Frozen Four Results

jtn27

billhoward
Quinnipiac T-shirts said Beat Yale. Yale T-shirts said Yale. Far fewer Yale alums wore jerseys or sweatshirts than Cornell alums. There is the argument you shouldn't wear a team jersey past age 29 or chest size 48.

I know that Quinnipiac considers Yale to be their biggest rival and Yale's reaction is "You're not Harvard." I really hope this game doesn't change that dynamic because it amuses me. If Quinnipiac had won, it might have, but I think a Yale victory seals the lack of rivalry.

This article is a really detailed expansion of your comment, and an interesting read on the topic. Personally, I laughed at the description of how "busloads of eternal Quinnipiac spring breakers are disgorged from minibuses from which they stagger, bathed in glitter and clad in high heels and little else, to Toad's" because I've seen it with my own bemused eyes.

In a sense, Quinnipiac-to-Yale is a more lopsided "rivalry" than Cornell-to-Harvard and Colgate-to-Cornell in terms of one caring much more. I'm always curious about the level of interest in the Union-RPI rivalry, which I believe has been elevated in recent years, mostly thanks to a media attention-shift to Schenectady. With Clarkson an easy target of RPI hate, Union used to seem to be an afterthought to the Engineer fans. For Union's campus, they had to find a new foe after moving to D-I...IIRC, Union used to do the whole "orange toss" thing vs. Hamilton College in their D-III days.

A high point for me last night was that as it became apparent in the final ten minutes that Yale would ascend the mountain, the Yale section broke into a loud "HARVARD SUCKS!" chant, during which we in the Cornell pocket all happily joined in.

My favorite quote regarding the Q-Y rivalry comes from this article (already linked somewhere on eLF this week):

As one Yale alumnus and hockey fan told me, the only thing this traditional rivalry lacks is a feeling of rivalry and a sense of tradition.

Zing.

jtn27

I know that Quinnipiac considers Yale to be their biggest rival and Yale's reaction is "You're not Harvard."

Something feels very familiar about that formulation.

One of the great things that make the Frozen Four is that everyone is there for the love of the game. And people don't get into arguments about who you should root for - there's an understanding that it's the personal choice of the other.
Post-game last night I had the opportunity to speak with Tucker Mullen, this year's Humanitarian Award winner. In the long run, that kind of stuff is more important than whether you win or lose. I got introduced to Tucker by Ryan Adler, brother of Cornell hockey player David Adler '00. Ryan, a two-time Humanitarian finalist while at Hobart, saw my Cornell jersey and the next thing I knew I was in a conversation with Ryan, Tucker and a couple of others. Two of the group took my picture so they could send a picture of the jersey to Cornell friends (obviously had nothing to do with the guy who was wearing it). It was pretty funny to me that I was the one whose picture was being taking, especially since one of the other guys our small conversation circle was Brian Leetch.

kaelistus
Am I the only person who really loves our style of Hockey? The vision I have of the 2003 team was not our good goal scoring, it was watching a player shoot the puck and then seeing three Cornell skaters slide into it's path as if we had four goalies. It was fantastic, and I've never seen another school be so dynamic at defense.

I'll take that over high scoring breakaway heavy games any day. 5 on 5 hockey with all the strategy that entails is where it's at. What's so interesting about a breakaway?

No, you're not, but I'm pretty sure we're in the minority. I love watching the positioning and communication* that goes into making defensive hockey work, but most fans don't seem to get into it. From what I can tell most (American) sports fans prefer to see scoring and scoring opportunities to brilliant defensive execution, and honestly I can get that. Goals are exciting - the light goes on, the horn blows, that damn bell rings, Deer Tick fans clap their thunderstix, the band plays Davy, whatever form it takes there's cheering and celebration. Even when the puck doesn't go in the net something *nearly* happened, and it gets the blood flowing. That's also what's so interesting about a breakaway - it's a single event with a high potential for changing the outcome of the game.

Yale's style is entertaining to watch for me, not because it's focused more on transition to attack (although that is interesting), but because of the puck movement. Cornell has *never* had that kind of passing under Schafer. I'm not in the "Cornell must abandon defensive hockey" camp, not by a long shot, but if I could pick one aspect of Cornell's game to improve it would be puck movement. They don't have to turn into Yale, but something a bit more dynamic through the neutral zone and on the PP could make a huge difference in both entertainment value and - far more importantly - offensive output.

* I think the thing I miss most about Lynah is being close enough to actually hear the guys on the ice talk to each other. That and every time it got so loud I couldn't hear them talk to each other.

