[Off-topic] Lacrosse

OK... this is my 2nd attempt at posting this... My 1st was thwarted by a computer crash brought on by my trying to post while listening to the live internet feed of the exciting Princeton-Yale game (more on that below).

Congratulations to the Big Red for winning their 6th game in a row to go 6-1 on the season (2-0 Ivy -- 1st place).

#12 Cornell beat #15 Pennsylvania (in Philly), 7-4, as the Big Red defensive machine continues its dominance -- this time, with the help of a big-time performance by All-American goalie Justin Cynar. Five of the Cornell goals were scored by freshmen, including 4 by Sean Greenhalgh (giving him 17 on the season!).

Here's the full story:

[cornellbigred.fansonly.com]


Elsewhere in the Ivies:

Unranked Brown took #1 Syracuse to overtime (in Providence) before falling, 14-13. Wow. Look out for the Bruins -- they are, no doubt, the best unranked team in the land!

Going on right now: #16 Yale is at #8 Princeton for a game that is important not only for this season's Ivy race and the NCAA autobid, but also for Cornell's place in history.

The last time Princeton lost an Ivy game was in '95 -- that incredible Big Red upset of the then-defending-national-champion Tigers. (And thank God for that monumental upset, because...) Since then, Princeton has won 37 consecutive Ivy match-ups; they only need two more to tie Cornell's Ivy-league-record 39 wins in a row ('73-'79). So, GO YALE!!!

For those who are despairing over the "inevitable" Princeton victory: At the half, it was Yale 7, Princeton 3!!! The last I heard (before two consecutive computer crashes (courtesy of RealPlayer??)), it was Yale 10, Princeton 6 (in the 3rd?).

I will now try again to listen to the end of the game (assuming it's still on...).

THE STREAK IS OVER!!!

#16 Yale just beat #8 Princeton, 15-13!

Cornell's record is safe. Thank you, Yale!

Alright! Great news for CU's Ivy title chances as well!

I rank that '95 Princeton win as one of my top sports memories from the hill.

Fuckin A!

We now have a shot at the Ivy autobid. Let's go red!

YES! Congrats Elis - for the loss against us and the win over Princeton. We can take this league. But we'd better not take Brown lightly now (or anyone else for that matter).

Cornell may just be the "defense capital of the world" (well, the "ice/lax" world, anyway -- is there any other??).

HOCKEY: Although Michigan St. did manage to beat us in a squeaker for "best team defense" (1.78 - 1.80 -- D'OH!), we were on top for a brief time towards the end.

And now...

LACROSSE: (Although we're only at the mid-point of the season...) With Maryland's loss and Cornell's win over Penn., the Big Red is now #1 in team defense (6.14 -- tied, oddly, with the team we just beat).

(Note: 4 of the top 7 defenses in the nation are Ivies -- and Princeton ain't one of 'em!)

Winter or spring, Cornell is the home of the BIG RED WALL...

Saturday, April 6, 1pm.

Harvard lost 7-5 at Penn last Saturday and was beaten at #9 Duke today, 10-7.

To put some perspective on Yale's 15 goals vs. Princeton today:

Before this game, Princeton had not allowed more than 10 goals by an Ivy team since 1990!

Princeton's two goalies stopped only seven of Yale's 22 shots on goal.

Penn is at Princeton Tuesday afternoon and Yale hosts Brown Wednesday evening.

Yes, the Tigers seem to have a slight sieve problem... ) (I guess Coach Tierney has run out of sons?)

I think a pissed-off Princeton should handle Penn; Yale-Brown promises to be quite a battle.


OK... here are some assorted questions for anyone to answer (not as exciting as discussing championship belts, but...):

1.) What happened to last year's top Big Red attackman, Michael Egan? I was expecting him to return this year as a junior to be a major offensive contributor. (As a freshman, two years ago, he scored the game-tying and game-winning goals against #1 Syracuse in that shocking, 13-12 upset at Schoellkopf.) If he's left the team, then that's a tremendous loss. It's not like we're overloaded at that position...

2.) What's wrong with senior attackman Scott Lee? He had 18 pts. last year and has only 2 so far this year. The opportunity to play is certainly there: our attack has one hot freshman (Greenhalgh, 18 pts.) and one good sophomore ("man-up specialist"(?) Spoonhower, 8 pts.) -- and that's about it! I hope he'll be able to contribute down the stretch...

3.) While lax.com has an easy-to-use and seemingly reliable stat-page...

[www.lax.com]

...and they also have a handy-dandy stat-page for teams (here's ours)...

[www.lax.com]

...I'd like to be able to find a more comprehensive source of stats (like, for example, face-off percentage leaders -- I suspect we may be near the top of that list!). In the past, I've relied on the NCAA's stat-page, which was very comprehensive and was an excellent resource (incredible, eh?). Alas, this year they seem to have screwed everything up. You have to fill out a stoopid "request form" to get info., and all I get in return is an error window -- now that is more like the NCAA that we know & hate!

