Re-Education Through Labor

A few weeks ago, we mentioned in passing while discussing the Engineers' less-than-expected luster on their non-conference schedule that the PairWise Ranking calculations had changed fairly drastically.

If you've been following WaP over the last couple of seasons - more accurately, in two of the last three years - you should at least be somewhat familiar with the PWR. In the 2010-11 season, when the Engineers reached the NCAA tournament, we broke down week-to-week from January through to the tournament what the rankings looked like, and we did the same last February when it appeared that the Tute might be destined to overcome a terrible start and make the tournament (they didn't). Engineer Bracketology is a "micro-bracketology" effort that focuses on the Engineers and what they wanted to see happen outside of its own games in order to bolster either its chances of making the tournament or its potential seed.

This year, however, there's been a radical change to the components of the PWR, and the biggest one has to do with what was always a major topic in these micro-bracketologies: the TUC cliff.

Prior to this season, there was a distinction known as Teams Under Consideration, which ostensibly separated good teams from bad teams. Depending on the year, a TUC was either a team in the Top 25 of the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) or a team with an RPI of .5000 or higher. That category has now essentially been abolished.

What does that mean? It means that instead of the PWR consisting only of TUCs, it now consists of comparisons between all 59 Division I programs.

The other three elements of PWR - RPI, common opponents (COp), and head-to-head (H2H) - are the remaining components of each comparison, of which there are now a total of 1,711 as each team is compared to every other team in the nation. This won't cause a great deal more number-crunching, realistically, since A) there's still only 16 teams in the tournament and B) the teams that will be on the bubble for an at-large bid are almost certainly going to be winning comparisons with all the teams south of at least 30th or so, barring extreme circumstances.

RPI will now more heavily weight wins on the road (by a factor of 1.2) than wins at home (0.8). Neutral ice games are weighted normally. The inverse is rue for losses at home, weighted 1.2, and losses on the road are weighted 0.8. Ties are treated as half a win, and half a loss.

RPI is also now being injected with a new bonus for quality wins. For victories over the top team in RPI, a bonus of .0500 is added. For the #2 RPI, a bonus of .0475, and so on through #20, which provides a bonus of .0025. The standard weighting for road/home/neutral ice is then applied to the bonus, and ties are again half a win, half a loss, so a quality tie produces half of the bonus it otherwise would.

So in other words, we're still going to be watching a specific set of teams - the TUC cliff has essentially been replaced by the RPI cliff, but its impact will not be nearly as wild as the TUC cliff.

There's also the numbers game, given the new lay of the land in college hockey. Last year, there were only five conferences, and thus only five automatic bids against 11 at-large bids. Now, with the demise of the CCHA and the rise of the Big Ten and the NCHC, there are six automatic bids. That changes the scope of what the PWR positioning will mean. Much of this assumes that the Atlantic Hockey champion will not be in the Top 15.

1-10: In the tournament, no matter what.
11: Almost certainly in the tournament. There would have to be upset champions in every conference for this team to be out.
12: Also likely in the tournament. Four upset champions put this team out.
13: The good side of the bubble. Good odds of being in the tournament, but three upset champions put them out.
14: Firmly on top of the bubble. Two upset champions put them out.
15: The bad side of the bubble. Just one upset champion would put this team out.
16: Out of the tournament, unless the Atlantic Hockey champion is in the Top 15 AND there are no upset champions in other conferences.
17-59: Out of the tournament without an automatic bid.

No, we're still not getting fully into PWR just yet. Why? The college hockey season unfolds over the course of five and a half months from the beginning of October through the middle of March, and while the PWR gets more important as time goes on, it doesn't really become an indicator of anything resembling a predictor of national tournament strengths until February, although it does become interesting to look at starting in a few weeks.

Here's my quickie chart for how to characterize the PWR during each month of the college hockey year:

October: Worthless.
November: Farcical.
December: Quirky.
January: Interesting.
February: Important.
March: Essential.

So we're still here sitting on quirky. There are some clearly good teams being indicated, now in the brave new PWR world, there are some clearly bad teams being indicated, but the murky middle tells us almost nothing at this point. If, following the Engineers' trip to Minnesota, they're in the PWR picture for an at-large bid, we'll fire up Engineer Bracketlogy, but not before.

However, if you want a look at what the Engineers have in terms of quality thus far, here's what we've got: two home quality ties against Quinnipiac (#8) and Cornell (#10), and a home quality win against New Hampshire (#17). Three losses (one at home, two on the road) to Boston College (#7) and Union (#9) are missed opportunities. There are games coming up in Minnesota that are likely to be possible quality opportunities against Ferris State (#4) and either Minnesota (#2) or Colgate (nearly a quality opponent at #24).

The Haggerty Effect

Ryan Haggerty is currently scoring at a clip of 1.15 goals per game. That's tops in the nation, and that's good for RPI. Why?

RPI when Ryan Haggerty scores a goal: 7-0-2
RPI when Ryan Haggerty doesn't score: 0-5-0

Kinda stark, isn't it? The latter figure includes the first game at Mercyhurst, where Haggerty was a healthy scratch due to a death in the family and a cancelled flight to Erie.

Now, that's not to say that the team relies wholly on Haggerty for its offense. It's worth pointing out that Brock Higgs has been humming right along on the goal scoring as well, currently tied for 16th in the country at 0.64 goals per game. With 9 goals on the year, he's already tied his career high (attained during his freshman season), and is only slightly below the pace Chase Polacek set in 2009-10, a 26-goal season that is the most for an Engineer in the current millennium.

That's important - after all, hockey's a team sport and Ryan Haggerty is but one man. The Engineers have only five skaters on their roster who haven't scored a goal in the first 14 games of the year. They're getting goals from all over. But the numbers when the goal leader doesn't get involved are very black and white.

It won't last in such an extreme, of course. Eventually this year, the Engineers will lose a game in which Haggerty scores. They'll eventually pull out a result without him.

Let's be plain. Haggerty's rate is going to be hard to maintain for the remainder of the season. A quick whirl on College Hockey Stats tells us that no player who appeared in at least 75% of his team's contests has managed to finish the season scoring a full goal per game or more in the last 10 years - the closest was Minnesota's Ryan Potulny in 2005-06, when he registered 38 goals in 41 games, a 0.93 goals per game average.

But if, somehow, he can maintain the current rate of 1.15 per game (down from earlier in the year already), and appear in every game from here on out, he'd finish the regular season and the first two games of the playoffs (the only ones guaranteed to any ECAC team) with a total of either 40 or 41 goals, depending on what you want to do with the remainder, and there'd still be as many as seven potential games left in the chamber after that.

That would put Haggerty in some pretty rare air as far as the school record for goals in a season is concerned.

1. Frank Chiarelli - 55 (1951-52)
2. John Carter - 43 (1984-85)
3. Bob Brinkworth - 41 (1961-62)
4. Paul Midghall - 40 (1957-58)
5. Ray Belasky - 37 (1958-59)

Now, it's worth mentioning that the game is very different than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, when four of those marks were set. Those guys played in a lot fewer games and were part of much higher scoring contests back then. Chiarelli's record, of course, is part of a national mark which will never be broken in terms of goals per game, averaging a hat trick per game (and he had 9 that year) at 3.06.

Even if he drops back to Polacek's 2010 pace for the rest of the year, we're still talking 30 goals on the campaign for the first time since Brad Tapper in 1999-2000. In the last 10 seasons, here's the total number of 30 goal scorers:

2003-04: 1 (Junior Lessard, UMD - Hobey Baker winner)
2004-05: 1 (Brett Sterling, CC - Hobey Hat Trick)
2005-06: 3 (Chris Collins, BC in HHT)
2006-07: 3 (Ryan Duncan, UND was Hobey Baker winner)
2007-08: 4 (All three of the HHT, including Kevin Porter, Michigan, who won)
2008-09: 1 (Jacques Lamoureux, Air Force - Hobey finalist)
2009-10: 1 (Cam Atkinson, BC - HHT)
2010-11: 2 (both in HHT)
2011-12: 2 (Austin Smith, Colgate in HHT)
2012-13: 0 (Greg Carey, SLU came closest with 28)

18 30-goal scorers in the last decade, all but two of them were in the final 10 for the Hobey Baker Award, 11 of them made the Hobey Hat Trick, and three won the award.

It's a little early to be discussing Hobey favorites, but... it's hard to say that the goal-fest hasn't at least positioned Ryan Haggerty well early on to be part of the discussion down the road.

Just 14 games in - and it's only 13 games technically for Haggerty - we're already scoping out this list for the top 10 goal-scoring seasons for Engineers in the last 10 years.

26 - Chase Polacek (2009-10)
21 - Chase Polacek (2010-11)
16 - Kirk MacDonald (2004-05)
16 - Oren Eizenman (2005-06)
15 - Ryan Haggerty (2013-14)
15 - Paul Kerins (2009-10)
14 - Kevin Croxton (2005-06)
14 - Tyler Helfrich (2010-11)
13 - Jonathan Ornelas (2005-06)
12 - Kirk MacDonald (2006-07)

Perhaps that's even the best chart for exactly what we're looking at in Troy right now.

Where'd Our Tough Schedule Go?

Before the season started, the conventional wisdom on RPI's schedule was that it was heavy with tough games. Outside of four games against Sacred Heart and Mercyhurst - and at the very least, Mercyhurst was at least considered to be among the tougher teams from Atlantic Hockey - the RPI non-conference haul is indeed chock full of traditional power teams.

Unfortunately, a schedule is only as strong as how those teams play in subsequent games, and from the way some of those opponents have started off the season... it hasn't been an awful lot of help. New Hampshire and Boston University have sub-.500 records, as does Denver. In fact, only two known non-conference opponents right now have winning records, and that's Boston College and Ferris State (RPI may or may not face Minnesota in January).

The short version? Unless some of the teams the Engineers are playing this year up their game a little bit, it's going to make for tough sailing later in the season when we're hoping that RPI is shooting for an NCAA spot - and hopefully aiming for a higher one rather than just making the tournament.

Don't bother looking for the Engineers' current position in the Pairwise Rankings for a number of reasons: 1) It's November and the Pairwise doesn't tell you a thing in November, and 2) The Pairwise method has changed significantly over last year, and there isn't a reliable calculator up and running yet on any of the major sites.

Fortunately, there's always KRACH. Here's where KRACH ranks the 19 different teams that are on the Engineers' schedule this season (and RPI themselves, for comparison), along with their current records (and RPI's record against them second, if they've played).