I may be saying the same thing, but I would like us to work on getting the puck off the stick one beat quicker. Yale accentuates their team speed by moving the play along quickly. Cornell always seems to be deliberate, if not tentative, so even our fast players (Ryan comes to mind) allow the opponent to reconstitute the defense position and pen them in.

One of the best things about Bardreau is that he does the give and go very quickly. It's not just fast twitch muscle tissue - it's a style of play we can practice and get better at.

Wouldn't hurt the power play any, either.

Trotsky
I may be saying the same thing, but I would like us to work on getting the puck off the stick one beat quicker. Yale accentuates their team speed by moving the play along quickly. Cornell always seems to be deliberate, if not tentative, so even our fast players (Ryan comes to mind) allow the opponent to reconstitute the defense position and pen them in.

One of the best things about Bardreau is that he does the give and go very quickly. It's not just fast twitch muscle tissue - it's a style of play we can practice and get better at.

Wouldn't hurt the power play any, either.

I agree that this is the biggest difference between Cornell and a team like Yale -- speed of puck movement. This is one area where we need to pick-up our game, and it really shows on the power play. I see glimpses of quick puck movement with guys like Ferlin and Lowry, but I'd like to see it more consistently among the entire roster.

scoop85

Trotsky
I may be saying the same thing, but I would like us to work on getting the puck off the stick one beat quicker. Yale accentuates their team speed by moving the play along quickly. Cornell always seems to be deliberate, if not tentative, so even our fast players (Ryan comes to mind) allow the opponent to reconstitute the defense position and pen them in.

One of the best things about Bardreau is that he does the give and go very quickly. It's not just fast twitch muscle tissue - it's a style of play we can practice and get better at.

Wouldn't hurt the power play any, either.

I agree that this is the biggest difference between Cornell and a team like Yale -- speed of puck movement. This is one area where we need to pick-up our game, and it really shows on the power play. I see glimpses of quick puck movement with guys like Ferlin and Lowry, but I'd like to see it more consistently among the entire roster.

I couldn't agree more. The passing on the PP is horrible at best. I think 10 year old kids could make quicker, crisp passes than what was on display the past couple of years or so.

Tom Lento
Yale's style is entertaining to watch for me, not because it's focused more on transition to attack (although that is interesting), but because of the puck movement. Cornell has *never* had that kind of passing under Schafer. I'm not in the "Cornell must abandon defensive hockey" camp, not by a long shot, but if I could pick one aspect of Cornell's game to improve it would be puck movement. They don't have to turn into Yale, but something a bit more dynamic through the neutral zone and on the PP could make a huge difference in both entertainment value and - far more importantly - offensive output.

One thing that struck me this weekend was Yale's* knack for moving the puck out to the wing and then quickly back to the center while moving through the neutral zone. This seemed to be awfully effective at enabling them to carry the puck into the other team's zone in a position to quickly generate a good scoring chance. I don't think I've ever seen any team make quite that same pass quite so regularly at any level of hockey; my suspicion is that if a team tried it in the NHL, it'd get intercepted more often than not, but it was still impressive to see Yale execute it.

* I say "Yale's knack" but I can't say for sure whether it's something that they managed throughout their lineup or whether it's just their top line or two that can pull it off.

scoop85

Trotsky
I may be saying the same thing, but I would like us to work on getting the puck off the stick one beat quicker. Yale accentuates their team speed by moving the play along quickly. Cornell always seems to be deliberate, if not tentative, so even our fast players (Ryan comes to mind) allow the opponent to reconstitute the defense position and pen them in.

One of the best things about Bardreau is that he does the give and go very quickly. It's not just fast twitch muscle tissue - it's a style of play we can practice and get better at.

Wouldn't hurt the power play any, either.

I agree that this is the biggest difference between Cornell and a team like Yale -- speed of puck movement. This is one area where we need to pick-up our game, and it really shows on the power play. I see glimpses of quick puck movement with guys like Ferlin and Lowry, but I'd like to see it more consistently among the entire roster.

The defense frequently given for Cornell's boring power play is, "They're just setting it up and waiting for the other team to be out of position." That IMO misses the point: of course that's the way a power play works, as man-to-man defense is not possible, and I don't think anyone disputes that.

The problem isn't getting five guys and the puck into the offensive zone, it's that Cornell seems to have one option: a slow pass to a guy at the point who takes a slap shot into the shin guard of a defender who's repositioned himself (and possibly gone to the bathroom to take a leak) in the copious time it takes the puck to move to the predictable shooter.