Here's the page. Can anyone make it work? I give up...

[goomer.ncaa.org]

4.) And, finally, if yer still with me... Why the hell do we have FIVE goalies on our roster this year?!?! (I know Cynar might appreciate a little back-up, but... jeez!)

That's all...

Speaking of the Big Red D-machine, I couldn't help but notice...

Of the top 4 offensive teams in college hockey, 3 are in the Frozen Four
Of the top 4 defensive teams in college hockey, none are... in fact, you have to go to 9 before you get two.

Don't get me wrong, I've always been a defense-first kinda fan, so I love Schafer's style, and I do believe that defense wins championships... but not this year, I guess

zg88:
egan quit. the team is seeing very solid offensive performances from freshman justin redd, sophomore andrew collins, junior jp schalk, and senior billy fort, in addition to the stellar play of greenhalgh and the solid performance of spoonhower. ian rosenberger is also a fairly consistent contributor on the offensive end.

why do they have 5 goalies? who knows.

Of the top 4 offensive teams in college hockey, 3 are in the Frozen Four
Of the top 4 defensive teams in college hockey, none are... in fact, you have to go to 9 before you get two.

Don't get me wrong, I've always been a defense-first kinda fan, so I love Schafer's style, and I do believe that defense wins championships... but not this year, I guess

Just talking out of my ass here (where's Melissa when I need her), but perhaps what wins championships is being exceptional in whatever facet of the game is currently weak, nationally. When defenses tend to be strong and offense is a rare commodity, the few teams with great offenses get more from their excellence than the teams with great defenses.

If there's anything to the theory, you'd expect great defensive teams to populate the frozen four ranks during high scoring periods, like the mid to late 70's. While one case hardly forms an adequate support, Cornell's greatest offensive teams skated during this period, and despite otherworldly GFA's, they never even won an ECAC title let alone a F4 berth.

HE WAS 2-TIME HS AA AND WAS EXPECTED TO BREAK INTO LINEUP.

Just talking out of my ass here (where's Melissa when I need her), but perhaps what wins championships is being exceptional in whatever facet of the game is currently weak, nationally. When defenses tend to be strong and offense is a rare commodity, the few teams with great offenses get more from their excellence than the teams with great defenses.

A very reasonable theory. Mine was more along the lines of maybe there are not "truly great" defenses this year. Don't get me wrong, we were damn good, but you could easily argue we were a step or two short of what it takes to win a title... given up 4 goals in a clutch game is not a performance of a nationally dominant defense. Given one more year of experience of most of our prime D-Men and a hopefully vaguely similar performance from LeNeveu, next year we may just take that step.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

ok i am gonna check later but anyone know when the SU-CU game is this year? and is it in my backyard or at cornell?
hope people make it to the game wherever it is!

4/9 in Ithaca

LATEST POLL (USILA/STX Coaches Poll, 04/01):

[www.usila.org]

CORNELL #10

Congrats to the Big Red for cracking the Top 10! (Up from #12 last week.)

They are now the top-ranked Ivy team, since Princeton has *gasp* fallen out of the Top 10! (#8 --> #12) (I wonder if that's happened before in the last 10 years!)

IVY POWER: 6 out of the 7 Ivy teams are ranked in the Top 20!!!

(#20 Brown edged into the rankings by scaring the crap out of #1 Syracuse last weekend (who are clinging to the top spot by a one-vote margin!).)

Let's keep it rolling at Hahvahd this week!!!

(The Orangemen are looming, but let's not overlook the Crimson!)

(GoBigRed '03: Thanks for the info. on Egan. That's too bad about him. BTW, I wasn't overlooking the offensive contributions of our midfield, I was just focusing on the overall lack of production at attack. But, hey, as long as the goals are coming from somewhere, right? (By my count, there are 6 middies with at least 4 pts., but only 2 attackmen -- a frosh & a soph!))

PS -- Cornell's season-opening loss to Georgetown is looking better and better... The Hoyas (a "hoya" is a freakin' plant, isn't it?!?!) are now #5 and, at 6-0, are one of only two remaining undefeated teams.

zg88: my thoughts exactly re: offensive output. and hey, even mcclay had a goal this season!

Rich,

I Agree. I was so excited that I asked one of the Cornell player's dad's who was video taping the game to make me a copy, which he did (now, what I did with that copy is another story).

What amazes me about that stunner of an upset is that, in the previous year, the Big Red had suffered through a 1-10 campaign! (setting a record for losses in a season.) I guess Richie had one more trick up his sleeve!

