PDA

View Full Version : 2010-2011 Division I Polls



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

dave1381
02-14-2011, 07:25 PM
Look, there is some case for Cornell.

Basically, the ECAC has a big bunch of teams that are about as good as Bemidji. Cornell has gone undefeated save for one draw against these teams in a big sample of games. Wisconsin is also undefeated, but went 4-2-2 against UMD and Minnesota, who each lost 2 or 3 games to teams about as good as Bemidji. So the various computer models out there with firm statistical foundations are saying Cornell is pretty close to Wisconsin in order to be consistent with the fact that Cornell never loses to Bemidji, and Wisconsin only won 62.5% of the time against teams that occasionally lost to Bemidji-like teams.

I don't agree with this argument, I made a big list of reasons in the Rutter thread, but it's not entirely unreasonable.

I do disagree with your claim that Minnesota or UMD would match Cornell's record playing Cornell's schedule. Both Minn. teams did lose a few games to teams about the quality of Harvard/Dartmouth. It's the consistency in these games that distinguishes Cornell from them.

I do agree that it's not clear at all whether Cornell would've done better than Minnesota or UMD playing a WCHA schedule, however. It's clear to me Cornell would do better than Minnesota or UMD did against the bottom half of the league. I have no idea how Cornell would do against the top half. I think putting them about on par with Minnesota or UMD is fair, but not Wisconsin.

granddaddyscout
02-14-2011, 10:03 PM
Look, there is some case for Cornell.

Basically, the ECAC has a big bunch of teams that are about as good as Bemidji. Cornell has gone undefeated save for one draw against these teams in a big sample of games. Wisconsin is also undefeated, but went 4-2-2 against UMD and Minnesota, who each lost 2 or 3 games to teams about as good as Bemidji. So the various computer models out there with firm statistical foundations are saying Cornell is pretty close to Wisconsin in order to be consistent with the fact that Cornell never loses to Bemidji, and Wisconsin only won 62.5% of the time against teams that occasionally lost to Bemidji-like teams.

I don't agree with this argument, I made a big list of reasons in the Rutter thread, but it's not entirely unreasonable.

I do disagree with your claim that Minnesota or UMD would match Cornell's record playing Cornell's schedule. Both Minn. teams did lose a few games to teams about the quality of Harvard/Dartmouth. It's the consistency in these games that distinguishes Cornell from them.

I do agree that it's not clear at all whether Cornell would've done better than Minnesota or UMD playing a WCHA schedule, however. It's clear to me Cornell would do better than Minnesota or UMD did against the bottom half of the league. I have no idea how Cornell would do against the top half. I think putting them about on par with Minnesota or UMD is fair, but not Wisconsin.


Can’t buy into your theory. According to the Krach rankings Cornell only played 3 teams that were a lot like BSU. Harvard, Dartmouth, and Hurst. You also seem to forget that the WCHA teams play each other 4 times minimum per season. It is much harder to beat a really good team 4 times and the WCHA has six of them. It also mean the WCHA team are playing a lot more of those type of games. Look at the SOS column, WCHA has the top 7 spots and 8 of the top 9. Cornell and Hurst are 21 and 22 respectively. It is so lopsided it is almost humorous.

If BSU or OSU were playing in the east they would most likely be solidly in the top 10 right now, pushing out Harvard, Providence, and probably BC. The though being that these teams would have a couple more loses if they played OSU or BSU. Cornell played 20 games against teams rated 18 or lower and only 3 games thus far against teams 10 or higher. I have to be honest the more I look the more lopsided it seems to be. In fact let’s look at the bottom if you want to talk about fair. St Cloud is 34, but they outshot Northeastern and lost by a goal. St Cloud would in my opinion easily beat Brown, Yale, and compete well with Syracuse and team a that level. There are so many points of impact. The WCHA teams get beat up, and have to be on their game just about every night. So again, Cornell is a very good team. I still fail to see how a human being looks at the schedules and the performances against those schedules and say, “yep I think Cornell is better than UW” that is what a 1st place vote means. It doesn’t mean I think Cornell “could” beat UW. It means they think they would win most of the time and I simply fail to see the justification for that.