1. Minnesota (6-1-1)
2. Boston College (6-2-1, 0-1-0)
6. Quinnipiac (9-1-1)
9. St. Lawrence (6-2-2)
11. Ferris State (7-2-0)
13. Yale (3-1-2)
16. RPI (6-2-2)
18. New Hampshire (4-5-1, 1-0-0)
19. Boston University (4-5-0, 1-0-0)
22. Union (4-3-2)
23. Clarkson (9-2-1)
24. Cornell (3-2-1, 0-0-1)
25. Colgate (4-6-1, 1-0-0)
28. Brown (3-3-1)
33. Harvard (2-3-1, 0-1-1)
43. Mercyhurst (3-6-1)
44. Denver (4-5-1)
55. Sacred Heart (2-7-0, 2-0-0)
57. Princeton (1-6-0)
58. Dartmouth (0-6-0, 1-0-0)

So as it turns out, UNH and BU are probably a little better than they've been given credit for thus far - KRACH says they've had the 4th and 6th most difficult schedule in the nation thus far.

By comparison, RPI has the 28th most difficult schedule according to KRACH. Don't forget, fully half of RPI's victories this year to date are against Sacred Heart and Dartmouth, both in the bottom five in KRACH, and they've lost to the only team they've played that's currently ahead of them in KRACH (although that's not uncommon this early, given the index's retrodictive nature), which pegs the Engineers as only the 16th best team in the nation, six places below the USCHO poll's voters. That Harvard has generally done rather poorly when not playing RPI doesn't help things either, considering the issues the Engineers had against the Crimson.

KRACH also suggests that Clarkson is being highly overrated, while their arch-rivals from Canton and RPI's first opponent of 2014, Ferris State, are actually being pretty severely underrated by the human voters in the polls. At the end of the day, neither the polls nor KRACH really matter, but this does show us one thing that will be important down the road - not only are we hoping for the Engineers to do well in every game they play, so too would we like to see their non-conference opponents do well, and so far... the jury's certainly out on that.

How to Succeed in the ECAC, By The Numbers

Well, the season's underway now. Time to get the stats out.

It helps to have some benchmarks for how many points a team needs to accrue in order to reach the highest levels of accomplishment.

There are three levels of success, really, in the regular season. On the men's side, it's a matter of winning the regular season title, earning a first round bye, and earning home ice in the first round. For the women, it's a regular season title, home ice in the quarterfinals, and simply making the playoffs at all. For both, those benchmarks lie in 1st place, 4th place, and 8th place respectively.

History tells us about what we're looking for. Each season "requires" a different number of points, depending on how well things go. Let's take a look at how we come to those totals.

For instance, last year, there was a separation between the first-round bye and the home ice in the first round positions:

4. Union - 24 points
5. Dartmouth - 22 points

Therefore, it could be said that in order to achieve a first-round bye last season, a team needed to reach 23 points, as the Dutchmen still would have held down 4th place with one less point than they earned.

Compare, also the way the 2011-12 season ended for the RPI women:

7. Princeton - 22 points
8. Brown - 14 points
9. RPI - 14 points

The teams finished tied for 8th, but Brown won the tiebreaker and thus entered the playoffs, while RPI's season ended. Since tiebreakers  are an unknown factor for this exercise, we can say that a team required 15 points to earn a playoff berth, even though Brown earned one with 14 points. It would be inaccurate to say that 14 points earned a berth, since RPI did not earn one with that many points.

Those are individual examples. Here's a look at what's been required for 1st, 4th, and 8th since the 2000-01 season for the men - a date which correlates to the farthest back one can go to find each team playing a full 22-game schedule (thanks to the Vermont hazing scandal during the 1999-2000 season). The current playoff structure didn't exist in 2001 or 2002, but we can still use those seasons in our data set.

Mean averages are rounded up to the nearest point, since you can't earn fractions of a point.

Regular season championship: 30-29-36-30-33-31-31-29-30-32-36-31-28
Range: 28-36
Mean: 32 points - .727 winning percentage
Median: 31 - .705
Mode: 30/31 -  .682/.705

So history tells us that in order to claim the "Cleary Cup," for whatever that's worth, you need somewhere between 28 points (Quinnipiac last season) and 36 points (Cornell in 2003, Union in 2011). However, in most cases we're looking at about 31 or 32 points, correlating to a little bit less than 75% of the available points in a given season.

Top 4: 25-24-25-28-29-26-25-26-25-24-25-24-23
Range: 23-29
Mean: 26 - .591
Median: 25 - .568
Mode: 25 - .568

For home ice, it's pretty clear that a team needs to be very solidly over .500 at the very least, although the 23 points required by Union last season was the lowest since Brown required only 22 (a perfect .500 record) in 1998 to reach the top four.

Top 8: 19-21-18-19-17-18-18-17-21-18-19-20-20
Range: 17-21
Mean: 19 - .432
Median: 19 - .432
Mode: 18 - .409

And, as we can see, the benchmark for home ice in the playoffs is not terribly high at all. As a point of reference, Quinnipiac cleared last year's bench mark in early January, although going 10-0-0 to start the league season will have you aimed in the right direction pretty much any year.

For the women, we can only go back to the 2006-07 season, when the Engineers joined the conference and gave it the makeup it has today with 12 teams. In women's hockey, finishing first overall has a bit more meaning, as it gives you the opportunity to host the championship game on your home ice.

Regular season championship: 36-38-34-32-32-36-37
Range: 32-38
Mean: 35 - .795
Median: 36 - .818
Mode: 32/36 - .727/.795

Right away, we see a significant difference in the number of points that have been required over the years in the women's ECAC, which has less overall parity than the men's league. In 2008, St. Lawrence had to settle for second place despite taking 84% of the possible points on the year due to Harvard's perfect 22-0-0 ECAC record.

Home ice: 30-26-28-27-26-31-29
Range: 26-31
Mean: 29 - .659
Median: 28 - .636
Mode: 26 - .591

Interestingly, a year after Cornell required just 32 points to claim the top spot in the ECAC, Dartmouth and St. Lawrence tied for 4th with 30 points, meaning it took 31 just to have home ice in the quarterfinals.

Playoff spot: 14-17-18-20-19-15-15
Range: 14-20
Mean: 17 - .386
Median: 17 - .386
Mode: 15 - .341

This is the statistic RPI is more used to needing to look at, and they've reached the playoffs in five of their seven Division I ECAC seasons.

How are the teams looking now? Well, it's still early and the sample size is very small, but if the teams were to carry on their current pace at .500, it's a playoff berth for the women and home ice in the first round for the men, almost certainly.

Leaders Among Women

As the women wrap up a successful exhibition campaign with a combined 14-0 output against the Ottawa Jr. Senators and Brock University, let's take a quick look at the top returning players in the ECAC.

The list is more difficult to put together this year since it's an Olympic season, which means there are a handful of players with remaining eligibility who won't be with their teams this year. Four players in particular are gone in the ECAC who would have appeared in at least one category below - Cornell's Brianne Jenner, with Canada, Harvard's Lyndsey Fry and Michelle Picard with the USA (along with their coach, Katey Stone), and Quinnipiac's Erica Uden Johansson with Sweden. Additionally, St. Lawrence defenseman Amanda Boulier will miss the season with a medical redshirt.

RPI's top players are added where they are not already among the top 10 in each category.

Points

Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 35

Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 29

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 25

Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 23

Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 22

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 19

Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 18

Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 17

Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 16

Abbey McRae, St. Lawrence - 16

(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 14)

Goals

Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 17

Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 12

Abbey McRae, St. Lawrence - 11

Jessica Campbell, Cornell - 10

Kalley Armstrong, Harvard - 9

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 9

Brittany Styner, Clarkson - 8

Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 8

Nicole Connery, Quinnpiac - 8

Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 7

(Toni Sanders, RPI - 6)

Assists

Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 22

Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 18

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 16

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 16

Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 15

Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 14

Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 12

Sarah Edney, Harvard - 12

Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 11

Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 10

(Alexa Gruschow/Jenn Godin, RPI - 8)

Power Play Points

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 11

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 11

Tara Tomimoto, Yale - 9

Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 8

Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 7

Taylor Woods, Cornell - 7

Jamie Haddad, Yale - 7

Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 7

Katie Case, Colgate - 7

Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 6

(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 5)

Power Play Goals

Jamie Haddad, Yale - 5

Taylor Woods, Cornell - 4

Carly Mercer, Clarkson - 4

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 4

Ailish Forfar, Dartmouth - 3

Rylee Smith, St. Lawrence - 3

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 3

Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 3

Laura Stacey, Dartmouth - 3

Lindsey Allen, Dartmouth - 3

(Toni Sanders, RPI - 2)

Defenseman Scoring

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 19

Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 17

Sarah Edney, Harvard - 15

Kate Martini, Yale - 12

Tara Tomimoto, Yale - 12

Alyssa Gagliardi, Cornell - 11

Jenn Godin, RPI - 11

Megan Wickens, Colgate - 11

Cassandra Poudrier, Cornell - 10

Mel Desrochers, St. Lawrence - 9

Goals Against Average

Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - 1.04

Erica Howe, Clarkson - 1.23

Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - 1.54

Lindsay Holdcroft, Dartmouth - 1.97

Aubree Moore, Brown - 2.18

Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - 2.24

Kelly O'Brien, RPI - 2.35

Ashlynne Rando, Colgate - 2.65

Jaimie Leonoff, Yale - 2.67

Shenae Lundberg, Union - 3.15

Save Percentage

Erica Howe, Clarkson - .957

Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - .947

Jaimie Leonoff, Yale - .927

Aubree Moore, Brown - .925

Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - .920

Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - .920

Lindsay Holdcroft, Dartmouth - .917

Ashlynne Rando, Colgate - .910

Kelly O'Brien, RPI - .907

Kimberly Newell, Princeton - .907

Returning Goals Per Game (difference from last year)

Clarkson - 2.36 (-0.41)

Cornell - 2.23 (-1.59)

Quinnipiac - 2.00 (-1.00)

St. Lawrence - 1.82 (-1.13)

RPI - 1.50 (-0.68)

Princeton - 1.36 (-0.73)

Yale - 1.23 (-0.36)

Dartmouth - 1.14 (-1.50)

Harvard - 1.12 (-2.38)

Colgate - 1.09 (-0.73)

Brown - 0.95 (-0.46)

Union - 0.55 (-0.13)

--

We'll round out the stat pack with a look at the national leaders, and how RPI's top returning players stack up against them. The following would-be stat leaders are gone for Olympic duty.

