Thursday, October 31st, 2024
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Spittoon
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

Wallowing

Posted by Trotsky 
Page:  1 2Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 08:37AM

Since we're bound to do it, we should at least do it right:

Tied for second-longest conference losing streak (7) ever.

The GFA and GAA lines, and consequently the ratio of Cornell goals in ECAC games, cross into the bad lands for the first time in 15 years.

Worst RS finish in 20 years, and the 4-year moving average is falling through the floor. Only two finishes (1984 12th, 1993 11th) were worse over the last 48 years, despite more than a third of that time with 17 teams in the conference.

First time with more 0-point weekends than 4-point weekends since 2000.

Most disappointing finish vs Coaches Poll since... maybe ever. At least as long as I have records for.

Tied for fourth-lowest conference winning percentage (.432), behind only 1984 (.429), 1987 (.364), and 1993 (.250).

Second ECAC losing record at Lynah of Schafer era.

Tied for second-lowest Cornell record in the Ivies (2-6-2 .300) in 50 years.

First majority "cold" season in Schafer era.
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2013 09:03AM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 10:17AM

You know, with Princeton winning in overtime by pulling their goalie after taking a timeout to digest the game scores, I bet Clarkson feels a bit like we did in 1995. Why, oh why, can't we go back to pre-telegraph communication!

Puck Frinceton for their gamesmanship and chicanery. And screw Harvard for not coming through when we needed them to. They both well and truly suck. Harvard doubly so.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 10:46AM

Rationalizing is just down the hall. This is Wallowing.


 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:00AM

Scersk '97
You know, with Princeton winning in overtime by pulling their goalie after taking a timeout to digest the game scores, I bet Clarkson feels a bit like we did in 1995. Why, oh why, can't we go back to pre-telegraph communication!

Puck Frinceton for their gamesmanship and chicanery. And screw Harvard for not coming through when we needed them to. They both well and truly suck. Harvard doubly so.

So the three-way tie that would have resulted between Cornell, Princeton, and Clarkson had Princeton tied Harvard would have seen us win the tie-breaker and finish 8? Assuming that is the case, you've got to give a heck of a lot of credit to the Princeton coaching staff for getting that information and acting on it. I might go so far as to call it gamesmanship, but I certainly wouldn't call is chicanery.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:09AM

andyw2100
Scersk '97
You know, with Princeton winning in overtime by pulling their goalie after taking a timeout to digest the game scores, I bet Clarkson feels a bit like we did in 1995. Why, oh why, can't we go back to pre-telegraph communication!

Puck Frinceton for their gamesmanship and chicanery. And screw Harvard for not coming through when we needed them to. They both well and truly suck. Harvard doubly so.

So the three-way tie that would have resulted between Cornell, Princeton, and Clarkson had Princeton tied Harvard would have seen us win the tie-breaker and finish 8? Assuming that is the case, you've got to give a heck of a lot of credit to the Princeton coaching staff for getting that information and acting on it. I might go so far as to call it gamesmanship, but I certainly wouldn't call is chicanery.

My thought that Cornell would have won the tie-breaker in a 3-way tie made no sense to me upon further reflection, since Cornell lost to Princeton twice and to Clarkson once. So I dug a little deeper, and I now believe Clarkson would have taken eighth had there been a 3-way tie. So my comment on Princeton's coaching is still valid, but I believe Clarkson, not Cornell, was the victim of their gamesmanship.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:18AM

andyw2100
Scersk '97
You know, with Princeton winning in overtime by pulling their goalie after taking a timeout to digest the game scores, I bet Clarkson feels a bit like we did in 1995. Why, oh why, can't we go back to pre-telegraph communication!

Puck Frinceton for their gamesmanship and chicanery. And screw Harvard for not coming through when we needed them to. They both well and truly suck. Harvard doubly so.

So the three-way tie that would have resulted between Cornell, Princeton, and Clarkson had Princeton tied Harvard would have seen us win the tie-breaker and finish 8? Assuming that is the case, you've got to give a heck of a lot of credit to the Princeton coaching staff for getting that information and acting on it. I might go so far as to call it gamesmanship, but I certainly wouldn't call is chicanery.

I believe the three way tie actually had us in 10th. But had Harvard won the game, we'd be in 8th. I think Princeton finished 9th in the three way tie, 8th with a win, and I have no idea really, probably 10th, with a loss?
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Jordan 04 (155.72.28.---)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:20AM

No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: BMac (---.smartleaf.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:43AM

I got really excited reading the USCHO blog story that said we were going to Providence, but they're wrong. Princeton. Womp womp.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:55AM

andyw2100
Scersk '97
You know, with Princeton winning in overtime by pulling their goalie after taking a timeout to digest the game scores, I bet Clarkson feels a bit like we did in 1995. Why, oh why, can't we go back to pre-telegraph communication!

Puck Frinceton for their gamesmanship and chicanery. And screw Harvard for not coming through when we needed them to. They both well and truly suck. Harvard doubly so.

So the three-way tie that would have resulted between Cornell, Princeton, and Clarkson had Princeton tied Harvard would have seen us win the tie-breaker and finish 8? Assuming that is the case, you've got to give a heck of a lot of credit to the Princeton coaching staff for getting that information and acting on it. I might go so far as to call it gamesmanship, but I certainly wouldn't call is chicanery.
It was chicanery! And the worst kind too! It was completely unsportsmanlike and any good sports fan should be outraged!

(This is a wallowing thread. No good sportsmanship here.)
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:58AM

The ELynah Twitter feed had you covered on this. Princeton win = 10th, tie = 9th, Harvard win = 8th. If Harvard didn't suck and scored an empty-netter, you'd be singing a different tune.