Keep trying to pursued me though, please.

ARM
02-14-2011, 10:54 PM
Look, there is some case for Cornell.Here I agree. Wisconsin is the irresistible force; Cornell is the immovable object. Who can predict whether offense or defense will triumph should the two collide. Cornell is a legitimate contender for the crown, period.


Basically, the ECAC has a big bunch of teams that are about as good as Bemidji. Cornell has gone undefeated save for one draw against these teams in a big sample of games. Wisconsin is also undefeated, but went 4-2-2 against UMD and Minnesota, who each lost 2 or 3 games to teams about as good as Bemidji. So the various computer models out there with firm statistical foundations are saying Cornell is pretty close to Wisconsin in order to be consistent with the fact that Cornell never loses to Bemidji, and Wisconsin only won 62.5% of the time against teams that occasionally lost to Bemidji-like teams.This paragraph is flawed. One problem is in trying to lump UMD and Minnesota into one bucket. Both have had periods of inconsistency, but I don't think they can quite be treated the same. In most seasons, UMD is either the best team in the WCHA or they go through a "swoon". Some years, both are true. They had a two-month stretch where they were half up, half down, playing 7 straight series where they were never swept, but conversely failed to sweep. Outside of that streak, they've been perfect aside from the early loss to UND. On the other hand, Minnesota wasn't a very good team in October, got better for the rest of 2010, and has been quite good in 2011. Both teams are roughly equivalent right now, but they took very different paths to this point, and it is tough to say that their results are the same. The other question is whether or not the ECAC really has teams similar to Bemidji in terms of results. Teams like Harvard and Princeton haven't done well against the top teams (other than PU over BC-lite), while Bemidji has at least a win over everybody except Wisconsin.


I do disagree with your claim that Minnesota or UMD would match Cornell's record playing Cornell's schedule. Both Minn. teams did lose a few games to teams about the quality of Harvard/Dartmouth. It's the consistency in these games that distinguishes Cornell from them.This may be correct; however, I don't think that Minnesota's game results provides data to support your claim. The Gophers went 4-0 against Harvard/Clarkson, while Cornell will not.


It's clear to me Cornell would do better than Minnesota or UMD did against the bottom half of the league.Again, not much evidence to support this in the case of UM. The Gophers went 4-0 against each of SCSU, MSU, and OSU. Their only flaw versus the bottom half of the WCHA was a shutout loss in the first meeting with Bemidji, who split with MC, who split with Cornell. I don't know that the ECAC has a lot of BSU-type teams this season. The Beavers don't have much offensive talent beyond Cody, and to a lesser extent, Erickson. But they play very well as a team and don't allow a ton of goals. The better teams in the ECAC outside of the Big Red like Harvard/Dartmouth seem to be vulnerable in their D-zone despite having better overall talent than Bemidji. So it is hard for me to say that results against one can be extrapolated to the others. Maybe Princeton or Clarkson are fairly close to BSU; that I can't say.

Minnesota has been lousy against the top half of the WCHA, currently standing at 2-6-2. Of course, the problem once more is that bad month in October when they were swept by UND and UMD. I don't think they belong in the same discussion as Cornell. There is nothing in the Gopher results to suggest that they are capable of beating teams like Wisconsin and Cornell in successive games. However, they do have pretty good balance up front and on D with a goalie as good as any. They could cause problems in an NCAA semi, provided they can make it that far.

dave1381
02-14-2011, 11:17 PM
Re: grandaddyscout

You don't buy into my "theory"? My second paragraph is just describing the methodology of the KRACH ranking you just cited.

I just ran the numbers for KRACH. Consider each team playing Cornell's toughest opponents: Mercyhurst, HU, Dartmouth, Quinnipiac, Princeton, SLU, Clarkson (I was generous and went down as far as the only team they tied).

In these games, Cornell went 10-1-1, an .875 win pct. KRACH predicts they'd win 88 percent of the time. A good fit.

