How Cornell Got Their "1000th Win" Wrong, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Admit I Have No Life

I found one likely error and one philosophical problem with Cornell's record-keeping, and it's so mind-numbingly geeky it gets its own thread. The genesis of all this comes from the ECAC QF Game 1 thread if anybody cares.

Cornell's official record after tonight's win is 1000-645-105. Yay, 1000 wins!!! 2 issues. (1) There is one likely error in the record double-counting one loss. No big deal. But (2) there is also one possible error of wrongly counting one loss for a win, in which case we are only at 999 wins. Dogs and cats, living together...

First the easy one:

Cornell lists losses to Army by the score of 9-4 on both January 26, 1945 and January 26, 1946. The Cornell records up until the mid-90's only listed the 1946 game. Now, Cornell has rediscovered a few games since the 90's: 1 loss each in 1902 and 1904 and 2 losses in 1912. But I strongly suspect that this 1945 loss is really a transcription error made by some very well-meaning and hard-working intern sometime in the last decade.

OK. So there may be one fewer loss than the records show. No big deal.

But in addition there is the matter of the 1000th win. Here is the problem: Cornell's infamous 9-0 loss to BU on 12/13/1972 that was later awarded to Cornell as a forfeit win. The Cornell game-by-game record lists it as a loss and I have always heard we officially consider it a loss. Fine. But if you add up our record in 1972-73 with the loss it adds up to 22-6-1. Cornell's official record defies math and lists it as 23-5-1, despite listing the BU result as a loss.

So, if Cornell is going to count it as a loss, we are only at 999 wins. If Cornell is going to count it as a win, then their official recording of the game as a loss is wrong.

I'm so glad I'm married, because this just about wraps it up for ever dating again.

Trotsky
I found one likely error and one philosophical problem with Cornell's record-keeping, and it's so mind-numbingly geeky it gets its own thread. The genesis of all this comes from the ECAC QF Game 1 thread if anybody cares.

Cornell's official record after tonight's win is 1000-645-105. Yay, 1000 wins!!! 2 issues. (1) There is one likely error in the record double-counting one loss. No big deal. But (2) there is also one possible error of wrongly counting one loss for a win, in which case we are only at 999 wins. Dogs and cats, living together...

First the easy one:

Cornell lists losses to Army by the score of 9-4 on both January 26, 1945 and January 26, 1946. The Cornell records up until the mid-90's only listed the 1946 game. Now, Cornell has rediscovered a few games since the 90's: 1 loss each in 1902 and 1904 and 2 losses in 1912. But I strongly suspect that this 1945 loss is really a transcription error made by some very well-meaning and hard-working intern sometime in the last decade.

OK. So there may be one fewer loss than the records show. No big deal.

But in addition there is the matter of the 1000th win. Here is the problem: Cornell's infamous 9-0 loss to BU on 12/13/1972 that was later awarded to Cornell as a forfeit win. The Cornell game-by-game record lists it as a loss and I have always heard we officially consider it a loss. Fine. But if you add up our record in 1972-73 with the loss it adds up to 22-6-1. Cornell's official record defies math and lists it as 23-5-1, despite listing the BU result as a loss.

So, if Cornell is going to count it as a loss, we are only at 999 wins. If Cornell is going to count it as a win, then their official recording of the game as a loss is wrong.

I'm so glad I'm married, because this just about wraps it up for ever dating again.

I suspect that the "Official Record" is what has to be listed by NCAA regs. That keeps our overall record consistent with the NCAA listings. However the U can still say they lost the game and list it as a loss. If what I say is true, they should have put in an asterisk with explanation.

You are correct about the typo. The Army 9-4 game was 1946 not 1945.

In 1945 Cornell played Army (US Military Academy) on January 6. The score was 13-1 in favor of the cadets at West Point. The only other January 1945 game was on January 20, 1945 on Beebe and was a 10-1 Dartmouth victory, their 46th consecutive one.

It appears the loan goal scorer for CU in both these games was Edmund Cranch.
~an archivist.

To be consistent we would have to treat any other forfeit wins consistently. Are their other forfeit wins in the record. I am afraid that I am not enough of a hockey geek to take on this task.