(And now, a potential stunner of another kind: It is quite conceivable that the once-again-defending-national-champion Princeton Tigers will miss the NCAA tournament this year! Not sure if a defending champ has ever done that before...)

zg88 wrote:

(And now, a potential stunner of another kind: It is quite conceivable that the once-again-defending-national-champion Princeton Tigers will miss the NCAA tournament this year! Not sure if a defending champ has ever done that before...)

Harvard Men's Hockey - 1990

Who beat 'em in the ECAC semis? You guessed it. Cornell

zg88 wrote:

(#20 Brown edged into the rankings by scaring the crap out of #1 Syracuse last weekend (who are clinging to the top spot by a one-vote margin!).)

Brown @ Yale on Wednesday should be a good game given their respective performances vs. SU and PU last week.

(I still remember watching SU going up 2-0 17 seconds into the 1st period against Brown at the Carrier Dome in 88 or 89. I think the goals were Gait to Marachek and Gait to Lockwood. Wow that offense was good.)

zg88 wrote:

PS -- Cornell's season-opening loss to Georgetown is looking better and better... The Hoyas (a "hoya" is a freakin' plant, isn't it?!?!) are now #5 and, at 6-0, are one of only two remaining undefeated teams.

Also, remember that G-town sent us home from the NCAA's in 2000.

zg88 wrote:

PS -- Cornell's season-opening loss to Georgetown is looking better and better... The Hoyas (a "hoya" is a freakin' plant, isn't it?!?!) are now #5 and, at 6-0, are one of only two remaining undefeated teams.

Well, it at least looks less embarrassing. Getting drilled never looks better, only less bad.

stress fracture. . .

I don't think he was talking about hockey. It happens all the time in hockey. *cough* BC...

(And now, a potential stunner of another kind: It is quite conceivable that the once-again-defending-national-champion Princeton Tigers will miss the NCAA tournament this year! Not sure if a defending champ has ever done that before...)

Just checked ovar at www.ncaachampionships.com, and only one NCAA men's lax champ has failed to make the tournament the following year.

... drum roll ...

Cornell, after winning the first-ever NCAA championship in 1971, was not in the tournament field in 1972. There were only eight teams in the tourney back then, and no Ivy team made it that year. Is there a story there, or were there just no auto-bids?

Wasn't it a 4 team field, based on old boy network backroom deals?

Automatic qualification is relatively new in men's lacrosse - I believe it was only first instituted for the 2000 tournament. This year, six conferences get automatic bids: America East, ECAC, Great Western Lacrosse League, Ivy League, MAAC, and Patriot League.

I wonder what the Swami will have to say about the craziness of this past weekend...

No, John, there were eight teams and no autobids back then. In 1971 the NCAA had fully regional "regionals," which generated the same controversy as this year's hockey regionals. Cornell, Army, Brown, and a-team-I-can't-remember were in the north "regional" (I think the games were played on the campuses of one of the teams playing in each game, but I could be wrong.) and four of the "traditional" powers in the Baltimore area played somewhere down there, with the winners meeting at Hofstra on Long Island. The eight teams were chosen in the proverbial "smoke-filled room" by a committee.

Cornell and Maryland emerged from the regionals, and everyone felt this was a great injustice as the lacrosse powers-that-were down south fully expected the southern team to win it easily, and that it really would have been an all-south finals if the teams had been mixed--just like some of the western jerks on USCHO have been whining with regards to this year's hockey tournament. The championship game was broadcast on public television with a crew from the Baltimore area, and they were utterly unable to cope with Cornell's easy 12-6 win.

Don't recall what happened to the team in 1972. Geographic regionalization of the seedings was dropped quickly--maybe even in 1972. Cornell lost key All-Americas Al Rimmer (six goals in the championship game) and Bob Rule (goalie on that team and Cropper's backup in 1969-70) to graduation, and just may not have been strong enough to qualify in 1972.

And some of the autobids are as controversial as the MAAC autobid in hockey (in particular, the Great Western Conference, which includes--believe it or not--Fairfield, in addition to Air Force, Butler, Denver, Notre Dame, and Ohio State). There's the same groundswell of support to move from a twelve- to a sixteen-team tournament to minimize the effects of the autobids.

Princeton took out their frustrations on Penn this evening.

With respect to the expansion of the field to 16 teams, I believe that the NCAA is considering expansion of both the D1- hockey and lacrosse tournament fields to 16 teams. When proposed a few years ago to just expand hockey, it was voted down before it got out of committee. I believe that the proposals were tied together to make more of an impact, and that it was approved at the committee level and is quite likely to be approved.

More teams=more games=more $$= happy NCAA.

Damn. poor penn. I guess this means we have sole possession of the lowest GAA now.

Actually, IIRC they tied the men's ice hockey bracket expansion to a women's sport. The former is providing the $$$ and the latter the gender equity, so it's an attractive package all around.