Boston College: Alex Carpenter (USA)

Boston University: Marie-Philip Poulin (Canada)

Minnesota: Amanda Kessel (USA)

Northeastern: Kendall Coyne (USA)

ECAC players are bolded. Players on RPI's schedule this year are in italics.

Points per game

Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 2.00

Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 1.95

Haley Skarupa, Boston College - 1.61

Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 1.53

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 1.44

Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 1.43

Emily Field, Boston College - 1.22

Sarah Lefort, Boston University - 1.16

Jenna Dingeldein, Mercyhurst - 1.16

Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 1.15

(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 0.75)

Goals per game

Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 0.80

Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 0.78

Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 0.76

Haley Skarupa, Boston College - 0.73

Sarah Lefort, Boston University - 0.65

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 0.61

Rebecca Vint, Robert Morris - 0.52

Madison Packer, Wisconsin - 0.51

Emily Janiga, Mercyhurst - 0.51

Meghan Dufault, North Dakota - 0.50

(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 0.36)

Assists per game

Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 1.49

Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 1.19

Jillian Saulnier, Cornell - 1.10

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 0.88

Haley Skarupa, Boston College - 0.88

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 0.83

Nicole Kosta, Quinnipiac - 0.82

Emily Field, Boston College - 0.78

Jenna Dingeldein, Mercyhurst - 0.76

Kelly Babstock, Quinnipiac - 0.75

(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 0.39)

Power play goals

Madison Packer, Wisconsin - 10

Christine Bestland, Mercyhurst - 10

Hannah Brandt, Minnesota - 10

Michelle Karvinen, North Dakota - 9

Milica McMillen, Minnesota - 8

Jamie Lee Rattray, Clarkson - 8

Emily Janiga, Mercyhurst - 8

Molli Mott, St. Cloud State - 7

Jill Holdcroft, Penn State - 6

Karley Sylvester, Wisconsin - 6

(Alexa Gruschow, RPI - 5)

Points per game (Defensemen)

Erin Ambrose, Clarkson - 1.06

Molly Byrne, Mercyhurst - 0.86

Kari Schmitt, Ohio State - 0.76

Milica McMillen, Minnesota - 0.74

Rachel Ramsey, Minnesota - 0.71

Hayleigh Cudmore, Cornell - 0.71

Brigette Lacquette, Minnesota-Duluth - 0.71

Alexis Crossley, New Hampshire - 0.71

Maggie DiMasi, Northeastern - 0.66

Courtney Burke, Wisconsin - 0.66

(Jenn Godin, RPI - 0.43)

Goals Against Average

Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - 1.44

Alex Rigsby, Wisconsin - 1.49

Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - 1.55

Kallie Billadeau, Syracuse - 1.56

Erica Howe, Clarkson - 1.73

Amanda Makela, Mercyhurst - 2.01

Shelby Amsley-Benzie, North Dakota - 2.08

Lindsay Holdcroft, Dartmouth - 2.11

Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - 2.19

Kerrin Sperry, Boston University - 2.20

(Kelly O'Brien, RPI - 2.48)

Save Percentage

Alex Rigsby, Wisconsin - .943

Kallie Billadeau, Syracuse - .940

Emerance Maschmeyer, Harvard - .935

Erica Howe, Clarkson - .931

Nicole Paniccia, Penn State - .928

Lauren Slebodnick, Cornell - .927

Carmen MacDonald, St. Lawrence - .925

Jaimie Leonoff, Yale - .925

Aubree Moore, Brown - .921

Alexius Schutt, Sacred Heart - .920

(Kelly O'Brien, RPI - .905)

Knowledge and Thoroughness

We're closing in on a week out from our first opportunity to see the men's team in action - next Saturday against St. Mary's - so it's time you armed yourself with a little bit of information. Below are the names you should know for the upcoming ECAC campaign - the top 10 returning players within the conference in each offensive and goaltending category. Figures below represent totals accrued from in-league play only.

Points
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 30
Kenny Agostino, Yale - 25
Andrew Calof, Princeton - 25
Jeremy Wick, St. Lawrence - 21
Matt Lorito, Brown - 21
Daniel Carr, Union - 19
Tyler Sikura, Dartmouth - 19
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union - 18
Matt Neal, RPI - 17
Justin Baker, St. Lawrence - 17

Goals
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 18
Jeremy Wick, St. Lawrence - 11
Kenny Agostino, Yale - 11
Joe Zarbo, Clarkson - 10
Andrew Calof, Princeton - 10
Jordan Samuels-Thomas, Quinnipiac - 10
Jimmy Vesey, Harvard - 9
Matt Lorito, Brown - 9
Daniel Carr, Union - 9
Mike Zalewski, RPI - 8

Assists
Andrew Calof, Princeton - 15
Justin Baker, St. Lawrence - 15
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union - 15
Kenny Agostino, Yale - 14
Joakim Ryan, Cornell - 13
Tyler Sikura, Dartmouth - 13
Jacob Laliberte, RPI - 12
Matt Neal, RPI - 12
Dennis Robertson, Brown - 12
Matt Lorito, Brown - 12
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 12

Power Play Points
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 16
Tylor Spink, Colgate - 11
Justin Baker, St. Lawrence - 11
Mat Bodie, Union - 9
Matt Neal, RPI - 9
Jeremy Wick, St. Lawrence - 9
Tyson Spink, Colgate - 9
Ryan Haggerty, RPI - 8
Allan McPherson, Clarkson - 8
Daniel Carr, Union - 8
Kenny Agostino, Yale - 8

Power Play Goals
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 9
Jeremy Wick, St. Lawrence - 6
Allan McPherson, Clarkson - 4
Kyle Baun, Colgate - 4
Tylor Spink, Colgate - 4
Jordan Samuels-Thomas, Quinnipiac - 4
Daniel Carr, Union - 4
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate - 3
T.J. Moor, Clarkson - 3
Nick Lappin, Brown - 3
(Ryan Haggerty, RPI - 3)

Short-Handed Points
Andrew Ammon, Princeton - 2
Brock Higgs, RPI - 2
Tyler Sikura, Dartmouth - 2
Andrew Calof, Princeton - 2
Kyle Essery, St. Lawrence - 2

Defenseman Scoring
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union - 18
Justin Baker, St. Lawrence - 17
Joakim Ryan, Cornell - 15
Tommy Fallen, Yale - 13
Dennis Robertson, Brown - 13
Mat Bodie, Union - 11
Paul Geiger, Clarkson - 10
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate - 9
Alec Rush, Princeton - 8
Curtis Leonard, RPI - 8

Goals Against Average
Jason Kasdorf, RPI - 1.39
Cab Morris, Dartmouth - 2.15
Andy Iles, Cornell - 2.31
Spencer Finney, Colgate - 2.75
Raphael Girard, Harvard - 2.80
Charles Grant, Dartmouth - 2.84
Greg Lewis, Clarkson - 2.98
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence - 3.01
Eric Mihalik, Colgate - 3.05

Save Percentage
Jason Kasdorf, RPI - .945
Andy Iles, Cornell - .917
Cab Morris, Dartmouth - .916
Raphael Girard, Harvard - .916
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence - .910
Charles Grant, Dartmouth - .909
Eric Mihalik, Colgate - .902
Greg Lewis, Clarkson - .901
Spencer Finney, Colgate - .901

Returning Goals Per Game (difference from last year)
Clarkson - 2.45 (-0.19)
RPI - 2.23 (-0.54)
St. Lawrence - 2.18 (-0.60)
Quinnipiac - 1.86 (-1.46)
Yale - 1.86 (-0.87)
Dartmouth - 1.86 (-0.69)
Brown - 1.86 (-0.59)
Union - 1.77 (-1.14)
Princeton - 1.72 (-0.64)
Colgate - 1.63 (-0.73)
Harvard - 1.22 (-0.83)
Cornell - 1.18 (-1.05)

----

And, while we're at it, a look at the top returning players around the nation. ECAC players are in bold, RPI's top returners are included for comparison where they're outside the top 10, and players in italics are those from outside of the league that the Engineers are scheduled to get a look at this season.

Points per game
Johnny Gaudreau, Boston College - 1.46
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 1.34
Ryan Walters, Nebraska-Omaha - 1.33
Andrew Calof, Princeton - 1.23
Kevin Roy, Northeastern - 1.17
Matt Leitner, Minnesota State - 1.15
Brett Gensler, Bentley - 1.14
Kenny Agostino, Yale - 1.11
Kevin Goumas, New Hampshire - 1.11
Nic Kerdiles, Wisconsin - 1.03
(Matt Neal, RPI - 0.88)

Goals per game
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 0.74
Matt Lorito, Brown - 0.61
Johnny Gaudreau, Boston College - 0.60
David Glen, Penn State - 0.59
Kevin Roy, Northeastern - 0.59
Ryan Walters, Nebraska-Omaha - 0.56
Cody Wydo, Robert Morris - 0.55
Brandon Nunn, Holy Cross - 0.55
Michael Mersch, Wisconsin - 0.55
Jonny Brodzinski, St. Cloud State - 0.52
(Ryan Haggerty/Mike Zalewski, RPI - 0.33)

Assists per game
Johnny Gaudreau, Boston College - 0.86
Kevin Goumas, New Hampshire - 0.84
Andrew Calof, Princeton - 0.77
Ryan Walters, Nebraska-Omaha - 0.77
Matt Leitner, Minnesota State - 0.73
Max Gardiner, Penn State - 0.70
Nic Kerdiles, Wisconsin - 0.69
Brett Gensler, Bentley - 0.69
Alexander Krushelnyski, Colorado College - 0.67
Tanner Fritz, Ohio State - 0.65
(Matt Neal, RPI - 0.65)

Power Play Goals
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence - 14
Chris Bodo, Mercyhurst - 10
Kyle Gibbons, Canisius - 9
Michael Colavecchia, RIT - 8
Matt Lorito, Brown - 8
Danny O'Regan, Boston University - 8
Jacob Laliberte, RPI - 7
Cody Ferriero, Northeastern - 7
Alex Grieve, Bentley - 7
David Morley, St. Cloud State - 7

Points per game (Defensemen)
Trevor van Riemsdyk, New Hampshire - 0.85
Greg Noyes, RIT - 0.76
Joey LaLeggia, Denver - 0.74
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union - 0.72
Steve Weinstein, Bentley - 0.71
Nolan Zajac, Denver - 0.70
Michael Matheson, Boston College - 0.69
David Makowski, Denver - 0.69
Mat Bodie, Union - 0.69
Justin Baker, St. Lawrence - 0.68
(Curtis Leonard, RPI - 0.43)

Goals Against Average
Connor Hellebuyck, UMass-Lowell - 1.37
Ryan McKay, Miami - 1.39
Jason Kasdorf, RPI - 1.62
Adam Wilcox, Minnesota - 1.88
Jay Williams, Miami - 1.94
Joel Rumpel, Wisconsin - 1.96
Frank Slubowski, Western Michigan - 2.00
Stephon Williams, Minnesota State - 2.00
Steven Summerhays, Notre Dame - 2.01
Jon Gillies, Providence - 2.08

Save Percentage
Connor Hellebuyck, UMass-Lowell - .952
Ryan McKay, Miami - .946
Jason Kasdorf, RPI - .935
Jon Gillies, Providence - .931
Kevin Murdock, Lake Superior - .930
Joel Rumpel, Wisconsin - .929
Tony Capobianco, Canisius - .929
Jake Hildebrand, Michigan State - .928
C.J. Motte, Ferris State - .927
Sean Maguire, Boston University - .926

From the Intriguing Stats Department

Check this out.