 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 12:04PM

CowbellGuy
The ELynah Twitter feed had you covered on this. Princeton win = 10th, tie = 9th, Harvard win = 8th. If Harvard didn't suck and scored an empty-netter, you'd be singing a different tune.

That should be: tie = 10th, Princeton win = 9th, Harvard win = 8th.

Which was why it was so weird.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: RichH (---.northropgrumman.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 12:09PM

Scersk '97
You know, with Princeton winning in overtime by pulling their goalie after taking a timeout to digest the game scores, I bet Clarkson feels a bit like we did in 1995. Why, oh why, can't we go back to pre-telegraph communication!

Puck Frinceton for their gamesmanship and chicanery. And screw Harvard for not coming through when we needed them to. They both well and truly suck. Harvard doubly so.

I learned long ago to never trust Harvard to do anything to help us.

The ECAC Hockey site has the (choppy) video. Of entertainment value is the initial bafflement of the Harvard broadcasters regarding the move. Also seeing Harvard take a full-ice shot at an empty net and then get scored upon following the resulting icing call. Again.

[www.ecachockey.com]
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: March 04, 2013 12:17PM

In the Harvard broadcasters' defense, apparently the internet was down for most or all of the game so they had no idea what was going on elsewhere in the league. In their nondefense, there are these things called smartphones...

 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 12:39PM

Yes, Clarkson surely felt screwed... which was my point beyond wallowing about the only football wallow that I can wallow in, which caused me to hate Princeton.

Such was the quality of my thoughts, i.e., non-specific, misdirected, blind wallowing. I was just reconnecting with the moment my distaste for Princeton truly flowered.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2013 12:41PM by Scersk '97.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Ben (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 01:15PM

Scersk '97
Yes, Clarkson surely felt screwed...
Why? Because Princeton's coaches did their jobs and tried to win a hockey game?
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 01:52PM

Ben
Scersk '97
Yes, Clarkson surely felt screwed...
Why? Because Princeton's coaches did their jobs and tried to win a hockey game?

Blah, blah, blah. Keep your logic out of my once-removed wallow. Yes, the Princeton coaches were brilliant—all hail Princeton and its brilliant coaches! If I could make that Tiger roar right now, I'd do it and love it!!! Wheee!

Yet, in some fairyland of fairness, I wish standings watching could be eliminated, at least during the games. (Indeed, Brown and 'Gate already screwed with their early game.) However unrealistic it might be, I long for the games to be played at the same time under a media blackout. I long for a lot of unrealistic things.

To my (clearly addled, illogical) mind, it's just nice to spread around the wallowing by considering that the fans of other teams are wallowing too. Wallowing is showering in the worst of it, and I think that should also include the negative side of "what if?"

How dare you bring logic to bear on my co-Schadenfreude!
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 01:57PM

Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: nyc94 (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 02:12PM

Jordan 04
No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.

It's not like they have to worry about what a loss does to their chances in the Pairwise.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: cbuckser (134.186.175.---)
Date: March 04, 2013 04:29PM

Jordan 04
No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.
To try to get home-ice advantage in the CCHA quarterfinals, Ferris State tried the same thing against Michigan at Yost. Had Ferris State scored, Michigan would have lost home-ice advantage for the first round.

The hockey game finished in a 1-1 tie, and Michigan prevailed in the shootout. The shootout result impacted the playoff seedings, but not which teams got home-ice advantage.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: TimV (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 07:01PM

Trotsky
Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.

Wow. That surprised me. Realistically, to be replaced by who? Doug Darraugh? Would Union's Coach jump?

And you must kill at Scrabble.

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 07:45PM

TimV
Trotsky
Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.

Wow. That surprised me. Realistically, to be replaced by who? Doug Darraugh? Would Union's Coach jump?

And you must kill at Scrabble.

I have to believe that Cornell could attract a quality coach. Darraugh has done an outstanding job with the women's program. If you watch the women move the puck you can only say "I wish the men could do that" (Yes I know the game is different)
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.arthritishealthdoctors.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 07:56PM

cbuckser
Jordan 04
No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.
To try to get home-ice advantage in the CCHA quarterfinals, Ferris State tried the same thing against Michigan at Yost. Had Ferris State scored, Michigan would have lost home-ice advantage for the first round.

The hockey game finished in a 1-1 tie, and Michigan prevailed in the shootout. The shootout result impacted the playoff seedings, but not which teams got home-ice advantage.

And we had it tried against us, by Clarkson. 1989 Quarters, this time I'm correct Beeeej:-D. We won the first game, and if Clarkson would win the second game, we'd have to go to that stupid mini game. It was a 0-0 tie when Clarkson pulled their goalie, but didn't score. Not quite the same since they knew they had to win, but still pulled a goalie in a tie game. So Clarkson couldn't perform, but Princeton could.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Ben (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 08:00PM

Towerroad
TimV
Trotsky
Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.

Wow. That surprised me. Realistically, to be replaced by who? Doug Darraugh? Would Union's Coach jump?

And you must kill at Scrabble.

I have to believe that Cornell could attract a quality coach. Darraugh has done an outstanding job with the women's program. If you watch the women move the puck you can only say "I wish the men could do that" (Yes I know the game is different)
I motion that "Derraugh" be added to the Spelling Guide.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.arthritishealthdoctors.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 08:05PM

Watching the HU-PU replay, I'm even more pissed at Harvard. On the try on EN, the Harvard player had plenty of room to skate with the puck up ice beore firing it. A little more smarts on his part and ...