Against this same schedule, UMD and Minnesota's expected win pct is about 80 percent.

Against North Dakota, Bemidji, and OSU -- three teams that fall roughly in the middle of the range of Cornell's game's I described -- Minnesota actually went 7-3 (70 percent), and UMD actually went 8-4 (67 percent). KRACH slightly underfits this so that it can fit the fact these teams went 2-1-1 against Wisconsin. If you want say these win percentages against similar teams are lower because KRACH is underrating these second-tier WCHA teams or it's hard to play these teams four times, fine, whatever.

So to give credit where credit is due, Cornell has clearly performed at worst as well as Minnesota and UMD against teams in this range I've just described, and probably significantly better.

I agree you can't really extrapolate from this data Cornell would perform better than Minnesota and UMD against Wisconsin, which is what KRACH is doing, and what some voters must be doing. Cornell deserve credit for beating decent teams should more consistently than some of the top WCHA teams, but there's no reason to think that projects into performing well against Wisconsin -- and certainly it wasn't true for teams with similar profiles like 2006 UNH, 2007 Mercyhurst, 2008 Harvard.

dave1381
02-14-2011, 11:25 PM
This paragraph is flawed. One problem is in trying to lump UMD and Minnesota into one bucket.
Ok, sorry, I clearly did not make it clear that I was describing what the computer models are doing in terms putting Cornell on par on Wisconsin. That's the "case for Cornell." I surely don't agree with it. Putting UMD and Minnesota in one bucket is exactly what these rankings are doing. (edit: of course the models have put Cornell a bit lower since they tied Clarkson, but Cornell was leading at some point before then, and voters may not have evaluated their decision since Wisconsin's last loss)


Both have had periods of inconsistency, but I don't think they can quite be treated the same.

Yes I agree UMD has been more inconsistent and Minnesota more struggled with injuries early on and has gotten better.




Again, not much evidence to support this in the case of UM. The Gophers went 4-0 against each of SCSU, MSU, and OSU. Their only flaw versus the bottom half of the WCHA was a shutout loss in the first meeting with Bemidji, who split with MC, who split with Cornell. I don't know that the ECAC has a lot of BSU-type teams this season. The Beavers don't have much offensive talent beyond Cody, and to a lesser extent, Erickson. But they play very well as a team and don't allow a ton of goals. The better teams in the ECAC outside of the Big Red like Harvard/Dartmouth seem to be vulnerable in their D-zone despite having better overall talent than Bemidji. So it is hard for me to say that results against one can be extrapolated to the others. Maybe Princeton or Clarkson are fairly close to BSU; that I can't say.

When I said "bottom half of WCHA" I really meant the bottom half of the good 6 teams in the WCHA ;) My previous post is more precise. I agree saying teams were Bemidji like was a bit too imprecise. Thanks.

comefrombehind
02-15-2011, 08:33 AM
February 15, 2011

granddaddyscout/Hosni Mubarak Women's Hockey Poll

Rank_____Team_________Points
#1_______Wisconsin_____All votes that dare be cast

OnMAA
02-15-2011, 08:47 AM
February 15, 2011

granddaddyscout/Hosni Mubarak Women's Hockey Poll

Rank_____Team_________Points
#1_______Wisconsin_____All votes that dare be cast

:)

It should comes as no surprise to most, that as an ECAC fan, I'll be cheering for the Big Red come tournament time. They proved last year, that they can get her done when it counts, but lost to a better team in the Final. Having said that, Wisco is a clear number one at this point.

I'm hoping that those two "red" squads meet in the final with both of them healthy. It would be a great display of the best NCAA womens hockey has to offer. Still lots of game to be played before we get there.

granddaddyscout
02-15-2011, 10:18 AM
:)

It should comes as no surprise to most, that as an ECAC fan, I'll be cheering for the Big Red come tournament time. They proved last year, that they can get her done when it counts, but lost to a better team in the Final. Having said that, Wisco is a clear number one at this point.

I'm hoping that those two "red" squads meet in the final with both of them healthy. It would be a great display of the best NCAA womens hockey has to offer. Still lots of game to be played before we get there.

