Arizona State		18-9-3	489	12
12	Northeastern		14-7-2	482	13
13	Ohio State		16-9-3	471	11
14	UMass Lowell		13-7-5	307	14
15	Northern Michigan		16-8-4	290	15
16	Quinnipiac		16-9-1	257	18
17	Harvard		10-6-4	192	16
18	Bemidji State		16-8-4	131	19
19	Michigan State		13-12-1	107	17
20	Sacred Heart		18-8-2	73	20

Others receiving votes: Maine 52, Bowling Green 27, Minnesota 22, Notre Dame 20

Jim Hyla
I'll clean this up later.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - February 3, 2020
Rnk	Team	(First Place Votes)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	North Dakota	(49)	21-3-3	998	2
2	Cornell		15-2-4	913	1
3	Minnesota State	(1)	24-4-2	903	3
4	Boston College		16-7-0	839	5
5	Clarkson		19-6-2	768	6
6	Minnesota Duluth		15-9-2	749	10
7	Denver		17-6-5	739	4
8	Massachusetts		16-9-2	597	7
9	Penn State		17-9-2	535	8
10	Providence		14-7-5	497	9
11	Arizona State		18-9-3	489	12
12	Northeastern		14-7-2	482	13
13	Ohio State		16-9-3	471	11
14	UMass Lowell		13-7-5	307	14
15	Northern Michigan		16-8-4	290	15
16	Quinnipiac		16-9-1	257	18
17	Harvard		10-6-4	192	16
18	Bemidji State		16-8-4	131	19
19	Michigan State		13-12-1	107	17
20	Sacred Heart		18-8-2	73	20

Others receiving votes: Maine 52, Bowling Green 27, Minnesota 22, Notre Dame 20

Wow. Surprised we only dropped to #2.

I was assuming we'd go to 3 to match PWR. Not that it matters, of course, but I'm happy to be garnering respect for recruiting purposes.

PWR USCHO Team
 1    1   NoDak
 2    3   Mankato
 3    2   Cornell
 4    7   Denver
 5    4   BC
 6    6   Duluth
 7    5   Clarkson
 8   11   Arizona State
 9    8   UMass
10   13   Ohio State
11    9   Penn State
12   12   Northeastern
13   10   Providence

Swampy

Jim Hyla
I'll clean this up later.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - February 3, 2020
Rnk	Team	(First Place Votes)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	North Dakota	(49)	21-3-3	998	2
2	Cornell		15-2-4	913	1
3	Minnesota State	(1)	24-4-2	903	3
4	Boston College		16-7-0	839	5
5	Clarkson		19-6-2	768	6
6	Minnesota Duluth		15-9-2	749	10
7	Denver		17-6-5	739	4
8	Massachusetts		16-9-2	597	7
9	Penn State		17-9-2	535	8
10	Providence		14-7-5	497	9
11	Arizona State		18-9-3	489	12
12	Northeastern		14-7-2	482	13
13	Ohio State		16-9-3	471	11
14	UMass Lowell		13-7-5	307	14
15	Northern Michigan		16-8-4	290	15
16	Quinnipiac		16-9-1	257	18
17	Harvard		10-6-4	192	16
18	Bemidji State		16-8-4	131	19
19	Michigan State		13-12-1	107	17
20	Sacred Heart		18-8-2	73	20

Others receiving votes: Maine 52, Bowling Green 27, Minnesota 22, Notre Dame 20

Wow. Surprised we only dropped to #2.

Minny State did need a desperate last minute to salvage a tie against Alaska-Anchorage which is worse than a loss (even a bad loss) to Quinnipiac. Had to be what kept us barely ahead.

what are the chances that SUCKS can beat #12 Northeastern tonight in the first round of the Beanpot?
Maybe the Huskies will be quarantined for possible corona virus exposure or something?

Cornell95
what are the chances that SUCKS can beat #12 Northeastern tonight in the first round of the Beanpot?
Maybe the Huskies will be quarantined for possible corona virus exposure or something?

Anything is possible.

Can't see them winning it all, though. BC is good and BU is getting their act together. Sucks will find a way to lose.

Harvard is traditionally a Consolation Game super power.

Here it is.

For some reason it still won't let me post the men's Krach.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - February 3, 2020
Rnk	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	North Dakota	(49)	21-3-3	998	2
2	Cornell		        15-2-4	913	1
3	Minnesota State	(1)	24-4-2	903	3
4	Boston College		16-7-0	839	5
5	Clarkson		19-6-2	768	6
6	Minnesota Duluth	15-9-2	749	10
7	Denver	        	17-6-5	739	4
8	Massachusetts		16-9-2	597	7
9	Penn State		17-9-2	535	8
10	Providence		14-7-5	497	9
11	Arizona State		18-9-3	489	12
12	Northeastern		14-7-2	482	13
13	Ohio State		16-9-3	471	11
14	UMass Lowell		13-7-5	307	14
15	Northern Michigan	16-8-4	290	15
16	Quinnipiac		16-9-1	257	18
17	Harvard		        10-6-4	192	16
18	Bemidji State		16-8-4	131	19
19	Michigan State		13-12-1	107	17
20	Sacred Heart		18-8-2	73	20
Others receiving votes: Maine 52, Bowling Green 27, Minnesota 22, 
Notre Dame 20, Western Michigan 19, Boston University 5, 
New Hampshire 4, Dartmouth 4, Michigan Tech 4, Omaha 2, AIC 2, Michigan 2

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
February 3, 2020
	Team	                     Points  (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	University of North Dakota 	507	(33)	2	21-3-3	14
2	Cornell University 	        457		1	15-2-4	18
3	Minnesota State University 	451	(1)	3	24-4-2	18
4	Boston College 	                395		5	16-7-0	16
5	University of Denver 	        363		4	17-6-5	18
6	Clarkson University 	        323		7	19-6-2	18
7	University of Minnesota Duluth 	321		10	15-9-2	18
8	University of Massachusetts 	255		6	16-9-2	18
9	Arizona State University 	189		12	18-9-3	6
10	Providence College 	        166		8	14-7-5	15
10	Penn State University 	        166		9	17-9-2	18
12	Northeastern University 	156		13	14-7-2	18
13	Ohio State University 	        144		11	16-9-3	18
14	University Massachusetts Lowell  58		14	13-7-5	12
15	Quinnipiac University 	         47		NR	16-9-1	4

Others receiving votes: Northern Michigan University 22, Michigan State University 19, 
Harvard University 14, Bowling Green State University 10, University of Maine 8, 
Western Michigan University 4, Sacred Heart University 2, Bemidji State University 1.