What successful power plays do is move the puck more quickly *and* less predictably *and* actually set up plays in which cycling players (with defenders having to transition between men in a zone defense) making a couple of quick passes in succession put the defense out of position without their having any time to react. You'll cough up the puck more often this way, but that's not much of a danger in a man-up situation, and the tradeoff is a much higher likelihood of catching the other team off-guard when you do have possession in the offensive zone.

The results for other teams with more imaginative power plays seem to speak for themselves.

Kyle Rose

scoop85

Trotsky
I may be saying the same thing, but I would like us to work on getting the puck off the stick one beat quicker. Yale accentuates their team speed by moving the play along quickly. Cornell always seems to be deliberate, if not tentative, so even our fast players (Ryan comes to mind) allow the opponent to reconstitute the defense position and pen them in.

One of the best things about Bardreau is that he does the give and go very quickly. It's not just fast twitch muscle tissue - it's a style of play we can practice and get better at.

Wouldn't hurt the power play any, either.

I agree that this is the biggest difference between Cornell and a team like Yale -- speed of puck movement. This is one area where we need to pick-up our game, and it really shows on the power play. I see glimpses of quick puck movement with guys like Ferlin and Lowry, but I'd like to see it more consistently among the entire roster.

The defense frequently given for Cornell's boring power play is, "They're just setting it up and waiting for the other team to be out of position." That IMO misses the point: of course that's the way a power play works, as man-to-man defense is not possible, and I don't think anyone disputes that.

The problem isn't getting five guys and the puck into the offensive zone, it's that Cornell seems to have one option: a slow pass to a guy at the point who takes a slap shot into the shin guard of a defender who's repositioned himself (and possibly gone to the bathroom to take a leak) in the copious time it takes the puck to move to the predictable shooter.

What successful power plays do is move the puck more quickly *and* less predictably *and* actually set up plays in which cycling players (with defenders having to transition between men in a zone defense) making a couple of quick passes in succession put the defense out of position without their having any time to react. You'll cough up the puck more often this way, but that's not much of a danger in a man-up situation, and the tradeoff is a much higher likelihood of catching the other team off-guard when you do have possession in the offensive zone.

The results for other teams with more imaginative power plays seem to speak for themselves.

When I saw the Colorado College series this season, I noted mentally, "hey, it looks like we're finally figuring out a creative passing scheme on the PP!" And it showed in the box scores. By the time January rolled around, that had completely vanished, and we were doing the same ol' umbrella schtick (or giving it to Ferlin to carry in and take a shot alone) that our league knows so well. I don't know what happened.

There are two things I think Cornell has always been poor at: neutral zone passing, and clearing the puck on the PK. For the last regular season game in New Haven, I thought the passing looked better than in recent games, but during the 10-0 drubbing in Hamden in the QF series, even the passing in our defensive zone was weak and INCREDIBLY tentative. Almost like they were trying to delicately deliver the puck to one another and hoping that it would work out. Hard, fast passes right to the stick blade are what you see in April. CU just didn't have that confidence. As for the PK, how is it that we always seem to send the puck RIGHT AT a waiting opponent at the blue line who can easily glove the puck? It drives me batty how bad we are with easy PK zone clears.

Josh '99
One thing that struck me this weekend was Yale's* knack for moving the puck out to the wing and then quickly back to the center while moving through the neutral zone. This seemed to be awfully effective at enabling them to carry the puck into the other team's zone in a position to quickly generate a good scoring chance. I don't think I've ever seen any team make quite that same pass quite so regularly at any level of hockey

Harvard in the 80's. It was their Signature Move, and no matter what we could never stop it.

It may be Yale's style but you need someone special, like an Andrew Miller (or a Lane MacDonald) to pull it off.

RichH
There are two things I think Cornell has always been poor at: neutral zone passing, and clearing the puck on the PK.

Well, the first is something that, yes, we've always seemed poor at, the second is something we were unfathomably bad at this year. I've never seen a Cornell team struggle so much to clear the zone on the PK. Get it; nail it with authority or flick it at the right hole. Doesn't seem that hard. Usually the problem is in getting it in the first place.

The only time I want to see something other than an immediate clear is when we've got a couple of talented forwards on the "power kill" who feed off each other and create shorthanded chances. That was not the case this year.

I'll take it a step further. We suck at clearing the zone. Period. We insist on sitting behind the net and waiting for absolutely clear ice to bring the puck out of the zone. That gives weaker teams a chance to set up their defenses in the neutral zone. OTOH, stronger teams come in with a good forecheck and make our guys do something other than a slow clear and we give up the puck.

