Frozen Four

Good news, everyone. XM is broadcasting the F4 games on channel 91. Commuters of the world (or at least the Eastern timezone) rejoice.

Thank you!! I'll be driving my boy to Boston for the Shamrock tourney, I'll catch the first game on XM.

Trotsky
Good news, everyone. XM is broadcasting the F4 games on channel 91. Commuters of the world (or at least the Eastern timezone) rejoice.

I wonder which announcers they'll be "channelling".

Even better, ESPN is streaming the Union game without commentary or commercials. It's a dream come true.

Trotsky
Even better, ESPN is streaming the Union game without commentary or commercials. It's a dream come true.

Entertaining game but a lot of unsportsman like behavior. Both teams seem to be skating with the puck across the blue line. I though the sporting thing to do was to flip the puck into the corner to give the other team a fair chance at it.

Towerroad

Trotsky
Even better, ESPN is streaming the Union game without commentary or commercials. It's a dream come true.

Entertaining game but a lot of unsportsman like behavior. Both teams seem to be skating with the puck across the blue line. I though the sporting thing to do was to flip the puck into the corner to give the other team a fair chance at it.

.

BC's streak of winning Championships in even years is in jeopardy. I guess Union really can score. 4-2 Union ~ 7 min left.

Wild 3rd period as Union wins 5-4. I like their chances tomorrow against either opponent

scoop85
Wild 3rd period as Union wins 5-4. I like their chances tomorrow against either opponent

I am equally confident that Union will not lose tomorrow.

Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to find, it's in pretty much every thread mentioning the tourney the last few years.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to follow, sorry, can't help you.

Trotsky

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to find, it's in pretty much every thread mentioning the tourney the last few years.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to follow, sorry, can't help you.

You're right, I apologize. I should have used the word "convoluted" in my statement and not obscure.

I was more interested in how the spinners would make Union winning a NCAA championship into a "win" for CU.

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

I nominate this argument for Worst Topic.

Anyone able to come up with a challenger?

Dafatone

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

I nominate this argument for Worst Topic.

Anyone able to come up with a challenger?

On the contrary, I think this is an important and highly-relevant topic. I just think their arguments are wrong.

Dafatone

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

I nominate this argument for Worst Topic.

Anyone able to come up with a challenger?

Schafer Must Go is worse, because it's incoherent and autobiographical projection. It's Gun Control.

Root for the ECAC to Lose at least features logical arguments, but they diverge from basic premises so quickly that everything after the first 30 seconds is redundant. It's Abortion.

Maybe there should be a Tiresome Soap Box forum for these arguments. Those of us who want to torment one another can do so without boring the rest of the audience.

Kids Today and its red headed stepchild Cheering: You're Doin It Wrong get dishonorable mention.

Trotsky
Root for the ECAC to Lose

I LOLed. I think that distillation pretty much sums it up.

Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Trotsky
Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Can someone explain how this helps Cornell?

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
Root for the ECAC to Lose

I LOLed. I think that distillation pretty much sums it up.

I'm rooting for an ice malfunction that swallows up both Union and Minnesota. Ugh. In my warped mind, North Dakota was the most palatable team to root for. Oh well.

MattS

Trotsky

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to find, it's in pretty much every thread mentioning the tourney the last few years.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to follow, sorry, can't help you.

You're right, I apologize. I should have used the word "convoluted" in my statement and not obscure.

I was more interested in how the spinners would make Union winning a NCAA championship into a "win" for CU.

It's not a win for CU. It's a massive fucking loss. People on here can be as stubborn as they wish, but the reality is that Cornell lost recruits this year to ECAC programs they never would have in the past, and would have made the NCAA's if Union were as good as it was in 2009.

BearLover

MattS

Trotsky

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to find, it's in pretty much every thread mentioning the tourney the last few years.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to follow, sorry, can't help you.

You're right, I apologize. I should have used the word "convoluted" in my statement and not obscure.

I was more interested in how the spinners would make Union winning a NCAA championship into a "win" for CU.

I only see things through a zero-sum prism.

YEAH, WE KNOW.

ugarte

BearLover

MattS

Trotsky

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to find, it's in pretty much every thread mentioning the tourney the last few years.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to follow, sorry, can't help you.

You're right, I apologize. I should have used the word "convoluted" in my statement and not obscure.

I was more interested in how the spinners would make Union winning a NCAA championship into a "win" for CU.

I only see things through a zero-sum prism.

YEAH, WE KNOW.

No. There are obvious benefits from Union winning. These benefits are vastly outweighed by the negatives.

Dafatone

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

I nominate this argument for Worst Topic.

Anyone able to come up with a challenger?

Is there an "I love Harvard" thread anywhere?

Then, no.

BearLover
No. There are obvious benefits from Union winning. These benefits are vastly outweighed by the negatives.

I'll give it one more shot.

At least 3 of the top 4 teams in the Frozen Four will always be Someones Other Than (SOTs) us. The question is: are we better served by having SOTs come from the ECAC (ESOTs)?

If I understand the arguments against, they are:

Zero Sum: ESOTs disproportionately draw top prospects from Cornell because ECAC teams more closely match Cornell's recruiting profile

Ya Gotta Be In It To Win It: ESOTs imply a lower probability of Cornell getting the AQ, thus lowering our chances of making the tourney at all

The rebuttals are:

Contra Zero Sum: ESOTs raise the credibility of the league, so while Cornell attracts a lower percentage of the ECAC's quality recruits they draw from a larger pool of national recruits (as prospects who were formerly warned off the ECAC are no longer), hence they still get a higher number of quality prospects overall

Contra YGBIITWI: ESOTs raise Cornell's RPICH, so while Cornell gets fewer AQs, they get more and better At Large bids and hence more and better chances to win it all


Absent any real analysis of these assumptions and arguments, it just comes down to personal opinion. One statistic I will cite is despite being the dominant program in the ECAC from 1996 through 2010, we never won a national title. The new reality of a multipolar but stronger ECAC that dates from 2011 is just 4 years old. If we fail to win a title for the next 11 years, the results will then be... equal.

Here's a bonus argument. There seems to be a high overlap of people holding Root for the ECAC To Lose and people who are, shall we say, underwhelmed by The System. Well, when Cornell was dominant in the conference there was no incentive for Schafer to change what was working. The success of Yale's firewagon hockey and Union's balance of good offense with good defense with no overt preference for either is a daily reminder that there are other ways to win that may be better tailored to the evolution of the game -- ways that are paying off in the most tangible reward possible. Whether you love Schafer but wish he would change, or you hate Schafer and wish Andy would see the light, that new reality can only help your case.

marty

Trotsky
Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Can someone explain how this helps Cornell?

We're the good guys. I'm not sure who the bad guys are, but anyone connected to Ralph Englestad is one of them. So on a sort of cosmic level, it's a victory for our side?

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover

MattS

Trotsky

MattS
Somebody want to explain to me how, if Union wins, it will help Cornell? I'm sure there is some obscure reasoning.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to find, it's in pretty much every thread mentioning the tourney the last few years.

If by obscure you mean it's been hard for you to follow, sorry, can't help you.

You're right, I apologize. I should have used the word "convoluted" in my statement and not obscure.

I was more interested in how the spinners would make Union winning a NCAA championship into a "win" for CU.

I only see things through a zero-sum prism.