With regards to the controversy over automatic bids, selection committee chair Jack MacDonald says he thinks the tourney needs more auto-bids (gee, think his good feelings about auto-bids could have anything to do with the fact that he's the AD at Quinnipiac?) and that the NCAA has the "opportunity to create more automatics" with the Ivy League and Big Ten.

[www.uscho.com]

Okay, I just checked, and apparently men's ice hockey, men's lacrosse, and women's softball are all tied together.

Yup, men's hockey for the $$$, women's softball for the Title IX, men's lacrosse because, well, they need it too .

Women's softball is hoping to expand from 48 to 64, so that's a total package increase of 16 women's teams and only 8 men's teams, looking like a nice Title IX move, which is one of the reasons it's on the top of the committee's priority list this season (as opposed to be seventh (?) last season).

So, can anyone explain to me this Fairfield being in the Great Western Lacrosse League thing? With the absence of an USCLO-style site, it's very hard to get objective history. At the very least, it seems like it'd be cheaper, if not easier, for Fairfield to just go independent, rather than flying to Denver and Colorado all the time.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

Yeah, but this way they can get an autobid. Can't do that as an indy.

Seems like an awful lot of travel expenses for the hope of get an extra bid to the tourney every few years. My gut tells me there's some bigger story there .

I think you need six teams in a league to qualify for an autobid.

Maybe their expenses are being "subsidized" by the other teams in order to fill out the "sixsome." Fairfield does in fact play all of the other five this season, travel issues or not.

Well, in the absence of a PWR for lacrosse, the AQ becomes that much more important than in hockey. That having been said, some of the traditionally strong programs have managed to go the independent route and still make the tourney year in and year out. Specifically, Syracuse and Hopkins are still both independents. Unless I'm going crazy, I thought Loyola had traditionally been an independent but laxpower.com has them listed as the #1 team in the Colonial League.

Also, be aware that although the ACC is, IMO, the toughest conference in college lax (with the Ivies being the 2nd toughest), the ACC only has 4 members. Thus, UVa, Duke, Maryland and UNC beat the piss outta each other with no advantage that I can see. One wonders why they don't invite JHU and Loyola to join to round out the 6.

Because of the lack of a formal PWR, *perceived* strength of schedule is very important in the selection process. Thus, a strong growing program like Georgetown doesn't necessarily get the respect that is given a fading program with history behind them, like Hopkins. (I'm not saying JHU doesn't have a great team, just that they aren't slugging it out in the final game game with Syracuse every damn year like they used to and that Georgetown is now consistantky a top 5 team.)

For example, Yale is 7th in Power Rating, yet only rates a 13th place spot in the polls. Meanwhile, Hopkins is 4th in polls while their power rating puts them in 8th.

Feel free to disagree with me. I wasn't able to follow lax from Cali last year so my perceptions may be out of whack.

You probably didn't realize just how close New Haven is to the "Great West," John.

Loyola? I didn't know they played lacrosse in New Orleans!

Oh, you mean a different Loyola.

Well, to be fair, Notre Dame's program goes back 20 years and they have been the traditional GWLL powerhouse. Of course, until recently, that meant being the MAAC of the lacrosse world.

Hopkins, like Syracuse will never join a conference. They both have the Notre Dame football philosophy. . .we're good enough people will come to play us, attitude. The fact of the matter is, they are both that good

Very true. Although, if WV and VT club teams went D1 down the road, I could see Syracuse being pressured to join a Big East Lax conference if BC, Georgetown, Providence, Villanova, Rutgers, etc decided to go that route.

Given the marketing power of the Big East, this could be very good step towards getting a TV deal for lacrosse. Adding a 3rd revenue sport could be just what SU needs to help its' Title IX woes.

Half-way through the season (calendarwise), and I'm delighted. I admit I was cranky after the 2001 season. Low, low, low expectations. When I learned about Egan's unexplained departure and Scott Lee's broken foot, I began to prepare for something ugly. Butt ugly. Then, as I stood in the rain at halftime of the Georgetown game and pondered the Hoyas numbing shot advantage, I realized that there is something uglier than butt ugly. That first half in Baltimore, brothers and sisters, was the worst half of Cornell lacrosse since Princeton's epic thwacking of Cornell at Schoellkopf back in 1991 (1992?), at the dawn of the Tierney Era. Yeah, yeah, I should've reminded myself that Cynar had been awesome enough in the first half to keep Cornell in the game, and that Cynar's apparent return to form after a mediocre 2001 was a sign of good things to come. But in my head, I had flushed the season down the toilet. There was no hope.