Call me old school, my kids do, but I think to be a legitimate win the game has to be won on the ice not reversed in the rule books. I would rather see a loss that is converted to a win by a forfeit counted as no game for the purpose of counting total wins/losses. A win converted to a loss is a different thing since it would be the result of a rules violation. However, consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, it would be fine to count a forfeit win for the purpose of seeding or championships in the regular season.

Towerroad
To be consistent we would have to treat any other forfeit wins consistently. Are their other forfeit wins in the record. I am afraid that I am not enough of a hockey geek to take on this task.

Call me old school, my kids do, but I think to be a legitimate win the game has to be won on the ice not reversed in the rule books. I would rather see a loss that is converted to a win by a forfeit counted as no game for the purpose of counting total wins/losses. A win converted to a loss is a different thing since it would be the result of a rules violation. However, consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, it would be fine to count a forfeit win for the purpose of seeding or championships in the regular season.

I think most of us would agree with your whole post. But I can see a problem; if we change a win to a loss, does the other team do the opposite, or do both schools say they lost? Call me small minded, but I like consistency and I'd rather count it as whatever the governing body says, and then note that we didn't win on the ice, or court, or field, ... Well maybe we did win on the court of law.

Towerroad
To be consistent we would have to treat any other forfeit wins consistently. Are their other forfeit wins in the record. I am afraid that I am not enough of a hockey geek to take on this task.

Call me old school, my kids do, but I think to be a legitimate win the game has to be won on the ice not reversed in the rule books. I would rather see a loss that is converted to a win by a forfeit counted as no game for the purpose of counting total wins/losses. A win converted to a loss is a different thing since it would be the result of a rules violation. However, consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, it would be fine to count a forfeit win for the purpose of seeding or championships in the regular season.

I think I heard once that forfeits count as non-games for tournament selection purposes. (OTOH, if you lose with an ineligible player, it still counts as a loss.)

Trotsky
Cornell's official record after tonight's win is 1000-645-105. Yay, 1000 wins!!!

Nice going, JINX-MASTER!

Trotsky, this is amazing stuff. For the very small group. Cornell U is probably unhappy this ever came up and at such an inopportune time. The right time to hit 1,000 wins is on an early February game at home against St. Lawrence.

You make a good case for open source sports information.

With last night's win in game three, Cornell now really does have 1000 wins (1000-646-105). Game 2 of the series was another milestone, the 1750th game in team history.

Considering how much better Cornell has been than RPI overall since I have paid attention (since 64-65) and that RPI has 967 wins (my count), it surprises me that Cornell has only just now reached 1000. They must have been quite bad pre-Harkness, and I guess that the Ivies' game limit also hurts.

I had better check my figures since if they are correct, RPI will probably hit 1000 in 2012-13.

ursusminor
Considering how much better Cornell has been than RPI overall since I have paid attention (since 64-65) and that RPI has 967 wins (my count), it surprises me that Cornell has only just now reached 1000. They must have been quite bad pre-Harkness, and I guess that the Ivies' game limit also hurts.

Cornell played only 194 games in the period 1900-1901 through 1947-1948, and fielded no team from 1948-1949 through 1956-1957. 76 wins from 1900 through 1956 is what one calls a "slow start." There was no indoor rink until Lynah was built for the 1957-1958 season.

The last time I ran an all-time wins list was about 4 years ago -- it gives winning percentage.

Trotsky
The last time I ran an all-time wins list was about 4 years ago -- it gives winning percentage.

Where did you get that from. RPI's figures there don't agree with mine at any point in history, and surprisingly enough mine agree with USCHO despite the fact that I have been keeping track before USCHO started.

ursusminor

Trotsky
The last time I ran an all-time wins list was about 4 years ago -- it gives winning percentage.

Where did you get that from. RPI's figures there don't agree with mine at any point in history, and surprisingly enough mine agree with USCHO despite the fact that I have been keeping track before USCHO started.

Literally dozens of different sources cobbled together over the years. If you have official year-by-year records for RPI please PM me.