YEAH, WE KNOW.

No. There are obvious benefits from Union winning. These benefits are vastly outweighed by the negatives.

Here's my take: For years the final four was dominated by the WCHA and Hockey East, and throw in Michigan. While the pool of teams was small, it wasn't limited to just one or two teams. Sometimes it was North Dakota, or Minny, or Denver, or Michigan, or BC, or BU, or Maine, or UNH, etc. The fact that in a particular year North Dakota would win the title didn't mean that other top programs couldn't recruit or compete against them.

I think recruits who can play at a top level don't base their decision on who happened to win the title that particular year. They just want to go to a program that competes at the highest level, and if your conference has teams that consistently make it to the highest level, the recruits who would consider your school would find that attractive. Of course the programs that win the big prize will have a bit of a leg up, but so long as you have coaches who can recruit effectively, I think the positives of having championship caliber teams in your conference outweigh the negatives. If given our history, fan support (whether that's waning is a separate conversation), and our ability to consistently compete, we can't recruit enough talented guys to have a reasonable shot year-to-year, then we have to take a hard look at either the coaches, admissions, or both.

Trotsky

BearLover
No. There are obvious benefits from Union winning. These benefits are vastly outweighed by the negatives.

I'll give it one more shot.

At least 3 of the top 4 teams in the Frozen Four will always be Someones Other Than (SOTs) us. The question is: are we better served by having SOTs come from the ECAC (ESOTs)?

If I understand the arguments against, they are:

Zero Sum: ESOTs disproportionately draw top prospects from Cornell because ECAC teams more closely match Cornell's recruiting profile

Ya Gotta Be In It To Win It: ESOTs imply a lower probability of Cornell getting the AQ, thus lowering our chances of making the tourney at all

The rebuttals are:

Contra Zero Sum: ESOTs raise the credibility of the league, so while Cornell attracts a lower percentage of the ECAC's quality recruits they draw from a larger pool of national recruits (as prospects who were formerly warned off the ECAC are no longer), hence they still get a higher number of quality prospects overall

Contra YGBIITWI: ESOTs raise Cornell's RPICH, so while Cornell gets fewer AQs, they get more and better At Large bids and hence more and better chances to win it all


Absent any real analysis of these assumptions and arguments, it just comes down to personal opinion. One statistic I will cite is despite being the dominant program in the ECAC from 1996 through 2010, we never won a national title. The new reality of a multipolar but stronger ECAC that dates from 2011 is just 4 years old. If we fail to win a title for the next 11 years, the results will then be... equal.

Here's a bonus argument. There seems to be a high overlap of people holding Root for the ECAC To Lose and people who are, shall we say, underwhelmed by The System. Well, when Cornell was dominant in the conference there was no incentive for Schafer to change what was working. The success of Yale's firewagon hockey and Union's balance of good offense with good defense with no overt preference for either is a daily reminder that there are other ways to win that may be better tailored to the evolution of the game -- ways that are paying off in the most tangible reward possible. Whether you love Schafer but wish he would change, or you hate Schafer and wish Andy would see the light, that new reality can only help your case.

This is the real argument. We can all hope Schafer learns, from these two years, that he needs to revamp his offense.

marty

Trotsky
Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Can someone explain how this helps Cornell?

ECAC is a wimpy league in the eyes of many. Not so much with 2013 finalists Yale and Q, and now Union in 2014. Union will pull some players away from Cornell but Mike Schafer will also find a larger pool of players who'll consider the ECAC schools including Cornell. Not everyone wants to attend a small New York State school in the snowbelt when they can attend a large NYS school in the snowbelt with 4000 not 2000 rabid fans, more academic majors, a unique football tradition, and spring lacrosse to watch.

[edit add:] For those who want to see more of a skating not body checking Cornell team, Union's win provides ammunition.

billhoward

marty

Trotsky
Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Can someone explain how this helps Cornell?

ECAC is a wimpy league in the eyes of many. Not so much with 2013 finalists Yale and Q, and now Union i 2014. Union will pull some players away from Cornell but Mike Schafer will also find a larger pool of players who'll consider the ECAC schools including Cornell. Not everyone wants to attend a small New York State school in the snowbelt when they can attend a large NYS school in the snowbelt with 4000 not 2000 rabid fans, more academic majors, a unique football tradition, and spring lacrosse to watch.

Don't forget the best ice cream in the ivy league.

billhoward

marty

Trotsky
Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Can someone explain how this helps Cornell?

ECAC is a wimpy league in the eyes of many. Not so much with 2013 finalists Yale and Q, and now Union i 2014. Union will pull some players away from Cornell but Mike Schafer will also find a larger pool of players who'll consider the ECAC schools including Cornell. Not everyone wants to attend a small New York State school in the snowbelt when they can attend a large NYS school in the snowbelt with 4000 not 2000 rabid fans, more academic majors, a unique football tradition, and spring lacrosse to watch.

+1

Not to mention a basketball tradition that is following in football's footsteps, displaced by about 50 years.

billhoward

marty

Trotsky
Two very exciting final minutes tonight. Minny scores shorthanded with .6 seconds left to beat NoDak 2-1.

Can someone explain how this helps Cornell?

ECAC is a wimpy league in the eyes of many. Not so much with 2013 finalists Yale and Q, and now Union i 2014. Union will pull some players away from Cornell but Mike Schafer will also find a larger pool of players who'll consider the ECAC schools including Cornell. Not everyone wants to attend a small New York State school in the snowbelt when they can attend a large NYS school in the snowbelt with 4000 not 2000 rabid fans, more academic majors, a unique football tradition, and spring lacrosse to watch.

I have to apologize for that post as it was made from my tablet. I didn't add the emoticon appropriate to my gratuitous shot at all the anti-ECAC whiners.

Here you go:

Trotsky

Here's a bonus argument. There seems to be a high overlap of people holding Root for the ECAC To Lose and people who are, shall we say, underwhelmed by The System. Well, when Cornell was dominant in the conference there was no incentive for Schafer to change what was working. The success of Yale's firewagon hockey and Union's balance of good offense with good defense with no overt preference for either is a daily reminder that there are other ways to win that may be better tailored to the evolution of the game -- ways that are paying off in the most tangible reward possible. Whether you love Schafer but wish he would change, or you hate Schafer and wish Andy would see the light, that new reality can only help your case.

This may be the most intelligent thing I have read on this site in a long time. "Adapt or die"

Union doesn't worry me too much recruiting wise because their campus is hideous, Schenectady is shittier than New Haven, and many high schools have nicer rinks than them (and academically they are definitely improving, but not at Cornell's level, although this can be a double-edged sword). Because of Lynah, the history, and our location, we'll definitely always do pretty well recruiting wise. I'm more interested in seeing whether success of other ECAC schools will force Schafer to change up his system. I know he's been doing this for a long time, but part of being a coach is adapting with the times, and not being predictable. What's interesting is that Union doesn't have many NHL prospects on its team, and I'm pretty sure when they made the Frozen Four two years ago, not single player was a draft pick (although Grosenick ended up leaving early).

The first ten minutes of the final have been nuts. There have been 7 or 8 great chances already. The goaltending is atrocious. If they don't calm down it's going to wind up around 7-6.

Might be 7-6 by the end of the second period. Union up 4-2 with 3 minutes left in the first. Wow.