But then I saw something I hadn't seen too much under Tambroni. I saw Cornell come back in the second half to tie the game at 3-3. Yeah, we eventually lost. And it was a whuppin'. But after all the second half collapses of 2001, this felt ... not bad. Even after the near disaster at Colgate, one began to sense that there was something different about 2002.

Here's a mid-season review.

* An apology to the sophomores. I've dissed last year's freshman class repeatedly. Cornell got almost no production from Tambroni's first crop of recruits in 2001--it seemed like a dud salmon run. Gentlemen of ought-four, I apologize. A bunch of 'em have emerged from near invisibility to become 2002's anchors. My personal favorites: Andrew Collins from Yorktown, a well-rounded attackman; close defender Tim DeBlois from F-M, a polished guy in ground ball situations (something Cornell defenseman other than McClay haven't shown in years). I also like lefty EMO shooting specialist Spoonhower, second line offensive midfielder Rosenberger, and short-stick defense middie Boiardi (see below).

* Ryan McClay is God. What else can you say? It's such a pleasure watching him erase the men he marks. Penn's Scott Solow is one of the most crafty, underrated attackers in the country, but McClay neutralized him like an alkaline bath (don't be fooled by Solow's two assists). And I hate to think about clears in a world without McClay.

* Yoots. You gotta love how young this team is. The freshmen look good. Combine 'em with the sophs listed above, and you get 60 percent of Cornell's goals. Greenhalgh is so composed when he gets the ball near the crease. A fantastic finisher. And I thought Nelson would be the guy to emerge from the Gilman clutch (his time will come), but it's Redd. A smooth, deadly middie.

* Defensive mids. By now most Cornell lax fans have grown to appreciate All-American senior long-stick middie Josh Heller. More great play from him, of course. But I've been really impressed with the play of the short-stick defensive midfielders. They've been huge contributors to the waterfastness of Cornell's team D. George Boiardi deserves props for making the difficult transition from defenseman to the short stick.

* Senior Billy Fort is like a young John Randle. He's a small man, but he revs high and plays the with ferocity of a hungry shrew. It's contagious. Fort must lead the Ivies in rug burns. His early goal against Penn, when he stole the ball from Kelly and fired it into the net from about 30 yards away, reminded me of the late Eamon McEneaney (I hope they've created an award named after the Demon--Fort should get it). It set the tone for the game. Like Boiardi, Fort also has made a seamless position change.

Throw in a great face off percentage thanks to another solid year from Sollogg (relieved on occasion by Nelson), and you get optimism accelerating from 0 to 60 in about three weeks. Not bad at all. This is a most enjoyable team, and they deserve bigger crowds. I can't make it, but I hope everybody will show up for the Syracuse game, and then continue coming for the rest of they year.

So what now? I’m so cowed by last year that I can't get myself to believe that Cornell could qualify for the playoffs in this cruel 12-team-tournament world. I just don't think it's realistic. I'm still concerned about some weak second half performances. I still fear Brown. And Princeton's thumping of Penn should remind everybody that they're still the best team in the league. I think Cornell will finish with at least three losses and miss the tourney by a hair or two. But this feels right, doesn't it? Tambroni seems to be landing some good CNY talent (West Genny's Conklin and maybe Henninger's D'Arrigo), and I'm looking forward to a better world to come when they let 16 teams into the NCAAs. Bring it on.

Thank you, Hillel, for an amazingly thorough assessment. I'll get my first view of this year's team Saturday at Harvard, barring a monsoon.

Someone posted earlier today on LaxPower Forum that, in the case of a three-way tie for the Ivy League title, the NCAA tournament berth is determined by drawing one of the three from a hat! Said this was mentioned in the Trenton newspaper's account of the Princeton-Penn game.

Al,
I saw that draw from the hat comment in the following writeup of the game (which may be the newspaper article you mentioned copied to the web). That would be awful. I don't care what sort of minutia you use as a tiebreaker criteria (goal differential? total goals against teams tied? etc.), as long as you have a few somewhat rational ones before resorting to rock-paper-scissors.

www.360lacrosse.com/Lacrosse360.cfm?pid=2&ct=game_display1.cfm&game_id=7749&display_yr=2002

what is this...the e-Schoellkopf forum? but no serious i am loving the lax coverage...but let me say again what everyone is thinking....the hockey offseason SUCKS

Clearly, they should take a lead from Ivy basketball and have a knockout tournament among the co-champions, to be held at the Carrier Dome.

All tiebreakers based on stats and minutia are terrible. Things should be decided on the field. If you don't play a tiebreaking game then everything is equally bad.

Note: Tiebreakers in the NFL can make it a coin toss...

what is this...the e-Schoellkopf forum? but no serious i am loving the lax coverage...but let me say again what everyone is thinking....the hockey offseason SUCKS

Technically, it's not the off-season yet
or should that be a ?

