Just out......#25 in basketball

Yeah thats great and #27 in the AP poll

!

ESPN's Bubble Watch has Cornell as an at large contender: [sports.espn.go.com]

JasonN95
ESPN's Bubble Watch has Cornell as an at large contender: [sports.espn.go.com]

And Bracketology has us as a #9 seed playing Kal.

JasonN95
ESPN's Bubble Watch has Cornell as an at large contender: [sports.espn.go.com]

Which is true right up until we lose two Ivy games. It is a mirage. Our three biggest OOC wins - Alabama, St. John's and UMass - are all against teams that aren't even on the bubble, and Seton Hall is only barely on the bubble.

I stand by what I said about Seton Hall at the time but philly was apparently right about them.

This is great!!!! I have faith in this team, with the experience and caliber of play, I don't think anyone in the NCAAs would look forward to playing the RED! Keep on winning and a few losses by other bubble teams, we could be seeded in the single digits higher than 9. GO BIG RED!

Polls are polls and nothing more. Here's a copy of my post about the hockey poll:

Re: 2/1 POLL!
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com) [ PM ]
Date: February 01, 2010 04:07PM

Kyle Rose

Oat

5 Cornell 12-5-3 718 8
9 North Dakota 13-10-5 581 4



Okay, I'm just going to take a single example pairing here and wonder how the voters could possibly think Cornell is a better team that North Dakota. Based on what I saw at Lynah a week ago, NoDak was clearly the better team (which is scary considering how young they are). Now, of course any ranking is a total order that is going to in some cases violate a higher-ranked team's propensity for losing to a particular lower-ranked team because of style of play, individual matchups, etc., but I'm having a hard time thinking of even a single team that Cornell would have a higher probability of beating than NoDak. Okay, maybe Wisconsin.

My response:

Come on, it's easy to understand. ND was 4, we were 8 after our series. Then they lose twice to number 2 (Denver) and we beat two unranked teams. So we're obviously the better team. (meaning the polls, not you.)


___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

How cool is this: http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/scoreboard?date=20100205? We no longer have to click through to Ivy to see the match up.

Hopefully we will now get a little demonstration of poll dynamics. If we keep winning our league games will we stick in the polls? Will we rise? Or will the pollsters become interested in some big conference team that starts winning their league games and take our spot? I'm curious.

KeithK
Hopefully we will now get a little demonstration of poll dynamics. If we keep winning our league games will we stick in the polls? Will we rise? Or will the pollsters become interested in some big conference team that starts winning their league games and take our spot? I'm curious.

It's a good question. My guess is that CU will most likely have 2 more weekends where we get anywhere close to the media mention that we got this weekend. #1 is obviously the @ Harvard game. #2 is when the Ivy champ is crowned, as it will be the first auto-bid in the nation. If it's us, there will be a lot of "they will be an extremely dangerous draw" and get voter attention once again. If it's not us, I anticipate that it'll be a down-to-the-wire situation, and that will start a very big (for us) "at-large bid" campaign.

So I expect 2 more "peaks" in the polls.

RichH

KeithK
Hopefully we will now get a little demonstration of poll dynamics. If we keep winning our league games will we stick in the polls? Will we rise? Or will the pollsters become interested in some big conference team that starts winning their league games and take our spot? I'm curious.

It's a good question. My guess is that CU will most likely have 2 more weekends where we get anywhere close to the media mention that we got this weekend. #1 is obviously the @ Harvard game. #2 is when the Ivy champ is crowned, as it will be the first auto-bid in the nation. If it's us, there will be a lot of "they will be an extremely dangerous draw" and get voter attention once again. If it's not us, I anticipate that it'll be a down-to-the-wire situation, and that will start a very big (for us) "at-large bid" campaign.

So I expect 2 more "peaks" in the polls.

Is there any evidence that teams surge in the polls when they clinch an auto-bid? I think that's probably an unanswerable question because 1) almost every other autobid is awarded in the same weekend and 2) Ivy teams are very rarely in the polls.

I think it will depend a lot on how badly we beat down our opponents. A big reason we were in the polls this week is because we ANNIHILATED Harvard, who was regarded nationally as a good team. If we continue crushing teams in the league and not win squeakers against the Yale's and Brown's of the league, we'll stay where we are at the very worst.

If voters paid attention to RPI, I think we'd have a good chance of dropping but I highly doubt any voters pay attention to those numbers mid-season, otherwise the polls would look much different than they currently do.

YankeeLobo
I think it will depend a lot on how badly we beat down our opponents. A big reason we were in the polls this week is because we ANNIHILATED Harvard, who was regarded nationally as a good team. If we continue crushing teams in the league and not win squeakers against the Yale's and Brown's of the league, we'll stay where we are at the very worst.

That's double edged, though, since if they keep beating teams by 40 it will underline the perceived weakness of the league.

I'm assuming as soon as Cornell loses a conference game they drop from the top 25, never to return in our lifetimes. So the question is, what happens if they win out? It will probably be an artifact of how the teams 4 slots above/below them do each week. A week where everybody 21-29 wins probably means Cornell will drop one or two slots, while a week where a bunch of those teams lose means Cornell could tick up one or two.

Trotsky

YankeeLobo
I think it will depend a lot on how badly we beat down our opponents. A big reason we were in the polls this week is because we ANNIHILATED Harvard, who was regarded nationally as a good team. If we continue crushing teams in the league and not win squeakers against the Yale's and Brown's of the league, we'll stay where we are at the very worst.

That's double edged, though, since if they keep beating teams by 40 it will underline the perceived weakness of the league.

I'm assuming as soon as Cornell loses a conference game they drop from the top 25, never to return in our lifetimes. So the question is, what happens if they win out? It will probably be an artifact of how the teams 4 slots above/below them do each week. A week where everybody 21-29 wins probably means Cornell will drop one or two slots, while a week where a bunch of those teams lose means Cornell could tick up one or two.