I've watched Union play and I think their goalie is vastly overrated. He's obviously better than the average college goalie, but he has such a low GAA because Union controls the puck and the play of the game probably better than any team in the country. If Minnesota can get the same amount of scoring chances they'll have a great chance of coming back

The way Gostisbehere is playing tonight he isn't leaving Philly without a contract. Good.

52 shots over the first 30 minutes. Yikes.

Trotsky
The way Gostisbehere is playing tonight he isn't leaving Philly without a contract. Good.

Emphatically agreed. That's NHL-ready. Would be wonderful if Ciampini or Novak were to depart as well.

Scersk '97

Trotsky
The way Gostisbehere is playing tonight he isn't leaving Philly without a contract. Good.

Emphatically agreed. That's NHL-ready. Would be wonderful if Ciampini or Novak were to depart as well.

Urine test first. He is otherworldly.

Either I'm getting more tolerant or Melrose hasn't been awful tonight.

Huge goal for Union, now 5-3.

Trotsky
Huge goal for Union, now 5-3.

And on a truly pretty deflection.

Ghost is now +5.

Beeeej

Trotsky
Huge goal for Union, now 5-3.

And on a truly pretty deflection.

Yep. That's the goal Anne always beats me on in rod hockey.

Minnesota sure is taking a lot of stupid penalties. Surprisingly that Union has yet to capitalize on the PP.

Speaking of overrated goalies...

Minnesota's Pride on the Links!

(Union, congrats.)

Congrats, Union College! Representing ECAC Hockey to the fullest! Big Red have a lot of work to do

The small consolation in having the ECAC win back-to-back championship is that both years they knocked out Minnesota enroute to the hardware. Union definitely was sacraficing the body... a lot of block shots and made a lot of key plays. As bittersweet as it is, they definitely earned it.

Post game interviews.... Rare to hear kudos being given to the team sports psychologist in the immediate wake of a championship

Congrats to Union. Very mixed feelings.

Larry72
Congrats to Union. Very mixed feelings.

No mixed feelings. Unless we think it was our championship to win. Good for the ECAC, good for NYS hockey, good for small schools messing up the NCAA ideal that D1 needs to be only huge schools, good for teams that skate the puck not thump the body.

Larry72
Congrats to Union. Very mixed feelings.

No mixed feelings here at all. Great to see ECAC take down BC and the Goofers two years running.

Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

Al DeFlorio

Larry72
Congrats to Union. Very mixed feelings.

No mixed feelings here at all. Great to see ECAC take down BC and the Goofers two years running.

Union was a pleasure to watch. They do about everything as well as a college team can do. 1 NHL draft pick to 14 for Minny, but it was no contest who the better team was tonight.

Scersk '97
Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy. I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A. The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check. Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003. I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

Trotsky
Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I won't be so lucky.

One of the most impressive team performances I have ever seen in any sport. Union looked like the Soviet team from the 1970s and 80s with how well they played with each other. Regardless of what this means for Cornell and the ECAC, let's just take a moment to congratulate Union on a truly impressive run

Trotsky
I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

They wrote the answers on both shirt cuffs.

billhoward

Trotsky
I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

They wrote the answers on both shirt cuffs.

Why in the world would that have to write the answers on their shirt cuffs? It is not like that was going to impact their grade.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy. I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A. The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check. Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003. I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have.

Trotsky
I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Union certainly reminded me of those Harvard teams. ('97, but season tickets since 1987–88.) Every pass had purpose and velocity. There was a trailer, sometimes two, after every shot to scoop up rebounds. When necessary, they scored dirty goals.

I'm sure our team was watching; I hope they take those particular lessons to heart.

I'm sure all the associated naysayers on here will scoff, and perhaps it's just my Carnelian-tinted specs, but I don't see an overwhelming talent differential between us and Union. I've seen Ryan do a lot of things that Gostisbehere does; Bardreau can do the things Ciampini does. I think Hilbrich is poised for an enormous breakout year, and, paired with proper linemates, may start to dominate games offensively in ways that we haven't seen in a while and in a way that Union doesn't. MacDonald = Bodie... you can go on.

What Union had was what makes every moving part mesh and drive toward one common goal. It's what was missing from the 2013 Cornell team; it's what the 2014 team started to relearn. It's what drives guys to take one strong stride to make sure there's a trailer on every chance, to block every shot possible, to keep mental focus, to sacrifice the body in order to sweep up the garbage in front of the net. Put simply: teamwork.

If one of our crop of goalies turns out, I expect, even without Ferlin, it's going to be a pretty great ride next year.

Scersk '97

Trotsky
I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Union certainly reminded me of those Harvard teams. ('97, but season tickets since 1987–88.) Every pass had purpose and velocity. There was a trailer, sometimes two, after every shot to scoop up rebounds. When necessary, they scored dirty goals.

I'm sure our team was watching; I hope they take those particular lessons to heart.

I'm sure all the associated naysayers on here will scoff, and perhaps it's just my Carnelian-tinted specs, but I don't see an overwhelming talent differential between us and Union. I've seen Ryan do a lot of things that Gostisbehere does; Bardreau can do the things Ciampini does. I think Hilbrich is poised for an enormous breakout year, and, paired with proper linemates, may start to dominate games offensively in ways that we haven't seen in a while and in a way that Union doesn't. MacDonald = Bodie... you can go on.

What Union had was what makes every moving part mesh and drive toward one common goal. It's what was missing from the 2013 Cornell team; it's what the 2014 team started to relearn. It's what drives guys to take one strong stride to make sure there's a trailer on every chance, to block every shot possible, to keep mental focus, to sacrifice the body in order to sweep up the garbage in front of the net. Put simply: teamwork.

If one of our crop of goalies turns out, I expect, even without Ferlin, it's going to be a pretty great ride next year.

That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy. I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A. The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check. Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003. I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have.

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

Towerroad
That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

First off, we lost three games, nothing more; we were hardly "soundly thrashed" in all three—only game one, but largely due to circumstances covered below. Both games two and three, which we were definitely "in" (as much as Minnesota ever was after they lost the lead), were two-goal losses with empty netters tacked on. So, get your facts straight. And collective scores only matter in two-game total goals series, which no one does anymore because of the obvious stupidity, so citing them is meaningless.

One flippant answer is that we ought to remain healthy: we were missing Bardreau for game one, and Mowrey for games two and three. (Imagine Union without Vecchione or Novak.) Another flippant answer is that we ought to work on finding consistent goaltending: Iles let in a woefully easy one in the first at Lake Placid. Yes, easy to blame the goalie, but the shot was super soft. We never had a lead in any of those games, but we were playing like we might find one at Placid until that softy went in.

Going deeper, I think one of the glaring holes in our game right now is at the dot, save for Bardreau. Kubiak, Knisley, and Freschi have to step it up next year, starting in the weight room this summer. (Maybe Joe can be induced to come and work a small clinic with them.) Union was a great puck possession team, and that weakness up the middle is what led to the lopsided shot totals in the first game. Win faceoffs; win control. We can harp on the offense all we want, but I think team defense is still an issue. In both games one and three, Union had 31 shots. For a few years now, the opposing shots per game has been creeping up. I'd like to see it back down under 25. Puck possession has a lot to do with that as well, since the other team can't be shooting when you're cycling in their end. And, as afraid as I am to say it because I don't want this to turn into a Schafer bashing thread, the players need to take control of the power play. We were 0 for 6 across those three games, with stretches of 5 on 3 in games two and three. Whatever the coaches want them to do isn't working all the time, if at all, so they need to inject some creativity. (It's the facet of our play that depends the most on player creativity. Always has.) I remember the 2003 team's first unit doing things mid-game that could not have been coached, since they were doing it in the middle of a given power play. So, I guess Knisley needs to find his inner Vesce, and Kubiak needs to get better at sweeping up the garbage. (I see him as basically Paolini with more speed and yet to mature skills.) With Ferlin gone, neither power play is likely to remain the same, so maybe a shake-up will be to their benefit.