NCAA Tournament Pairwise Comparison Ratings

Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	North Dakota 	59 	.6127 	1 	.0069 	21-3-3 	.8333 	.8425
2 	Minnesota State 58 	.5982 	2 	.0077 	24-4-2 	.8333 	.8289
3 	Cornell 	57 	.5975 	3 	.0058 	15-2-4 	.8095 	.8221
4 	Denver 	        55 	.5730 	4 	.0059 	17-6-5 	.6964 	.6906
5 	Boston College 	55 	.5717 	5 	.0038 	16-7-0 	.6957 	.7000
6 	Minnesota-Duluth55 	.5628 	6 	.0077 	15-9-2 	.6154 	.6154
7 	Clarkson 	53 	.5532 	7 	.0015 	19-6-2 	.7407 	.7313
8 	Arizona State 	52 	.5481 	8 	.0041 	18-9-3 	.6500 	.6562
9 	Massachusetts 	51 	.5474 	9 	.0051 	16-9-2 	.6296 	.6343
10 	Ohio State 	50 	.5469 	10 	.0016 	16-9-3 	.6250 	.6346
11 	Penn State 	49 	.5465 	11 	.0014 	17-9-2 	.6429 	.6232
12 	Northeastern 	48 	.5456 	12 	.0031 	14-7-2 	.6522 	.6574
13 	Providence 	47 	.5451 	13 	.0058 	14-7-5 	.6346 	.6241
14 	Quinnipiac 	46 	.5422 	14 	.0031 	16-9-1 	.6346 	.6446
15 	Maine 	        45 	.5393 	15 	.0052 	14-9-4 	.5926 	.6230
16 	Northrn Michigan43 	.5392 	16 	.0023 	16-8-4 	.6429 	.6357
17 	Mass.-Lowell 	43 	.5377 	17 	.0051 	13-7-5 	.6200 	.6063
18 	Bemidji State 	41 	.5371 	18 	.0021 	16-8-4 	.6429 	.6489
19 	Harvard 	41 	.5330 	19 	.0041 	10-6-4 	.6000 	.6029
20 	Minnesota 	41 	.5326 	20 	.0031 	12-10-4 	.5385 	.5231
21 	Michigan State 	39 	.5294 	21 	.0041 	13-12-1 	.5192 	.5118



USCHO Division I Women's Poll - February 3, 2020

Rnk	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Wisconsin	(14)	25-2-1	149	1
2	Cornell	        (1)	19-1-3	124	4
3	Northeastern		23-3-1	121	3
4	Minnesota		21-5-3	116	2
5	Ohio State		17-6-5	88	5
6	Princeton		17-4-1	77	6
7	Clarkson		18-4-6	55	7
8	Boston University	18-6-3	45	8
9	Minnesota Duluth	13-9-4	34	9
10	Harvard		        12-8-1	10	10

Others receiving votes: Robert Morris 2, Quinnipiac 2, Bemidji State 1, Providence 1

Women's National Collegiate PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Wisconsin	40	25-2-1	0.9107	1	0.6948*	1
2	Cornell	        39	19-1-3	0.8913	2	0.6676*	2
3	Minnesota	38	21-5-3	0.7759	5	0.6439*	3
4	Northeastern	37	23-3-1	0.8704	3	0.6403*	4
5	Ohio State	36	17-6-5	0.6964	8	0.6213	5
6	Princeton	35	17-4-1	0.7955	4	0.6200*	6
7	Clarkson	34	18-4-6	0.7500	6	0.5872*	7
8	Boston Univer	33	18-6-3	0.7222	7	0.5725*	8
9	Minnesota Duluth32	13-9-4	0.5769	15	0.5702	9
10	Harvard	        31	12-8-1	0.5952	12	0.5516*	10
11	Quinnipiac	30	15-10-3	0.5893	13	0.5440*	11
12	Colgate	        29	13-11-6	0.5333	20	0.5430*	12
13	Boston College	28	14-10-3	0.5741	16	0.5391	13
14	Bemidji State	27	14-13-3	0.5167	23	0.5358*	14
15	Robert Morris	26	15-9-2	0.6154	9	0.5352*	15

KRACH: National Collegiate Women

Rank	Team	      Rating	RRWP Win % Rk	W-L-T  Win % Win Ratio	SOS Rk	SOS

1	Wisconsin	6892.	.9520	1	25-2-1	0.9107	10.200	3	675.7
2	Cornell	        3379.	.9120	2	19-1-3	0.8913	8.200	6	412.0
3	Minnesota	2931.	.9022	5	21-5-3	0.7759	3.462	2	846.6
4	Ohio State	1963.	.8710	8	17-6-5	0.6964	2.294	1	855.6
5	Princeton	1354.	.8373	4	17-4-1	0.7955	3.889	7	348.3
6	Northeastern	1220.	.8269	3	23-3-1	0.8704	6.714	14	181.7
7	Minnesota Duluth793.1	.7805	15	13-9-4	0.5769	1.364	4	581.6
8	Clarkson	684.5	.7632	6	18-4-6	0.7500	3.000	12	228.2
9	Bemidji State	448.5	.7101	23	14-13-3	0.5167	1.069	5	419.6
10	Boston Univer	373.0	.6855	7	18-6-3	0.7222	2.600	17	143.5
11	Harvard	        370.3	.6845	12	12-8-1	0.5952	1.471	11	251.8
12	Colgate	        350.5	.6770	20	13-11-6	0.5333	1.143	8	306.6
13	Quinnipiac	285.8	.6487	13	15-10-3	0.5893	1.435	13	199.2
14	Robert Morris	261.2	.6361	9	15-9-2	0.6154	1.600	16	163.2

Trotsky
Harvard is traditionally a Consolation Game super power.