I think as long as Cornell keeps winning, they'll stay in the top 25 (coaches' poll, at least) because of the increasingly gaudy overall record. regardless of any other teams' results.

scoop85

Trotsky

YankeeLobo
I think it will depend a lot on how badly we beat down our opponents. A big reason we were in the polls this week is because we ANNIHILATED Harvard, who was regarded nationally as a good team. If we continue crushing teams in the league and not win squeakers against the Yale's and Brown's of the league, we'll stay where we are at the very worst.

That's double edged, though, since if they keep beating teams by 40 it will underline the perceived weakness of the league.

I'm assuming as soon as Cornell loses a conference game they drop from the top 25, never to return in our lifetimes. So the question is, what happens if they win out? It will probably be an artifact of how the teams 4 slots above/below them do each week. A week where everybody 21-29 wins probably means Cornell will drop one or two slots, while a week where a bunch of those teams lose means Cornell could tick up one or two.

I think as long as Cornell keeps winning, they'll stay in the top 25 (coaches' poll, at least) because of the increasingly gaudy overall record. regardless of any other teams' results.

If you look at the actual votes, Cornell is a lot closer to 26 than to 24. Cornell may bob in and out of the top 25 for a few weeks depending on how the teams from 26-30 do even if Cornell keeps winning - sort of like Cornell and North Dakota's relative position in the hockey polls. If Cornell is still undefeated in conference a month from now, the additional votes they will start to receive will lock them into the top 25 ... until they lose.

I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks.

I do. Other people voted for them last week, so it's a safer choice to do it this week. I didn't say it was a logical reason... just a reason.

Willy '06

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks.

I do. Other people voted for them last week, so it's a safer choice to do it this week. I didn't say it was a logical reason... just a reason.

It doesn't hurt that a lot of people are talking about Cornell now. Since very few of the voters see enough basketball to vote intelligently, buzz helps a lot. It is kind of like the rationality of investing in a bubble even when you know it is a bubble. You invest BECAUSE OF the bubble since you are trying to predict the behavior of others rather than the underlying value of the company.

It also helps that each win will mean a higher winning percentage - and it is already pretty gaudy. If Harvard/Princeton lose a few games and Cornell gets to clinch early, like they did two years ago, being the first team to punch their ticket for the NCAAs would also provide a bounce.

Hopefully Harvard keeps playing well and winning games, it will make last weekend's win look even better. If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

Eh, I'd rather have Harvard lose a few games and make it easier for us to clinch early. Ranking and seeding don't matter if we don't make it to the tourney.

Willy '06
Eh, I'd rather have Harvard lose a few games and make it easier for us to clinch early. Ranking and seeding don't matter if we don't make it to the tourney.

Understood. Similarly, if I knew my team would win I'd want every playoff game to be a nail biter, with amazing come from behind victories that I'll be talking about thirty years later. But when you're still in the thick of things and the outcome is uncertain a fan is much happier winning everything by a comfortable margin.

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

Ivy League playoffs are always held at a neutral site. As exciting as that would be, let's hope we don't have to worry about it this year!

The glass is half full: This is the best we've ever been in the adult lifetime of any Cornellian graduated since WW II.

The glass is half empty: The best we've been in the New Testament era, the best we may be until glacier-melt makes Florida uninhabitable, and our hope is we could win one lousy NCAA game and then it's a tossup whether we get sent packing in the second game or the third game. And then we start wondering who's going to offer the coach how much.

But I'll enjoy it either way. It's easier to explain top 25 in college hoops to friends that No. 5 in hockey.

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

Well beating SLU and Clarkson sure helped the hockey team in their poll.

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

HeafDog

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

Wow. Now that's overconfidence. Maybe Harvard & Lin had a bad night. Maybe all those threes we hit don't fall. Maybe they go and study the tape and find a weakness to exploit? Maybe we get sloppy on the road?

Oh no, wait, you're right. In basketball, past performance completely predicts future results. There's no plausible way that we don't beat Harvard at their place by at least 25 based on this game. Back up the money trucks to the casino, fellow Cornellians. LOSING IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

We lost to Harvard by 1 last year and beat them by 1 the previous year @ Harvard. The last 2 years we also killed them by 20+ at home. Lin has never really played well @Newman. Give the crowd credit, I guess, because I would imagine none of the other Ivy league fans were as loud as we were on Saturday.

RichH

HeafDog

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

Wow. Now that's overconfidence. Maybe Harvard & Lin had a bad night. Maybe all those threes we hit don't fall. Maybe they go and study the tape and find a weakness to exploit? Maybe we get sloppy on the road?

Oh no, wait, you're right. In basketball, past performance completely predicts future results. There's no plausible way that we don't beat Harvard at their place by at least 25 based on this game. Back up the money trucks to the casino, fellow Cornellians. LOSING IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

Sarcasm meter. Ur breakin' it.

Trotsky

RichH

HeafDog

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

Wow. Now that's overconfidence. Maybe Harvard & Lin had a bad night. Maybe all those threes we hit don't fall. Maybe they go and study the tape and find a weakness to exploit? Maybe we get sloppy on the road?

Oh no, wait, you're right. In basketball, past performance completely predicts future results. There's no plausible way that we don't beat Harvard at their place by at least 25 based on this game. Back up the money trucks to the casino, fellow Cornellians. LOSING IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

Sarcasm meter. Ur breakin' it.

Ya. That's what happens when I post post-bar. I'm good now.

HeafDog

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

Gus Frerotte is our center?

Jim Hyla

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

Well beating SLU and Clarkson sure helped the hockey team in their poll.

But SLU and Clarkson are well respected names in college hockey. Even if they aren't good right now pollsters can remember them being national contenders. Yale and bown in basketball? Not so much.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

Well beating SLU and Clarkson sure helped the hockey team in their poll.

But SLU and Clarkson are well respected names in college hockey. Even if they aren't good right now pollsters can remember them being national contenders. Yale and bown in basketball? Not so much.

As much as we disrespect the pollsters, I'm sure they are well aware of how Clarkson is doing this year. Nobody is voting for them, for instance.

ugarte

KeithK

Jim Hyla

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

Well beating SLU and Clarkson sure helped the hockey team in their poll.

But SLU and Clarkson are well respected names in college hockey. Even if they aren't good right now pollsters can remember them being national contenders. Yale and bown in basketball? Not so much.

