Not so ez????

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Not so ez????

I heard she took a 300-level word wrap course, and got a 4.25.

I'm sure she could take more than 4.25, if not, Dirty has a chance!

[MarkEagleUSA]

Re: Not so ez????

Word-
wrap
is
over-
rated
!

[Eph72]

Re: Not so ez????

[QUOTE=I don't usually reply in these threads, but this is too good to pass up:

January 2, 2011

#10* Bemidji State 3
#12** Union 1

* in the WCHA
** in the country

Oops]


Saturday January 15, 2011


#4* New Hampshire 4
#4** Dartmouth 5

* in the country
** in the "EZAC"

Oops...

[Dirty]

Re: Not so ez????

[/I]


Saturday January 15, 2011


#4* New Hampshire 4
#4** Dartmouth 5

* in the country
** in the "EZAC"

Oops...

Perhaps you should learn to properly quote a post before taunting others.

[darker98]

Re: Not so ez????

Perhaps you should learn to properly quote a post before taunting others.

You've been around long enough Dirty to know there is no fun in that.

[FiveHole12]

Re: Not so ez????

ECAC Hockey went 49–33–15 in non-conference play...

vs WCHA 8–8–4
vs HE 8–9–4
vs CCHA 6–10–2
vs AHA 27–6–5

Link

[jcarter7669]

Re: Not so ez????

vs WCHA 8–8–4
vs HE 8–9–4
vs CCHA 6–10–2
vs AHA 27–6–5

Link

Holy Christ what a terrible story.

and often confoundingly ridicule our pack as the “EZ-AC” … the wannabes of D-I men’s hockey.

Confoundingly? Really? You can figure that out?

Against Atlantic Hockey and independent Alabama-Huntsville, the ECAC was 27–6–5, for which we can be mildly content.

Still don't see why the ECAC maybe ridiculed? They are midly content with a winning record against the AHA...

ECAC Hockey probably isn’t better, as a whole, than the “Big Three,” but it’s not worse, either.

Still not seeing it Mr. Sullivan?

They aren't better but they aren't worse, so the ECAC is " equal, on par with, equivilent to" the WCHA the CCHA or HE...

Is this Yaledoc?

[moose97]

Re: Not so ez????

[QUOTE=Eph72;4993463]

Saturday January 15, 2011


#4* New Hampshire 4
#4** Dartmouth 5

* in the country
** in the "EZAC"

Oops...

Wait, what? You're honestly comparing BSU (who was 4 games below .500 and 2 spots from last in the WCHA at the time of that win) beating Union (one of the top teams in the ECAC) to a match-up between in-state rivals? Both with winning/similar records? And the ECAC team comming out on top? Wow...

[TimU]

Re: Not so ez????

Wait, what? You're honestly comparing BSU (who was 4 games below .500 and 2 spots from last in the WCHA at the time of that win) beating Union (one of the top teams in the ECAC) to a match-up between in-state rivals? Both with winning/similar records? And the ECAC team comming out on top? Wow...

OK. What if a team 3 games below .500 and 2 spots from last in the ECAC beat the #2 team in the country and one of the top teams in Hockey East? Would that be a good enough comparison for you?

Individual game results mean squat. St. Lawrence beating UNH doesn't make the ECAC better than Hockey East. It proves nothing, other than that St. Lawrence played a better game on that particular night than UNH did. But Bemidji State beating Union is exactly as relevant: it doesn't prove that the WCHA is better than the ECAC. It just means that Bemidji beat Union that day.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Not so ez????

OK. What if a team 3 games below .500 and 2 spots from last in the ECAC beat the #2 team in the country and one of the top teams in Hockey East? Would that be a good enough comparison for you?

Individual game results mean squat. St. Lawrence beating UNH doesn't make the ECAC better than Hockey East. It proves nothing, other than that St. Lawrence played a better game on that particular night than UNH did. But Bemidji State beating Union is exactly as relevant: it doesn't prove that the WCHA is better than the ECAC. It just means that Bemidji beat Union that day.

While I completely agree, I have a question. What is your criteria for determing what conference is the best, or how a conference is better than another conference?

[goblue78]

Re: Not so ez????

Median Krach rating, adjusted for Bernoulli variable standard error, ie sqrt(p*(1-p)) where p is the probability of a Krach win on neutral ice between two median teams.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Not so ez????

Median Krach rating, adjusted for Bernoulli variable standard error, ie sqrt(p*(1-p)) where p is the probability of a Krach win on neutral ice between two median teams.

I'll let you figure that one out...

Average KRACH rating:
WCHA - 258.84
ECAC - 170.53
Hockey East - 149.61
CCHA - 148.77
AH - 31.87
UAH - 16.2

[cross cheque]

Re: Not so ez????

OK. What if a team 3 games below .500 and 2 spots from last in the ECAC beat the #2 team in the country and one of the top teams in Hockey East? Would that be a good enough comparison for you?

Individual game results mean squat. St. Lawrence beating UNH doesn't make the ECAC better than Hockey East. It proves nothing, other than that St. Lawrence played a better game on that particular night than UNH did. But Bemidji State beating Union is exactly as relevant: it doesn't prove that the WCHA is better than the ECAC. It just means that Bemidji beat Union that day.

The WCHA is a better conference than the EZAC, fact.

[TimU]

Re: Not so ez????

While I completely agree, I have a question. What is your criteria for determing what conference is the best, or how a conference is better than another conference?

Well, my first response would be that it really doesn't matter all that much. Conferences don't play conferences; teams play teams. The worst teams in the WCHA, CCHA, and Hockey East are generally terrible. The best team in the ECAC is usually pretty darn good, and this year they appear to be right there with the best two or three teams in the country, however you want to define it at this stage of the season.

If someone did want to know whether one conference as a whole was better or worse than another, then they could take a large sample of interconference game results, over a meaningful amount of time. (This isn't all that easy in D1 hockey, by the way, because teams from some conferences play so few non-conference games.) I happen to believe that if you did that, you'd find that the ECAC was right up there at the top in the 80s, then started to drop below the level of the WCHA and Hockey East. I think that for the past ten years, the ECAC has had one or maybe two teams that were competitive with the top teams of other conferences, but pretty consistently a step behind. NCAA results for any given tournament don't say much, but I think there's a reason an ECAC team hasn't played for the title in so long. Over the past year or two, I think the ECAC is closing that gap, and I think this year's overall results bear that out, as Brian Sullivan demonstrated in his column today. I also think that once you get past, say, the 4th-place teams in these conferences, the differences aren't that great. But in the recent past, the best teams in the WCHA, CCHA, and Hockey East have been noticeably better than the best team or two in the ECAC. Those are the teams in the NCAA tournament every year, and that's why the ECAC has done so badly there. They have several good teams every year, but no great ones. That may be changing.

[TimU]

Re: Not so ez????

The WCHA is a better conference than the EZAC, fact.

That is a lazy and not very meaningful statement. Fact.