Over the last couple of years, we've put out a statistic of "returning offense" for ECAC teams in conference games. It's fairly easy to calculate - take the total number of goals scored by the team in the last completed season, subtract out graduated and otherwise departed players, and bam - returning offense. For the most part, these figures are frequently between a quarter of a goal to a goal and a half per game less than the total goals per game for that season, depending on how heavily the team relied on players who are not returning in the upcoming season.

So, mostly, what you're left with is the output from the soon-to-be seniors, juniors and sophomores. It's something of a baseline figure, since you're looking at usual improvement in returning classes and added output from freshmen (which is hard to pin down before the season starts), and the final goals-per-game figure at the end of the year tells you just what the improvements/freshmen contributed.

Here's how each team improved in 2013 on what they brought back from 2012 - each figure represents the total increase in goals-per-game from the baseline 2012 return.

Colgate: 1.31
Clarkson: 1.23
RPI: 1.13
Brown: 1.00
Quinnipiac: 1.00
St. Lawrence: 0.91
Yale: 0.78
Dartmouth: 0.46
Union: 0.41
Harvard: 0.10
Princeton: 0.09
Cornell: -0.13

Looking at the figures, one thing sticks out more than any at first - holy cow, Cornell managed to lose goals from their baseline last year. That underscores just how rough things were - not only did the freshman class not provide a major boost, returning players had a decrease in output from the previous year.

What about the high numbers? Well, Colgate's top total is attributable in part to a freshman class with a high amount of output (which we're going to touch on in a few days), and being tops in the league for added offense didn't help them finish high in the standings, in part because even adding the most goals from the baseline (1.05, lowest in the league) didn't get them back to were they had been in 2012 (3.27 GPG). Clarkson was in a similar boat, starting out at 1.41, second lowest in the league. Quite simply, these teams had voids that had to be filled by someone.

So this statistic by itself doesn't relate to overall success last year, but it does at least tell us a little about what to expect in coming years offensively. The teams ranked higher on this list got more out of their freshmen and more development from their upperclassmen last season.

The teams that surpassed their 2012 total offensive output in 2013 were RPI, Quinnipiac, Clarkson, and St. Lawrence, while Brown's was exactly equal.

Now, take a quick gander at this year's returning offense (lost goals-per-game is in parentheses):

Clarkson - 2.45 (-0.19)
RPI - 2.23 (-0.54)
St. Lawrence - 2.18 (-0.60)
Quinnipiac - 1.86 (-1.46)
Yale - 1.86 (-0.87)
Dartmouth - 1.86 (-0.69)
Brown - 1.86 (-0.59)
Union - 1.77 (-1.14)
Princeton - 1.72 (-0.64)
Colgate - 1.63 (-0.73)
Harvard - 1.22 (-0.83)
Cornell - 1.18 (-1.05)

As an aside, the effect on Union of Josh Jooris signing with Calgary was to drop them from 4th to 8th on this list, and also moved them into the position of having the second most offense lost behind Quinnipiac, who were previously tops by a country mile. That illustrates the margins a bit.

Bear in mind that teams don't have to score a lot of goals to be successful - but it helps. Cornell, for instance, seems to rely more heavily on their defense year in and year out, so just because they're at the bottom of both of these lists means relatively little other than that they have some work to do considering last year's finish. Yale, on the other hand, as long relied on offense to keep them afloat.

In some ways, being farther down the list simply means that those offenses have more room for returning players to fill in gaps where they were unable to contribute in the past simply because others were doing the team's scoring.

The question that must be asked when viewing this list is simple - what capacity does each team have for expanding on what returns? Food for thought.

New World Order

We are in the final season of the fourth iteration of the conference system in college hockey. Next year, things are going to look mighty different.

Fourth, you ask? What were the other three? Well, here they are, roughly.

1961 - 1981: The ECAC and the WCHA rule the roost, though the latter is generally stronger. Every national championship during this time period was won by a team from one of these conferences, through to 1983. The CCHA begins as a relatively minor conference midway through this period.

1981 - 1985: Still largely a period of dominance between the ECAC and the WCHA, but the CCHA's addition of Michigan and Michigan State shifts the balance a bit away from the WCHA.

1985 - 2000: The Hockey East split leads to a shift of power between the new conference, the WCHA, and the CCHA, with the ECAC in slow decline, especially after the early 1990s.

2000 - 2013: The era of the "Big Three," as the ECAC moves out of a position of power to become the lone mid-major, while the MAAC/AHA comes to being as the lone minor conference.

2013 - ???: The Big Ten tsunami rearranges the college hockey landscape as never before.

What could we be looking at in this fifth iteration of conference paradigm in college hockey?

Well, now that every team has lost a game this season, let's look at the current KRACH ratings to see where the new conference structure would stand if it were theoretically in place today - not a perfect comparison, since conference schedules will shift, but this is what it looks like.

Hockey East - 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 19, 26, 34, 43, 44, 45, 52
NCHC - 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 39
ECAC - 4, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 46
Big Ten - 12, 27, 37, 42, 49, 54
WCHA - 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 50
Atlantic Hockey - 22, 40, 41, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59
Independents - 58

Look at the NCHC - that's a holy cow stat right there. Seven of its eight teams are currently among the 20 best in the nation, and the eighth (Minnesota-Duluth) won a national championship two years ago. Think that might be a power conference?

The Big Ten is having a shockingly bad season in it's year before birth (to wit - independent Penn State is ranked ahead of 1-7-2 Wisconsin, and Michigan ain't that far ahead of them), but this season is likely the exception and not the rule, considering that four of the six teams in the conference are regulars in the national tournament under the current structure.

Also, no one can deny Hockey East's excellent standing, especially with Notre Dame about to join the fold. Three of its usual "Big Four" are off to a great start (Maine... not so much), although the biggest problem Hockey East faces is its gap between haves and have nots. Providence's decent start has them somewhere in the middle (26th), but besides the Friars there's a big gap between UMass-Lowell (19th) and Merrimack (34th). Still, in recent seasons we've seen the Warriors competitive and the River Hawks not so competitive. They'll be a strong conference.

Atlantic Hockey, with all but two of its teams outside the top 2/3 of the nation, will continue their current role of providing their tournament winner an automatic bid and nothing more. They are still a cost-containment league and until that changes, they are where they are.

That leaves the fate of the original two up for ponderance... the ECAC and the WCHA.

First, the ECAC. The only changes our league needs to worry about is how the shifting paradigms affect recruiting. The last shift certainly affected things for the worse, but with five teams offering a full complement of scholarships and the league as a whole attractive for the educational side, there's only so far the ECAC will slide. It's probably already reached the bottom, really.

But the new WCHA could be in an almost worse situation than the ECAC, and quickly. A mashup of the leftovers between the CCHA and current WCHA after the Big Ten and NCHC tore away basically all of their top programs, it's hard to peg an absolute best program from this new group of nine. By KRACH, right now, it's Alaska followed by Ferris State. You'd almost have to call the Bulldogs early favorites.

The currently comprised ECAC has won only five national championships, among only three of its members, and none since 1989 (Harvard). The new WCHA will have eight, among four members, but none since 1994 (Lake Superior State). That's not overly dissimilar.

There's one other way to look at which conference has the most power teams - NCAA bids. The conferences have averaged the following total bids per season in the last 10 years (since the tournament was expanded).

WCHA - 4.4 mean, 4/5 median, 5 mode (High 6 - 2008; Low 3 - 2007 and 2009)
CCHA - 3.9 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 5 - 2004 and 2012, Low 3 - 2003)
Hockey East - 3.6 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 5 - 2007; Low 2 - 2008)
ECAC - 2.2 mean, 2 median, 2 mode (High 3 - 2005, 2009, 2011; Low 1 - 2004)

Now apply the total bids per season to the new conferences.

NCHC - 4.2 mean, 4 median, 4 mode (High 7 - 2011; Low 3 - 2003 and 2005)
Hockey East - 4.1 mean (High 6 - 2007; Low 3 - 2008 and 2010)
Big Ten - 3.1 mean, 3 median, 3/4 mode (High 5 - 2004; Low 1 - 2011)
ECAC - 2.2 mean, 2 median, 2 mode (High 3 - 2005, 2009, 2011; Low 1 - 2004)
WCHA - 0.9 mean, 1 median, 0/1 mode (High 3 - 2010; Low 0 - 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011)

That's astounding to see. In the new WCHA, there were four different years in the last ten that none of the teams made the tournament. In fact, between 2004 and 2009 (six consecutive years), there wasn't a single team that will play in the WCHA next year that earned an at-large bid - Bemidji State, on three occasions in that span, won the CHA's automatic bid.

What does that mean? Well, for starters, it means the WCHA is dropping off a long ways prestige-wise. But a cursory look at the numbers tells us that, at least at first, hockey's new world order is still going to consist of the "Big Three," but two of those will be brand new conferences. The ECAC will still be a mid-major, in all likelihood.

The WCHA, however, looks like it's going to have to fight - and hard - to be mid-major level. It essentially ended up as the Island of Misfit Toys after realignment, and although its autobid now represents a big chance for teams that frequently don't get to compete for either the WCHA or CCHA autobid most years in the past, the new league may be hard-pressed to pick up an at-large bid even with the regularity of the ECAC, which almost always gets one and not unfrequently snags a second.