As much as we disrespect the pollsters, I'm sure they are well aware of how Clarkson is doing this year. Nobody is voting for them, for instance.

Sure the pollsters will know that Clarkson has been awful this season. But I still maintani that beating Clarkson and St. Lawrence in hockey will sound better to a poll voter than beating Brown and Yale in basketball, since we generally expect that voters aren't doing exhaustive analysis before casting votes. It's a psychological effect. I can't prove or measure this but you probably can't disprove it either.

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

Jim Hyla

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

Well beating SLU and Clarkson sure helped the hockey team in their poll.

But SLU and Clarkson are well respected names in college hockey. Even if they aren't good right now pollsters can remember them being national contenders. Yale and bown in basketball? Not so much.

As much as we disrespect the pollsters, I'm sure they are well aware of how Clarkson is doing this year. Nobody is voting for them, for instance.

Sure the pollsters will know that Clarkson has been awful this season. But I still maintani that beating Clarkson and St. Lawrence in hockey will sound better to a poll voter than beating Brown and Yale in basketball, since we generally expect that voters aren't doing exhaustive analysis before casting votes. It's a psychological effect. I can't prove or measure this but you probably can't disprove it either.

Now THAT'S analysis!

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

Jim Hyla

YankeeLobo
I just don't see a reason for the voters that excluded Cornell this week, to include them next week and the following weeks. The Harvard game was effectively a peak for the team. Beating Brown and Yale? Not sure that means much to the voters. the fact we're in the top 25 though is great, I think it's more likely we rise than fall. let's just maintain #25 and not have to click through to the Ivy slate to check our scores. Now we can see it on the front page of ESPN.com!!!!

Well beating SLU and Clarkson sure helped the hockey team in their poll.

But SLU and Clarkson are well respected names in college hockey. Even if they aren't good right now pollsters can remember them being national contenders. Yale and bown in basketball? Not so much.

As much as we disrespect the pollsters, I'm sure they are well aware of how Clarkson is doing this year. Nobody is voting for them, for instance.

Sure the pollsters will know that Clarkson has been awful this season. But I still maintani that beating Clarkson and St. Lawrence in hockey will sound better to a poll voter than beating Brown and Yale in basketball, since we generally expect that voters aren't doing exhaustive analysis before casting votes. It's a psychological effect. I can't prove or measure this but you probably can't disprove it either.

Now THAT'S analysis!

Keep it up guys, I'm having fun.

For the alumni on here, how long has the This team is the winning team! This team is the losing team chant! been going on?

There was an article today about Utah State doing the chant and the guy says he never heard the chant before.
[www.collegehoopsjournal.com]

We might have gotten from somewhere else but I was just wondering how long ago that chant started here?

phillysportsfan
For the alumni on here, how long has the This team is the winning team! This team is the losing team chant! been going on?

There was an article today about Utah State doing the chant and the guy says he never heard the chant before.
[www.collegehoopsjournal.com]

We might have gotten from somewhere else but I was just wondering how long ago that chant started here?

We were doing it back in 81-82, and I know it started before that.

scoop85

phillysportsfan
For the alumni on here, how long has the This team is the winning team! This team is the losing team chant! been going on?

There was an article today about Utah State doing the chant and the guy says he never heard the chant before.
[www.collegehoopsjournal.com]

We might have gotten from somewhere else but I was just wondering how long ago that chant started here?

We were doing it back in 81-82, and I know it started before that.

We (Mike Wapner) started doing it at games after seeing it done by UNH at the ECACs the previous year (1979 ECACs at the Gahden?) IIRC.

Roy 82

scoop85

phillysportsfan
For the alumni on here, how long has the This team is the winning team! This team is the losing team chant! been going on?

There was an article today about Utah State doing the chant and the guy says he never heard the chant before.
[www.collegehoopsjournal.com]

We might have gotten from somewhere else but I was just wondering how long ago that chant started here?

We were doing it back in 81-82, and I know it started before that.

I thought you stole it from NoDak at the '80 NCAA's. That's the first time I remember seeing it.

We (Mike Wapner) started doing it at games after seeing it done by UNH at the ECACs the previous year (1979 ECACs at the Gahden?) IIRC.

In furtherance of the "enjoy it while we can" moment, I'll mention that the score tracker at the bottom of the Lakers Nuggets game on ESPN has NCAAM in the rotation with one dot, shows the Cornell over Yale score, then moves onto the next category. Yes, I take pleasure in the simple things.

A the moment Ken Pomeroy's Matt Carberry's B-T calculation puts Cornell at #21. His own Ken Poemeroy's system, whose data Matt uses has Cornell at #44.

David Harding
A the moment Ken Pomeroy's B-T calculation puts Cornell at #21. His own system has Cornell at #44.

The first link show Cornell with the 47th best strength of schedule in the country. Do we have to play the last nine Ivy games?

JasonN95
In furtherance of the "enjoy it while we can" moment, I'll mention that the score tracker at the bottom of the Lakers Nuggets game on ESPN has NCAAM in the rotation with one dot, shows the Cornell over Yale score, then moves onto the next category. Yes, I take pleasure in the simple things.

Yeah, and at halftime during today's Georgetown - Villanova game on ESPN the announcers were running down the Big East teams and their changes of getting to the Dance. When the got to Syracuse, they asked what was its best non-conference win. After rattling off a list including California, North Carolina, Florida,and Memphis, they agreed that the win over Cornell was the best.

Boy, is this great or what?

David Harding
A the moment Ken Pomeroy's B-T calculation puts Cornell at #21. His own system has Cornell at #44.

John Wobus has us at 20 in his KRACH (B-T) ratings as of 2/2/10.[www.vaporia.com]

jkahn

David Harding
A the moment Ken Pomeroy's B-T calculation puts Cornell at #21. His own system has Cornell at #44.

John Wobus has us at 20 in his KRACH (B-T) ratings as of 2/2/10.[www.vaporia.com]

As you noted, the Wobus ratings are only through 2/2 (3505 games), while the Pomeroy number I quoted includes games through 2/5 (3654 games). Another, less important, difference is that Wobus includes a phantom tie between each team and a team with a rating of 100. Pomeroy includes that same phantom tie, but decreases its weight as the season progresses, with it currently standing at 0.00001.