So, that's my start: (1) develop the young centers and work on faceoffs in general, so that we might improve at the dot; (2) focus on lowering shots against; and (3) inject some creativity into the power play.

Scersk '97

Towerroad
That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

First off, we lost three games, nothing more; we were hardly "soundly thrashed" in all three—only game one, but largely due to circumstances covered below. Both games two and three, which we were definitely "in" (as much as Minnesota ever was after they lost the lead), were two-goal losses with empty netters tacked on. So, get your facts straight. And collective scores only matter in two-game total goals series, which no one does anymore because of the obvious stupidity, so citing them is meaningless.

One flippant answer is that we ought to remain healthy: we were missing Bardreau for game one, and Mowrey for games two and three. (Imagine Union without Vecchione or Novak.) Another flippant answer is that we ought to work on finding consistent goaltending: Iles let in a woefully easy one in the first at Lake Placid. Yes, easy to blame the goalie, but the shot was super soft. We never had a lead in any of those games, but we were playing like we might find one at Placid until that softy went in.

Going deeper, I think one of the glaring holes in our game right now is at the dot, save for Bardreau. Kubiak, Knisley, and Freschi have to step it up next year, starting in the weight room this summer. (Maybe Joe can be induced to come and work a small clinic with them.) Union was a great puck possession team, and that weakness up the middle is what led to the lopsided shot totals in the first game. Win faceoffs; win control. We can harp on the offense all we want, but I think team defense is still an issue. In both games one and three, Union had 31 shots. For a few years now, the opposing shots per game has been creeping up. I'd like to see it back down under 25. Puck possession has a lot to do with that as well, since the other team can't be shooting when you're cycling in their end. And, as afraid as I am to say it because I don't want this to turn into a Schafer bashing thread, the players need to take control of the power play. We were 0 for 6 across those three games, with stretches of 5 on 3 in games two and three. Whatever the coaches want them to do isn't working all the time, if at all, so they need to inject some creativity. (It's the facet of our play that depends the most on player creativity. Always has.) I remember the 2003 team's first unit doing things mid-game that could not have been coached, since they were doing it in the middle of a given power play. So, I guess Knisley needs to find his inner Vesce, and Kubiak needs to get better at sweeping up the garbage. (I see him as basically Paolini with more speed and yet to mature skills.) With Ferlin gone, neither power play is likely to remain the same, so maybe a shake-up will be to their benefit.

So, that's my start: (1) develop the young centers and work on faceoffs in general, so that we might improve at the dot; (2) focus on lowering shots against; and (3) inject some creativity into the power play.

Sorry, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. 12-3 after 180 min of hockey or even 10-3 if you substract the ENG's is my definition of a whipping.

They whipped us, but I don't think that rebuts the statement that the huge difference wasn't talent but teamwork.

The other big difference is maturity: those guys are about 45.

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy. I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A. The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check. Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003. I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have.

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

I thought about that same comparison (Dan Lodboa) during Thursday's game. Saturday night the only valid comparison was Bobby Orr.

Towerroad
Sorry, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. 12-3 after 180 min of hockey or even 10-3 if you substract the ENG's is my definition of a whipping.

Yep, Union really crushed the total goals series this year. Oh, wait, that's right: it still doesn't matter.

Sure, if all three games were "crushings" (i.e., losses in which we lost by a number of goals, were outshot by a wide margin, and were generally dominated) like the first, I'd be worried. But games two and three were hardly "crushings" or "whippings" or whatever you want to call them. I was there in Lake Placid—we weren't being "dominated." Take a look at the box scores if you doubt me. In no way did Union "own" us this year the way Yale did in 2011, and Union this year went on to win the national championship handily. Yeah, losing to the top team sucks, but it's expected. And even though we lost, I came out of that game in Placid pretty bullish on the team. They fought, they worked, and they also showed some talent. Sue me for my optimism, but I see progression from a team that sucked in 2013 to a team that was a contender in 2014. I think that progression will continue, regardless of Ferlin's whereabouts.

So, you can either look at those three losses as "crushings," or as being "handled" by a dominant, eventual national champion. I say potato, you say po-tah-to. I call it optimism tempered with a rational look at the facts; you call it denial, for whatever reason you can concoct.

So, let's both put up or shut up:

Do you think we'll make Placid next year? I'm almost certain that we will.
Do you think we'll make the NCAAs next year? I'm almost certain that we will.

What about you?

We can then revisit this post next year and point fingers. If I'm wrong, you can have the joy of being right about something that sucks. Good for you! You win the Schadenfreudolympiade! But if I'm right?... Ooooh! Won't that be fun? Perhaps you'll confront all kinds of existential questions: "Is fun possible? WHO AM I!!!"

Trotsky
The other big difference is maturity: those guys are about 45.

What did Jack Parker say in 2003? Something about men and boys?

That being said, Trotz—and I don't know why I have to keep repeating this—they did not "whip" us in games two and three. The game in Placid didn't feel like the championship game against Yale (a 6–0 whipping) in 2011; rather, it felt like Clarkson (a super dominant team with Todd White) at Lynah in 1997. Against Union this year and against Clarkson then, we were in the game but always a step or so behind. Not a huge step, but enough.

Scersk '97

Towerroad
Sorry, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. 12-3 after 180 min of hockey or even 10-3 if you substract the ENG's is my definition of a whipping.

Yep, Union really crushed the total goals series this year. Oh, wait, that's right: it still doesn't matter.

Sure, if all three games were "crushings" (i.e., losses in which we lost by a number of goals, were outshot by a wide margin, and were generally dominated) like the first, I'd be worried. But games two and three were hardly "crushings" or "whippings" or whatever you want to call them. I was there in Lake Placid—we weren't being "dominated." Take a look at the box scores if you doubt me. In no way did Union "own" us this year the way Yale did in 2011, and Union this year went on to win the national championship handily. Yeah, losing to the top team sucks, but it's expected. And even though we lost, I came out of that game in Placid pretty bullish on the team. They fought, they worked, and they also showed some talent. Sue me for my optimism, but I see progression from a team that sucked in 2013 to a team that was a contender in 2014. I think that progression will continue, regardless of Ferlin's whereabouts.

So, you can either look at those three losses as "crushings," or as being "handled" by a dominant, eventual national champion. I say potato, you say po-tah-to. I call it optimism tempered with a rational look at the facts; you call it denial, for whatever reason you can concoct.

So, let's both put up or shut up:

Do you think we'll make Placid next year? I'm almost certain that we will.
Do you think we'll make the NCAAs next year? I'm almost certain that we will.

What about you?