The NCHC, once it gets assembled, will almost certainly never get 7 bids as it did in 2011 (that would be almost the entire league, and someone has to finish in last), but the mean totals could average out about right. That would likely mean, more often than not, the WCHA will probably have to settle for its autobid, but at least they'll probably grab an extra bid every once in a while, which pegs them above Atlantic Hockey. But it looks like a quick drop from the top for college hockey's oldest conference, almost certainly quicker than the ECAC's fall from grace. Their motto is "just got tougher," put in place after Bemidji State and Nebraska-Omaha joined the fold. They can keep it next year, but it'll have a different meaning.

Getting Up For the Big Game

Before I start with this venting of frustration, let me get this out of the way: this is not an attack on Seth Appert. It is, however, a critique of the program under Coach Appert. Take from it what you will.

I got to thinking while sitting through the latest demolition of the Engineers, this time at the hands of Union (again). When was the last time we got to celebrate a blowout victory? It's something I thought of when I tried to find the last time RPI gave up six goals in a single period (I couldn't find it).

If we define a blowout as a four-goal-or-more separation in the final score, here are the blowouts of the Appert era.

October 21, 2006: Denver 5, RPI 1
December 9, 2006: Princeton 6, RPI 2
December 30, 2006: Union 5, RPI 1
January 5, 2007: Harvard 5, RPI 1
January 6, 2007: Dartmouth 6, RPI 2
January 12, 2007: Union 5, RPI 0
February 10, 2007: Cornell 6, RPI 1
December 15, 2007: Miami 7, RPI 3
December 16, 2007: Miami 5, RPI 1
January 12, 2008: Colgate 4, RPI 0
February 2, 2008: Princeton 4, RPI 0*
February 15, 2008: Colgate 4, RPI 0
February 16, 2008: Cornell 7, RPI 1
October 21, 2008: UMass 6, RPI 0
November 15, 2008: Quinnipiac 5, RPI 1
November 29, 2008: Northeastern 5, RPI 1
December 5, 2008: Yale 7, RPI 3
December 6, 2008: RPI 7, Brown 2
December 14, 2008: Miami 7, RPI 1
January 2, 2009: Boston University 6, RPI 2
January 10, 2009: RPI 5, Princeton 1
March 14, 2009: Cornell 4, RPI 0
December 30, 2009: Michigan State 6, RPI 1
February 20, 2010: Princeton 7, RPI 0*$
December 4, 2010: RPI 6, Brown 2
January 14, 2011: Cornell 5, RPI 1
January 22, 2011: RPI 5, Dartmouth 1
February 19, 2011: RPI 5, Clarkson 1
March 26, 2011: North Dakota 6, RPI 0
October 14, 2011: Ferris State 4, RPI 0
November 15, 2011: Union 5, RPI 1
December 29, 2011: UMass-Lowell 7, RPI 2
January 14, 2012: Union 5, RPI 1
January 27, 2012: RPI 4, St. Lawrence 0
February 4, 2012: Colgate 8, RPI 3*
February 18, 2012: Princeton 6, RPI 2$
March 2, 2012: RPI 5, Clarkson 1
November 3, 2012: Union 7, RPI 3
* - Big Red Freakout!
$ - Senior Night

That's a record of 7-31 in blowout games. By the definition of Saturday's game, we did win a pair of blowout contests last season, against the North Country teams (and one in the playoffs, no less). But by and large, they're fairly hard to come by. The NCAA tournament team of 2010-11 only posted three themselves. Up the requirement to five goals, and the record diminishes to 1-10. No matter how you slice it, the team's blowout to blownout ratio... sucks.

Then it struck me that a lot of the blowout losses were in "big" games. The NCAA tournament game, of course, but, like many (but not all) of the other non-conference games on that list, RPI was simply matched up against a far superior team (especially early in Appert's tenure - the 3 games against Miami, for instance).

So what constitutes a "big game?" Well, Freakout! would seem to qualify. Union has become our biggest rival, a team we play three times a year (at least), so that's one. Senior Night is usually supposed to be added incentive to win. Of course, the playoffs.

Freakout! record: 1-4-1 (12 GF, 28 GA)
Senior night record: 0-5-1 (8 GF, 24 GA)
Union record: 4-16-3 (46 GF, 81 GA)
ECAC playoff record: 7-13-0 (2-6 in series)

Three of the blowout losses were at Big Red Freakout! Two were on Senior Night (although to be fair, in 2010 Freakout! was held on Senior Night). Five were against Union, which tallies to more blowout losses against the Dutchmen than we have wins, period (and again, to be fair, Union has gotten very good).

The saving grace, really, is Black Friday, where the team can boast a 4-2-1 record under Appert - though both losses are in the last two years. And if you're still holding onto Clarkson as the main rival, that record is 5-9-1 with both teams scoring 43 goals in the 15 games - somewhat better than against Union, but again, Union has been better than Clarkson in the last six years.

What else is there? Well, why not throw in tournament play? Although the titles they confer are mostly a matter of bragging rights, the usual ambiguity as to the second night's opponent and the opportunity to play for some hardware makes a tournament a little bigger than your average non-conference fare.

2006 Governor's Cup: Champions
2006 RPI Tournament: 3rd Place
2006 Catamount Cup: 4th Place
2007 Icebreaker: 4th Place
2007 Governor's Cup: Champions
2007 RPI Tournament: 2nd Place
2007 Lightning Classic: 4th Place
2008 Governor's Cup: 3rd Place
2008 RPI Tournament: 4th Place
2009 Denver Cup: 4th Place
2009 Alaska Goal Rush: 4th Place
2009 RPI Tournament: 2nd Place
2009 Great Lakes Invitational: 2nd Place
2010 RPI Tournament: Champions
2011 UConn Hockey Classic: 4th Place
Overall record: 8-17-5

Now, it's hardly fair to fault some of these poor results, especially the 2007 Icebreaker (Minnesota, BC, and Michigan) and the Lightning Classic (Notre Dame, Colorado College, and UMass), and the big win against Michigan came at the '09 GLI, but some of these tournaments, especially the last one, were simply putrid. Losses to Niagara, Mercyhurst, Army, and Holy Cross, and a tie with American International are strewn throughout.

What am I trying to say here? I'm not really sure I'm saying anything other than trying to quantify frustration. Some of the early teams Appert coached were just rough squads that were low on talent. But as the talent level has picked up, these trends of underperforming in key games hasn't really changed much. Possibly, the disparity in blowouts to being blown out could point to an inadequate strategy when playing from behind. I have no clue.

I do know one thing, though. Appert likes to say that every game is equally important. On some level that's true. All games factor into the Pairwise Rankings, and every ECAC game is worth two points. But on an emotional level, for both players and fans, certain games hold more meaning to them. Union, even when they were a joke on the ice, always managed to get up for RPI. Today, even with a team that will be written into their (new) history books as an all-time great lineup, they still manage to get a little something extra for RPI, a team that, by recent history, they should have every right to overlook. Those big wins develop momentum, and although that can change from shift to shift and period to period, the game to game momentum is just as important, and nothing kills spirit like a big loss in a big game.

The Best of What's Around

Well, it's about that time. We're under three weeks now until the puck drops on another season of RPI hockey. College hockey in general unofficially gets underway this coming weekend as Mercyhurst, RIT, and Colgate play exhibitions in women's hockey, and there'll now be either men's or women's college hockey every week until early April (with the exception of the week before the men's Frozen Four, of course).

It's been a mercifully quiet offseason for the first time since WaP began back in 2009. Only a few ECAC underclassmen jumped to the pros, just one team swapped conferences, and in our own backyard, not much to report with the exception of one player leaving school. So we have been pretty quiet since the season ended back in March, for sure, but it's now time to crank things up once again.

With the season approaching, it's always a good idea to take stock of which players to be watching for. Below are the top ten returning players in each category in ECAC play, with RPI's top returning players added on if necessary - they're the ones in bold. Are these the only players to be watching for? Of course not; some returning players will improve and become stars, and I'm sure you'll see some freshmen providing immediate impact. For those that are returning, though, these are the ones proven to be in the upper echelon of the league.

Points
Danny Biega, Harvard – 23
Daniel Carr, Union – 22
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 21
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 21
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 21
Andrew Miller, Yale – 21
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 20
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 20
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 20
Kenny Agostino, Yale – 19
(Nick Bailen/Brock Higgs – 13 each)

Goals
Daniel Carr, Union – 12
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 11
Brandon McNally, Dartmouth – 10
Greg Miller, Cornell – 10
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 10
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 10
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 9
Eric Robinson, Dartmouth – 9
Wayne Simpson, Union – 9
Rob Kleebaum, Princeton – 8
Kenny Agostino, Yale – 8
(Marty O’Grady – 5)

Assists
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 16
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 16
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 16
Andrew Miller, Yale – 16
Danny Biega, Harvard – 15
Ben Sexton, Clarkson – 14
Kyle Bodie, Union – 14
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 13
Joel Lowry, Cornell – 13
Josh Jooris, Union – 12
(Brock Higgs – 12)

Power Play Points
Danny Biega, Harvard – 14
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 10
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 10
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 10
Ben Sexton, Clarkson – 9
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 9
Marshall Everson, Harvard – 9
Kyle Bodie, Union – 9
Mat Bodie, Union – 9
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 9
Nick Bailen, Rensselaer – 9
Dennis Robertson, Brown – 9

Power Play Goals
Daniel Carr, Union – 6
Marshall Everson, Harvard – 5
Greg Carey, St. Lawrence – 5
Wayne Simpson, Union – 5
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 5
Alex Fallstrom, Harvard – 4
Nick D’Agostino, Cornell – 4
Loren Barron, Quinnipiac – 4
Kellen Jones, Quinnipiac – 3
Ryan Haggerty, Rensselaer – 3

Short-Handed Points
Matt Hatch, Union – 2
Mark McGowan, Rensselaer – 2
Daniel Carr, Union – 2
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 2
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate – 2

Defenseman Scoring
Danny Biega, Harvard – 23
Jeremy Price, Colgate – 18
Mat Bodie, Union – 16
Michael Sdao, Princeton – 15
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 15
Nick D’Agostino, Cornell – 14
Shayne Gostisbehere, Union – 14
Dennis Robertson, Brown – 14
Spiro Goulakos, Colgate – 14
George Hughes, St. Lawrence – 14
(Nick Bailen, Rensselaer – 14)

Goals Against Average
Troy Grosenick, Union – 1.60
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac – 1.99
Andy Iles, Cornell – 1.99
Bryce Merriam, Rensselaer – 2.32
Jeff Malcolm, Yale – 2.63
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence – 2.73
Eric Mihalik, Colgate – 2.76
Steve Michalek, Harvard – 2.77
Mike Condon, Princeton – 2.99
Sean Bonar, Princeton – 3.08

Save Percentage
Troy Grosenick, Union - .940
Andy Iles, Cornell - .922
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac - .921
Mike Condon, Princeton - .920
Jeff Malcolm, Yale – .916
Matt Weninger, St. Lawrence - .911
Bryce Merriam, Rensselaer - .911
Steve Michalek, Harvard - .906
Eric Mihalik, Colgate – .896
Sean Bonar, Princeton - .893

Returning Goals Per Game (difference from last year)
Union – 2.50 (-0.95)
Cornell – 2.36 (-0.64)
Quinnipiac – 2.32 (-0.41)
Princeton – 2.27 (-0.37)
Dartmouth – 2.09 (-0.77)
Harvard – 1.95 (-0.82)
Yale – 1.95 (-1.41)
St. Lawrence – 1.82 (-0.45)
Rensselaer – 1.64 (-0.30)
Brown – 1.45 (-1.00)
Clarkson – 1.41 (-1.18)
Colgate – 1.05 (-2.22)

----

And, while we're at it, a look at the top returning players around the nation. ECAC players are in bold, RPI's top returners are included for comparison, and players in italics are those from outside of the league that the Engineers are scheduled to get a look at this season.

