11/9 Union

Robb
I know I should let this die (or dieeeeeeeeeeeee, depending whether you're a whippersnapper), but put me in the camp of people who think a strong ECAC is good for Cornell.

Since 2000, the WCHA has won 7 of the 14 titles. Only ONE of those was won by the WCHA regular season champ (Denver 2005). The other six were won by teams who came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (twice each). Between 1985 and 199 (the other years of essentially the same WCHA), they only won 4 out of 15 tournaments, and all 4 of those teams won the McNaughton (reg season) and the WCHA tournament. The conference got stronger after 2000, resulting in more national titles for the conference, but fewer for the "top" team in the conference. Can it really be a coincidence that the ECAC's recent title was won by our 3rd place team in a year when the rest of the conference did not lose a postseason game outside of the conference? I don't believe that for a second.

In the end, I think it comes down to a value judgement: would you take a reduced chance at winning a Cleary Bedpan and a Whitelaw Trophy for an increased chance at doing better in the NCAAs in general and maybe even winning the darn thing? It really is a tough call, but for me, I'd rather be known as a perennial Frozen Four team than a team who perennially runs away with a weak league and then wins an NCAA game every so often.

Jordan 04
What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?

Jordan 04
This whole argument is a bit silly, as it would appear we don't really have a choice anymore. Things have changed, at least in the short- to medium- term, and Cornell isn't going to run roughshod over the league each year. We're going to have to compete with a number of very teams in order to get to, and succeed in, the NCAA's.

That said, it seems crazy to me to not prefer a team that barrels through league play (regular season and tournament). What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's? The winning at least 1 game each time they were in the NCAAs? The trip to the Frozen Four? The multiple one-goal (often OT) losses to national powerhouses?

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it. That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Robb

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team. If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it. That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance. Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance. So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other. I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

KGR11

Robb

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team. If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it. That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance. Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance. So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other. I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009. Not sure if there are any other instances.

RichH

KGR11

Robb

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team. If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it. That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance. Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance. So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other. I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009. Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

KeithK

RichH

KGR11

Robb

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team. If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it. That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance. Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance. So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other. I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009. Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

Yes, but as I recall we were pretty infuriated by that seeding at the time. By the numbers Cornell and Miami should have been the 4-5 game that year but were switched to 3-6 for other reasons (can't remember if it was better second round matchup or something else). Cornell had a higher total PWR than Miami, which to date had been the usual way to set seeds. Instead they gave Miami the higher seed because they won the head to head comparison, largely on the strength of their win at Lynah the previous November. Long story short, that's not a really good counter example.

BearLover

RichH
Just get in, and it's "why not us?" Yale did exactly that.

Yet another reason why I'd rather be dominating the ECAC every year

RichH
Now you have teams like BSU, RIT, Miami, and UVM making the Frozen Four on a regular basis. Just get in, and it's "why not us?" Yale did exactly that.