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 08:26PM

Jim Hyla
cbuckser
Jordan 04
No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.
To try to get home-ice advantage in the CCHA quarterfinals, Ferris State tried the same thing against Michigan at Yost. Had Ferris State scored, Michigan would have lost home-ice advantage for the first round.

The hockey game finished in a 1-1 tie, and Michigan prevailed in the shootout. The shootout result impacted the playoff seedings, but not which teams got home-ice advantage.

And we had it tried against us, by Clarkson. 1989 Quarters, this time I'm correct Beeeej:-D. We won the first game, and if Clarkson would win the second game, we'd have to go to that stupid mini game. It was a 0-0 tie when Clarkson pulled their goalie, but didn't score. Not quite the same since they knew they had to win, but still pulled a goalie in a tie game. So Clarkson couldn't perform, but Princeton could.
Or else Cornell performed while Harvard sucked.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 08:38PM

TimV
Trotsky
Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.

Wow. That surprised me. Realistically, to be replaced by who?

Ironic reference to the inevitable "the game has passed him by" wail whenever we lose a game. I hope Mike stays another 18 years.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: TimV (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 09:47PM

Oh good...That sounds more like you. I'm releived.:-D

But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 04, 2013 10:21PM

TimV
But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

Ironic reference to the "fans" who immediately re-jumped back on the holocaust wagon the second we lost to Yale. If they are going to whine, I would at least like them to whine informedly.

Also, the point of a chart like this isn't that we finished 9th. It's that we finished in the top 4 12 of the previous 13 seasons, and what the fuck more do people want?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2013 10:24PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: TimV (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2013 11:12PM

+4

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: BearLover (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 01:14AM

Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.arthritishealthdoctors.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 07:48AM

KeithK
Jim Hyla
cbuckser
Jordan 04
No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.
To try to get home-ice advantage in the CCHA quarterfinals, Ferris State tried the same thing against Michigan at Yost. Had Ferris State scored, Michigan would have lost home-ice advantage for the first round.

The hockey game finished in a 1-1 tie, and Michigan prevailed in the shootout. The shootout result impacted the playoff seedings, but not which teams got home-ice advantage.

And we had it tried against us, by Clarkson. 1989 Quarters, this time I'm correct Beeeej:-D. We won the first game, and if Clarkson would win the second game, we'd have to go to that stupid mini game. It was a 0-0 tie when Clarkson pulled their goalie, but didn't score. Not quite the same since they knew they had to win, but still pulled a goalie in a tie game. So Clarkson couldn't perform, but Princeton could.
Or else Cornell performed while Harvard sucked.

Good point.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 07:50AM

Trotsky
TimV
But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

Ironic reference to the "fans" who immediately re-jumped back on the holocaust wagon the second we lost to Yale. If they are going to whine, I would at least like them to whine informedly.

Also, the point of a chart like this isn't that we finished 9th. It's that we finished in the top 4 12 of the previous 13 seasons, and what the fuck more do people want?

You know what we want. What every one of us wants. We talk about it incessently. We want to be taken to the promised land. We want to win the last game of the season. That is what we want.

This is the wallowing topic so anyone not cast into the pit of dispare should start the "The only reason we are sub .500 is the refs hate us, the gods steer our pucks around the net, and our mommy's did not hold us enough" Topic. Of course it is permissable to participate in both.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2013 07:56AM by Towerroad.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.arthritishealthdoctors.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 07:50AM

BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.

To each his own.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 08:27AM

Towerroad
Trotsky
TimV
But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

Ironic reference to the "fans" who immediately re-jumped back on the holocaust wagon the second we lost to Yale. If they are going to whine, I would at least like them to whine informedly.

Also, the point of a chart like this isn't that we finished 9th. It's that we finished in the top 4 12 of the previous 13 seasons, and what the fuck more do people want?

You know what we want. What every one of us wants. We talk about it incessently. We want to be taken to the promised land. We want to win the last game of the season. That is what we want.

This is the wallowing topic so anyone not cast into the pit of dispare should start the "The only reason we are sub .500 is the refs hate us, the gods steer our pucks around the net, and our mommy's did not hold us enough" Topic. Of course it is permissable to participate in both.

Over at the Laxpower forum, Ivyman reminded me of an apropos quote that appeared on ELF around 2009:

"Why does God hate us so much? Is it the Atheism?"
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Robb (---.tx.res.rr.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 08:38AM

Towerroad
This is the wallowing topic so anyone not cast into the pit of dispare should start the "The only reason we are sub .500 is the refs hate us, the gods steer our pucks around the net, and our mommy's did not hold us enough" Topic.
Also known as the "We're no better than RPI fans" thread.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 08:45AM

Jim Hyla
BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.

To each his own.
Entitlement. It's what's for dinner.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 08:46AM

Towerroad
Trotsky
TimV
But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

Ironic reference to the "fans" who immediately re-jumped back on the holocaust wagon the second we lost to Yale. If they are going to whine, I would at least like them to whine informedly.

Also, the point of a chart like this isn't that we finished 9th. It's that we finished in the top 4 12 of the previous 13 seasons, and what the fuck more do people want?

You know what we want. What every one of us wants. We talk about it incessently. We want to be taken to the promised land. We want to win the last game of the season. That is what we want.

This is the wallowing topic so anyone not cast into the pit of dispare should start the "The only reason we are sub .500 is the refs hate us, the gods steer our pucks around the net, and our mommy's did not hold us enough" Topic. Of course it is permissable to participate in both.

Hey, the clear reason is NOT ENUF GOALZ!!!
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.northlandsecurities.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 10:08AM

Ben
Towerroad
TimV
Trotsky
Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.