We'll see next week...cause that's where they'll be playing

BU vs. BC was a spectacular game at the Beanpot. BU looked significantly better than at MSG

arugula
BU vs. BC was a spectacular game at the Beanpot. BU looked significantly better than at MSG

I only saw the 3rd period and OTs, but from what I saw I agree with your assessment. For the young and talented teams like BU, it only makes sense that they will improve (often significantly) as the season progresses.

scoop85

arugula
BU vs. BC was a spectacular game at the Beanpot. BU looked significantly better than at MSG

I only saw the 3rd period and OTs, but from what I saw I agree with your assessment. For the young and talented teams like BU, it only makes sense that they will improve (often significantly) as the season progresses.

Globe article said new players joined BU team second semester.

Al DeFlorio

scoop85

arugula
BU vs. BC was a spectacular game at the Beanpot. BU looked significantly better than at MSG

I only saw the 3rd period and OTs, but from what I saw I agree with your assessment. For the young and talented teams like BU, it only makes sense that they will improve (often significantly) as the season progresses.

Globe article said new players joined BU team second semester.

It was mentioned on the broadcast that their goalie, Ashton Abel, spent 2 1/2 years, including the first half of this season, in the AJHL.

Ashton Abel, 20 years old

2019-20 Okotoks Oilers, AJHL
26 games, 2.13 GAA, 0.912 Save%

2019-20 Boston University, H-East
6 games, 2.05 GAA, 0.927 Save%


Sam Tucker (Moved from Yale to BU after graduation) played goalie in the MSG game.
19 games, 2.79 GAA, 0.908 Save%

Al DeFlorio

scoop85

arugula
BU vs. BC was a spectacular game at the Beanpot. BU looked significantly better than at MSG

I only saw the 3rd period and OTs, but from what I saw I agree with your assessment. For the young and talented teams like BU, it only makes sense that they will improve (often significantly) as the season progresses.

Globe article said new players joined BU team second semester.

CHN article mentions:

Skoog [got game winner] arrival midseason has provided the Terriers with some much-needed scoring depth. Skoog initially planned to enroll next fall, but injury concerns and offensive woes compelled O'Connell and his staff to bring the Swedish winger in early. He spent the first half of the season with Maryland of the NAHL, scoring 15 goals and assisting on 18 others in 24 games.

Skoog wasn't the only second-semester acquisition to shine for BU on Monday. Goaltender Ashton Abel, who played 26 games for the AJHL's Okotoks Oilers to start the 2019-20 season, recovered from a shaky start to make 27 saves.

ice
Sam Tucker (Moved from Yale to BU after graduation) played goalie in the MSG game.
19 games, 2.79 GAA, 0.908 Save%

a graduate transfer losing his job to a spring roster addition is brutal

Attached is a graph of KRACH by team as of 2/8/20. Cornell is negatively impacted by its relatively low SOS.

KRACH with superimposition of SOS.

That's gorgeous, ice. Thanks! And welcome to eLynah.

is SOS used on a sliding scale or purely by the numbers in these rating systems?

In basketball its way over valued because there are so many teams. In hockey the deviance from best to worst is far less in a game where one play can mean the game that you completely dominated way more than any other sport.

If the best 2 teams play the same top 20 games and one team plays the bottom 2 teams 10 times and the other plays the middle 2 teams 10 times the SOS will much better wouldn't it? But in reality they both played games they will probably win 90% of the times or more?

In basketball its even worse because if you play the teams 75-100 vs the teams 275-300 it creates a huge imbalance in the SOS yet in both cases the top teams would win all of these games 99.9% of the time..

KRACH is explained here:

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

ice
KRACH with superimposition of SOS.

It was a rough weekend for Cornell’s non-conference opponents. 1-7-1 by my count.

JasonN95

ice
KRACH with superimposition of SOS.

It was a rough weekend for Cornell’s non-conference opponents. 1-7-1 by my count.

Yeah, NMU, Providence and OSU had a rough go. MSU salvaged a split against the Gophers, but that was about it.

Cornell retains the #2 spot and garners one 1st place vote.

Biggest changes in the poll reflect bad weekend results from both Boston College and Providence.

And UMD circles menacingly just outside the top 3.

Regardless of pages of statistics and complicated long-division there is only one credible way to discover which team is better . . .

osorojo
Regardless of pages of statistics and complicated long-division there is only one credible way to discover which team is better . . .

Monkey knife fight?

osorojo
Regardless of pages of statistics and complicated long-division there is only one credible way to discover which team is better . . .

why do you even bother coming online to talk about sports

French Rage

osorojo
Regardless of pages of statistics and complicated long-division there is only one credible way to discover which team is better . . .

Monkey knife fight?

Simple math?

French Rage

osorojo
Regardless of pages of statistics and complicated long-division there is only one credible way to discover which team is better . . .

Monkey knife fight?

Soggy biscuit

Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Weather forecasting?

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Computers.

The Supplicants is the live show. Euripides worked blue.

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Computers.

The Supplicants is the live show. Euripides worked blue.

The generics aren't blue.

marty

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Computers.

The Supplicants is the live show. Euripides worked blue.

The generics aren't blue.

If the show lasts more than four hours I want my money back.

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Computers.

The Supplicants is the live show. Euripides worked blue.

The generics aren't blue.

If the show lasts more than four hours I want my money back.

For the generics or for the show?

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Computers.

The Supplicants is the live show. Euripides worked blue.

Had to look that one up.

I am an engineer after all. Classics were never required.

Swampy

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

osorojo
Nah. Too visceral, excuse the pun. Instead use numbers exclusively. If not, why are we building more super-cooled, solid rhodium computers fed and served by swarms of numbers-bearing supplicants?

Pretty sure those are just for porn.

The supplicants or the computers?

Computers.

The Supplicants is the live show. Euripides worked blue.

The generics aren't blue.

If the show lasts more than four hours I want my money back.

For the generics or for the show?