Points per game
Mark Zengerle, Wisconsin – 1.35
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 1.32
Joey Diamond, Maine – 1.27
Brett Gensler, Bentley – 1.25
Cole Schneider, UConn – 1.18
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 1.14
Erik Haula, Minnesota – 1.14
Matt Nieto, Boston University – 1.14
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 1.11
Ben Hanowski, St. Cloud State – 1.10
(Brock Higgs – 0.68)

Goals per game
Joey Diamond, Maine – 0.68
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 0.66
Nick Bjugstad, Minnesota – 0.62
Cole Schneider, UConn – 0.61
Ben Hanowski, St. Cloud State – 0.59
Brett Gensler, Bentley – 0.57
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 0.54
Andrew Calof, Princeton – 0.53
Wade Megan, Boston University – 0.51
Jordan George, Bemidji State – 0.50
(C.J. Lee – 0.21)

Assists per game
Mark Zengerle, Wisconsin – 1.00
Nate Schmidt, Minnesota – 0.88
Andrew Miller, Yale – 0.85
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 0.82
Matthew Peca, Quinnipiac – 0.79
Connor Jones, Quinnipiac – 0.76
Danny Biega, Harvard – 0.74
T.J. Tynan, Notre Dame – 0.72
Matt Nieto, Boston University – 0.70
Nick Sorkin, New Hampshire – 0.70
(Brock Higgs – 0.59)

Power Play Goals
Rylan Schwartz, Colorado College – 11
Joey Diamond, Maine – 11
Mark Anthoine, Maine – 11
Brant Harris, UConn – 10
Kyle Flanagan, St. Lawrence – 9
Antoine Laganiere, Yale – 9
Derek Arnold, UMass-Lowell – 9
Wade Megan, Boston University – 9
Kyle Rau, Minnesota – 9
Wayne Simpson, Union – 9
Daniel Carr, Union – 9
(Nick Bailen – 6)

Points per game (Defensemen)
Danny Biega, Harvard – 1.03
Nate Schmidt, Minnesota – 0.95
Joey LaLeggia, Denver – 0.88
Patrick McNally, Harvard – 0.82
Nick Jensen, St. Cloud State – 0.82
Lee Moffie, Michigan – 0.78
George Hughes, St. Lawrence – 0.77
Andrew Prochno, St. Cloud State – 0.76
Mike Boivin, Colorado College – 0.76
Mat Bodie, Union – 0.74
(Nick Bailen – 0.56)

Goals Against Average
Troy Grosenick, Union – 1.65
Parker Milner, Boston College – 1.66
Jason Torf, Air Force – 1.73
Shane Madolora, RIT – 1.93
Frank Slubowski, Western Michigan – 2.03
Andy Iles, Cornell – 2.12
Doug Carr, UMass-Lowell – 2.13
Raphael Girard, Harvard – 2.14
Juho Olkinuora, Denver – 2.18
Eric Hartzell, Quinnipiac – 2.20
(Bryce Merriam – 2.36)

Save Percentage
Parker Milner, Boston College - .937
Troy Grosenick, Union – .936
Raphael Girard, Harvard - .933
Shane Madolora, RIT - .931
Jason Torf, Air Force - .929
Doug Carr, UMass-Lowell - .928
Jared Coreau, Northern Michigan - .928
Casey DeSmith, New Hampshire - .926
Juho Olkinuora, Denver - .924
Josh Thorimbert, Colorado College - .924
(Bryce Merriam - .908)

Reality Check?

Let's not mince words when it comes to the men's team. If the team continues on its current path, it will be the first season with fewer than 10 wins since 1982 (in which the team played 29 games), and the second worst winning percentage in the modern era of the program, following the 1966 season largely considered the worst in school history.

This is for a team that, coming into the season, had the pundits believing that despite the much ballyhooed losses of Chase Polacek and Allen York, RPI was going to vie for a first-round bye (4th in the coaches poll, 5th in the media poll). We weren't even that optimistic, but we thought sixth was a pretty strong likelihood.

A lot can change in two and a half months, but those pre-season projections don't lie - this should not be a team that could be considered one of the worst in program history. And at its base, that is what makes what has transpired to date all the more frustrating. In Seth Appert's first three years with the program, there was a lot of hemming and hawing over the Engineers' troubles (they were 31-68-14 in those years), but watching the games, it was apparent that the guys were just getting beat by better teams for the most part. Today, that isn't the case. 3/4 of this team has been on a 20-game winning NCAA tournament squad, many in integral roles.

There is a very recent comparison that can be made - Colgate, last year. The Raiders were chosen to finish 4th in the media poll (with 2 voters feeling they had the chops to finish first) and 5th in the coaches poll a year after a 4th place finish that ended with an ECAC tournament upset. They finished dead last, and for much of the season, it wasn't close. Their issue wasn't so much a problem scoring as much as it was keeping the puck out of their own net for much of the year, but the effect was the same. Colgate did salvage their season in March (requiring a pair of Game 3 overtime goals in the Capital District), but it was still mostly a lost season. That team had seven NHL draft picks, but was losing a star player in David McIntyre. As with Polacek and York, that absence alone certainly did not explain why a team with high expectations languished so miserably all year long, including a nine-game losing streak that was part of a 1-20-2 run from November to early February.

This year, while RPI has already matched their loss total from last season with 13 losses, Colgate has already matched their win total from last year before Christmas with 11 wins in 17 outings. Eight of the team's top nine scorers and both goaltenders were on last year's squad.

Fortunately, history isn't necessarily doomed to repeat itself. There's still time for the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction - but there's plenty of work to be done in order to achieve that.

Scoring - We've hashed this out pretty well, so let's just put this in historic context. The Engineers went 11 straight games without reaching what in college hockey is frequently the "magic" three goal mark - that is, if you can regularly pump three pucks to the back of the net, you're going to win more frequently than not. That's a school record for a single season. The last time they even went 5 straight games without reaching three was the dismal 2008-09 season (they did that twice), and they managed 9 straight in 2007-08, which had been the single season record before this year. The longest such streak in school history was a 12-game stretch between 1912 and 1916... but it was a very different game back then, of course.

There are absolute signs of improvement here, especially among the talented set of freshman forwards who appear to be adjusting well to the college game as the season goes along. Jacob Laliberte was hurt early on, but has been showing the ability that RPI fans have been waiting years to see over the last few games and has broken onto the scoresheet solidly. Ryan Haggerty was one of the earliest to "catch on" and is still the top goal-scoring forward on the team despite missing three games. Zach Schroeder and Mark McGowan potted their first career goals in the last two weeks after increasingly impressive performances.

Appert has frequently eschewed the use of the term "freshman" once the second half of the season begins, given that they have mostly gained the experience they need to be competitive by that point, so we'll have to see if the forwards are able to shoulder a heavier load going forward.

Finishing - Especially in October, it was apparent at times during the first half that the team wasn't playing all that poorly. We noted that they were basically doing everything right except for scoring goals. There were plenty of whiffs up and down on one-timer chances and rebound tries. That's certainly changing - the Haggerty goal at RIT was a great one-timed shot, and Schroeder and McGowan each put one home on textbook rebounders.

Including instances in which RPI allowed one or more empty net goals while being down by a single goal, the Engineers are 1-5 in one-goal games. With a little better finishing, we could have been looking at a team at least a little closer to .500.

Defensive breakdowns - The Engineers have only seven defensemen on their roster, and all but two are either freshmen or sophomores. Practically by definition, that's a young d-corps. Regardless, they have done a wonderful job for the most part of keeping the team in games, especially from the beginning of the season through late November. One or two times a weekend (and more frequently of late), however, we have seen defensive blunders creating odd-man rushes or straight up breakaway opportunities for the opponent, and those seem to be leading to goals more often than not. Worse, a worrisome number of these breakdowns have been from the two upperclassmen.

Goaltending - Bryce Merriam and Scott Diebold have done a fine job in net, all things considered. The one concern is on those defensive breakdowns, and perhaps this is the one area in which Allen York is missed. The goaltenders have typically been very solid when the defense is doing things right, but when hung out to dry we haven't seen a high number of "wow, he bailed them out there," type saves as York regularly made. Diebold is a freshman and has seen only four games in net. Merriam is a junior and could use a little more confidence in these situations.

Penalties - This, more than anything, may be the root of the team's current struggle. In interviews, Appert has said that the team must balance the physical game that they want to play with penalty discipline, and so far it seems that it's either one or the other. The penalty kill has been one of the shining lights on this team, and having a good penalty kill helps you maintain that physical presence by being a bit less apprehensive about dishing out that big hit, but when you spend too much time on the kill it keeps your offense from getting into a good rhythm and frequently keeps some of your better scorers off the ice.

RPI has been on the penalty kill an average of 5.5 times per game thus far. Although not all penalty kills last two minutes for whatever reason (some are majors, some start as an opponent comes out of the box, some end with a goal), that factors out to around 11 minutes of penalty kill per game, and it's not all at once. That's not good.

On the flip side, when the team isn't taking penalties, the physical aspect has not been as prevalent. A balance must be reached.