We can then revisit this post next year and point fingers. If I'm wrong, you can have the joy of being right about something that sucks. Good for you! You win the Schadenfreudolympiade! But if I'm right?... Ooooh! Won't that be fun? Perhaps you'll confront all kinds of existential questions: "Is fun possible? WHO AM I!!!"

In the fall I will post the "What is your definition of a successful season" topic. Right now sitting in my pool of ignorance I would say that I expect a successful season would be a first round bye in the ECAC's. Lets agree to wait until the fall to put a real stake in the ground.

jkahn

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy. I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A. The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check. Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003. I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have.

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

I thought about that same comparison (Dan Lodboa) during Thursday's game. Saturday night the only valid comparison was Bobby Orr.

I don't know, a natural hat trick in the third period of the championship game, including a 2 men down shortie, is pretty impressive, especially for a defenseman.

Scersk '97

Trotsky
The other big difference is maturity: those guys are about 45.

What did Jack Parker say in 2003? Something about men and boys?

That being said, Trotz—and I don't know why I have to keep repeating this—they did not "whip" us in games two and three. The game in Placid didn't feel like the championship game against Yale (a 6–0 whipping) in 2011; rather, it felt like Clarkson (a super dominant team with Todd White) at Lynah in 1997. Against Union this year and against Clarkson then, we were in the game but always a step or so behind. Not a huge step, but enough.

I stopped writing my post when I saw this. We can explain away losing to Union by a couple and in a 5-2 game a lot of people guess there's an ENG. We cut the margin to 3-2 in the second and that margin held for, ah, 18 seconds. There is no way you can explain away a 6-0 butt kicking. Yale-Cornell was Little Big Horn all over again.

Dan Lodboa came to mind while I was watching last night. That was the last time I recall a defenseman taking control of an NCAA championship game. Cornell was NOT going to lose that night in 1970 against Clarkson. A lot like Union wasn't going to lose against Minnesota last night. Both games were total team efforts, but both featured a defenseman who was playing on a different planet. I may have mixed feelings, but Shane Gostisbehere was awesome Saturday night. As was Dan Lodboa in 1970.

Towerroad
In the fall I will post the "What is your definition of a successful season" topic. Right now sitting in my pool of ignorance I would say that I expect a successful season would be a first round bye in the ECAC's. Lets agree to wait until the fall to put a real stake in the ground.

Last fall we were Charlie Brown lowballing our chances, fearful that if we hoped for too much, Lucy would pull the football away again. What's wrong with hoping for a 2-3 finish and avoiding Union until Saturday night in Lake Placid?

It hurts a lot more to be North Dakota. If ever the Fighting ... what, North Dakotans ... come back to Ithaca, print up a bath of 0.6 shirts. That was a choke for the ages. If it wasn't a choke, fans think it was. Correction, know it was. You don't allow SHGs.

+1. And Larry, were you one of the 2,000 who got into that dinky little Princeton size arena?

Yep -- working part-time for the IJ as a photographer although few of my finals pictures made the paper. It's surprisingly by today's standards, but that game wasn't considered all that big a deal then.

The next time I came back to Lake Placid was when the "new" Olympic Arena was built in the late 1970s. Spent a few winters in LP doing pre-Olympic photography and then through the 1980 Winter Olympics. Took my boys through the 1932 Arena the "first time" the ECACs were held there as well as the Olympic Arena.

The Olympic Arena hasn't changed all that much since 1980. Neither has Lake Placid.

Honest question here. I didn't get to watch the game, but 7-4 doesn't sound like a game in which either team played a tight, efficient, all-around game worthy of the ages; it sounds like my beer league. So what gives?

Larry72
The Olympic Arena hasn't changed all that much since 1980. Neither has Lake Placid.

This is good and bad. Adirondack Life ran a surprisingly blunt story a decade ago on what ails the Adirondacks and a top criticism was all the lodging that was caught in a sixties time warp, one story motels with aluminum folding chairs out front. This outraged the Adirondacks hospitality because it was so true. Downtown LP is better that past 5 years but if you want an active social life, Vermont in winter is better except if you can find a nice place to stay right in town.

My wife's great grandsomething-mother is quaintly described as the first white child born in Lake Placid. We still have the tickets from the USA-Russia game in our archives and an autographed jersey from Jim Craig. No, not in a BU jersey. Too bad we weren't enough of an item then for me to be invited to the game.

I think the ECACs will be okay for its current stay in LP. And if / when it returns to Albany, we'll appreciate Albany's closeness. Cornell makes it to LP, we'll go for the weekend. To Albany, we'll do two day trips from NJ.

ftyuv
Honest question here. I didn't get to watch the game, but 7-4 doesn't sound like a game in which either team played a tight, efficient, all-around game worthy of the ages; it sounds like my beer league. So what gives?

What gives? Incredible energy and some amazing shots deflected at just the right time, or from the same impossible side angle that beat David LeNeveau in Cornell's foray into Buffalo. I think if you play the game with that much intensity, the result is more goals, not more defense and fewer goals. Defenseman Shayne Gostisbehere played a game for the ages on par with Bobby Orr in the Bruins' 1970 title game, or Cornell's Dan Lodboa (others can regale you) in the 1970 title game in which, if I recall, it was tied at 3 entering the third and Lodboa (a defenseman) had a natural hat track in the span of 7 minutes in the third period. Gostisbehere was the same kind of unreal. He was plus 7 in a 7-4 game, 1G, 2A. And he's from Florida.

Plus the sense this was David and Goliath.

It was fun to get back to LP this past March. Only had been there once since the ECACs moved to Albany. Restaurants are good and diverse (from very affordable to more expensive). Seems like plenty of places to stay. There's a brewpub (with brewery) right in the middle of downtown. Not a lot to do unless you are a skier (Whiteface was very busy) or a back country hiker. We went to the Olympic Museum (right in the 1980 Olympic Arena). Lots of artifacts and stories from the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics displayed. The entire 1980 USA-USSR game plays continuously. We stayed and watched the end of the second period and all of the third period along with about a dozen others. The goal cage and much of Jim Craig's gear is there along with the sticks, skates, and sweaters from several of the players along with the badges from all the players and coaches. I still have my press badge from 1980 and an Olympic tie. My Nikon wool winter hat has long since disintegrated.

Jim Hyla

jkahn

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Sure, sure— +/- is meaningless. But Gostisbehere was +7 in this game.

I haven't seen a guy dominate a game like that since Kariya or Nieuwy. I haven't seen a defenseman dominate a game like that, ever.

Fuckin' A. The best part is the Flyers have to write him a blank check. Oddly, we contained him in a way Minny couldn't.

That Union team was much, much better than Yale 2011 or ever Cornell 2003. I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Now I hope the fuckers completely implode and never compete again.

I have.

I was thinking the same thing when Melrose made a similar comment after last night's game.

I thought about that same comparison (Dan Lodboa) during Thursday's game. Saturday night the only valid comparison was Bobby Orr.

I don't know, a natural hat trick in the third period of the championship game, including a 2 men down shortie, is pretty impressive, especially for a defenseman.