After four hours who cares? After the first fifteen minutes it's all generic.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - February 10, 2020

Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	North Dakota	(48)	21-3-3	998	1
2	Cornell	        (1)	17-2-4	927	2
3	Minnesota State	(1)	26-4-2	920	3
4	Minnesota Duluth	17-9-2	794	6
5	Clarkson		20-6-2	787	5
6	Denver		        17-6-5	739	7
7	Boston College		16-8-1	704	4
8	Massachusetts		18-9-2	684	8
9	Penn State		18-9-3	596	9
10	Arizona State		20-9-3	529	11
11	UMass Lowell		15-7-5	465	14
12	Northeastern		15-8-2	431	12
13	Ohio State		16-10-4	367	13
14	Providence		14-9-5	363	10
15	Quinnipiac		17-9-2	294	16
16	Bemidji State		16-8-4	180	18
17	Maine		        15-9-4	159	NR
18	Harvard		        11-7-4	150	17
19	Northern Michigan	16-10-4	146	15
20	Sacred Heart		18-8-2	92	20

Others receiving votes: Michigan State 67, Western Michigan 42, 
Minnesota 32, Notre Dame 10, AIC 8, Bowling Green 7, 
New Hampshire 4, Boston University 3, Michigan 2

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
February 10, 2020
	Team	              Points (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	University North Dakota 504	(30)	1	21-3-3	15
2	Cornell University 	462	(3)	2	17-2-4	19
3	Minnesota State Univer 	456		3	26-4-2	19
4	Univer Minnesota Duluth 375		7	17-9-2	19
5	University of Denver 	348		5	17-6-5	19
6	Boston College 	        333		4	16-8-1	17
7	Clarkson University 	318		6	20-6-2	19
8	University Massachusetts279		8	18-9-2	19
9	Penn State University 	242		10	18-9-3	19
10	Arizona State University192		9	20-9-3	7
11	U Massachusetts Lowell  149		14	15-7-5	8
12	Northeastern University 125		12	15-8-2	19
13	Ohio State University 	92		13	16-10-4	19
14	Providence College 	53		10	14-9-5	12
15	Quinnipiac University 	47		15	17-9-2	5

Others receiving votes: University of Maine 36, Western Michigan University 14, 
Bemidji State University 13, Harvard University 12, 
Bowling Green State University 11, Northern Michigan University 10, 
Michigan State University 5, University of Minnesota 3, Sacred Heart University 1.

NCAA Tournament Pairwise Comparison Ratings

Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	North Dakota 	59 	.6165 	1 	.0078 	21-3-3 	.8333 	.8425
2 	Minnesota State 58 	.6048 	2 	.0076 	26-4-2 	.8438 	.8375
3 	Cornell 	57 	.5961 	3 	.0039 	17-2-4 	.8261 	.8377
4 	Minnesota-Duluth56 	.5716 	5 	.0081 	17-9-2 	.6429 	.6377
5 	Denver 	        55 	.5752 	4 	.0066 	17-6-5 	.6964 	.6906
6 	Boston College 	54 	.5628 	6 	.0045 	16-8-1 	.6600 	.6603
7 	Massachusetts 	53 	.5565 	7 	.0053 	18-9-2 	.6552 	.6597
8 	Penn State 	52 	.5515 	8 	.0017 	18-9-3 	.6500 	.6376
9 	Clarkson 	51 	.5512 	9 	.0014 	20-6-2 	.7500 	.7429
10 	Arizona State 	50 	.5501 	10 	.0040 	20-9-3 	.6719 	.6827
11 	Mass.-Lowell 	49 	.5466 	11 	.0053 	15-7-5 	.6481 	.6403
12 	Northeastern 	48 	.5454 	12 	.0026 	15-8-2 	.6400 	.6496
13 	Maine 	        46 	.5431 	13 	.0059 	15-9-4 	.6071 	.6349
14 	Quinnipiac 	46 	.5421 	14 	.0034 	17-9-2 	.6429 	.6591
15 	Ohio State 	45 	.5401 	15 	.0020 	16-10-4 .6000 	.5993
16 	Providence 	44 	.5352 	17 	.0058 	14-9-5 	.5893 	.5804
17    	Bemidji State 	43 	.5366 	16 	.0022 	16-8-4 	.6429 	.6489
18 	Western Michigan41 	.5328 	18 	.0031 	14-10-4 .5714 	.5667
19 	Northrn Michigan40 	.5319 	19 	.0023 	16-10-4 .6000 	.6014
20 	Michigan State 	40 	.5310 	20 	.0033 	14-13-1 .5179 	.5182
21 	Harvard 	39 	.5301 	21 	.0037 	11-7-4 	.5909 	.5973

KRACH: Division I Men

Rank	Team	       Rating	RRWP Win % Rk	W-L-T  Win % Win Ratio	SOS Rk	SOS

1	North Dakota	963.6	.8800	2	21-3-3	0.8333	5.000	3	192.7
2	Minnesota State	898.1	.8727	1	26-4-2	0.8438	5.400	10	166.3
3	Cornell	        531.2	.8080	3	17-2-4	0.8261	4.750	28	111.8
4	Denver	        441.1	.7807	5	17-6-5	0.6964	2.294	4	192.3
5	Minnesota Duluth393.4	.7627	12	17-9-2	0.6429	1.800	1	218.5
6	Boston College	269.9	.6980	8	16-8-1	0.6600	1.941	17	139.0
7	Penn State	267.6	.6964	10	18-9-3	0.6500	1.857	16	144.1
8	Clarkson	247.6	.6821	4	20-6-2	0.7500	3.000	42	82.53
9	Ohio State	236.1	.6732	17	16-10-4	0.6000	1.500	13	157.4
10	Bemidji State	232.5	.6703	12	16-8-4	0.6429	1.800	20	129.2
11	Massachusetts	232.4	.6702	9	18-9-2	0.6552	1.900	21	122.3
12	Arizona State	231.3	.6693	7	20-9-3	0.6719	2.048	27	113.0
13	Western Michigan219.6	.6594	22	14-10-4	0.5714	1.333	11	164.7
14	Minnesota	215.2	.6555	26	13-11-4	0.5357	1.154	6	186.5
15	Northrn Michigan201.6	.6429	17	16-10-4	0.6000	1.500	19	134.4
16	Michigan State	200.3	.6416	31	14-13-1	0.5179	1.074	5	186.5
17	Northeastern	195.2	.6365	15	15-8-2	0.6400	1.778	31	109.8
18 	UMass Lowell	191.6	.6329	11	15-7-5	0.6481	1.842	33	104.0
19	Michigan	181.2	.6218	31	13-12-3	0.5179	1.074	7	168.7
20	Quinnipiac	176.2	.6162	12	17-9-2	0.6429	1.800	36	97.89
21	Notre Dame	175.2	.6151	31	12-11-5	0.5179	1.074	12	163.1
22	Providence	175.1	.6150	20	14-9-5	0.5893	1.435	22	122.0

