RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

[DeepRed72]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

Can it be a "tie for fourth but lose the tiebreaker" situation? I want to increase the similarity to 2010-11.

If we finish tied for fourth in the ECAC, lose the tie-breaker, and then lose in three games in the first round our chances of backing into the NCAAs, as we did in 2010-2011, are infinitesimal.

[lugnut92]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

I mean, to really match 2011, we'd have to lose to Colgate, not Brown.

[DeepRed72]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

I mean, to really match 2011, we'd have to lose to Colgate, not Brown.

Understood. But whoever we played, losing in the first round is where the comparison would end unfortunately.

[Red Cloud]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

If we finish tied for fourth in the ECAC, lose the tie-breaker, and then lose in three games in the first round our chances of backing into the NCAAs, as we did in 2010-2011, are infinitesimal.

Non compos mentis award.

[johnk]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

End of season prediction.

Decent last four games. Not stellar, not terrible.
5th seed.
Brown finishes 12th.
Bears in 3.
FlagDUDE pees his pants.

#1 - Expect 4 or 5 points.
#2 - Agree
#3 - Princeton
#4 - Somebody in 3
#5 - Guaranteed

[DeepRed72]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

Non compos mentis award.

It is called Mathematics

[Red Cloud]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

It is called Mathematics

It's called you read a website after moving the bar.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

#5 - Guaranteed

You get to do my laundry that week, then.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

The natives are getting restless.

[lugnut92]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

The natives are getting restless.

There are far too many days between games. We all know what needs to happen. It's painful having to wait to see if the team can actually get it done (and watching the scoreboard to see if we get the requisite help elsewhere).

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

The natives are getting restless.

Meh, I just see it as banter. It has its ebbs and flows. Where we finish is where we finish. If we win, we win. If we lose, we lose. Sure, there are probabilities, but mathematically it is not without possibility. As I've said in response to DeepRed's 5% stuff, 5% is a heck of a long way from 0%.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

There are far too many days between games. We all know what needs to happen. It's painful having to wait to see if the team can actually get it done (and watching the scoreboard to see if we get the requisite help elsewhere).

Wasn't there, like, a month and a half between Quidditch matches at Hogwarts? I think I'd prefer a week.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

Where we finish is where we finish.

Tampa Bay.

[lugnut92]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

Tampa Bay.

Like, in the water?

[lugnut92]

Re: RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags

I made a little addition to my season simulator, but it's for RPI only so I'll post it here. It's basically a breakdown of where each point total is likely to place us in the final ECAC standings. Major takeaways are that going .500 probably leaves us in 6th and that we probably need to be near-perfect to get a bye.

   |     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9
----------------------------------------------------
20 |                           0.0   0.0   0.8   0.0
21 |                           0.0   0.4   1.3      
22 |                     0.0   0.7   3.7   4.7      
23 |               0.0   0.2   3.5   5.7   1.9      
24 |         0.0   0.1   3.7  14.8   8.4   1.0      
25 |         0.0   1.2   8.0   7.2   0.8   0.0      
26 |   0.0   0.5   5.5  12.7   3.9   0.1            
27 |   0.0   0.8   2.9   1.5   0.1                  
28 |   0.1   1.3   1.9   0.3   0.0