Wow. That surprised me. Realistically, to be replaced by who? Doug Darraugh? Would Union's Coach jump?

And you must kill at Scrabble.

I have to believe that Cornell could attract a quality coach. Darraugh has done an outstanding job with the women's program. If you watch the women move the puck you can only say "I wish the men could do that" (Yes I know the game is different)
I motion that "Derraugh" be added to the Spelling Guide.
30 goals ought to count for something...
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: BearLover (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 04:05PM

Trotsky
Jim Hyla
BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.

To each his own.
Entitlement. It's what's for dinner.
Do you not know what "disappointing" means? I didn't say "bad" year. Everyone expected Cornell to compete for a national championship. They finished in the bottom third of their conference. How could you possibly not consider that disappointing? Expectations don't come from nowhere; they come from being competitive nearly every year and losing only four players from a team that was one goal from the Frozen Four. I don't feel entitled to anything; I do, however, have expectations, and this year these expectations showed no semblance of being met.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2013 04:06PM by BearLover.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 04:22PM

BearLover
Trotsky
Jim Hyla
BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.

To each his own.
Entitlement. It's what's for dinner.
Do you not know what "disappointing" means? I didn't say "bad" year. Everyone expected Cornell to compete for a national championship. They finished in the bottom third of their conference. How could you possibly not consider that disappointing? Expectations don't come from nowhere; they come from being competitive nearly every year and losing only four players from a team that was one goal from the Frozen Four. I don't feel entitled to anything; I do, however, have expectations, and this year these expectations showed no semblance of being met.
Your statement could be read as any year we don't win the tournament it's a disappointing year. That's how I read it initially and that's a sentiment that reflects entitlement, IMO. If you just meant this year, then it reads differently. Yes, I think we're all disappointed in this year's results.

Given the randomness involved in post-season tournaments I think winning the tournament is a pretty high bar for avoiding disappointment.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Give My Regards (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 08:46PM

Towerroad
You know what we want. What every one of us wants. We talk about it incessently. We want to be taken to the promised land. We want to win the last game of the season. That is what we want.

Well, Cornell could win the "last game of the season" by winning the ECAC consolation.

 
___________________________
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 08:52PM

Give My Regards
Towerroad
You know what we want. What every one of us wants. We talk about it incessently. We want to be taken to the promised land. We want to win the last game of the season. That is what we want.

Well, Cornell could win the "last game of the season" by winning the ECAC consolation.

That would only be the last game of our season.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: BearLover (---.cit.cornell.edu)
Date: March 05, 2013 09:35PM

KeithK
BearLover
Trotsky
Jim Hyla
BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.

To each his own.
Entitlement. It's what's for dinner.
Do you not know what "disappointing" means? I didn't say "bad" year. Everyone expected Cornell to compete for a national championship. They finished in the bottom third of their conference. How could you possibly not consider that disappointing? Expectations don't come from nowhere; they come from being competitive nearly every year and losing only four players from a team that was one goal from the Frozen Four. I don't feel entitled to anything; I do, however, have expectations, and this year these expectations showed no semblance of being met.
Your statement could be read as any year we don't win the tournament it's a disappointing year. That's how I read it initially and that's a sentiment that reflects entitlement, IMO. If you just meant this year, then it reads differently. Yes, I think we're all disappointed in this year's results.

Given the randomness involved in post-season tournaments I think winning the tournament is a pretty high bar for avoiding disappointment.
I see the confusion. I meant that, given what has transpired this year, at this point only by winning the tournament could this season be considered a success. I generally see a successful season as one in which Cornell makes the national tournament. They were definitely expected to this year.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 09:49PM

BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.
Made more disheartening if Atlantic City becomes the only tournament venue where Cornell will have never won the ECAC championship. Unless at some point the tournament retu-- never mind
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 05, 2013 09:55PM

billhoward
BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.
Made more disheartening if Atlantic City becomes the only tournament venue where Cornell will have never won the ECAC championship. Unless at some point the tournament retu-- never mind

Wash your mouth out with soap.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 10:29PM

Jim Hyla
billhoward
BearLover
Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.
Made more disheartening if Atlantic City becomes the only tournament venue where Cornell will have never won the ECAC championship. Unless at some point the tournament retu-- never mind
Wash your mouth out with soap.
A one-two punch. First no ECACs in AC, now this: College sports scene gets more barren in the Garden State. NJ approves single-game betting. NCAA removes post-season tournaments such an NCAA quarterfinal round at Princeton or a title game at Meadowlands or a first-rounder where the NJ 1-seed was to have hosted the Pennsylvania 8-seed.
Mark Lewis, NCAA executive vice president of championships and alliances
“Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA’s mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 11:30PM

billhoward
Made more disheartening if Atlantic City becomes the only tournament venue where Cornell will have never won the ECAC championship. Unless at some point the tournament retu-- never mind
The only city, not venue. Matthews (nee Boston) Arena hosted the tournament 1962-65.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2013 11:31PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 11:41PM

Mark Lewis, NCAA executive vice president of championships and alliances
“Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA’s mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."
This makes sense because all gambling is local and state-sanctioned.

 
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2013 11:46PM

ugarte
Mark Lewis, NCAA executive vice president of championships and alliances
“Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA’s mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."
This makes sense because all gambling is local and state-sanctioned.

It also makes sense because the NCAA has been such a bulwark against the commercial exploitation of student athletics.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.customer.alter.net)
Date: March 06, 2013 10:49AM

Trotsky
ugarte
Mark Lewis, NCAA executive vice president of championships and alliances
“Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA’s mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."
This makes sense because all gambling is local and state-sanctioned.