USCHO Division I Women's Poll - February 10, 2020

Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Cornell	       (11)	21-1-3	145	2
2	Wisconsin	(4)	26-3-1	135	1
3	Northeastern		25-3-1	120	3
4	Minnesota		23-5-3	110	4
5	Princeton		19-4-1	84	6
6	Ohio State		17-8-5	64	5
6	Clarkson		20-4-6	64	7
8	Minnesota Duluth	15-9-4	46	9
9	Boston University	20-6-3	41	8
10	Harvard		        13-10-1	7	10
10	Quinnipiac		17-10-3	7	NR

Others receiving votes: Robert Morris 2

Women's National Collegiate PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	        PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Wisconsin	40	26-3-1	0.8833	2	0.6683*	1
2	Cornell	        39	21-1-3	0.9000	1	0.6659*	2
3	Minnesota	38	23-5-3	0.7903	5	0.6442*	3
4	Northeastern	37	25-3-1	0.8793	3	0.6412*	4
5	Princeton	36	19-4-1	0.8125	4	0.6156*	5
6	Ohio State	35	17-8-5	0.6500	8	0.6045	6
7	Clarkson	34	20-4-6	0.7667	6	0.5894*	7
8	Minnesota Duluth33	15-9-4	0.6071	12	0.5838	8
9	Boston Univer	32	20-6-3	0.7414	7	0.5779*	9
10	Harvard	        31	13-10-1	0.5625	15	0.5468*	10
11	Quinnipiac	30	17-10-3	0.6167	11	0.5455*	11
12	Robert Morris	29	16-9-3	0.6250	10	0.5374*	12
13	Colgate	        28	14-12-6	0.5312	20	0.5371*	13

KRACH: National Collegiate Women

Rank	Team	       Rating	RRWP Win % Rk	W-L-T  Win % Win Ratio	SOS Rk	SOS

1	Wisconsin	4447.	.9338	2	26-3-1	0.8833	7.571	4	587.4
2	Cornell	        3188.	.9127	1	21-1-3	0.9000	9.000	6	354.2
3	Minnesota	2759.	.9024	5	23-5-3	0.7903	3.769	2	732.0
4	Ohio State	1454.	.8481	8	17-8-5	0.6500	1.857	1	782.9
5	Northeastern	1284.	.8359	3	25-3-1	0.8793	7.286	13	176.3
6	Princeton	1239.	.8323	4	19-4-1	0.8125	4.333	10	285.8
7	Minnesota Duluth 989.7	.8087	12	15-9-4	0.6071	1.545	3	640.4
8	Clarkson	 710.7	.7709	6	20-4-6	0.7667	3.286	12	216.3
9  	Bemidji State	 435.0	.7087	24	14-15-3	0.4844	0.939	5	463.0
10	Boston University398.0	.6968	7	20-6-3	0.7414	2.867	17	138.8
11	Harvard	         367.7	.6860	15	13-10-1	0.5625	1.286	9	286.0
12	Colgate	         304.0	.6596	20	14-12-6	0.5312	1.133	11	268.2
13	Quinnipiac	 281.0	.6485	11	17-10-3	0.6167	1.609	14	174.7
14	Minnesota State	 258.5	.6366	27	11-15-5	0.4355	0.771	7	335.1
15	Robert Morris	 252.0	.6330	10	16-9-3	0.6250	1.667	16	151.2

A good year to enjoy Cornell hockey in all of its forms.

Did you say "Hockey in all of its forms"?

Jughead- The Hockey Song

[www.youtube.com]

Good questions deserve good answers. I visit this site to read facts and opinions about Cornell hockey games, preferably written in English. Beyond what's revealed in the box score I little enjoy and learn less about Cornell Hockey from charts, graphs, and columns of statistics - but then I'm retired and I don't have to put up with that crap any more.

osorojo
Good questions deserve good answers. I visit this site to read facts and opinions about Cornell hockey games, preferably written in English. Beyond what's revealed in the box score I little enjoy and learn less about Cornell Hockey from charts, graphs, and columns of statistics - but then I'm retired and I don't have to put up with that crap any more.

But, and this may come as a surprise, you aren't everyone.

Here is a direct message written in English. This is a diverse group. We have all sorts of white males! We post and enjoy in many different ways. Because many of us come from a math background, and are nerds, we also post and masticate many, many columns of statistics. We enjoy this.

If you don't enjoy it, that's fine. Like Wittgenstein, "pass over it in silence." Contribute where and how you wish and take your enjoyment thusly.

tl; dr: I'm sure you're a nice fellow so stop letting that other dick post in your name.

osorojo
Beyond what's revealed in the box score ...

read a little farther in the box score than "goals" and see if it deepens your understanding of what happened over the course of the 60 minutes or whether it is useful for the predictive value of the event

Trotsky

osorojo
Good questions deserve good answers. I visit this site to read facts and opinions about Cornell hockey games, preferably written in English. Beyond what's revealed in the box score I little enjoy and learn less about Cornell Hockey from charts, graphs, and columns of statistics - but then I'm retired and I don't have to put up with that crap any more.

But, and this may come as a surprise, you aren't everyone.

Here is a direct message written in English. This is a diverse group. We have all sorts of white males! We post and enjoy in many different ways. Because many of us come from a math background, and are nerds, we also post and masticate many, many columns of statistics. We enjoy this.

If you don't enjoy it, that's fine. Like Wittgenstein, "pass over it in silence." Contribute where and how you wish and take your enjoyment thusly.

tl; dr: I'm sure you're a nice fellow so stop letting that other dick post in your name.