Swampy

JasonN95
In furtherance of the "enjoy it while we can" moment, I'll mention that the score tracker at the bottom of the Lakers Nuggets game on ESPN has NCAAM in the rotation with one dot, shows the Cornell over Yale score, then moves onto the next category. Yes, I take pleasure in the simple things.

Yeah, and at halftime during today's Georgetown - Villanova game on ESPN the announcers were running down the Big East teams and their changes of getting to the Dance. When the got to Syracuse, they asked what was its best non-conference win. After rattling off a list including California, North Carolina, Florida,and Memphis, they agreed that the win over Cornell was the best.

Boy, is this great or what?

Yeah they were also discussing this on the Cuse forum [mbd.scout.com]

The "Pomeroy" B-T calculation is actually not by Pomeroy - it's by me. I am simply using his data set and tipping my hat to him, just as JTW credits the USCHO CHN composite schedule. It is not a coincidence that my B-T tables look very similar to the KRACH; I mention on the main page the impetus for me to start calculating these.

Cornell was #16 after last Saturday and at 20 heading into last night's play. The one spot drop, despite the win, can be attributed in part to Princeton beating Harvard (dropped the Crimson from the mid-70s to 92). After the Tigers (146), the rest of the league is in the bottom 20% of D-I: Columbia 276, Yale 306, Brown 327, Dartmouth 328, Penn 331.

Swampy

JasonN95
In furtherance of the "enjoy it while we can" moment, I'll mention that the score tracker at the bottom of the Lakers Nuggets game on ESPN has NCAAM in the rotation with one dot, shows the Cornell over Yale score, then moves onto the next category. Yes, I take pleasure in the simple things.

Yeah, and at halftime during today's Georgetown - Villanova game on ESPN the announcers were running down the Big East teams and their changes of getting to the Dance. When the got to Syracuse, they asked what was its best non-conference win. After rattling off a list including California, North Carolina, Florida,and Memphis, they agreed that the win over Cornell was the best.

Boy, is this great or what?

It is great but... I'm not sure I buy it. I love how well this season is going and I hope the ride continues to the Sweet 16 and beyond but the press is going overboard enjoying a really good run by an Ivy League team that isn't Penn/Princeton.

By most ranking systems, Cornell's best win this year is Alabama, a borderline NIT team. By others, it is Harvard (or it was until they lost to Princeton). Yes, Cornell should get credit for the close loss to Kansas but only so much. The loss to Seton Hall at home no longer looks very good and the loss to Syracuse was not as close as people are making it out to be. They are also coasting on "name" midmajor wins that aren't very impressive this year: UMass, Bucknell, Davidson and Vermont aren't very good - and both Davidson and Bucknell were OT games.

Tonight, Cornell beat a not-good Brown team by 14 after leading by only 2 with 7 and change to go. I hope that they aren't reading too much of their own press.

The good thing about the game tonight is that it was a chance to get a bad game out of the way before we go on the road for the next 2 weekends. I am sure Donahue will use this game as motivation that if they dont play tough defensively they can lose to any team in the Ivy league on the right night. Assuming both Cornell and Princeton win Friday night, Saturday night becomes a huge game Cornell @ Princeton between 2 undefeated Ivy teams. They better be ready because Princeton beat us 61-41 last year @ Princeton. I think Princeton is more vulnerable to a loss to a bad Ivy team than we are but Princeton is sure playing with a lot of confidence especially after winning @ Harvard.

ugarte

Swampy

JasonN95
In furtherance of the "enjoy it while we can" moment, I'll mention that the score tracker at the bottom of the Lakers Nuggets game on ESPN has NCAAM in the rotation with one dot, shows the Cornell over Yale score, then moves onto the next category. Yes, I take pleasure in the simple things.

Yeah, and at halftime during today's Georgetown - Villanova game on ESPN the announcers were running down the Big East teams and their changes of getting to the Dance. When the got to Syracuse, they asked what was its best non-conference win. After rattling off a list including California, North Carolina, Florida,and Memphis, they agreed that the win over Cornell was the best.

Boy, is this great or what?

It is great but... I'm not sure I buy it. I love how well this season is going and I hope the ride continues to the Sweet 16 and beyond but the press is going overboard enjoying a really good run by an Ivy League team that isn't Penn/Princeton.

By most ranking systems, Cornell's best win this year is Alabama, a borderline NIT team. By others, it is Harvard (or it was until they lost to Princeton). Yes, Cornell should get credit for the close loss to Kansas but only so much. The loss to Seton Hall at home no longer looks very good and the loss to Syracuse was not as close as people are making it out to be. They are also coasting on "name" midmajor wins that aren't very impressive this year: UMass, Bucknell, Davidson and Vermont aren't very good - and both Davidson and Bucknell were OT games.

Tonight, Cornell beat a not-good Brown team by 14 after leading by only 2 with 7 and change to go. I hope that they aren't reading too much of their own press.

They were asking what was SU's best nc win. The choices are Cal, NC, Fla, Memphis (how do you abrev. them?) or CU. So they said our loss was their best. I agree. Who else would you pick? Having us be the best for a number 3 team is great. Now can we compete with the big boys, that's a different question.

No, I totally believe that Cornell was Syracuse's best non-conf win. First of all, as time went by, it was revealed that North Caroina and Florida really did suck this year. Secondly, 15 points was the closest anyone had come by the time Cornell played them. Lastly, Cornell lost the game in about a 5 minute stretch when they switched up a strategy to play from the interior and, well, it didn't work. Syracuse's lead ballooned to 20 in those five minutes and although Cornell composed itself afterwards to stop the bleeding, it couldn't significantly change the gap. Other than those few minutes, they played well. The lead went back and forth in the first half (the 6 point Sryacuse half-time lead was mostly thanks to a 3 at the buzzer). Overall, Cornell impressed -- so much so that the Syracuse Post wrote a story about Chris Wroblewski, and coach Boeheim praised him by name (as he has continued to do since).

