Wallowing

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.

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.

Rationalizing is just down the hall. This is Wallowing.

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.

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.

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?

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

I got really excited reading the USCHO blog story that said we were going to Providence, but they're wrong. Princeton. Womp womp.

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.)

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.

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.

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]

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...

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.

Scersk '97
Yes, Clarkson surely felt screwed...

Why? Because Princeton's coaches did their jobs and tried to win a hockey game?

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!

Schadenfreude is an anagram for Schafer End Due.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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. 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.

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.

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 ...

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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?

+4

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

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. 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.

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.

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

To each his own.

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?"

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.

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.

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!!!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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!

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?"

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

That Princeton number looks like LYING. Typical.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Servants.

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.

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.

Trotsky

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

Servants.

Yes, that explains it.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Thus endeth the wallowing.