Upperclassmen - Gotta call out the juniors and seniors here. The top four forwards in scoring are all freshmen and sophomores. Not all of those juniors and seniors are supposed to be scorers - Alex Angers-Goulet and Joel Malchuk, for instance, have usually made their most important contributions defensively rather than offensively - but Appert has always pointed to his older players as the key leaders of the team. Some seem to be trying to do too much on their own, while others seem content to let others take the lead.

Injuries - It's worth mentioning that at no point during the season have the Engineers been at 100% healthwise which draws some comparison to Princeton two campaigns ago, who also underwhelmed despite strong pre-season expectations. Only eight players have played in all 16 contests - that compares to only four who made it through 38 games last season (Polacek, Helfrich, Bailen and Foss), but nine who made it through 39 games two years ago. Right now, the only known injuries are Ryan Haggerty (who we were told was sick but has missed the last three games) and Matt Neal (who's missed 11 straight with an ankle injury). Pat Cullen, Marty O'Grady, Brock Higgs, Jacob Laliberte, Mark McGowan, Greg Burgdoerfer, and Bryce Merriam have all missed at least one game due to injury this season.

Hopefully, the nearly three week layoff between Lake Placid and Storrs will help get this team to that elusive 100% readiness.

That's a lot to fix, but bear in mind - this team has the ability to fix it.

OK, Now Can We Panic?

OK, so we've got the following to dwell on.

1) The Engineers' 1-8-0 start is the worst start to a season of at least nine games in the entire history of hockey at RPI, which goes all the way back to 1902.

2) The team has scored 2/3rds of its goals in two of its nine games - the 4-1 victory over Minnesota State, and the 5-2 loss to Notre Dame. The nine goals in nine games for RPI is one less than Notre Dame's Anders Lee in as many games.

3) The power play is 3-for-50 in those nine games.

4) The highly touted freshman class didn't score its first goal of the season until this past Friday with Ryan Haggerty's first goal.

5) Brock Higgs and Marty O'Grady returned to the lineup, but were a bit invisible outside of draws.

6) Literally every other team in the ECAC picked up at least one league point last weekend.

7) Union annoyingly isn't skipping much of a beat at all without their coach or their stud goaltender. Not that this has anything to do with us, of course, but seriously, what the heck.

8) The women are struggling just as much, in basically the same way.

9) Most ominously, the problems that we thought might have been attributable to the difficult October schedule were still front, center and in your face this past weekend.

Yes, there is plenty of reason to panic at this point. No one expected this team to struggle on this level. There were those who expected this team to struggle without Chase Polacek and Allen York (and Tyler Helfrich and Bryan Brutlag), but no one thought any potential struggles would be this bad.

It's not fun to be a fan right now, but seven-game losing streaks make going to practice a bit of a chore for the players, too. But trust me - there are better times ahead.

The tough part about breaking out of a funk this serious can often be the psychological aspect. Seth Appert put it well after Saturday's game - the team is gripping the sticks a little tight. They know they're having problems putting the puck in the net, and that makes it harder to score goals.

The goals will come. The team is doing everything necessary to score goals with the exception of the final step - finishing. One-timers are being fanned on. Rebounds can't be picked up. Passes down low are being missed. At the moment of truth, RPI just isn't in sync. When you go so long without any good luck, it's human nature to get frustrated, and that frustration unfortunately only fuels a slump. When you expect difficulty scoring because of what's happened in the recent past, it becomes more difficult to score.

We could have seen confidence return on Friday - the team took a 1-0 lead for the first time, and if they'd been able to hold it for longer than two minutes, perhaps the outlook starts to turn. But they didn't, and the despair started to set back in.

In each game this past weekend, RPI gave up a bad luck goal on a shot that redirected off an Engineer. We haven't really gotten one of those for ourselves yet.

So, while the early start is now officially a bit frightening, there's plenty to be optimistic about once bad luck and frustration start turning. And it will turn. This may be the worst start in program history, but even the most ardent RPI hating pundit would be hard-pressed to make the claim that this is the worst team in program history (unless they're making their observations without having actually seen the team, of course).

And there are even plenty of bullet points that can be cause for optimism.

1) Just over 25% of the goals given up by the Engineers this season have been empty netters - so the wide disparity between goals for and goals against really isn't that wide.

2) Jacob Laliberte and Matt Neal, it seems, could be back for this coming slate of games. (Big loss for Union hockey.) These guys were expected to be the cornerstones of the freshman class, and they've missed the last five and four games respectively. Neal was a faceoff machine against Notre Dame, just before getting injured, and Laliberte showed flashes of his playmaking skill against Minnesota State and Ferris State.

3) The penalty kill is performing admirably - at 46-for-52, the senior leadership shown on the kill by Joel Malchuk and Alex Angers-Goulet is something that could well bleed over into the rest of the game.

4) Bryce Merriam isn't lighting the world on fire with his numbers, but no one expected him to. Instead, he's been just what we said he'd be - a more than serviceable goaltender, and a rock for this team to cling to in these turbulent waters.

5) Yale and Union might be tougher opponents, but we've seen this team get up for these teams in the recent past, playing with more intensity. They could be just the tonic to get the team moving again.

Yes, these are difficult times - but stick with this team, give them your support. They'll surprise you when you least expect it.

Stats of the Morning

RPI has lost 4 straight games. Their three opponents in those games have an overall record of 13-4-0 (with two of the losses coming Thursday/Friday as #6 Ferris State was swept by #4 Michigan) and a goals differential of 60-36.

By comparison, Clarkson has won 5 straight games. Their three opponents in those games have an overall record of 2-16-0 and a goals differential of 38-86.

Which team is being better prepared for playing league games?

---

Jaden Schwartz gets all the attention. It's Rylan that's been burning RPI. He has scored in each of the three games between CC and RPI, with four goals in those contests.

---

As we mentioned on the Twitter feed last night, the clowns that "analyze" college hockey will look at the 4-1 final and see a solid victory by CC despite two empty netters. Impressively, CC's rivals from Denver had three empty netters scored on them against Michigan Tech, falling 7-2.

The Formula, Revisited

First things first.

Chase Polacek didn't have great games against Clarkson or Cornell, and honestly wasn't stellar last night in Hamilton either, but when you do something like this...



...you can kind of get a pass.

Meanwhile, we thought we'd share the updated look at "the formula" that we brought earlier this year. Recall that we said that in usual years, 3 points for home weekends and 2 points on road weekends would usually be enough to get you a first round bye. Well, let's see where we are with that so far.

The Formula (expected): earned (total deviation)
at Dartmouth/Harvard (2): 2 (0)
at Union/Union (0): 2 (+2)
at Yale/Brown (2): 2 (+2)
Clarkson/St. Lawrence (3): 2 (+1)
at Cornell/Colgate (2): 2 (+1)
Harvard/Dartmouth (3):
Brown/Yale (3):
at Quinnipiac/Princeton (2):
Colgate/Cornell (3):
at St. Lawrence/Clarkson (2):
Princeton/Quinnipiac (3):

Yale: +8
Union: +6
Dartmouth: +3
Princeton: +2
RPI: +1
Clarkson: +1
Brown: -3
Cornell: -3
Quinnipiac: -3
St. Lawrence: -4
Harvard: -6
Colgate: -12

Well, even with a .500 record, the Engineers are still on pace for that magic 25 point mark as long as they can stick to earning an average of 3 points at home and 2 on the road. But there are a few questions that need to be answered.

Why, for instance, is Cornell, who has the same record as RPI in the ECAC, trailing RPI's pace by four points? Two reasons - first, the Big Red have had more home games (and they've been swept at home), and second, they have yet to play their travel partners, Colgate, and RPI does have 2 "bonus" points from beating Union.

And of course, if RPI's still on pace for a bye, how can there be six teams on pace? Well, a couple of reasons for that, too. First, there's a pretty distinct gap right now between the top teams and the bottom teams, so there are more points being gobbled up by the better six squads. That might require an extra point or two by the end of the season to get the bye - remember, occasionally teams have required 26 or 27 points instead of 25 to finish in the top four. Second, as we get farther into the season some teams will probably drop back a bit, given that in any four games between travel partner pairings in a single week, there will be 2 points lost - for instance, this week in Central NY, Union was +2, RPI +0, Cornell -1, and Colgate - 3. Add it all up, and it's -2. So as we have more league games played, either the gap between the top and the bottom of the league will increase and teams will ultimately require more points for the bye, or the gap will decrease and 24 points will be more likely to get the bye.

We've also devised a formula for women's hockey. Generally, a team has needed 28 points over the years to finish in the top four and play at home in the first round of the playoffs. Building off the men's formula, we figure that a team needs to get 3 points in each of its home weekends, 2 in its road weekends, earn a split with the travel partner, and then pick up one other point along the way (either sweeping a home weekend or earning 3 on a road weekend). So to signify this formula, we simply start each team at -1 instead of at 0. Here's where the women stand now:

Cornell: +8
Harvard: +1
RPI: -1
Quinnipiac: -2
Dartmouth: -3
St. Lawrence: -3
Princeton: -3
Yale: -5
Clarkson: -6
Colgate: -7
Brown: -9
Union: -14

Now, this puts some teams at distinct disadvantages. Colgate has to get 2 points against Cornell? Yeah, good luck with that (this coming weekend). We can use this also to figure out which teams are in danger of missing the playoffs. With 18 points as the median cutoff for 8th place, that simply means that any team that is at -11 or lower is in serious danger of missing out. Lookin' at you, Union, but we didn't need a formula to figure that out.

The Formula

We're in year nine of the ECAC's current playoff structure. Yes, time flies when you're having fun... unless you're RPI, and you haven't been having much fun in the last eight years at all. It's a crappy truth - in the last eight years, 12 different teams have reached the ECAC semifinals (including Vermont), and the Engineers were never one of them. Even Union made it to Albany last year (finally, they were the only ones other than RPI that hadn't been before the last year at the Times Union Center).

Additionally, the Engineers are one of only two teams out of the 13 that has never earned the first-round bye as one of the top four teams in the league. Quinnipiac is the only other one, and they've had three fewer opportunities.

So how does one get the bye? Let's take a look at the last eight seasons and find out just how many points a team needs to be in the running. The median and mode "magic number" is 25 points, with the mean coming in at 25.875, which we round up to 26. In five of the eight seasons, 25 points has been enough to earn a bye. The mean is somewhat skewed by outlier results in 2004 and 2005 - teams needed 28 and 29 points respectively in those years thanks to a lack of parity between the top and bottom of the league. That outlier ultimately cost the Engineers in 2004, the only season in which they reached 25 points in the last eight. They had 27 points that year to tie for 4th with Dartmouth, losing the tiebreaker (Dartmouth, of course, earned the bye with only 27 points, but it took 28 points to earn the bye straight up without going to a tiebreak).