I honestly think the Brown game was complacency and fatigue. I have watched almost every game online but shrugged off Brown because what was to be excited about? The 3PT statistic looks awful, though -- 28%, lowest of the season. Could the problem with Brown simply have been complacency and a bad night from 3, not "we're not as good as we think we are and should stop buying our own press"?

I have a feeling the ranking and the press is getting to this team's head, or at least it did in the game vs Brown. Brown,for those not well versed in Ivy League basketball is barely ahead of Dartmouth and Penn this year for worst team in the league, and their RPI is 268. The game should not have been that close. I get the feeling that after the 2 blowout wins over Columbia and the emotional statement game vs Harvard that the team is losing a little momentum. Next Friday night vs Penn should be an easy win, but the following night vs. Princeton should be treated like a de facto Ivy League championship game. The place is going to be one of the toughest road environments this team has encounted this year (after the Phog at Kansas). If we lose that game, we're playing for the right to a one-game playoff when Princeton comes to our place. Not a good situation to be in when all season we've been talking about how high a seed Cornell will get in the tourney. Things could change very quickly...

Sorry, Matt, my mistake. I bookmarked the page a while back and when I went to reference it with attribution, Ken's was the only name on the page and I didn't trace back far enough. I have fixed my post.

YankeeLobo
I have a feeling the ranking and the press is getting to this team's head, or at least it did in the game vs Brown. Brown,for those not well versed in Ivy League basketball is barely ahead of Dartmouth and Penn this year for worst team in the league, and their RPI is 268. The game should not have been that close. I get the feeling that after the 2 blowout wins over Columbia and the emotional statement game vs Harvard that the team is losing a little momentum. Next Friday night vs Penn should be an easy win, but the following night vs. Princeton should be treated like a de facto Ivy League championship game. The place is going to be one of the toughest road environments this team has encounted this year (after the Phog at Kansas). If we lose that game, we're playing for the right to a one-game playoff when Princeton comes to our place. Not a good situation to be in when all season we've been talking about how high a seed Cornell will get in the tourney. Things could change very quickly...

I'm sorry but I really disagree with a lot of this. First of all, Brown had a legitimate win taken from them by a terrible call against Penn. Now I suppose one could say that a team shouldn't have been that close to Penn in the first place, but the point still stands. Saying they're barely better than Dartmouth and Penn is doing them a great disservice. They're on par with Yale and probably a little bit below Columbia as a middle tier Ivy team. The fact of the matter is we had a cold shooting night on a Saturday night Ivy game. It happens. If we shoot our typical ~40% from 3, all of a sudden the lead is 23, not 14.

I also don't understand how one can say that we got complacent and overlooked Brown and then in the same post say that "Friday night vs Penn should be an easy win". The fact of the matter is that every Ivy League game is going to provide a challenge if the team isn't focused. I think the team was focused vs. Brown but shots just didn't fall. The team knows exactly what it has to do this year to reach their ultimate goal of winning a tourney game or two. They haven't so far and will continue not to look past anyone.

Up to #22 in the coaches poll, still #27 in the AP poll but more than doubled our votes in the coaches poll and almost tripled our votes in the ap poll

Did either of the games sell out last weekend? One of the attendance figures listed on ESPN was for Fri/Sat night was lower than the other, so I'm assuming no, which is too bad. Got a #22 ranked team in Ithaca and peeps aren't packing that place. Maybe wouldve beat Brown by more than 14 if it was louder!

I think the student section sold out for both nights. Attendance was over 4000 both nights so they were practically sold out. Hard to believe that the Yale attendance was 200 higher since the Brown game appeared to be have higher attendance, maybe they dont count people that walk up and buy a ticket???

Also I dont think that extra attendance between 4000+ and a sellout makes a big difference on the noise since the townies side barely makes any noise and almost all of the cheers come from the first 4 rows in the center of the student section. The other students join in sometimes but never really start the cheers

Helpful day for us: St. John's smoked Louisville and Seton Hall beat Notre Dame.

phillysportsfan

Also I dont think that extra attendance between 4000+ and a sellout makes a big difference on the noise since the townies side barely makes any noise and almost all of the cheers come from the first 4 rows in the center of the student section. The other students join in sometimes but never really start the cheers

I disagree about townies side barely making any noise. They make a good portion of the noise that is reacting to plays on the court, which is the majority of the noise in basketball games.

Regarding cheers, if the students want others to join in, they have to finally figure out that they need to keep a steady pace with the cheer rather than immediately speeding up. It's frustrating to hear "DE--FENSE..DE--DEFENSE..DE-FENSE.DE-FENSE.DEFENSE.DEFENSEDEFENSEDEFENSE.."silence. Ditto with the "Let's Go Red" chant. There's no time to build the cheer up, and I'm sure most on the townies' side don't bother because they know it will be too fast and dying down by the time they join in anyway.

ugarte
Helpful day for us: St. John's smoked Louisville and Seton Hall beat Notre Dame.

By the B-T, yesterday's results moved the rank of Cornell's strength of schedule from 63 to 55. The Big Red is presently ranked 18.
Here are the same ratings data, except sorted into separate tables for each conference. Clicking on "IL" in the row of abbreviations at the top will take you to the Ivy League table.

In other rankings...
Pomeroy: 54
Sagarin: 38
Massey: 29
Colley: 37
RPI: 48

jhib

phillysportsfan

Also I dont think that extra attendance between 4000+ and a sellout makes a big difference on the noise since the townies side barely makes any noise and almost all of the cheers come from the first 4 rows in the center of the student section. The other students join in sometimes but never really start the cheers

I disagree about townies side barely making any noise. They make a good portion of the noise that is reacting to plays on the court, which is the majority of the noise in basketball games.

Regarding cheers, if the students want others to join in, they have to finally figure out that they need to keep a steady pace with the cheer rather than immediately speeding up. It's frustrating to hear "DE--FENSE..DE--DEFENSE..DE-FENSE.DE-FENSE.DEFENSE.DEFENSEDEFENSEDEFENSE.."silence. Ditto with the "Let's Go Red" chant. There's no time to build the cheer up, and I'm sure most on the townies' side don't bother because they know it will be too fast and dying down by the time they join in anyway.