It was some of Gostisbehere's skating moves that were Orr-like. I totally agree with the Lodboa reference though, as well as Larry's comments about Lodboa just not going to let us lose. Everyone remembers the final that year, but Lodboa was awesome in different way in the semi vs. Wisconsin. We were down 1-0 going into the 3rd, Every time Wisconsin tried to cross into our offensive zone in the 3rd, Dan broke up the play and started the play going the other way,

I've seen 26 Frozen Fours and been to 16 of them, and that was the most remarkable individual performance I've seen. The only thing perhaps on par was Kariya/Montgomery in '93 - and Nathan Gerbe scoring 5 goals in the 2008 FF, including 2-2--4 in the final. But those guys didn't do the kind of everything that Gostisbehere did. And a lot of the stuff he did even goes beyond the +7 - like his spin-a-rama ... and the deke/bank shot off the boards one way, while skating around the defender the other way, and getting the puck on the other side ... or breaking up a sure 2-on-1 SH chance for Minnesota with a sliding block at the blue line. Another time, he stopped a shot in the crease, a la his 3-save performance against Providence in the Regional.

Heckuva fun team to watch.

I have to assume he's gone. Although good on him for going back to Schnectady first to enjoy the celebration.

Towerroad

Scersk '97

Trotsky
I think we have to go back to the Harvard teams of the late 80's to get an ECAC team that was so perfectly balanced.

Union certainly reminded me of those Harvard teams. ('97, but season tickets since 1987–88.) Every pass had purpose and velocity. There was a trailer, sometimes two, after every shot to scoop up rebounds. When necessary, they scored dirty goals.

I'm sure our team was watching; I hope they take those particular lessons to heart.

I'm sure all the associated naysayers on here will scoff, and perhaps it's just my Carnelian-tinted specs, but I don't see an overwhelming talent differential between us and Union. I've seen Ryan do a lot of things that Gostisbehere does; Bardreau can do the things Ciampini does. I think Hilbrich is poised for an enormous breakout year, and, paired with proper linemates, may start to dominate games offensively in ways that we haven't seen in a while and in a way that Union doesn't. MacDonald = Bodie... you can go on.

What Union had was what makes every moving part mesh and drive toward one common goal. It's what was missing from the 2013 Cornell team; it's what the 2014 team started to relearn. It's what drives guys to take one strong stride to make sure there's a trailer on every chance, to block every shot possible, to keep mental focus, to sacrifice the body in order to sweep up the garbage in front of the net. Put simply: teamwork.

If one of our crop of goalies turns out, I expect, even without Ferlin, it's going to be a pretty great ride next year.

That is some set of glasses. This year we played Union 3 times and the beat us 3 times 3-0, 4-1 and 5-2. All told the collective score was 12-3. If our talent was rougly equivalent, the why were we so soundly thrashed. If Cornell was not playing as a team what specific steps should be taken to change this?

My argument: Both Union and Cornell had few graduation losses last season, so I'll claim the overall team make-up remained reletively constant for each from 2013 into 2014. The last time Union beat Cornell before this season was Feb. 2011. This isn't the same situation of Cornell vs. Yale, where during the rise of Yale's program, we couldn't get a sniff of success.

From 2009-2013, Cornell was 2-10-0 vs. Yale, including an 8-game losing streak.
From 2010-2014, Cornell was 5-5-2 vs. Union.

I judge this year's Union team to be much stronger and complete than Yale's chamionship team. Unlike Yale, they entered the tournament as one of the top favorites, and won each of their playoff games in decisive fashion.

I was at the Cornell-Union game in Schenectady, and it was a miserable game to watch. Both teams showed up with sloppy, unorganized offenses. This was the time of the season where Cornell was struggling to reach 15 SOG (they got 11). Eventually, Union perked up enough to poke one home in the 2nd, and controlled the 3rd enough to pot two. Generally, it was the worst Cornell performance I've seen in a while, but I never even considered Union to be the powerhouse they turned out to be.

I thought the ECAC SF was a huge difference for both teams. Cornell played really well. They executed their defensive strategy to pushing the Union fowards away from the slot and towards the wider boards. By that point, Union was the team we saw this weekend. What happened between Nov. and Feb. with Union is what Scersk was drawing on. Was it extra work? The right chemistry clicking on their 3-4 lines? Coaching decisions? Hell if I know, and I don't think any fan on this forum can answer that question either. But I think Cornell has talent in the same ballpark as Union does.

adamw
I've seen 26 Frozen Fours and been to 16 of them, and that was the most remarkable individual performance I've seen. The only thing perhaps on par was Kariya/Montgomery in '93 - and Nathan Gerbe scoring 5 goals in the 2008 FF, including 2-2--4 in the final. But those guys didn't do the kind of everything that Gostisbehere did. And a lot of the stuff he did even goes beyond the +7 - like his spin-a-rama ... and the deke/bank shot off the boards one way, while skating around the defender the other way, and getting the puck on the other side ... or breaking up a sure 2-on-1 SH chance for Minnesota with a sliding block at the blue line. Another time, he stopped a shot in the crease, a la his 3-save performance against Providence in the Regional.

Heckuva fun team to watch.

I have to assume he's gone. Although good on him for going back to Schnectady first to enjoy the celebration.

Nicely put. I've never heard an entire arena gasp like that, and it wasn't even for scoring plays or shots. At what a single player did multiple times. The entire arena was buzzing like very few games in my memory. I used to put Ryan in the same bin as Gostibehere and Bodie in terms of talent. Gostibehere built an entire new bin as I watched him the past month. Special player. Remarkable Frozen Four.

And great job to Adam and the CHN crew. Terrific coverage this week, if anybody hasn't checked it out yet.

Thanks Rich ... In particular, Joe Meloni's Gostisbehere story was good:
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Sorry I didn't get a chance to meet up with you guys. These days, everything including sleep is getting sacrificed.

billhoward

ftyuv
Honest question here. I didn't get to watch the game, but 7-4 doesn't sound like a game in which either team played a tight, efficient, all-around game worthy of the ages; it sounds like my beer league. So what gives?

What gives? Incredible energy and some amazing shots deflected at just the right time, or from the same impossible side angle that beat David LeNeveau in Cornell's foray into Buffalo. I think if you play the game with that much intensity, the result is more goals, not more defense and fewer goals.

I disagree. There were a ton of shots on goal for both teams, yes, but at the same time there were also some just plain bad goals for the goalies to give up. Stevens struggled to control his rebounds all game, leading to at least a couple of Minnesota's goals (someone else remarked upthread that he didn't look great, I think), and Wilcox probably wanted at least a couple of Union's back. I don't think either team could claim they played a "tight" game with 89 combined shots.

Josh '99

billhoward

ftyuv
Honest question here. I didn't get to watch the game, but 7-4 doesn't sound like a game in which either team played a tight, efficient, all-around game worthy of the ages; it sounds like my beer league. So what gives?

What gives? Incredible energy and some amazing shots deflected at just the right time, or from the same impossible side angle that beat David LeNeveau in Cornell's foray into Buffalo. I think if you play the game with that much intensity, the result is more goals, not more defense and fewer goals.

I disagree. There were a ton of shots on goal for both teams, yes, but at the same time there were also some just plain bad goals for the goalies to give up. Stevens struggled to control his rebounds all game, leading to at least a couple of Minnesota's goals (someone else remarked upthread that he didn't look great, I think), and Wilcox probably wanted at least a couple of Union's back. I don't think either team could claim they played a "tight" game with 89 combined shots.

Agree, it was a great game to watch, but hardly top quality defense. After Stevens early play, I figured Union was done for. At least until Minny's defense allowed Union to do whatever they wanted to do.