It also makes sense because the NCAA has been such a bulwark against the commercial exploitation of student athletics.
Hey, member schools are the only ones who should be able to profit off of student athletics because student athletes go pro in something other than sports mumble mumble.

 
___________________________
[ home | FB ]
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net)
Date: March 06, 2013 08:12PM

Trotsky
TimV
But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

Ironic reference to the "fans" who immediately re-jumped back on the holocaust wagon the second we lost to Yale. If they are going to whine, I would at least like them to whine informedly.

Also, the point of a chart like this isn't that we finished 9th. It's that we finished in the top 4 12 of the previous 13 seasons, and what the fuck more do people want?

BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

I hope you're not too angry with me for highlighting how BC has been the dominant force in D-I men's hockey for the past 10 years. :/
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 06, 2013 09:05PM

BC has shown Eastern if not ECAC hockey is a potent force. We should hope that Quinnipiac makes it to the title game or at least FF this year, just as we expected / hoped Yale and Union would do the ECAC proud the past couple years.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 06, 2013 10:06PM

billhoward
BC has shown Eastern if not ECAC hockey is a potent force. We should hope that Quinnipiac makes it to the title game or at least FF this year, just as we expected / hoped Yale and Union would do the ECAC proud the past couple years.

This week's bracketology shows QPac in the same regional as BC. This sucks. But Jason Moy is usually spot on. :-(
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 06, 2013 10:57PM

Tom Lento
BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less. The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds. There are two groups

THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin

Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks. If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Ben (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 06, 2013 11:06PM

Tom Lento
BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000.
As the son of a Badger, I'm obligated to remind you of Wisconsin's 2006 national title.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: css228 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 06, 2013 11:06PM

Trotsky
Tom Lento
BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less. The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds. There are two groups

THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin

Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks. If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 06, 2013 11:29PM

css228
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance. We'll see what happens next year. If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it. Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2013 11:31PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 12:18AM

Much as I enjoy seeing Cornell fans wallowing, it should be mentioned that Michigan, who as noted has been in the NCAA tourney 22 straight years, finished 7th in the CCHA and thus is not currently in a position to get a bid this year either. It serves them right for stealing your cheers. ;)
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: March 07, 2013 12:28AM

Jim Hyla
cbuckser
Jordan 04
No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.
To try to get home-ice advantage in the CCHA quarterfinals, Ferris State tried the same thing against Michigan at Yost. Had Ferris State scored, Michigan would have lost home-ice advantage for the first round.

The hockey game finished in a 1-1 tie, and Michigan prevailed in the shootout. The shootout result impacted the playoff seedings, but not which teams got home-ice advantage.

And we had it tried against us, by Clarkson. 1989 Quarters, this time I'm correct Beeeej:-D. We won the first game, and if Clarkson would win the second game, we'd have to go to that stupid mini game. It was a 0-0 tie when Clarkson pulled their goalie, but didn't score. Not quite the same since they knew they had to win, but still pulled a goalie in a tie game. So Clarkson couldn't perform, but Princeton could.

SLU also scored an ENG in overtime (at 4:59!) against us in 1998. [[url=http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1998/box19980306.pdf]box[/url]] IIRC it was to get a really minor seeding advantage, and not a bye or home ice or anything...

 
___________________________
JTW

@jtwcornell91@hostux.social
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: RichH (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 12:36AM

Trotsky
css228
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance. We'll see what happens next year. If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it. Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.

The typical ECAC three-tier finish never established itself, thanks to QU's run (10 points ahead is the most since 1984.) Six points separated 3rd from 10th. Compared to most seasons, this ECAC is closer to 2002, when CU finished 9 points in front, and four points separated 3rd from 11th. It's not like we finished buried deep. For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad. I've always seen the end of the regular season as "jockeying for a seed" time. This is the time where seasons become successful or not. If this team is actually hitting their stride, there's no reason to think they can't make a run here. But they have to start playing their best hockey of the year. NOW. (And for their best chances, hopefully they can avoid Connecticut in the QF, should they get past Princeton.)

So why are people who were so vocal in giving up on the team last month still coming here regularly? When I quit, I commit to stay quitted. **]
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: RichH (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 12:41AM

ursusminor
Much as I enjoy seeing Cornell fans wallowing, it should be mentioned that Michigan, who as noted has been in the NCAA tourney 22 straight years, finished 7th in the CCHA and thus is not currently in a position to get a bid this year either. It serves them right for stealing your cheers. ;)

Gee, the last time they finished as low as 7th was all the way back in...2010.


And they won the damned CCHA tournament to extend that cursed streak.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2013 12:42AM by RichH.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: css228 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 12:51AM