Technically Cornell doesn't play any more hockey games this season, so it IS the off-season, unfortunately it just started earlier than at 4 other schools.

Just about every tiebreaking scheme ends with "coin toss", but in most systems it's statistically implausible to get to that stage. (For instance, the last version of the NFL tiebreakers I've seen requires that two different "net points" tiebreakers and "strength of schedule" (which I think is average opponents' winning percentage) be tied before it gets to a coin toss.) The ECAC doesn't admit that the last step is a coin toss, presumably because no one expects all three net goals tiebreakers to be tied.

The old Big Ten Rose Bowl tiebreaker was interesting: the team that had been to the Rose Bowl more recently stayed home.

Might be better than a coin toss.

Well, with the ice having been melted last night, it's as hockey-off-season as it gets around here

Al DeFlorio wrote:

The old Big Ten Rose Bowl tiebreaker was interesting: the team that had been to the Rose Bowl more recently stayed home.

Actually, I kinda liked that one. Unambiguous, and it shares the wealth around the conference. Of course, any tiebreaker is dubious in the Big 11, where some teams don't play each other, so you could go undefeated in the conference and still not reap the rewards of the conference champion. (So some teams do not control their own destiny at the start of the season.)

Agree on all counts. Beats a coin flip.

...or the lack thereof, is one of many reasons why baseball is the greatest sport. Point me towards the e-Shea forum

I don't mean that last part. If there was a a forum that discussed baseball half as intelligently as this one discusses hockey, I'd be all over it. Alas, I have not found it.

Let's Go Mets!

I used to talk about baseball on the old CHDF.

Actually, I was going to mention the tiebreakers for the Swiss Baseball and Softball Federation. Not being as tiebreaker-obsessed as we Americans, they only had one or two tiebreakers, but they made a distinction between tiebreaking to determine seeding and tiebreaking to determine who made the playoffs, got relegated, etc. In the former case, they drew lots as the final step; in the latter case, they had a playoff game. (Of course, the whole thing was not written too clearly, since the first (and basically only) tiebreaker was head-to-head results (Direktergebnis), but there was some difference of opinion as to whether that included net runs if the teams split the season series. (It did, as it turned out, and as I recall the Cardinals took third place as a result.)

heh..baseball? whats that?

Technically Cornell doesn't play any more hockey games this season, so it IS the off-season, unfortunately it just started earlier than at 4 other schools.

Well, with the ice having been melted last night, it's as hockey-off-season as it gets around here

Ah, okay, so technically technically, it's the Cornell hockey off-season, but not the hockey off-season. Before it sounds like I'm being picky for picky's sake, the point of my last post was meant to be that, even though our beloved boys may be hitting the links, there's still some of the greatest sport left. I just meant it as "hey, there's some hockey left!"

You could even argue it's not really the off-season until the NHL finishes up in late August or whatever it is now , but we'll not go there.

-Fred, DeltaOne81

P.S. I'm probably only posting because it's either that or study

Well, it'll be the college hockey offseason in a couple of days.

Of course, I'll end up catching up on those game clips, making the DVD archives, and overhauling eLynah all summer, so it usually feels a lot like a year-round thing for some of us .

You know, this smiley is eerily similar to Age's REAL facial expressions.

Al, my recollection of the '71 tournament seedings is somewhat different. Teams were seeded 1 through 8, with Army #2 and Cornell #3. Perhaps there was a conscious effort when they did the seedings to regionalize by putting more northern teams in the 2,3,6,7 bracket and southern teams in the 1,4,5,8 bracket. The first two rounds were at campus sites. I was at the game at Army which we won 16-15 or 17-16. In the 2nd half, the lead see-sawed back and forth, and it seemed that whoever won the face-off scored. Tom Cafaro for Army was virtually unstoppable once he got the ball, but fortunately we won enough face-offs.
Whoever was the #1 seed (Navy or Virginia maybe?) lost early and Maryland was either the 8,5 or 4. However, back then the Ivies didn't schedule any of the traditional powers, so most of the experts still considered us an unproven team until the final, where we dominated easily (I was at that one also). The Army game, however, was the best lacrosse game I've ever seen, by far.

Well, the first round games were Cornell-Brown and Army-Hofstra in the "north," and Navy-Virginia and Maryland-Air Force (obligatory western team, clearly regarded as the weakest team in the tournament--Maryland 10, AF 1) in the "south." In the semifinals, Maryland beat Navy and Cornell beat Army, 17-16, and the rest is history. As I recall, the pairings were specifically done to keep it "regional" until the finals--causing major gas pains down Bal-mer way.

Al, maybe my recollection of Army being #2, Cornell #3 and Navy or Va. #1 were the rankings going into the tournament and not seedings. Unfortunately, recollections are not quite as sharp as the facts.