This forum could be far more stats-heavy than it is. There are all sorts of advanced hockey statistics that don't ever make it onto this forum but which give more color to a game and to a team than "shots" and "goals." Statistics help us understand what we're watching on the ice. They reveal team weaknesses and strengths, how teams match up against each other, which players are effective, and more. This is why every NHL front office, and every front office in every major sport for that matter, places a huge emphasis on analytics. Statistics supplements, but does not supplant, what we watch on the ice with our own eyes.

Speaking for myself, but I suspect for many others here as well, I do not know enough about the X's and O's of hockey to confidently assert anything about hockey strategy. I can give my thoughts, but the notion that I know more than a 25-year ultra-successful head coach of my favorite hockey program, or any college hockey coach for that matter, is asinine. However, I (and many others on here) do have an understanding of statistics at least as good as most hockey coaches, and as such analytics is one dimension on which I feel I can offer valuable input.

Wow - you aspire for “valuable?” Way outta my league. I’d settle for being thought to provide mildly interesting or amusing inputs occasionally.

Robb
Wow - you aspire for “valuable?” Way outta my league. I’d settle for being thought to provide mildly interesting or amusing inputs occasionally.

I'll give you "mildly." Perhaps even "tepidly." I think I'd stop short at "moderately," though. That's a high bar.

BearLover
This forum could be far more stats-heavy than it is. There are all sorts of advanced hockey statistics that don't ever make it onto this forum but which give more color to a game and to a team than "shots" and "goals."

DRINK DEEP TO THE DREGS!!!

Every time I see "Fenwick" I think of Bill. You still out there, old man?

This actually got me looking at +/-, which is very good this year for us (as would be expected with even strength dominance).

Cornell +/- leaders:

18 Locke
17 Mitchell
16 Donaldson
15 Green
14 Barron
12 Malott
10 Kaldis
10 Malinski

Betts, Bauld, and Haiskanen are -1, befitting guys who are out there against top lines.

Having forwards rival d-men for the lead despite the difference in ice time impresses me.

You wonder what some of these numbers would be if the PK was operating a bit better.

osorojo
Good questions deserve good answers. I visit this site to read facts and opinions about Cornell hockey games, preferably written in English. Beyond what's revealed in the box score I little enjoy and learn less about Cornell Hockey from charts, graphs, and columns of statistics - but then I'm retired and I don't have to put up with that crap any more.

Two things I would add to what's already been said:

1. Besides occasionally gaining insights into Cornell hockey, this forum has wonderful, usually intelligent, humor and camaraderie.
2. Speaking for myself, the statistics often help me take off my red-colored glasses when comparing Cornell to other teams.

upprdeck
You wonder what some of these numbers would be if the PK was operating a bit better.

You're not the only one.

USCHO
Cornell’s outstanding first half is protecting the Big Red somewhat from a difficult January in which the team went 3-1-4 – not a horrible stretch, but one that certainly would have done more damage to Cornell’s PWR were it not for that first half.

And I bet Schafer does too:

Mike Schafer
“Our penalty killing sucked — there’s no other adjective to describe it,” Schafer said. “We got everything resolved a couple weeks ago, and now we’re right back to making the same stupid blunders previously. We gotta get back to work and get the job done because it’s just something that pisses me off as a coach that we can’t be consistent in our penalty killing.”

"Our penalty killing sucked" - Coach Schafer Now THAT's the kind of factual information I prefer about a hockey game. It's crystal clear, without decimal points, and conveys a bit of human emotion without a hint of pseudoscience.

Swampy

And I bet Schafer does too:

Mike Schafer
“Our penalty killing sucked — there’s no other adjective to describe it,” Schafer said. “We got everything resolved a couple weeks ago, and now we’re right back to making the same stupid blunders previously. We gotta get back to work and get the job done because it’s just something that pisses me off as a coach that we can’t be consistent in our penalty killing.”

I very much like Schafer's use of the word "we" in that statement. That show's he's also taking responsibility for the poor PK and not just pointing fingers at the players. Nice!!

 

___________________________
"If a player won't go in the corners, he might as well take up checkers."

-Ned Harkness

Trotsky

Robb
Wow - you aspire for “valuable?” Way outta my league. I’d settle for being thought to provide mildly interesting or amusing inputs occasionally.

I'll give you "mildly." Perhaps even "tepidly." I think I'd stop short at "moderately," though. That's a high bar.

I too suffer from delusions of adequacy

upprdeck
You wonder what some of these numbers would be if the PK was operating a bit better.

On a power play, a player gets a minus when his team surrenders a short-handed goal, but doesn't get a plus if his team scores. On the penalty kill, he gets a plus if his team scores a short-handed goal, but doesn't get a minus if he surrenders a power-play goal. (ref: [a.espncdn.com] )

osorojo
"Our penalty killing sucked" - Coach Schafer Now THAT's the kind of factual information I prefer about a hockey game. It's crystal clear, without decimal points, and conveys a bit of human emotion without a hint of pseudoscience.

Yes, but it sucked to the Nth degree.

redice

Swampy

And I bet Schafer does too:

Mike Schafer
“Our penalty killing sucked — there’s no other adjective to describe it,” Schafer said. “We got everything resolved a couple weeks ago, and now we’re right back to making the same stupid blunders previously. We gotta get back to work and get the job done because it’s just something that pisses me off as a coach that we can’t be consistent in our penalty killing.”

I very much like Schafer's use of the word "we" in that statement. That show's he's also taking responsibility for the poor PK and not just pointing fingers at the players. Nice!!

Ultimately a team's performance depends on the coach. The coach's recruiting is responsible for the talent on the team, and the talent's performance depends on the coach's ability to get the most out of that talent.

Last year we had one of the best PK's in the country, but this year with more depth and fewer injuries we have one of the worst. Same coach, better personnel situation, worse results. It's hard to understand why.

This coming week will be a palpable test of Mike and the rest of the staff's coaching ability. We'll see the proof in next weekend's pudding. Let's hope the problem can be solved in just one week.

But the quotation in redice's signature makes me wonder. If faced with a team like this, one with talent that clearly makes it a potential NC but a PK that sucks, WWND?

Any thoughts?

fix your tags, savages

Swampy

redice

Swampy

And I bet Schafer does too:

Mike Schafer
“Our penalty killing sucked — there’s no other adjective to describe it,” Schafer said. “We got everything resolved a couple weeks ago, and now we’re right back to making the same stupid blunders previously. We gotta get back to work and get the job done because it’s just something that pisses me off as a coach that we can’t be consistent in our penalty killing.”