Nice post OnMAA, you have captured my point exactly. I completely agree that Cornell is a very strong team and I do not question all of the arguments being made to support their number two position. I do think a healthy debate could be made that Minny could be at number two right now as well, but given the performance all season I have no issue with Cornell being a solid number 2. My only question throughout has been how one can justify Cornell as number 1 and 3 pollsters do. In my mind it shows a pretty clear bias. Look at the men's poll, all 50 1st place votes for BC and I would argue that UW women have made a better case all season than the BC men have.

granddaddyscout
02-15-2011, 10:32 AM
February 15, 2011

granddaddyscout/Hosni Mubarak Women's Hockey Poll

Rank_____Team_________Points
#1_______Wisconsin_____All votes that dare be cast


Given that Hosni is from the "East" he has had Cornell at #1 etched in stone, fortunatly he has stepped down from his roll on our poll due to student protests:p.

ARM
02-15-2011, 11:23 AM
Ok, sorry, I clearly did not make it clear that I was describing what the computer models are doing in terms putting Cornell on par on Wisconsin.Got it.


My only question throughout has been how one can justify Cornell as number 1 and 3 pollsters do. In my mind it shows a pretty clear bias.It can be justified by Cornell being a great team. I agree that Wisconsin is also great, but they've left the door open a crack by playing 8 games vs UMD and UM and only winning half of them. At times their defensive performance has been less than we've come to expect from Wisco'. We are all biased to some extent. WCHA fans have seen UW more than Cornell, so we've had more opportunity for the Badgers to make an impression. If I had watched Cornell dismantle a few opponents and had yet to watch UW, I'd probably give the Big Red the nod if voting in the poll. No matter which way a voter goes, one deserving team will be slighted.

comefrombehind
02-15-2011, 11:44 AM
I would argue that UW women have made a better case all season than the BC men have.

When you're making that argument, which men's team plays the paling strawman that hasn't lost a game in regulation in its last 40? To seal the case, make sure the over-rated runner-up has a goodly number of players from the winning sides in the last three international competitions among national/U-22 teams.

granddaddyscout
02-15-2011, 02:54 PM
I would argue that UW women have made a better case all season than the BC men have.

When you're making that argument, which men's team plays the paling strawman that hasn't lost a game in regulation in its last 40? To seal the case, make sure the over-rated runner-up has a goodly number of players from the winning sides in the last three international competitions among national/U-22 teams.

The better question is can you find a Men's team that plays a schedule as devoid of competitive challenges as Cornell's only 25% or so of their last 40 games have been against teams in the top 15. I would further argue they haven�t beaten a WCHA team in their last 40 games and they are 8-2 in their 10 meaningful games. I am simply saying UW has made a better case for unanimous #1 than BC has on the men's side. Last time I checked UW has a fair amount of Gold in its room as well, from both sides of the border.

In my opinion saying someone is number 1 should mean you think they should win most of the time, say 75% or more and that a loss would be viewed as unexpected. It isn't who you like or want to see win. I think OnMAA covered it well. In addition I think that UW would win a 7 game series against Cornell in 5 maybe 6 games. In my book that makes them a clear number 1, but clearly Cornell is capable of beating UW and it only take one win, not 4 to claim the crown. Cornell is very strong on D, but UW is unlike any offense they have faced.

mattj711
02-15-2011, 03:06 PM
The better question is can you find a Men's team that plays a schedule as devoid of competitive challenges as Cornell's only 25% or so of their last 40 games have been against teams in the top 15. I would further argue they haven�t beaten a WCHA team in their last 40 games and they are 8-2 in their 10 meaningful games. I am simply saying UW has made a better case for unanimous #1 than BC has on the men's side. Last time I checked UW has a fair amount of Gold in its room as well, from both sides of the border.