According to Bob Kane's Good Sports, going into the tournament Army was ranked first and Cornell eighth in the polls, which I think were conducted by the USILA--the anointers of the national champion prior to 1971.

My recollection is that back in those days the NCAA basketball tournament was much more "regionalized," too.

Incidentally, Cornell finished the 1972 season with a 10-3 record when they were not invited to defend their championship.

Here's a list of all the NCAA lax tourney games ever played:

[www.ncaalacrosse.com]

(Unfortunately, they didn't bother to list the seeding-#'s... (That's the NCAA for ya...))

The above link is from the NCAA's lax history page (below), which has lots of other tourney-related links:

[www.ncaachampionships.com]


If you assume (yeah, yeah, I know -- I'm givin' 'em way too much credit...) that the tournament teams are listed according to the usual [1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5] order, then it would seem to suggest the following seedings for 1971 (with 1st-round scores):

1971
First Round:
#1 Cornell 10, #8 Brown 8
#2 Maryland 10, #7 Air Force 1
#3 Navy 9, #6 Virginia 6
#4 Army 19, #5 Hofstra 3

(EDIT: Ummm... heh-heh... Further investigation reveals that the NCAA -- as I suspected might be the case -- listed the tournament pairings in mixed-up order... so... uhh... nevermind my numberings above... sorry...)

However, I find it a bit hard to believe (particularly if, as Al said, Army was 1st in the "pre-tourney" poll and Cornell was only 8th) that the "smoky-room boyz" would bestow such an honor (the top seed) upon the "upstart-northerner" Big Red. Heck, they had gone 11-0 in their previous ('70) campaign (and had finished with a 17-game winning streak) and were only voted the #5 team in the nation (IIRC) at the end of that final season of the pre-tourney era.

In 1971, even though Cornell was 10-1 at the end of the regular season (and had won 27 of its last 28 at that point!), they hadn't "beaten anyone" -- their only "real game" was their lone loss (by one goal to Virginia to start the season). So, from the good ol' boys' point of view, the Big Red were still "nobodies" -- thus the extra sweetness of crushing Maryland for that inaugural NCAA tournament championship!


Regarding Air Force in the '71 tourney: It appears that the NCAA dropped the concept of "token western team" participation after that initial (and dismal) experiment. A "token" didn't re-appear in the tourney until the field was expanded to its current, 12-team format in '87. That's when they offered up Michigan St. as the sacrificial "west-of-the-Appalachians" lamb (and they got stomped by the Tar Heels, 21-5).


> ...Cornell finished the 1972 season with a 10-3 record when they were not invited to defend their championship.

Funny thing about 1972: When you scan Cornell's schedule for that year to find out why (other than the number of losses) they were not given the opportunity to defend their title, you see that one of the Big Red's 3 losses was to Cortland and you say to yourself, "Well, there you go -- that's why they were snubbed!"

On the other hand, that also happened to be THE year of glory for the Red Dragons: They not only made their one-and-only (Div. I) NCAA tournament appearance (no doubt thanks to their win over defending-nat'l-champ. Cornell!), but they actually won a game and made it to the semi-finals! (Think about that -- Cortland State in the lax "final four"!) (Different world 30 years ago...)

(Of course, another take on the "different-world-30-years-ago" concept is that there have only been 7 different national champions in the 31 years of the NCAA tournament... ahhh... the comforts of constancy... (Hmmm... that sounds like the name of a sermon by Reverend Lovejoy...))

(There's only been one newcomer to the "Club of Champions" in the last 18 years! (Princeton, '92)) (Here's a brain teaser for ya: Who will be the 8th member of the "club"? (Loyola?? Georgetown??)) (Yes, when I ramble like that, it means I need sleepies...)

Here's a list of all the NCAA lax tourney games ever played:

Almost all. Somehow the worker bees at the NCAA haven't gotten around to adding the 2001 tournament to the site.

That season-opening loss to Virginia was played April 1 in Charlottesville. Kane mentions what a disadvantage that early date was to Cornell because--with no artificial turf at Schoellkopf at the time--Cornell had yet to practice outdoors.

Today April 1 is mid-season, in part due to the changed academic calendar. (I would take finals on Memorial Day and graduated on a sunny June 14.) One result of this, IMHO, is a shift of lacrosse power back to the south. The only northern schools which contend regularly for the top ten spots today are Syracuse--which plays indoors--and Princeton--with the exception of Penn, the southernmost "northern" team. To a kid from the northern tier of NY or Long Island, I'd think the Research Triangle would appear a more hospitable place than Ithaca or Hanover or Geneva to play an outdoor sport with a season beginning March 1.

They also list Cornell in 1971 and Virginia in 1972 as "national champions prior to the NCAA tournament."

First of all, great post.