So generally, we should expect that 25 points is, more than likely, going to be enough to earn the free pass through the first round. The trick is reaching that level.

Given that one would normally expect a team to play better at home, we should expect the Engineers to earn more points on average in a home weekend than on the road.
1) Average three points in every home weekend (5 x 3 = 15)
2) Average two points in every road weekend (5 x 2 = 10, 15+10 = 25)
3) Points scored against the travel partner are gravy - that is, they give some leeway with the hard and fast 3/2 scheme.

Let's apply this to last season.

Last Season (Needed points): Points gained (Cumulative difference)
Yale/Brown (3): 4 (+1)
at Clarkson/St. Lawrence (2) : 2 (+1)
Cornell/Colgate (3): 0 (-2)
Union (0): 0 (-2)
at Quinnipiac/Princeton (2): 4 (0)
at Union (0): 0 (0)
Dartmouth/Harvard (3): 3 (0)
at Brown/Yale (2): 2 (0)
St. Lawrence/Clarkson (3): 3 (0)
at Harvard/Dartmouth (2): 2 (0)
Quinnipiac/Princeton (3): 2 (-1)
at Colgate/Cornell (2): 1 (-2)

The Engineers were actually on pace to earn the bye throughout much of the second half of the season after their road sweep of Quinnipiac and Princeton - the actual mark that ended up needing to be reached last year was 24 points, the lowest it has been in eight years - but the loss in the Freakout and to Colgate were the killers. They ended up with 23 points, two away from the goal which, given their tiebreaker loss to Colgate, actually ended up being a necessary 25 points.

Of course, that late in the season, the matter of reaching 25 points becomes irrelevant. If you're that close to a bye, you know what has to be done, and what other teams need to do. This formula is more of an earlier season indicator, especially during the period in which teams have played an uneven number of games (which begins this weekend, as Yale and Brown have no ECAC games) and an uneven number of home and away weekends.

This Season
at Dartmouth/Harvard (2): 2 (0)
at Union/Union (0):
at Yale/Brown (2):
Clarkson/St. Lawrence (3):
at Cornell/Colgate (2):
Harvard/Dartmouth (3):
Brown/Yale (3):
at Quinnipiac/Princeton (2):
Colgate/Cornell (3):
at St. Lawrence/Clarkson (2):
Princeton/Quinnipiac (3):

After one weekend, the teams are looking like this:
Yale: +1
St. Lawrence: +1
Union: +1
RPI: 0
Cornell: 0
Princeton: 0
Harvard: -1
Quinnipiac: -1
Colgate: -1
Brown: -2
Clarkson: -2
Dartmouth: -2

Looks like there are six teams on pace for the bye, right? So the method's flawed. Well, it's not perfect, but it's not flawed because of this, per se. In any given set of four travel partner games, there will always be a net loss of 2 points between the teams. For example from last weekend, Union's +1 and Harvard's -1 even out, RPI was even, and Dartmouth was at -2. So as the season progresses, as long as there's some semblance of parity, the number of teams on pace to earn the bye with 25 points should decline since, in a perfectly even league, every team would presumably tie with 22 points.

And of course, the fudge factor says that to play it safe, you want to be on pace to finish a few points above 25. But that pretty much just plays into "just win," which is a maxim any team can get behind pretty easily.

What does it all mean? Well, immediately, it means a few things.
1) Splitting on the road last weekend wasn't horrible, although the extra point or two at Harvard would have been helpful.
2) This week, points are a bonus, but if RPI doesn't get some points, there won't be much room for error unless they start sweeping multiple weekends.
3) Given RPI's front-loaded road schedule, they could stay around the .500 mark through mid-January and still be in good shape to shoot for a top-four finish. Over Christmas break, they could potentially be sitting on a 1-3-2 or 2-4-0 ECAC record and still be on a positive trajectory for a bye (of course, 5-1-0 would be somewhat more positive).

As an aside, 18 is the magic number for home-ice in the first round. That's a little more difficult to split evenly - it can be reached by averaging home splits, one point on the road, and earning a split with the travel partner. That's still only 17 points, so in this simplistic method, each team starts the season off with a -1 difference. Hopefully, we won't be tracking this one moving forward, but the Engineers are even on this metric as well.

Look, it's RPI. You should have known what you were getting into.

Squinting at a Small Sample

It's hard to analyze big matchups early in the season statistically, because the sample sizes are so small. The teams and their opponents just haven't played enough games against enough varied types of teams to establish definitive trends on why some teams have big numbers and why other teams don't (incidentally, that's one of the reasons why the Pairwise Rankings are useless until mid-January at the earliest).

There's only one thing that's clear - both of these teams have had relatively easy schedules thus far, with most of the easy teams coming at home, where both teams are unbeaten. The four teams Union has beaten have a combined record in other games of 1-8-5 (.250), while RPI's three wins have come over teams with a combined record in other games of 0-6-4 (.200).

Both teams have some gaudy numbers - Union on pretty much everything, RPI on defense and the penalty kill. So is that it? Does Union's offense give them the edge? It might. Let's look at the numbers and see if there are signs of overperformance against the weak schedules both teams have had.

Overperformance?
Offense
Union is tops in the nation in offense. 37 goals in 7 games translates to 5.29 per game. The flip side, of course, is that the teams they've played are among the worst in defense.

* Sacred Heart (played twice, 9 and 7 goals) - 52nd (last) in the nation on defense, with a team GAA of 5.75 in 4 games (half of their games against Union)
* RIT (7 goals) - 48th in the nation on defense, team GAA 4.60 in 5 games
* Alaska-Anchorage (4 goals) and Niagara (6 goals) - tied for 40th in the nation on defense, team GAAs at 4.00, UAA with 6 games, Niagara with 4.

Those are the wins. In the blemishes, they faced Alaska (tied for 3rd on defense with Union at 2.00) and UConn (39th, 3.75). In those games, they scored 1 and 3 goals respectively, their worst offensive outputs of the season.

Defense
It's the same thing for the Engineers. RPI enters tomorrow's game with the 2nd best defense in the nation - 1.67 team GAA in 6 games. But... look at the opponents.

* Bentley - 52nd (last) in the nation on offense, with a team goals per game rate of 1.50 in 4 games (all against ECAC opponents, RPI shut them out)
* Northeastern (2 goals) - 50th in the nation on offense, team GPG 1.80 in 5 games
* RIT (1 goal) - 40th in the nation on offense, team GPG 2.20 in 5 games
* Colorado College (played twice, 2 goals both times) - 37th in the nation on offense, team GPG 2.33 in 6 games
* Niagara (3 goals) - tied for 31st in the nation on offense, team GPG 2.50 in 4 games (half against RPI/Union)

That's the entire season for RPI so far. None of their opponents is scoring 3 goals per game, which is usually a benchmark for a solid scoring club.

Union's just behind RPI in 3rd on defense, but theirs is the same story here as well. We've already touched on RIT (2 goals) and Niagara (1 goal), but look also at Sacred Heart (51st, 1.75), Alaska (43rd, 2.00), UConn (T-31st, 2.50), and Alaska-Anchorage (T-27th with RPI, 2.67).

The bottom line? In a combined 13 games, neither RPI nor Union has faced a team in the top half of the nation in scoring. That changes for RPI tomorrow.

But the question is - are Union and RPI's defenses putting up big numbers because they're playing weak teams, or are their opponents' offensive numbers terrible because they're playing solid defenses? The sample size really isn't big enough at this point to be able to distinguish between the two. The reality is more likely in the middle - both teams have good defenses that are being made to look better by the caliber of the opponents.

Underperformance?
So it appears that Union's offense and defense are probably overperforming, at least to some extent, as is RPI's defense. That's not to say that those elements are not that good, they just may not be as good as they appear on paper, since none of them have been challenged to any major degree this year (or in the case of Union's offense, when challenged by what appears to be solid defense, they shrunk significantly).

But what about the RPI offense? It's still struggling to reach the golden mark of 3.00 GPG. But check out two of the defenses the Engineers have been up against this year, which account for half of the games:

* Northeastern - 2.00 GAA (tied for 3rd with Union)
* Colorado College - 2.17 GAA (9th)

That might explain the 5 goals they scored in those three games to some extent. The offense naturally did better against the 33rd, 40th, and 48th rated defenses at home. So it might be safe to say that the RPI offense is underperforming. Union's strong defense probably won't help that the way the last few opponents did.

Special teams?
Honestly, it's too early to get a feel for whether special teams are over- or underperforming. That's because special teams are a win/lose proposition. One team is going to be successful, while the other team will fail. It's pretty black and white. Thus, the sample size really isn't big enough to get a good look at whether Union's top rated power play (41.2%) is a product of lousy penalty killing (SHU, UAA, and RIT all in the 10 worst penalty kill ratings in the nation) or vice versa. The same goes for RPI's 9th ranked penalty kill (88.1%). The Engineers have faced some lousy power plays (all but RIT rated in the lower half nationally).

Suffice it to say that Union probably has a pretty good power play and RPI probably has a pretty good penalty kill. Especially given the Engineers' proclivity for taking penalties (tops in the ECAC, what else is new), this is going to be a key matchup, with the winner having a huge edge overall. Union faced UConn's 4th rated PK last night, going 1-for-3. They seem to know what they're doing. Is that Ben Barr's doing? We're just going to go ahead and assume so.

Analysis
Neither of these teams are realistically among the top 20 in the nation despite both being ranked this week. They've been skating by on what has been largely inferior teams, and each are facing probably their second most difficult team of the year (RPI having seen CC, Union having played Alaska). Both teams play their games on NHL sized rinks and have a pair of games this season on the Olympic sheet, so the bigger ice is probably a wash. If there's one advantage to be had on the larger surface, it's RPI's speed and up-tempo, WCHA style play. The larger ice surface will make it difficult for Union's defense to gum up the neutral zone - which is one reason why games out west (where there are a lot more Olympic sheets) are more run-and-gun. That could mitigate the offensive advantage that the Dutchmen appear to have.

Choosing a winner in this game is crazy. It's going to be Keith Kincaid vs. Allen York, the split preseason favorites for the Dryden Award, and the Union power play against the RPI penalty kill. Whoever wins those battles, wins the game. Goals are likely to be at a premium throughout, so scoring first is key, and if a team reaches the three-goal mark, they're going to be in pretty good shape.