Trotsky
css228
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance. We'll see what happens next year. If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it. Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.
Variance doesn't take a top 4 team and turn it into a bottom 4 team over night. We're not talking SEC football here. The ECAC is not a top to bottom good conference. We lost this season to the 42nd, 43rd, 45th, and 46th rated teams in KRACH. In fact we got a combined 3 points in the 7 games against the worst teams we played this season. How is that in any regards acceptable in any season. The team took a month and a half off, where they weren't skating. They took stupid penalties night in and night out when they knew their penalty kill was atrocious. I don't know about you, but in the ECAC it really shouldn't be hard to at least get a home playoff series every year, even being top 4 every year is unrealistic.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2013 12:52AM by css228.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:15AM

css228
Trotsky
css228
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance. We'll see what happens next year. If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it. Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.
Variance doesn't take a top 4 team and turn it into a bottom 4 team over night. We're not talking SEC football here. The ECAC is not a top to bottom good conference. We lost this season to the 42nd, 43rd, 45th, and 46th rated teams in KRACH. In fact we got a combined 3 points in the 7 games against the worst teams we played this season. How is that in any regards acceptable in any season. The team took a month and a half off, where they weren't skating. They took stupid penalties night in and night out when they knew their penalty kill was atrocious. I don't know about you, but in the ECAC it really shouldn't be hard to at least get a home playoff series every year, even being top 4 every year is unrealistic.
I don't think he's saying that this season's performance is due to bad bounces or breaks or some other sort of random effect. Just that there is variance in human endeavors and sometimes the outcome isn't determined by the true talent level you see on paper. If it turns out to be a one year blip then hopefully this season will help us appreciate success all the more. If it turns into a trend we can reassess then.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:57AM

Ben
Tom Lento
BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000.
As the son of a Badger, I'm obligated to remind you of Wisconsin's 2006 national title.

I'm totally confused by this, since a) I mentioned Wisconsin's national title in the post and b) the "three teams" in question here are BC, NoDak, and Michigan. What do the Badgers have to do with anything?

(edit - I just realized maybe you're talking about Wisconsin beating BC in 2006, although BC did return the favor in 2010)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2013 02:59AM by Tom Lento.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 09:58AM

RichH
For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad.

Hey! I'm one of those people! smashfreak


RichH
So why are people who were so vocal in giving up on the team last month still coming here regularly? When I quit, I commit to stay quitted.]

"Stacy, we broke up two months ago."

"Well, that doesn't mean we can't still go out, does it?"
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 10:07AM

KeithK
css228
Trotsky
css228
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance. We'll see what happens next year. If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it. Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.
Variance doesn't take a top 4 team and turn it into a bottom 4 team over night. We're not talking SEC football here. The ECAC is not a top to bottom good conference. We lost this season to the 42nd, 43rd, 45th, and 46th rated teams in KRACH. In fact we got a combined 3 points in the 7 games against the worst teams we played this season. How is that in any regards acceptable in any season. The team took a month and a half off, where they weren't skating. They took stupid penalties night in and night out when they knew their penalty kill was atrocious. I don't know about you, but in the ECAC it really shouldn't be hard to at least get a home playoff series every year, even being top 4 every year is unrealistic.
I don't think he's saying that this season's performance is due to bad bounces or breaks or some other sort of random effect. Just that there is variance in human endeavors and sometimes the outcome isn't determined by the true talent level you see on paper. If it turns out to be a one year blip then hopefully this season will help us appreciate success all the more. If it turns into a trend we can reassess then.

That is mostly what I'm saying, although it is also true that because the season is not all that long, and teams bunch up in the middle. a few bad breaks (or a couple nights not showing up one period) can cost a team 4 or 5 places in the RS. The average number of points between each place from 3rd to 10th is nearly exactly 2 points. Since hockey game scores are very close, that means if the random perturbations in a season happen to line up primarily in one direction by pure chance, a team can "plummet" in the standings.

tl;dr: I'd rather be a 20-point team playing its best hockey in March than a 30-point team playing its worst.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Ben (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 10:18AM

Tom Lento
Ben
Tom Lento
BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000.
As the son of a Badger, I'm obligated to remind you of Wisconsin's 2006 national title.

I'm totally confused by this, since a) I mentioned Wisconsin's national title in the post and b) the "three teams" in question here are BC, NoDak, and Michigan. What do the Badgers have to do with anything?

(edit - I just realized maybe you're talking about Wisconsin beating BC in 2006, although BC did return the favor in 2010)
Sorry, I thought you meant five, not three, and were referring to all of the teams you mentioned above.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: marty (---.sub-70-215-28.myvzw.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 11:35AM

Trotsky
RichH
For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad.

Hey! I'm one of those people! smashfreak


RichH
So why are people who were so vocal in giving up on the team last month still coming here regularly? When I quit, I commit to stay quitted.]

"Stacy, we broke up two months ago."

"Well, that doesn't mean we can't still go out, does it?"

So those fans are not married to the team. Friends with benefits?
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nycmny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:05PM

jtwcornell91
SLU also scored an ENG in overtime (at 4:59!) against us in 1998. [[url=http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1998/box19980306.pdf]box[/url]] IIRC it was to get a really minor seeding advantage, and not a bye or home ice or anything...
I was at that game. It sucked.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:17PM

Josh '99
jtwcornell91
SLU also scored an ENG in overtime (at 4:59!) against us in 1998. [[url=http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1998/box19980306.pdf]box[/url]] IIRC it was to get a really minor seeding advantage, and not a bye or home ice or anything...
I was at that game. It sucked.

SLU was actually one second from elimination, and winning that game kept them alive for the 10th and final playoff slot. I remember the SLU fans went batshit crazy and we had no idea why at the time.

That whole road trip sucked, as we lost to Clarkson in overtime on the following night. IIRC Elliott was injured so Burt was playing for him and in front of him we looked dreadful. (Elliott then made a triumphant return in the Trojan War the next weekend.)
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: BearLover (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:53PM

RichH
Trotsky
css228
Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance. We'll see what happens next year. If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it. Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.

The typical ECAC three-tier finish never established itself, thanks to QU's run (10 points ahead is the most since 1984.) Six points separated 3rd from 10th. Compared to most seasons, this ECAC is closer to 2002, when CU finished 9 points in front, and four points separated 3rd from 11th. It's not like we finished buried deep. For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad. I've always seen the end of the regular season as "jockeying for a seed" time. This is the time where seasons become successful or not. If this team is actually hitting their stride, there's no reason to think they can't make a run here. But they have to start playing their best hockey of the year. NOW. (And for their best chances, hopefully they can avoid Connecticut in the QF, should they get past Princeton.)