Time for a roast: I've taken a lot of shots at Union through the years. It drove me nuts when they were the league bottom-feeders, and still took points from good Cornell teams. I shouted loudly on this forum many times that the ECAC should trade them for RIT. I take some of those instances back, I guess.

There were more Union fans in their corner of the Wells Fargo Center than can fit in their dumpy home arena. I don't know if the TV broadcast picked up on it, but the North Dakota fans were actively leading Union cheers at times. Since Union's style of cheering is usually to wait for opposing fans to start a cheer and then scream "U!" over it, it was amusing to hear the "Let's Go Gophers" cheer try to cover theirs up for once.

The Union Band did OK, considering that before 2010, the "Union Band" consisted of overweight locals shaking milk jugs full of pennies. It seems their band settled on playing Cee Lo's "Fuck You" as their penalty song...I point this out because Cornell's band (at least in the past) has been told that they are forbidden from playing it.

Given that North Dakota and Minnesota brought their cheerleaders, it's too bad Union didn't send out their own cheerleading squad: 12 year-olds running around calling everybody else "gay."

And I can't say I've ever seen the "U" hand-signal that was omni-present during the final. I hate to think how many times that's going to get waved in my face every time I visit Achilles just for wearing a shirt with my school's name on it.

But OK, OK. Congratulations to them. I hated to be happy for them, but I was. And I really liked the moment the RPI AD (serving as the NCAA Hockey Committee Chair) had to hand over the National Championship trophy to a Capital District rival. I guess this success cements Union as the SLU to RPI's Clarkson. I'll

Since I just missed the UConn "dual champions" parade past my home in Hartford (darn it all), it hit me that Minnesota should have a parade through Dinkytown marking the fact that they are "Dual Runners-Up" having lost both hockey finals to two small Upstate NY schools. "State of 2nd Place Hockey!"

One last curiosity: All four NCAA hockey champions are NCAA Division-III schools.

D1 Men: Union
D1 Women: Clarkson
D3 Men: St. Norbert's
D3 Women: SUNY-Plattsburg

A billhoward "If Only" special: If Only SUNY-Geneseo or SUNY-Oswego had found a way to win the D3 Men's FF (both lost their semi-final), that would have been a clean sweep for New York.

RichH
Time for a roast: I've taken a lot of shots at Union through the years. It drove me nuts when they were the league bottom-feeders, and still took points from good Cornell teams. I shouted loudly on this forum many times that the ECAC should trade them for RIT. I take some of those instances back, I guess.

There were more Union fans in their corner of the Wells Fargo Center than can fit in their dumpy home arena. I don't know if the TV broadcast picked up on it, but the North Dakota fans were actively leading Union cheers at times. Since Union's style of cheering is usually to wait for opposing fans to start a cheer and then scream "U!" over it, it was amusing to hear the "Let's Go Gophers" cheer try to cover theirs up for once.

The Union Band did OK, considering that before 2010, the "Union Band" consisted of overweight locals shaking milk jugs full of pennies. It seems their band settled on playing Cee Lo's "Fuck You" as their penalty song...I point this out because Cornell's band (at least in the past) has been told that they are forbidden from playing it.

Given that North Dakota and Minnesota brought their cheerleaders, it's too bad Union didn't send out their own cheerleading squad: 12 year-olds running around calling everybody else "gay."

And I can't say I've ever seen the "U" hand-signal that was omni-present during the final. I hate to think how many times that's going to get waved in my face every time I visit Achilles just for wearing a shirt with my school's name on it.

But OK, OK. Congratulations to them. I hated to be happy for them, but I was. And I really liked the moment the RPI AD (serving as the NCAA Hockey Committee Chair) had to hand over the National Championship trophy to a Capital District rival. I guess this success cements Union as the SLU to RPI's Clarkson. I'll

Since I just missed the UConn "dual champions" parade past my home in Hartford (darn it all), it hit me that Minnesota should have a parade through Dinkytown marking the fact that they are "Dual Runners-Up" having lost both hockey finals to two small Upstate NY schools. "State of 2nd Place Hockey!"

One last curiosity: All four NCAA hockey champions are NCAA Division-III schools.

D1 Men: Union
D1 Women: Clarkson
D3 Men: St. Norbert's
D3 Women: SUNY-Plattsburg

A billhoward "If Only" special: If Only SUNY-Geneseo or SUNY-Oswego had found a way to win the D3 Men's FF (both lost their semi-final), that would have been a clean sweep for New York.

On TV it looked like the Union band was larger than they usually have at home games. Any idea how many were there? I was wondering whether they had some alumni added to the students.

RichH
One last curiosity: All four NCAA hockey champions are NCAA Division-III schools.

D1 Men: Union
D1 Women: Clarkson
D3 Men: St. Norbert's
D3 Women: SUNY-Plattsburg

A billhoward "If Only" special: If Only SUNY-Geneseo or SUNY-Oswego had found a way to win the D3 Men's FF (both lost their semi-final), that would have been a clean sweep for New York.

How'd I miss that? Good catch.

RichH
Time for a roast: I've taken a lot of shots at Union through the years. It drove me nuts when they were the league bottom-feeders, and still took points from good Cornell teams. I shouted loudly on this forum many times that the ECAC should trade them for RIT. I take some of those instances back, I guess.

There were more Union fans in their corner of the Wells Fargo Center than can fit in their dumpy home arena. I don't know if the TV broadcast picked up on it, but the North Dakota fans were actively leading Union cheers at times. Since Union's style of cheering is usually to wait for opposing fans to start a cheer and then scream "U!" over it, it was amusing to hear the "Let's Go Gophers" cheer try to cover theirs up for once.

The Union Band did OK, considering that before 2010, the "Union Band" consisted of overweight locals shaking milk jugs full of pennies. It seems their band settled on playing Cee Lo's "Fuck You" as their penalty song...I point this out because Cornell's band (at least in the past) has been told that they are forbidden from playing it.

Given that North Dakota and Minnesota brought their cheerleaders, it's too bad Union didn't send out their own cheerleading squad: 12 year-olds running around calling everybody else "gay."

And I can't say I've ever seen the "U" hand-signal that was omni-present during the final. I hate to think how many times that's going to get waved in my face every time I visit Achilles just for wearing a shirt with my school's name on it.

But OK, OK. Congratulations to them. I hated to be happy for them, but I was. And I really liked the moment the RPI AD (serving as the NCAA Hockey Committee Chair) had to hand over the National Championship trophy to a Capital District rival. I guess this success cements Union as the SLU to RPI's Clarkson. I'll

Since I just missed the UConn "dual champions" parade past my home in Hartford (darn it all), it hit me that Minnesota should have a parade through Dinkytown marking the fact that they are "Dual Runners-Up" having lost both hockey finals to two small Upstate NY schools. "State of 2nd Place Hockey!"

One last curiosity: All four NCAA hockey champions are NCAA Division-III schools.

D1 Men: Union
D1 Women: Clarkson
D3 Men: St. Norbert's
D3 Women: SUNY-Plattsburg

A billhoward "If Only" special: If Only SUNY-Geneseo or SUNY-Oswego had found a way to win the D3 Men's FF (both lost their semi-final), that would have been a clean sweep for New York.

Don't ever offer a toast at a wedding.

Towerroad
Don't ever offer a toast at a wedding.