I very much like Schafer's use of the word "we" in that statement. That show's he's also taking responsibility for the poor PK and not just pointing fingers at the players. Nice!!

Ultimately a team's performance depends on the coach. The coach's recruiting is responsible for the talent on the team, and the talent's performance depends on the coach's ability to get the most out of that talent.

Last year we had one of the best PK's in the country, but this year with more depth and fewer injuries we have one of the worst. Same coach, better personnel situation, worse results. It's hard to understand why.

This coming week will be a palpable test of Mike and the rest of the staff's coaching ability. We'll see the proof in next weekend's pudding. Let's hope the problem can be solved in just one week.

But the quotation in redice's signature makes me wonder. If faced with a team like this, one with talent that clearly makes it a potential NC but a PK that sucks, WWND?

Any thoughts?

I agree whole-heartedly! But, not all coaches bear responsibility for the negative side of their team's performance... You'll hear those types say: "We" when their teams are good things and "They" when the team is is not. I don't consider those to be good coaches.

I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

osorojo
I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

So, the assumption here is that you don't consider Schafer to be successful?

Trotsky

BearLover
This forum could be far more stats-heavy than it is. There are all sorts of advanced hockey statistics that don't ever make it onto this forum but which give more color to a game and to a team than "shots" and "goals."

DRINK DEEP TO THE DREGS!!!

Every time I see "Fenwick" I think of Bill. You still out there, old man?

Yup, still kicking, though I don't get to the rink anywhere near as often as I used to (life is what happens when you're busy making other plans, etc.)

And as far as the stat goes, no relation unfortunately. Nor the fishing rod guys.

redice

osorojo
I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

So, the assumption here is that you don't consider Schafer to be successful?

Of course he doesn't, that's how he's sooooo badass! Take that, general consensus!

osorojo
I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

Are you nuts? The most successful coaches, managers, bosses, executives, generals, etc etc will do the exact opposite.

Want your people to go to the wall for you? Tell the press that "we" all need to get better to address the problem. Want to alienate them? Tell the press that the assistant coach and the guys on the PK are responsible and that your hands are washed.

abmarks

osorojo
I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

Are you nuts? The most successful coaches, managers, bosses, executives, generals, etc etc will do the exact opposite.

Want your people to go to the wall for you? Tell the press that "we" all need to get better to address the problem. Want to alienate them? Tell the press that the assistant coach and the guys on the PK are responsible and that your hands are washed.

+1

redice

abmarks

osorojo
I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

Are you nuts? The most successful coaches, managers, bosses, executives, generals, etc etc will do the exact opposite.

Want your people to go to the wall for you? Tell the press that "we" all need to get better to address the problem. Want to alienate them? Tell the press that the assistant coach and the guys on the PK are responsible and that your hands are washed.

+1

On 2/11 I asked, WWND? To date, no body has taken up this question. It's disappointing when I see exchanges like the one above, because I think asking WWND? could shed considerable light on such debates.

I take responsibility for this because I assumed people would know what "WWND" stands for. Now I'm not so sure.

So, for those who didn't get it, "WWND" stands for "What would Ned do?" In this particular context, I was asking what would Ned do with an extremely talented and experienced team that sucked on the PK?

Asking how someone would do, when he was perhaps the greatest coach in Cornell athletics history (high praise indeed, given we've had the likes of Pop Warner), and maybe in all of college team sports history, could be very insightful. I know some of you actually played for Ned. So asking what he would do is not an idle question.

For example, would he require the team to show up at 5 AM to skate sprints after giving up 4 PK goals over the weekend? Would he have them stay late to practice the PK? Would he have them watch film and then ask, "OK, Song, tell Barron what he did wrong on that play!"

I know as a coach of youth lacrosse and soccer, I would notice and write down things during games. (We didn't use film, although I've seen that.) Then at practice, if I hadn't taught them about similar situations, we'd practice how to handle them. If I had taught them, or if we'd covered similar issues, I'd ask the players what else we could have done. And then we'd practice fixing our mistakes.

But that's just me, at a much lower level. I'd be interested in really discussing what a coach of Harkness's caliber would do in Mike's situation. E.g., does anyone know (or even remember) if he used "we" or "you" in such situations?

Talk among yourselves.

I'm going to take a guess and speculate that some may not have read your mind and known that "WWND" meant "What Would Ned Do".....

That's the problem with the use of acronyms.... Just sayin......

Swampy
... So, for those who didn't get it, "WWND" stands for "What would Ned do?" In this particular context, I was asking what would Ned do with an extremely talented and experienced team that sucked on the PK? ...

For example, would he require the team to show up at 5 AM to skate sprints after giving up 4 PK goals over the weekend? Would he have them stay late to practice the PK? Would he have them watch film and then ask, "OK, Song, tell Barron what he did wrong on that play!"

first of all, this team is VERY frosh/soph dependent, despite having some very talented upperclassmen. second of all, i don't think the modern NCAA (or the school) would allow you to pull shit like brutal 5am practices. the team is weak on the PK and spends too much time alternating between stagnant and unlucky on the PP but if the practices are being devoted to absolutely stifling even strength play it seems to be netting out pretty well EVEN THOUGH I would like to see the special teams improve a lot.

redice
I'm going to take a guess and speculate that some may not have read your mind and known that "WWND" meant "What Would Ned Do".....

That's the problem with the use of acronyms.... Just sayin......

if you didn't grasp the acronym because you aren't familiar with WWJD, I can accept that. if you knew WWJD but didn't substitute in Ned, what are you even doing here?

Well, I do remember hearing stories of how Ned would have his teams run or skate sprints after a particularly bad outing, albeit maybe not at 5 AM. And maybe what I heard was just rumor.

And yes, we're heavy with underclassmen, although it's becoming somewhat of a cliché to say that by mid-season there are no rookies.

Still, this begs the question of how an expert coach would take this team from where it was this past weekend to where it needs to be to continue playing into April.