So why are people who were so vocal in giving up on the team last month still coming here regularly? When I quit, I commit to stay quitted. **]
I don't view the regular season as a championship to be won. I see it as a less random way to ensure a bid to the national tournament than winning the ECAC tournament. I also attend every home game and want to see Cornell win. One of a team's objectives should be winning at home for their fans. They blew this regular season. I mean "blew" in both slang senses of the word: a) they sucked this season; b) they blew a great chance to qualify for the national tournament without have to go on a very difficult run in the ECACs. That's why I said they need to hoist the ECAC trophy for me to consider this season a success.

Trotsky
tl;dr: I'd rather be a 20-point team playing its best hockey in March than a 30-point team playing its worst.
It doesn't work that way, or if it does, it's a very marginal effect. The "hot" team is no more likely to win its next game than the "cold" team (given that, on average, the teams are equal). A team that goes 0-3 13-0 to make the NFL playoffs has been shown to win no more than a team that goes 13-0 0-3.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: TimV (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:54PM

Trotsky
Tom Lento
BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less. The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds. There are two groups

THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin

Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks. If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

I must be misunderstanding the table. Why is Minnesota missing?

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nycmny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 02:59PM

Trotsky
Josh '99
jtwcornell91
SLU also scored an ENG in overtime (at 4:59!) against us in 1998. [[url=http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1998/box19980306.pdf]box[/url]] IIRC it was to get a really minor seeding advantage, and not a bye or home ice or anything...
I was at that game. It sucked.

SLU was actually one second from elimination, and winning that game kept them alive for the 10th and final playoff slot. I remember the SLU fans went batshit crazy and we had no idea why at the time.

That whole road trip sucked, as we lost to Clarkson in overtime on the following night. IIRC Elliott was injured so Burt was playing for him and in front of him we looked dreadful. (Elliott then made a triumphant return in the Trojan War the next weekend.)
More notably (in my opinion anyway), that was the game when Willie Mitchell shot the puck into the Cornell bench after touching up on two simultaneous delayed penalties and hit Schafer in the head.

[www.elynah.com]
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 03:46PM

TimV
Trotsky
Tom Lento
BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less. The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds. There are two groups

THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin

Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks. If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

I must be misunderstanding the table. Why is Minnesota missing?

Because I suck. Minnesota, with 9, is floating in between the two groups.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: RichH (---.northropgrumman.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 04:02PM

BearLover
Trotsky
tl;dr: I'd rather be a 20-point team playing its best hockey in March than a 30-point team playing its worst.
It doesn't work that way, or if it does, it's a very marginal effect. The "hot" team is no more likely to win its next game than the "cold" team (given that, on average, the teams are equal). A team that goes 0-3 13-0 to make the NFL playoffs has been shown to win no more than a team that goes 13-0 0-3.

Until you factor in injuries (both publicly known and those more minor/secretive), tinkering with line combinations, and psychological confidence of key players like the goaltender. A d-man pulling up to finish a check because he's tentative due to a recent penalty, or a winger losing a step because he's skating on a tender ankle both matter. Ken Dryden himself has written how there were times when his concentration and focus was so acute, the game felt like it was moving in slow-motion for him. I'm a fan of sports statistical analysis, but I believe that team streaks do happen, and they can be a result of a lot of human factors.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2013 04:04PM by RichH.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 04:12PM

Trotsky
TimV
Trotsky
Tom Lento
BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less. The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds. There are two groups

THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin

Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks. If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

I must be misunderstanding the table. Why is Minnesota missing?

Because I suck. Minnesota, with 9, is floating in between the two groups.

I started a similar analysis about a month ago but only went back 5 years and used Tournament Wins and Win% as the gauge of quality. That put us as a middle of the Tournament Pack team 2 wins and 40%

My List:

Teams Wins Pct
BC 12 92%
Minn Dul 6 75%
Miami 6 55%
Notre D 5 65%
N Dak 5 50%
Mich 5 50%
BU 4 80%
Wisc 4 67%
Ferris 3 75%
UNH 3 43%
RIT 2 67%
Vt 2 50%
Bemidgi 2 50%
Yale 2 40%
Cornell 2 40%
Mass Lowell 1 50%
Denver 1 50%
A bunch of other also rans
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2013 04:14PM by Towerroad.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 04:16PM

There is a difference in how well a team plays throughout the season. "Hotness" and "coldness" are problematic terms at best and straw man concepts at worst. Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly. But claiming that at any given instant a team is equally likely to perform well, independent of recent history of performing well or poorly, is every bit as silly.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Chris '03 (38.104.240.---)
Date: March 07, 2013 04:24PM

Towerroad
Trotsky
TimV
Trotsky
Tom Lento
BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less. The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds. There are two groups

THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin

Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks. If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

I must be misunderstanding the table. Why is Minnesota missing?

Because I suck. Minnesota, with 9, is floating in between the two groups.