In my opinion saying someone is number 1 should mean you think they should win most of the time, say 75% or more and that a loss would be viewed as unexpected. It isn't who you like or want to see win. I think OnMAA covered it well. In addition I think that UW would win a 7 game series against Cornell in 5 maybe 6 games. In my book that makes them a clear number 1, but clearly Cornell is capable of beating UW and it only take one win, not 4 to claim the crown. Cornell is very strong on D, but UW is unlike any offense they have faced.

Well, clearly at least 3 people disagree with you. That is their right. Not sure it warrants weekly questioning...as there is certainly no way to prove who is right at this point in time. We won't know for sure if you or they are correct unless/until UW faces Cornell in the coming post season.

Hopefully, we get to find out, and you are proven wrong. :D

granddaddyscout
02-15-2011, 03:42 PM
Well, clearly at least 3 people disagree with you. That is their right. Not sure it warrants weekly questioning...as there is certainly no way to prove who is right at this point in time. We won't know for sure if you or they are correct unless/until UW faces Cornell in the coming post season.

Hopefully, we get to find out, and you are proven wrong. :D

Being a bit presumtive aren't you?:) Cornell and UW will have to win 2 NCAA games each to face each other in the finals. It seems very likly that Cornell will face at least 1 WCHA team perhaps 2 before they would play Wisco. Wisco will have the same challenge needing two wins to face Cornell. It would certainly send a message if Cornell beats 3 WCHA teams to win it all. Likewise it would send a message if Cornell draws ND in the first round. Assuming ND holds on the the 7 or 8 spot.

To be honest UW has a tough road to win the WCHA tournament and that playoff should serve the WCHA teams well, as it has in the past when the NCAAs begin.

OnMAA
02-15-2011, 03:45 PM
To be honest UW has a tough road to win the WCHA tournament and that playoff should serve the WCHA teams well, as it has in the past when the NCAAs begin.

The tough road can work either for you or against you. Battle readiness vs. weariness and injuries.

Several top 8 teams are currently missing key personel due to injury, and who knows how many players are playing "nicked up" at this time of year.

IceIsNice
02-15-2011, 10:53 PM
I totally underestimated the Gophers. Apparently they are much better than I ever gave them credit for. Take a look! USA Hockey has apparently given them BOTH the #3 seed AND the #4 seed!!!! :eek:

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine
Women's College Hockey Poll - February 15, 2011

No. Team Points 2010-11 Record Last Week's Ranking Weeks in top 10

1. Wisconsin 184 (13) 28-2-2 1 19
2. Cornell 177 (6) 25-1-1 2 19
3. Minnesota 136 22-7-2 4 18
4. Minnesota 134 24-4-3 3 19
5. Mercyhurst 127 26-5-0 5 19
6. Minnesota Duluth 95 18-7-3 6 19
7. Boston College 74 19-6-5 7 19
8. North Dakota 47 17-10-3 8 19
9. Providence 45 19-11-1 9 9
10. Dartmouth 15 17-9-0 NR 3

OnMAA
02-16-2011, 07:58 AM
I totally underestimated the Gophers. Apparently they are much better than I ever gave them credit for. Take a look! USA Hockey has apparently given them BOTH the #3 seed AND the #4 seed!!!! :eek:

You are starting to see the effects of a coup D'etat by GranddaddyMubarak to get 8 WCHA teams into the tournament. The Big Red is the main target :D

D2D
02-16-2011, 09:11 AM
You are starting to see the effects of a coup D'etat by GranddaddyMubarak to get 8 WCHA teams into the tournament. The Big Red is the main target :D

All colors need to be represented so you can only have one predominately red team in the tournament. Right now Wisconsin is in; Cornell and BU are out. ;)

granddaddyscout
02-16-2011, 09:21 AM
You are starting to see the effects of a coup D'etat by GranddaddyMubarak to get 8 WCHA teams into the tournament. The Big Red is the main target :D

Lets not get carry away, only 6 WCHA teams deserve to be in the NCAAs. Even I will give you that......:rolleyes:

JosephPSchmoe
02-16-2011, 09:56 AM
All colors need to be represented so you can only have one predominately red team in the tournament.

Negative. Red is not a required color for a successful tournament. Maroon and gold, however, are mandatory colors.