Swampy
Well, I do remember hearing stories of how Ned would have his teams run or skate sprints after a particularly bad outing, albeit maybe not at 5 AM. And maybe what I heard was just rumor.

And yes, we're heavy with underclassmen, although it's becoming somewhat of a cliché to say that by mid-season there are no rookies.

Still, this begs the question of how an expert coach would take this team from where it was this past weekend to where it needs to be to continue playing into April.

Health
Conditioning
Fundamentals
Luck

Swampy

I know some of you actually played for Ned. So asking what he would do is not an idle question.

Talk among yourselves.

OK I'll bite. Lacrosse experience only. Ned would most frequently run us for conditioning reasons. Remember his RPI hockey national championship was won with a very small squad so conditioning was a major thing for him. He would do it for lack of effort, but not for poor execution. For that he would most commonly devote whole practices to man down or EMO or whatever the issue was. Ned was also not reluctant to sit guys and promote the bench in those situations. For that, I was grateful. Only minutes I ever saw.

Anyone else think our PP plays as if the only shots allowed are from the slot after a pass from the point to a low wing and then fed to center?

Swampy
I know as a coach of youth lacrosse and soccer, I would notice and write down things during games. (We didn't use film, although I've seen that.) Then at practice, if I hadn't taught them about similar situations, we'd practice how to handle them. If I had taught them, or if we'd covered similar issues, I'd ask the players what else we could have done. And then we'd practice fixing our mistakes.

But that's just me, at a much lower level. I'd be interested in really discussing what a coach of Harkness's caliber would do in Mike's situation. E.g., does anyone know (or even remember) if he used "we" or "you" in such situations?

I love how you make it sound like Mike Schafer hasn't been doing this for 25 years, and hasn't had a perennial top 5 national PK all those years.

I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

BTW - we discuss this issue fairly extensively on our podcast this week - if you care to listen ...

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

you only get so many hrs to practice these days cant spend it all on the ice working on this one thing

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

I can't stop laughing at the idea that Schafer coming out and saying "the PK problems are all Cody Haiskenen's fault. He's a real asshole and everyone hates him" would be real leadership.

Haiskenen was the first name that came to mind. I don't think this is his fault.

Dafatone

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

I can't stop laughing at the idea that Schafer coming out and saying "the PK problems are all Cody Haiskenen's fault. He's a real asshole and everyone hates him" would be real leadership.

Haiskenen was the first name that came to mind. I don't think this is his fault.

There's also a difference between what you say in public (to the media) and what you say in private (in practice, to the team or specific players). If someone has massively screwed up, they already know, so attempt to lynch them in public is not really going to make things better.

French Rage

Dafatone

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

I can't stop laughing at the idea that Schafer coming out and saying "the PK problems are all Cody Haiskenen's fault. He's a real asshole and everyone hates him" would be real leadership.

Haiskenen was the first name that came to mind. I don't think this is his fault.

There's also a difference between what you say in public (to the media) and what you say in private (in practice, to the team or specific players). If someone has massively screwed up, they already know, so attempt to lynch them in public is not really going to make things better.

+1 (or more)

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

this is as if the wall street journal wrote for fortune cookies

ugarte

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

this is as if the wall street journal wrote for fortune cookies

People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful in bed.

Trotsky

ugarte

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

this is as if the wall street journal wrote for fortune cookies

People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful in bed.

Isn't that a proverb rather than a fortune?

Trotsky

ugarte

osorojo
I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

this is as if the wall street journal wrote for fortune cookies

People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful in bed.

Shouldn't that be hole, not whole?

upprdeck
you only get so many hrs to practice these days cant spend it all on the ice working on this one thing

Very true. There were no such limits then.

adamw

Swampy
I know as a coach of youth lacrosse and soccer, I would notice and write down things during games. (We didn't use film, although I've seen that.) Then at practice, if I hadn't taught them about similar situations, we'd practice how to handle them. If I had taught them, or if we'd covered similar issues, I'd ask the players what else we could have done. And then we'd practice fixing our mistakes.

But that's just me, at a much lower level. I'd be interested in really discussing what a coach of Harkness's caliber would do in Mike's situation. E.g., does anyone know (or even remember) if he used "we" or "you" in such situations?

I love how you make it sound like Mike Schafer hasn't been doing this for 25 years, and hasn't had a perennial top 5 national PK all those years.

No, I'm certainly not of that impression or trying to give it. This season is an anomaly in that it is the first time since I've been following Mike's teams that the team has top-5 ability and excels in almost all aspects of the game yet in one aspect is often terrible. Mike obviously has tried to address this, and for a time it looked as if he had. Now it's come back. Reading the article quoting him, one gets the feeling he's scratching his head.

As for Schafer vs. Harkness, Schafer is a great coach. But he's still chasing that white whale. Ned, on the other hand, killed that whale at two different schools, four different times, and would have killed a fifth time had NCAA lacrosse been decided by performance on the field rather than by Baltimore votes.

If Ned Harkness were alive and around, I'd be surprised if Mike wouldn't discuss this with him, much the way Cornell lacrosse coaches sometimes chat with Richie Moran. I thought opening the subject this way would bring in people's experiences, with Harkness and other coaches. Looking at the discussion, this was successful.

Harkness will never be bested. For one thing, his record is impossible for Schafer to supercede -- he would literally need something like another 30 years of perfect seasons to top his winning percentage. For another, Harkness coached during a time when there were around 4 nationally- and 8 regionally competitive teams, and everybody else sucked. Schafer has 8 nationally- and 16 regionally-competitive teams to deal with, and even the worst opponents are still competent. Nobody is getting beaten 10-0, let alone 17-0, now, and that would happen frequently during Harkness' era.

But Harkness is also our George Washington, and there is no way to even replicate let alone surpass that.

My wristband reads WWSD, for Schafer. He's the standard for mortal coaches and will be for my lifetime. Less signs of actual dementia, he has earned the proverbial blank check. The statistical likelihood that I have an inkling of a problem he is not aware of is less than the likelihood that I have gone insane and merely imagine I do.

I sat right by the Cornell bench my senior year. If a player made a mistake, Ned would immediately address it with the player very directly explaining what he should have done, then pat in on the back and send him back out for his next shift. How things were handled between games I can't address.