This is pretty much an omipresent problem at any sporting event in the last ten years or so.

Hellooooooooooo 14 seed. And that's assuming we beat Princeton. Woof.

They can still salvage a 12/13 seed if they win out. amazing how quickly things change when you lose to a 3-15 team.

The NCAA gathered a bunch of journalists earlier this week and ran a mock selection and seeding exercise. It's clearly part of the hype, but also intended to diffuse criticism of the process. I found the descriptions of the process interesting. This is at least the second year the NCAA has done this, with a different crew of reporters.

Their seed list is here. (Cornell #44)
Their brackets are here. (Cornell #11 against Georgia Tech in Milwaukee.)

This was, of course, before Friday's and Saturday's games and with various assumptions about autobids.

You can find stories from most of the participants on line. For example
[Chicago] Daily Herald
Lexinton Herald-Leader (day 1) (day 2)


If you want to check other versions, here's the complete participant list for you to Google
John Akers, Basketball Times;
Tom Akins, Associated Press Radio;
Dave Birkett, Ann Arbor.com;
John Bohnenkamp, Burlington Hawk Eye;
Eamonn Brennan, ESPN.com;
Steve Carp, Las Vegas Review Journal; J
ohn Clay, Lexington Herald-Leader;
Dan Gavitt, Big East Conference;
Clark Kellogg, CBS Sports;
Scott Leykam, West Coast Conference;
Kevin McNamara, Providence Journal;
Malcolm Moran, USBWA (actually snowed in and did not make it);
Tom Odjakjian, Big East Conference;
Jerry Palm, CollegeRPI.com;
Bill Rabinowitz, Columbus Dispatch;
Will Roleson, Horizon League;
Shannon Ryan, Chicago Tribune;
Steve Scheer, CBS Sports;
John Underwood, Big 12 Conference;
Lindsey Wilhite, Daily Herald

#11 seed would be much better than an 8 or 9. Don't want to have to play the #1 in the second round.

New polls out. Two votes in the AP; 24 votes in the coaches' poll; outside the top 25 in both.

Lunardi's newest bracket has Cornell as the Midwest #11, playing Baylor in Providence in the first round.

Today's Cornell Daily Sun has a photo of Penn fans storming the court after their victory over Cornell on Friday. This may have been the first time in history that opposing fans stormed the court after defeating Cornell in basketball. That's not something we're going to see too often! As painful as it is to see, it's a statement about where our program currently stands.

kingpin248
New polls out. Two votes in the AP; 24 in the coaches' poll.

Lunardi's newest bracket has Cornell as the Midwest #11, playing Baylor in Providence in the first round.

You may want to rephrase that. Maybe it's just me, but I read that and thought "Wow, we only dropped 2 spots?", not realizing it meant we received 24 votes which put us at #28.

Jordan 04

kingpin248
New polls out. Two votes in the AP; 24 in the coaches' poll.

Lunardi's newest bracket has Cornell as the Midwest #11, playing Baylor in Providence in the first round.

You may want to rephrase that. Maybe it's just me, but I read that and thought "Wow, we only dropped 2 spots?", not realizing it meant we received 24 votes which put us at #28.

A distant 28. Running the table will not put Cornell back in the top 25. We are as likely to shed votes as to add them, even if we run the table.

ugarte

Jordan 04

kingpin248
New polls out. Two votes in the AP; 24 in the coaches' poll.

Lunardi's newest bracket has Cornell as the Midwest #11, playing Baylor in Providence in the first round.

You may want to rephrase that. Maybe it's just me, but I read that and thought "Wow, we only dropped 2 spots?", not realizing it meant we received 24 votes which put us at #28.

A distant 28. Running the table will not put Cornell back in the top 25. We are as likely to shed votes as to add them, even if we run the table.

I don't see that happening. When are we going to lose votes? If we sweep a road series @Harvard and Dartmouth? A home sweep of Penn and Princeton? Winning the Ivy League on the road @Yale or Brown? If we win out we'll be back in the top 25 of the coaches' poll at least

semsox

ugarte

Jordan 04

kingpin248
New polls out. Two votes in the AP; 24 in the coaches' poll.

Lunardi's newest bracket has Cornell as the Midwest #11, playing Baylor in Providence in the first round.

You may want to rephrase that. Maybe it's just me, but I read that and thought "Wow, we only dropped 2 spots?", not realizing it meant we received 24 votes which put us at #28.

A distant 28. Running the table will not put Cornell back in the top 25. We are as likely to shed votes as to add them, even if we run the table.

I don't see that happening. When are we going to lose votes? If we sweep a road series @Harvard and Dartmouth? A home sweep of Penn and Princeton? Winning the Ivy League on the road @Yale or Brown? If we win out we'll be back in the top 25 of the coaches' poll at least

Keep dreaming. They lost to a sub-300 RPI team. They'll hang around but most of the voters that believed in Cornell as a Top 25 team were proved very wrong last Friday night and probbaly won't put them back into the Top 25. Plus there are other deserving teams that deserve a shot at the rankings.

semsox

ugarte

Jordan 04

kingpin248
New polls out. Two votes in the AP; 24 in the coaches' poll.

Lunardi's newest bracket has Cornell as the Midwest #11, playing Baylor in Providence in the first round.

You may want to rephrase that. Maybe it's just me, but I read that and thought "Wow, we only dropped 2 spots?", not realizing it meant we received 24 votes which put us at #28.

A distant 28. Running the table will not put Cornell back in the top 25. We are as likely to shed votes as to add them, even if we run the table.

I don't see that happening. When are we going to lose votes? If we sweep a road series @Harvard and Dartmouth? A home sweep of Penn and Princeton? Winning the Ivy League on the road @Yale or Brown? If we win out we'll be back in the top 25 of the coaches' poll at least

We won't lose votes for beating Harvard/Brown. We will lose votes if during the same week that we beat Harvard/Brown, a team in the 20-30 range beats a top 15 team.