IMO, We need to work on that even more than the power play.

See, this is what I like. Calmly picking apart the flaws. Nobody - even the fans who think Schafer should be here for a long time - think that the team is or has ever been perfect.

The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

dbilmes
The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

I heard that Quinnipiac canceled the normal bus service to New Haven on Saturday night, which is about the smartest thing they could have possibly done for obvious reasons.

dbilmes
The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

It's their proposal to Hockey East.

dbilmes
The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

At least they care about their team (unlike Yale students).

BearLover

dbilmes
The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

At least they care about their team (unlike Yale students).

If they won it would have been the same. Like Maryland hoops, everything is an excuse for dropping flaming couches out of high rise dorms.

BearLover

At least they care about their team (unlike Yale students).

They only care about their team when it's winning, and even then I've seen the student section of the rink empty out with Q ahead so the students can catch the busses to the New Haven clubs. In Game 1 of the Cornell-Q playoff series, the student section was virtually empty by the third period, despite the fact that Q was only trailing by one goal.

ugarte
See, this is what I like. Calmly picking apart the flaws. Nobody - even the fans who think Schafer should be here for a long time - think that the team is or has ever been perfect.

I don't know if I'd say "ever". I mean, there was that one year.

Josh '99

ugarte
See, this is what I like. Calmly picking apart the flaws. Nobody - even the fans who think Schafer should be here for a long time - think that the team is or has ever been perfect.

I don't know if I'd say "ever". I mean, there was that one year.

Nice.

BearLover

dbilmes
The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

At least they care about their team (unlike Yale students).

Well, I'll tell you what. The Yale section in Pittsburgh proved their worth to me last weekend. A couple things really stood out, and that were the school sections. I thought, from inside the building, the Q and Y fans were the loudest on Thursday. (A tip of the hat to the small group of UML fans right by the glass...when they tied their game up, despite being heavily outplayed, they were practically tackling each other in the seats with joy. So much so that I'm pretty sure I saw an arena cop go over and tell them to settle down). On Saturday, there were several groups of Y-A-L-E chest painters, and for some reason, several groups were allowed to cram together and stand in the aisle. They sang "Happy Birthday" to Jeff Malcolm after a great save in the 1st (which sent me to the CHN app to verify his birthdate). By the 10-minute mark in the 3rd, the atmosphere over in that corner got downright boisterous...not the "boola-boola, isn't this lovely" golf clap that would be the stereotypical Yalie response. They did a loud "Harvard Sucks" chant. And by far the most respect I'll give them: with about 5 minutes left, they spontaneously started singing, without band prompting, an a cappella version of their fight song during play. I loved that. I daydream that if we're ever in that situation, the alma mater would go up in vocal celebration as the clock wound down.

After getting back on Sunday, I had to make an IKEA run to New Haven. I decided to make a "day after" swing by Ingalls to see if anyone had put up a sign or something. I snapped a couple pictures at the homemade "Go Bulldogs" sign planted in front, and as I was about to leave, a van pulled up, and 6 students piled out festively to pose for a picture in front and ran back to the van. That reaction was kind of endearing, as small a gesture as it may be (or maybe it was part of a scavenger hunt or whatever).

Just to put closure on the season, I took the oft-referenced 9-mile drive to Hamden on my way home. In front of QU's arena, parked right in front of the ticket windows, was a campus security truck with its lights going. I like to think it was to keep any would-be rioters/vandals away, but maybe they're usually stationed there.

billhoward
Every time I drive past Pepperdine I think "How can you get through in four years with the beach across the street [faith in the Lord to draw you away from temptation?]?" and "That is the best housing most students will live in until they're 30 or trust-fund babies."

Version 1: I don't think they do.
Version 2: Among the Pepperdine grads I've met, they got through, but they didn't learn very much. (lim x -> 0 = 0).

dbilmes
The "classy" Quinnipiac fans didn't take the loss well.

Typical!

From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

From New Haven Register article.

About 15 fans, some as young as 5, were there to welcome the Bulldogs home.

A police escort of three motorcycles met the men’s bus at Bradley International Airport to take them home to Ingalls Rink.

I wonder if they counted the 3 policemen as fans.

Jim Hyla
From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

- In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

- Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002? I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye. And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.

- The record for 2013 is wrong. Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2. 5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

- In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

- Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002? I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye. And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.