I started a similar analysis about a month ago but only went back 5 years and used Tournament Wins and Win% as the gauge of quality. That put us as a middle of the Tournament Pack team 2 wins and 40%

My List:

Teams Wins Pct
BC 12 92%
Minn Dul 6 75%
Miami 6 55%
Notre D 5 65%
N Dak 5 50%
Mich 5 50%
BU 4 80%
Wisc 4 67%
Ferris 3 75%
UNH 3 43%
RIT 2 67%
Vt 2 50%
Bemidgi 2 50%
Yale 2 40%
Cornell 2 40%
Mass Lowell 1 50%
Denver 1 50%
A bunch of other also rans

1. BC is ridiculous.
2. Union has two wins too.

 
___________________________
"Mark Mazzoleni looks like a guy whose dog just died out there..."
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Ben (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 06:43PM

Trotsky
Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.
If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 06:45PM

Ben
Trotsky
Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.
If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.
Math "memory" (function differs over time) not wetware memory.
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: css228 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 07:21PM

Ben
Trotsky
Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.
If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.
Teams also stay consistently terrible because they get bad talent too. So what is this, a lack of talent, or a poor work ethic?
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 07:23PM

Trotsky
Ben
Trotsky
Players are not Strat-O-Matic cards without memory, and improvement (or deterioration) in performance over sub-intervals within a season are not fictions.

Claiming a streak persists from one season to the next is silly.
If players' memory matters, then the second statement doesn't follow. Terrible teams stay terrible (in some part) because they don't have a winning mentality, and you can't wipe memory at the end of the season.
Math "memory" (function differs over time) not wetware memory.
Long term performance (decades) is an indication of institutional (AD, President, Students, Trustees, Alumni) performance
Medium term performance (years) is an indication of departmental (read coach) performance
Season performance (months) is an indication of the players performance.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 08:31PM

I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 07, 2013 09:18PM

That Princeton number looks like LYING. Typical.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: David Harding (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 07, 2013 10:17PM

Jim Hyla
I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website
Interesting! Was that this year or averaged over multiple years? If the latter, what's the standard deviation?
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 08, 2013 02:05AM

David Harding
Jim Hyla
I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website
Interesting! Was that this year or averaged over multiple years? If the latter, what's the standard deviation?

This year.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: French Rage (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 11:08AM

Jim Hyla
I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

So free pizza equals 900 more fans for Colgate?

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 01:53PM

French Rage
Jim Hyla
I was trolling through some ECAC stats and accumulated these UN-Wallowing ones:

   TEAM    Ave Home   When Playing  Rink
           Attendance  Cornell    Capacity

 1 US       4253                  4267
 2 RPI      3511       3550       5217
 3 Q        3470       3772       3286
 4 Dartmth  3459       3471       4500
 5 Yale     3446       3500       3500
 6 Clarkson 2452       2490       3000
 7 Harvard  2303       3076       2850
 8 PU       2233       2193       2092
 9 Union    2074       2354       2225
10 SLU      1608       1893       3200
11 Colgate  1428       2301       2246
12 Brown    1391       1715       2495

All stats from ECAC website

So free pizza equals 900 more fans for Colgate?

What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets. Maybe they practice some special math.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 02:29PM

Towerroad
What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets.

Servants.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 03:20PM

Three things jump out. Princeton stat has to be wrong. The place is lightly attended except for Harvard and Cornell. For Cornell to draw less than the average ... implausible.

Might average home attendance refer to seats sold, not occupied? Maybe fans buy a ticket package and are more likely to use them when Cornell or Q come to play.

Q draws draws on average 200 more than capacity and Cornell draws 300 more than that. Q does have a nice, wide walkway at the top of the rink that allows standing room without affecting people walking to concession stands, finding restrooms, etcetera, the etcetera probably including leaving early to get to the good parties.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 08, 2013 04:32PM

billhoward
Three things jump out. Princeton stat has to be wrong. The place is lightly attended except for Harvard and Cornell. For Cornell to draw less than the average ... implausible.

Might average home attendance refer to seats sold, not occupied? Maybe fans buy a ticket package and are more likely to use them when Cornell or Q come to play.

Q draws draws on average 200 more than capacity and Cornell draws 300 more than that. Q does have a nice, wide walkway at the top of the rink that allows standing room without affecting people walking to concession stands, finding restrooms, etcetera, the etcetera probably including leaving early to get to the good parties.
Attendance figures are almost certainly ticket sales. No one in sports announces turn stile totals anymore. I remember years ago when I was writing up the box fscore for Cornell games I knew I could simply put in the 3836 capacity figure even for games over break when there were lots of empty seats.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 05:00PM

Trotsky
Towerroad
What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets.

Servants.
Yes, that explains it.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: French Rage (---.packetdesign.com)
Date: March 08, 2013 06:06PM

Looking at USCHO's figures, Princeton was averaging in the 1500s for a while and then bumped up to 1800s last year and 2200s this year.

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 07:52PM

Trotsky
Towerroad
What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets.

Servants.
This is not the dig you think it is.

 
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 08:48PM

Would paid syncophants be more appropriate
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 09:12PM

ugarte
Trotsky
Towerroad
What I am struggling with is why both Sucks fans bought 2301 extra tickets.

Servants.
This is not the dig you think it is.
Would paid syncophants be more appropriate
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 10:06PM

Princeton attendance stats will take a tumble. 113 is announced attendance for tonights game.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 10:17PM

Jim Hyla
Princeton attendance stats will take a tumble. 113 is announced attendance for tonights game.
That can't be right. They must have dropped a digit.
 
Re: UN-Wallowing
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 08, 2013 10:21PM

Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Princeton attendance stats will take a tumble. 113 is announced attendance for tonights game.
That can't be right. They must have dropped a digit.

I don't think it was 1/2 full, but I agree it seems like it was more than that. But regardless, it was awful.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Wallowing
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 09, 2013 09:19PM

Thus endeth the wallowing.
 
Page:  1 2Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login