Too late. I did a remote eulogy for Percy Shore, ECAC referee in the 1970s on the occasion his posthumous induction into the Ontario Jewish Athletes Hall of Fame. His grandson, upon cold-calling, had to reassure me of what everyone wonders about, that there really is OJAHOF and Percy wasn't the first inductee. R.I.P., Percy and all the other guys who were believed blind as bats when they called the plays at Lynah and only later do you appreciate there's a huge supporting cast of refs, timekeepers, managers and etcetera making college hockey so entertaining. [www.youtube.com]

RichH

And I can't say I've ever seen the "U" hand-signal that was omni-present during the final. I hate to think how many times that's going to get waved in my face every time I visit Achilles just for wearing a shirt with my school's name on it.

I haven't seen Union in years before the Frozen Four tonight but I could have sworn the first time I saw that hand gesture was the night of the final, on the big screen, by North Dakota fans.

Jim Hyla

RichH
Time for a roast: I've taken a lot of shots at Union through the years. It drove me nuts when they were the league bottom-feeders, and still took points from good Cornell teams. I shouted loudly on this forum many times that the ECAC should trade them for RIT. I take some of those instances back, I guess.

There were more Union fans in their corner of the Wells Fargo Center than can fit in their dumpy home arena. I don't know if the TV broadcast picked up on it, but the North Dakota fans were actively leading Union cheers at times. Since Union's style of cheering is usually to wait for opposing fans to start a cheer and then scream "U!" over it, it was amusing to hear the "Let's Go Gophers" cheer try to cover theirs up for once.

The Union Band did OK, considering that before 2010, the "Union Band" consisted of overweight locals shaking milk jugs full of pennies. It seems their band settled on playing Cee Lo's "Fuck You" as their penalty song...I point this out because Cornell's band (at least in the past) has been told that they are forbidden from playing it.

Given that North Dakota and Minnesota brought their cheerleaders, it's too bad Union didn't send out their own cheerleading squad: 12 year-olds running around calling everybody else "gay."

And I can't say I've ever seen the "U" hand-signal that was omni-present during the final. I hate to think how many times that's going to get waved in my face every time I visit Achilles just for wearing a shirt with my school's name on it.

But OK, OK. Congratulations to them. I hated to be happy for them, but I was. And I really liked the moment the RPI AD (serving as the NCAA Hockey Committee Chair) had to hand over the National Championship trophy to a Capital District rival. I guess this success cements Union as the SLU to RPI's Clarkson. I'll

Since I just missed the UConn "dual champions" parade past my home in Hartford (darn it all), it hit me that Minnesota should have a parade through Dinkytown marking the fact that they are "Dual Runners-Up" having lost both hockey finals to two small Upstate NY schools. "State of 2nd Place Hockey!"

One last curiosity: All four NCAA hockey champions are NCAA Division-III schools.

D1 Men: Union
D1 Women: Clarkson
D3 Men: St. Norbert's
D3 Women: SUNY-Plattsburg

A billhoward "If Only" special: If Only SUNY-Geneseo or SUNY-Oswego had found a way to win the D3 Men's FF (both lost their semi-final), that would have been a clean sweep for New York.

On TV it looked like the Union band was larger than they usually have at home games. Any idea how many were there? I was wondering whether they had some alumni added to the students.

Does anyone know if the Union band was actually comprised of Union students/alums? In Bridgeport this year and in 2012, the Sacred Heart Pep Band filled in as the Union Pep Band. I'm wondering if they did the same for the Frozen Four.

The plus-seven rating for Gostisbehere is erroneous. He is clearly on the ice for Minny's 4th goal.

Towerroad
Don't ever offer a toast at a wedding.

I guess it's good that I said "roast," then.

imafrshmn
The plus-seven rating for Gostisbehere is erroneous. He is clearly on the ice for Minny's 4th goal.

Minnesota's 4th was on the power play. Doesn't count as a minus.

Trotsky

BearLover
No. There are obvious benefits from Union winning. These benefits are vastly outweighed by the negatives.

I'll give it one more shot.

At least 3 of the top 4 teams in the Frozen Four will always be Someones Other Than (SOTs) us. The question is: are we better served by having SOTs come from the ECAC (ESOTs)?

If I understand the arguments against, they are:

Zero Sum: ESOTs disproportionately draw top prospects from Cornell because ECAC teams more closely match Cornell's recruiting profile

Ya Gotta Be In It To Win It: ESOTs imply a lower probability of Cornell getting the AQ, thus lowering our chances of making the tourney at all

The rebuttals are:

Contra Zero Sum: ESOTs raise the credibility of the league, so while Cornell attracts a lower percentage of the ECAC's quality recruits they draw from a larger pool of national recruits (as prospects who were formerly warned off the ECAC are no longer), hence they still get a higher number of quality prospects overall

Contra YGBIITWI: ESOTs raise Cornell's RPICH, so while Cornell gets fewer AQs, they get more and better At Large bids and hence more and better chances to win it all


Absent any real analysis of these assumptions and arguments, it just comes down to personal opinion. One statistic I will cite is despite being the dominant program in the ECAC from 1996 through 2010, we never won a national title. The new reality of a multipolar but stronger ECAC that dates from 2011 is just 4 years old. If we fail to win a title for the next 11 years, the results will then be... equal.

Here's a bonus argument. There seems to be a high overlap of people holding Root for the ECAC To Lose and people who are, shall we say, underwhelmed by The System. Well, when Cornell was dominant in the conference there was no incentive for Schafer to change what was working. The success of Yale's firewagon hockey and Union's balance of good offense with good defense with no overt preference for either is a daily reminder that there are other ways to win that may be better tailored to the evolution of the game -- ways that are paying off in the most tangible reward possible. Whether you love Schafer but wish he would change, or you hate Schafer and wish Andy would see the light, that new reality can only help your case.

This is a good summary of the arguments. But I know you're smart enough to know that National Titles Won is a poor metric of actual success, even if that is the ultimate goal. Yale has not been a better team than Michigan over the past 11 years. Furthermore, I am a sports fan--I want my team to win, I want my rivals to lose, and I want Cornell to be ECAC Champion as much as it can.

The bottom line is that Cornell has a worse chance of finishing at the top of the league, a worse chance of winning the ECAC, and a worse chance of qualifying for the NCAA's than it did ten years ago, and the biggest reason is the better competition.

BearLover
National Titles Won is a poor metric of actual success, even if that is the ultimate goal.

That's fair. The better metric is number and quality of bids. So far the new environment is not good for us, but it's a SSS so far.

Furthermore, I am a sports fan--I want my team to win, I want my rivals to lose

I assume I'm in the minority but I couldn't care less about what a rival does. I'm a Mets fan and I couldn't care less about the Yankees. I'm an Islanders fan and, in addition to being inconsolably sad, I wish nothing ill to the Rangers, in fact I even kind of like them. I understand this is a minority view because I see this behavior all the time, but I just don't give a flying fuck about anybody* but my team.

I want Cornell to be ECAC Champion as much as it can.

No argument there. We used to have a Perennial Question about which you'd prefer: Cornell winning the ECACs but failing to make the Frozen Four, or vice versa. I think I may have been the only one who would take the hardware.

* Except the Braves. The Braves can go die in a fire. But that's not rivalry, it's a sense of moral goodness. For example, I couldn't care less about the Phillies.