RichH

HeafDog

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

Wow. Now that's overconfidence. Maybe Harvard & Lin had a bad night. Maybe all those threes we hit don't fall. Maybe they go and study the tape and find a weakness to exploit? Maybe we get sloppy on the road?

Oh no, wait, you're right. In basketball, past performance completely predicts future results. There's no plausible way that we don't beat Harvard at their place by at least 25 based on this game. Back up the money trucks to the casino, fellow Cornellians. LOSING IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

HA! I was right! We did beat Harvard!

HeafDog

RichH

HeafDog

YankeeLobo
If Harvard beat us in Cambridge, would the one-game playoff be played at a neutral site or are there other tie breakers to determine where the playoff is held?

How would that happen? I mean, seriously. We beat them by 36 effing points. The only way I could see that happening is if, giant turtle forbid, an injury occurred to one particular seven-foot-tall center, whose last name starts with the letter 'F' and ends with "oote".

Wow. Now that's overconfidence. Maybe Harvard & Lin had a bad night. Maybe all those threes we hit don't fall. Maybe they go and study the tape and find a weakness to exploit? Maybe we get sloppy on the road?

Oh no, wait, you're right. In basketball, past performance completely predicts future results. There's no plausible way that we don't beat Harvard at their place by at least 25 based on this game. Back up the money trucks to the casino, fellow Cornellians. LOSING IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

HA! I was right! We did beat Harvard!

That was a delayed response

Looks like we lost 7 votes in the ESPN poll, but kept our 2 votes in the AP poll. I think the chances that we are out for good are pretty strong now (I guess they already were) considering a 2 win weekend has us losing votes.

Willy '06
Looks like we lost 7 votes in the ESPN poll, but kept our 2 votes in the AP poll. I think the chances that we are out for good are pretty strong now (I guess they already were) considering a 2 win weekend has us losing votes.

As predicted. <takes bow> We may get some votes back if we win out - including a decisive home court win over Princeton - but we aren't going to be in the top 25 again.

ugarte

Willy '06
Looks like we lost 7 votes in the ESPN poll, but kept our 2 votes in the AP poll. I think the chances that we are out for good are pretty strong now (I guess they already were) considering a 2 win weekend has us losing votes.

As predicted. <takes bow> We may get some votes back if we win out - including a decisive home court win over Princeton - but we aren't going to be in the top 25 again.

I don't know. Does basketball have a post tournament poll like hockey does? If so we might crack the top 25 if we win a couple of games.

KeithK

ugarte

Willy '06
Looks like we lost 7 votes in the ESPN poll, but kept our 2 votes in the AP poll. I think the chances that we are out for good are pretty strong now (I guess they already were) considering a 2 win weekend has us losing votes.

As predicted. <takes bow> We may get some votes back if we win out - including a decisive home court win over Princeton - but we aren't going to be in the top 25 again.

I don't know. Does basketball have a post tournament poll like hockey does? If so we might crack the top 25 if we win a couple of games.

Not sure if this was a joke or not, but either way, LOL

Losing to a 300+ RPI team in the 21st ranked conference in mid February, yeah that's usually the recipe for going unranked the rest of the season. Would have been nice to stay in the rankings, especially since you can easily climb week to week as long as you win games you should win (cough!Penn!cough!), regardless of how good you really are. Cornell easily could've climbed to #15. But hey, if the lack of ranking helps drive them towards the tournament, then great. Rankings don't mean sh*t, but they are huge for a program like Cornell that needs all the help it can get when recruiting against other schools.

YankeeLobo
Losing to a 300+ RPI team in the 21st ranked conference in mid February, yeah that's usually the recipe for going unranked the rest of the season. Would have been nice to stay in the rankings, especially since you can easily climb week to week as long as you win games you should win (cough!Penn!cough!), regardless of how good you really are. Cornell easily could've climbed to #15. But hey, if the lack of ranking helps drive them towards the tournament, then great. Rankings don't mean sh*t, but they are huge for a program like Cornell that needs all the help it can get when recruiting against other schools.

The silver lining on this cloud is that it seems to have moved Cornell out of the dreaded 8-9 slot in most of the bracket projections. An 11 seed would put us against a 6 and a 3. Given how strong the top eight or so teams are this year, the 3 seeds would be teams 9-12 if things go as expected.

Of course we have to get invited to the dance for any of this to matter.

Swampy

YankeeLobo
Losing to a 300+ RPI team in the 21st ranked conference in mid February, yeah that's usually the recipe for going unranked the rest of the season. Would have been nice to stay in the rankings, especially since you can easily climb week to week as long as you win games you should win (cough!Penn!cough!), regardless of how good you really are. Cornell easily could've climbed to #15. But hey, if the lack of ranking helps drive them towards the tournament, then great. Rankings don't mean sh*t, but they are huge for a program like Cornell that needs all the help it can get when recruiting against other schools.

The silver lining on this cloud is that it seems to have moved Cornell out of the dreaded 8-9 slot in most of the bracket projections. An 11 seed would put us against a 6 and a 3. Given how strong the top eight or so teams are this year, the 3 seeds would be teams 9-12 if things go as expected.

Of course we have to get invited to the dance for any of this to matter.

I've seen this written or talked about a lot. I don't buy it; not for one second. To put it quite simply, this Cornell team has been smashed by their first round opponents the last 2 years. (No moral victories for hanging around for a half against Mizzou when you're run out of the gym in the 2nd half).

The goal should be to win a tournament game. Analyzing potential sweet-sixteen clinching games for a team that hasn't even sniffed a victory in the NCAA's is putting the cart well before the horse. A seeding in the 8-9 slot would have given us a much better chance at that elusive tournament victory than does an 11 or 12 seed. Furthermore, a potential matchup vs. a #1 seed in the 2nd round could have provided a very valuable national recruiting spotlight for the Big Red.

Isn't it okay to dream? Like dream about what's the best path into the round of 16 even if you're not certain you'll survive the first game? Anyway, unlike the previous two years, we do have a chance to go more than one round.