- The record for 2013 is wrong. Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2. 5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional. Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1. Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye. They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four. Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

nyc94

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

- In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

- Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002? I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye. And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.

- The record for 2013 is wrong. Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2. 5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional. Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1. Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye. They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four. Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

Thanks, couldn't remember which pair was which in 2002.

nyc94

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

- In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

- Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002? I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye. And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.

- The record for 2013 is wrong. Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2. 5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional. Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1. Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye. They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four. Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

The ECAC should have won at least one more in 2000. There were about 6 TV replay views of a Colgate no goal in OT vs. Michigan that should have counted. In 2001 the overhead cameras became mandatory for NCAA play, I believe.

marty

nyc94

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

- In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

- Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002? I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye. And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.

- The record for 2013 is wrong. Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2. 5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional. Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1. Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye. They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four. Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

The ECAC should have won at least one more in 2000. There were about 6 TV replay views of a Colgate no goal in OT vs. Michigan that should have counted. In 2001 the overhead cameras became mandatory for NCAA play, I believe.

How are there so many nested responses before someone points out that Cornell isn't getting credit for the 2003 Final Four?

ugarte

marty

nyc94

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
From article in Troy-Record.

ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.

Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

- In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

- Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002? I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye. And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.

- The record for 2013 is wrong. Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2. 5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional. Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1. Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye. They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four. Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

The ECAC should have won at least one more in 2000. There were about 6 TV replay views of a Colgate no goal in OT vs. Michigan that should have counted. In 2001 the overhead cameras became mandatory for NCAA play, I believe.

How are there so many nested responses before someone points out that Cornell isn't getting credit for the 2003 Final Four?

Chris '03
I think I read somewhere in the CT media love-fest this week that families making $80k or less pay $0 for Yale and it's a sliding scale after that. Cornell doesn't have those resources and may never given the size of the student body. While it will match packages from HYP, it can't do anything for a kid who needs the financial help and can't get into HYP. It's not a great position to be in for Cornell's recruiting approach to have to be "we want you to come here. Now go apply to HYP and when you get in, we'll get you a free ride here."

HYP have an enormous financial aid advantage right now over Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth. Cornell has history, tradition, etc., which is great. But eventually money talks.

I believe this is my article you're referencing - and I didn't read through the rest of this thread to see if someone responded to this ... but, while the advantage was in Harvard-Yale-Princeton's favor for a few years ... the other Ivy League schools, about two years ago, got a rule passed that counter-balanced this, and was considered a very big deal.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

adamw

Chris '03
I think I read somewhere in the CT media love-fest this week that families making $80k or less pay $0 for Yale and it's a sliding scale after that. Cornell doesn't have those resources and may never given the size of the student body. While it will match packages from HYP, it can't do anything for a kid who needs the financial help and can't get into HYP. It's not a great position to be in for Cornell's recruiting approach to have to be "we want you to come here. Now go apply to HYP and when you get in, we'll get you a free ride here."

HYP have an enormous financial aid advantage right now over Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth. Cornell has history, tradition, etc., which is great. But eventually money talks.

I believe this is my article you're referencing - and I didn't read through the rest of this thread to see if someone responded to this ... but, while the advantage was in Harvard-Yale-Princeton's favor for a few years ... the other Ivy League schools, about two years ago, got a rule passed that counter-balanced this, and was considered a very big deal.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

As someone else pointed out, that only means that we can match people who can get into H/Y/P, which diminishes the advantage we get from the lower AI - and also puts us in a weird position of encouraging our recruits to check out H/Y/P in order to get a matchable offer.

ugarte

adamw
In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

As someone else pointed out, that only means that we can match people who can get into H/Y/P, which diminishes the advantage we get from the lower AI - and also puts us in a weird position of encouraging our recruits to check out H/Y/P in order to get a matchable offer.

What I can tell you for sure is that the coaches at Cornell-Brown-Dartmouth were very pumped about finally getting back on equal footing with H-Y-P. So there must be a benefit.

adamw

ugarte

adamw
In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

As someone else pointed out, that only means that we can match people who can get into H/Y/P, which diminishes the advantage we get from the lower AI - and also puts us in a weird position of encouraging our recruits to check out H/Y/P in order to get a matchable offer.

What I can tell you for sure is that the coaches at Cornell-Brown-Dartmouth were very pumped about finally getting back on equal footing with H-Y-P. So there must be a benefit.

Adam, I don't think ugarte meant there was no benefit, but that the benefit came with strings attached, such as having recruits accepted at rivals before they can claim the benefit. (I also fixed your "incorrect quotes".)