Re: Cornell 2024
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:09 am
Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.
another fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:09 am Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.
South Side on Long Island.Finster wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:49 amanother fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:09 am Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.
It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.
That said, which high school is this kid coming from?
Two points here.VeryRustyRed wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 7:04 am CU77 - you are correct on the head-to-head.
It is in the listed selection criteria. I had previously read an erroneous post.
If it comes down to splitting hairs between Cornell and Yale, this could be to Cornell's benefit.
Not so for Denver, if Georgetown win an AQ.
Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
Beating a team once could be a fluke. Beating a team twice in one season (once by 7 goals) means you’re better than them.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:28 amThe Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
I agree, but he still must be 1 of the best HS Fogo's, and given that you don't know how it will translate, you just have to give the guy a shot and see how it works out. I'm sure Cascadden will be back, and they have the kid from Victor, so theirs really little pressure on Melkonian right away. I have all the confidence that he will be a solid Fogo, and Cornell, if all goes well, could have a great 3 headed monster at the X next year.Finster wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:49 amanother fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:09 am Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.
It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.
That said, which high school is this kid coming from?
It’s interesting (to me, anyway) that in our next two recruiting classes as listed on IL, Melkonian and the Blake Cascadden are the only two Long Islanders committed to Cornell, and Jack Herendeen is our only recruit from upstate. While Long Island and upstate NY still produce plenty of good recruits, it seems each year more of the top kids are going the private school route, with the Philly and Boston areas gaining more prominence as hot beds. And places like Culver Military, Hill Academy, and Western Reserve are now churning out elite talent with regularity.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:34 amSouth Side on Long Island.Finster wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:49 amanother fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:09 am Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.
It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.
That said, which high school is this kid coming from?
That announcer was awesome! had a one liner or metaphor for almost every play.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:40 pm During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!
LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c
Maybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:42 am"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:28 amThe Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.
Lol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:15 pmMaybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:42 am"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:28 amThe Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.
As long as you're bringing up 2015, I fondly remember a game in which the Big Red led the Blue Jays 16-3 in the middle of the 3rd quarter. At that point Coach Moran emptied the bench. Final score 16-8. 1977 NC Game.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 5:01 pmLol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:15 pmMaybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:42 am"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:28 amThe Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.
It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.
Touche. We're off track here and it's my fault. Sorry.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 5:01 pmLol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:15 pmMaybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:42 am"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:28 amThe Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.
It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.
I completely agree. This year, if it comes down to Penn and Georgetown for one spot, I would hope (and expect) the committee to give Georgetown the bid by virtue of their H2H win, even though they might be a spot or two lower in the RPI and have one fewer quality win. That to me is not enough of a difference for Penn to overcome the H2H loss. If they had, say, 3 more quality wins, then you have to think about it. But as things stand now, it's got to be GTown. And say Princeton wins the Ivy and takes a bid away from some other team — I'd hope the committee puts Cornell in over Yale, if it comes to that. When resumes are somewhat close, H2H should take precedent, and the committee tends to agree.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 7:03 pmTouche. We're off track here and it's my fault. Sorry.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 5:01 pmLol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:15 pmMaybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:42 am"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.Chousnake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:28 amThe Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:43 amRutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.
If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.
It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.
My original point is that H2H should be a major criteria when two teams are competing for a spot or seed. There just is no better indication of one team vs another that have comparable post season resumes than an actual game. To override an actual game with some formula often yields unfair results and historically, the old guard ACC/B10 teams have been the beneficiary over the Ivies and others. Cornell/Syracuse in 2018 for the 8 seed and home game is still a good example (even though Cornell won the game in Syracuse any way). Cornell Duke in 2007 is another example when Cornell beat Duke in Duke, but Duke was seeded 1 and an undefeated Cornell a baffling 4. There are others that don't involve Cornell, but I can't recall them and don't want to take the time to research them now.
My oldest son, who is not a lacrosse fan, was loving the announcer.drunkmonkey30 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:25 pmThat announcer was awesome! had a one liner or metaphor for almost every play.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:40 pm During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!
LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c
Pretty sure that was Booker Corrigan -- he has a ton of fun on the mic and he brings a lot of energy to the games he calls. I enjoyed his call also. The "hands of a mohel" line is an all-timer.drunkmonkey30 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:25 pmThat announcer was awesome! had a one liner or metaphor for almost every play.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:40 pm During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!
LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c