I was poking around, trying to final a complete list of the GWLL champions over the history of the conference. In doing so, I discovered a couple of things.

It looks like Fairfield joined the GWLL in 1999 or 2000 with the expressed purpose of bringing the league to 6 teams in order to qualify for an NCAA AQ. I'd speculate that the Fairfield AD considered the high travel cost worth it in exchange for an AQ they might actually win once in a while. Considering that getting past Georgetown in the ECAC and Hobart in the Patriot League would be a tough nut to crack, this is probably a reasonable choice. Still, America East doesn't seem like that tough a league and they have an AQ as well. I assume the Colonial League and the MAAC are still in their 2 year waiting period with respect to an AQ.

Turns out that even before the GWLL AQ, the NCAA did have a "western team" from '87 on, as was stated above. Notre Dame was the token western team in '90, '92 and '93 as the Great Lakes Conference Champion. Every year from '94 to '00 save '98, they made the tourney as the GWLL Champion. I mention this because they made 9 NCAA appearances before getting their first win over Loyola in 2000. I think this is relevent to hockey when considering the place of the MAAC in hockey. We will be hearing CCHA and WCHA fans bitch about MAAC teams for a long time to come if it takes Mercyhurst or Quinnipiac that long to get a win. Yet, that is okay with me as I think it is good for the long term growth of the sport.

Anywho, I thought I had more to say but nothing is coming to mind. Mebbe I'll post more after I get some more kawphii.

Oh yeah. Wasn't Cortland State a dominant team in 1960's?

Al DeFlorio wrote:

To a kid from the northern tier of NY or Long Island, I'd think the Research Triangle would appear a more hospitable place than Ithaca or Hanover or Geneva to play an outdoor sport with a season beginning March 1.

Growing up and playing lacrosse in Syracuse, I can tell you that having your first month of practice on the plowed student parking lot in 25-35 degree weather leads to lots of gravel burns and broken sticks. (The plastic gets brittle. Having a nice slap check can get expensive.) But in the end, you don't really mind as you love the sport and have never known any other way of playing.

I suspect that keeping Northern kids north isn't anywhere near as hard as getting Baltimore kids to come to upstate NY. Of course, the cachet of playing for Syracuse, if you are a lax jock, or playing for an Ivy, if you want an education, probably go a long way to ameliorating concerns about the weather.

Still, your point about practice opportunities in the North given an early spring start date are quite valid. However, I think there are ways around this without building a dome. I think Penn State actually plays their early season games indoors in a Bartells nee Alberding type facility.

I think I would feel better about a string of gift bids and NCAA losses for Quinnipiac and Mercyhurst if people in the MAAC weren't so proud of their "accomplishment" in making the NCAAs.

As I mentioned earlier, weather is no concern anymore to Syracuse--one reason they have gone from mediocre in the 60s and 70s to being a perennial top two. Also note the rise of Duke, Carolina, Georgetown, Loyola, and Towson, which collectively were a lacrosse wasteland in my Cornell era.

It would be nice if some if the MAAC spin artists would quit the hype (e.g., the "simply magnificent" comment after Quinnipiac's championship game win and the assertion that next year QU will be "scary" and just give us the straight scoop on the league (e.g., making slow progress but with still a loooooong way to go before being competitive with the other major conferences).

Al got to see a good game. Cornell showed they have more than defense.

Though Hahvahd had a 4-2 lead at half-time, Cornell shut them out in the second half to win impressively, 11-4, for a 7th consecutive win.

This sets up a big showdown at Schoellkopf vs #1 Syracuse Tuesday afternoon.

LET'S GO RED!!

Ken '71

The UVA website lists 1971 as one of many years that they won the ACC Championship, and also shows that their longest winning streak, 12, was from '70 to '71. Also, they have a list of All-Americans, and the '71 squad had 3 first teamers, one second and 2 thirds. Also, they beat Navy in the regular season in '71, as their longest losing streak against an opponent was vs. Navy from '59 to '70.

> [Virginia's] longest losing streak against an opponent was vs. Navy from '59 to '70.

...Which ain't too surprising, if you consider that Navy won 9 national titles between '60 and '70! Virginia finally grabbed a share of the prize in '70 (along with Navy & Hopkins) for their first-ever national championship (by which time Navy had racked up 21 titles).

While Navy continued to be a power throughout the '70's, they could never (to this day) snag an "official" NCAA title. The closest they ever came was one championship game, in '75 (crushed by Maryland, 20-13. (Those 20 goals remained a record in an NCAA title game until the "all-time-greatest" Syracuse team of '90 destroyed Loyola, 21-9.))

Learned today that Scott Lee broke an ankle in the preseason. Was told he played last weekend but he did not play today at Hahvahd.

Al- It was his toe.

Thanks. Hope it isn't the big toe.