I agree with Jordan. Let them win a game before we start talking about the Sweet 16. As things stand we're already going to be a heavy underdog against whichever team we're slotted against in the first round. That said, I agree with billhoward in that we'll get a more favorable second round matchup if we are a lower seed. Big 6 bubble teams tend to got slotted in the 7-10 area, while upstart mid-majors, by merit of their gaudier W-L records, often get up to the 4 to 6 spots. I'd much rather play an upstart mid major (Northern Iowa, Butler, etc.) than a more athletic team from the ACC or Big East like Maryland or UConn.

Jordan 04

Swampy

YankeeLobo
Losing to a 300+ RPI team in the 21st ranked conference in mid February, yeah that's usually the recipe for going unranked the rest of the season. Would have been nice to stay in the rankings, especially since you can easily climb week to week as long as you win games you should win (cough!Penn!cough!), regardless of how good you really are. Cornell easily could've climbed to #15. But hey, if the lack of ranking helps drive them towards the tournament, then great. Rankings don't mean sh*t, but they are huge for a program like Cornell that needs all the help it can get when recruiting against other schools.

The silver lining on this cloud is that it seems to have moved Cornell out of the dreaded 8-9 slot in most of the bracket projections. An 11 seed would put us against a 6 and a 3. Given how strong the top eight or so teams are this year, the 3 seeds would be teams 9-12 if things go as expected.

Of course we have to get invited to the dance for any of this to matter.

Not only that, but with all the media coverage and talk about this CU team, we're much less likely to be an "unknown quantity" to a top team/coach. A lot more is known about our players, style, and strengths than in past years. Not to say anyone in the tournament is going to take any game lightly, but a lot of the prep work for us is out there now. You hear a lot of people saying that we're "dangerous."

I've seen this written or talked about a lot. I don't buy it; not for one second. To put it quite simply, this Cornell team has been smashed by their first round opponents the last 2 years. (No moral victories for hanging around for a half against Mizzou when you're run out of the gym in the 2nd half).

The goal should be to win a tournament game. Analyzing potential sweet-sixteen clinching games for a team that hasn't even sniffed a victory in the NCAA's is putting the cart well before the horse. A seeding in the 8-9 slot would have given us a much better chance at that elusive tournament victory than does an 11 or 12 seed. Furthermore, a potential matchup vs. a #1 seed in the 2nd round could have provided a very valuable national recruiting spotlight for the Big Red.

Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

ugarte

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses. As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses. There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year. Plenty of teams have bad losses. If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight. It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

YankeeLobo
officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I guess they do indirectly to the extent that it gooses the SOS.

YankeeLobo

ugarte

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses. As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses. There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year. Plenty of teams have bad losses. If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight. It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right. I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field. It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out. It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

semsox

YankeeLobo

ugarte

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses. As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses. There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year. Plenty of teams have bad losses. If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight. It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right. I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field. It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out. It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

ugarte

semsox

YankeeLobo

ugarte

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses. As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses. There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year. Plenty of teams have bad losses. If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight. It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right. I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field. It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out. It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Trotsky

YankeeLobo
officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I guess they do indirectly to the extent that it gooses the SOS.

That's pretty close to what should be the point. Losing to Kansas does not make us a better team, but being 23-4 looks a lot better if one of those losses is to Kansas than if you replace that game with e.g., a loss to Colgate.

[Insert Bradley-Terry stump speech here.]

Josh '99

ugarte

semsox

YankeeLobo

ugarte

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses. As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses. There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year. Plenty of teams have bad losses. If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight. It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right. I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field. It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out. It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

ugarte

semsox

YankeeLobo

ugarte

billhoward
Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses. As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses. There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year. Plenty of teams have bad losses. If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight. It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process. I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right. I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field. It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out. It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

Granted, but the hockey selection formula isn't as bad as the lacrosse formula.

Al DeFlorio

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

Agreed times a million. Give me the closed door Basketball selection any day of the week

This morning on ESPN Radio, Jay Bilas gave the Cornell men a nice shout-out. He said one NBA scout called Wittman "an assassin" who would wind up in the NBA. Then Bilas mentioned both Dale and Foote and said CU would not be an easy out.

I think it's safe to say that the Big Red will not be sneaking up on whoever they get in the first round.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99
Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

True. But a closed door selection system is much more ripe for abuse. Maybe a committee is better than a bad formula but a decent formula bats a committee any day. The hockey situation is about as good as we're going to get. (Sorry John, I don't think they're going to adopt KRACH. And from a selfish perspective that's a good thing.)

Fixed.

KeithK
..

Al DeFlorio

ugarte
Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

True. But a closed door selection system is much more ripe for abuse. Maybe a committee is better than a bad formula but a decent formula bats a committee any day. The hockey situation is about as good as we're going to get. (Sorry John, I don't think they're going to adopt KRACH. And from a selfish perspective that's a good thing.)

You've screwed up the quotes, Keith, but, in any case, I disagree. In the years before PWR I felt decisions by the committee were good ones, so, while it may have been ripe for abuse, there was none. What was not good was when they adopted the stupid "Clarkson" and "Colorado" rules and took discretion away from the committee.

PWR, like the lacrosse criteria, is based on the awfulcrumbling foundation of RPI, a ranking that pays no attention to whom a team has beaten and to whom it's lost, only it's bottom-line won-lost record and their opponents' and opponents' opponents'. Last year, when the lacrosse committee was given much more latitude in seeding, they were finally able to overcome the tunnel vision of the criteria and put Hopkins where a 9-4 team that couldn't beat a top eight team belonged--at #8, not #3, despite their #1 RPI. Humans are much better at evaluating multiple factors than a formula. The TUC cut-off is another terrible flaw in PWR. Beating the last team in TUC gets as much credit as being the top team, while beating the first team that just missed making TUC counts for nothing. Ridiculous.

Fair enough. If you have a good committee you might do as well or better using that route. But you have to trust that you will always have a good committee.

I think a hard and fast formula for deciding who goes is optimal. PWR isn't the best formula they could use but at least you know their was't any subjectivity in deciding who gets to go. I am happy to have seeding done by a committee though. As much as it's fun to bitch about getting screwed in seeding that's much less of a big deal than who gets in the tournament.