Frozen Four

BearLover


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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March. Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

So you're not going to name your son Chipper?

5 edits?

I have more questions.

Chris '03

BearLover


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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March. Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

But .44 extra bids surely doesn't make up for the fact that Cornell is competing for those bids against considerably stronger teams than it did in '04-'09.

BearLover

Chris '03

BearLover


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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March. Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

But .44 extra bids surely doesn't make up for the fact that Cornell is competing for those bids with considerably stronger teams than it did in '04-'09.

If a weak league is to Cornell's advantage, like you say, then it would make sense to move to Atlantic Hockey. Cornell could expect to take that auto-bid more often than the ECAC's. They would also get fat off of playing Canisius and Sacred Heart, and not see tournament-caliber teams for several months. Playing against strong competition down the stretch cuts teeth. Eventually, Cornell would lose out on even more recruits.

Vermont improved their program by moving to a stronger league. Quinnipiac improved their program by moving to a stronger league. Playing in a strong league is a Good Thing. For everything from seeing better competition to improving at-large bid odds. <ACC Lacrosse example>

Trotsky

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 used to care strongly about seeing my rivals lose. But over the years I've managed to mostly let that go. And I think I'm happier for it. I suffer enough when my teams lose. I don't need to suffer more because someone else wins. The schadenfreude when they lose just doesn't balance it out.

KeithK

Trotsky

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 used to care strongly about seeing my rivals lose. But over the years I've managed to mostly let that go. And I think I'm happier for it. I suffer enough when my teams lose. I don't need to suffer more because someone else wins. The schadenfreude when they lose just doesn't balance it out.

Even Sucks?

Towerroad
Even Sucks?

I figured out at the Worcester (? the one where the lights went out) regional that I would even be driven to root for Them. That was also when 0-19-3 was fresh in my mind. It's be even easier now, with them having sucked for so long that the rivalry has cooled down to a sort of chore.

Chris '03

BearLover


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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March. Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

While I'm in the "stronger ECAC is good for Cornell" camp, I think this is misleading. Leave out '04, way at the beginning of the time frame, compare equal five-season intervals, and what you have is:

Average bids, '05-'09 = 2.4. Average bids, '10-'14 = 2.6. It seems like there was much more of a shift from '99-'04, when it was one or two teams in the tournament (with two autobids up until 2002, no?) and then from '05 onward, when it's been two or three teams in the tournament with one autobid.

Josh '99

Chris '03

BearLover


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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March. Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

While I'm in the "stronger ECAC is good for Cornell" camp, I think this is misleading. Leave out '04, way at the beginning of the time frame, compare equal five-season intervals, and what you have is:

Average bids, '05-'09 = 2.4. Average bids, '10-'14 = 2.6. It seems like there was much more of a shift from '99-'04, when it was one or two teams in the tournament (with two autobids up until 2002, no?) and then from '05 onward, when it's been two or three teams in the tournament with one autobid.

Yeah, those numbers actually support the Better ECAC=Bad for Cornell argument. They show that under the improved league, the number of bids has barely changed at all, whereas getting one of those bids is now considerably more difficult.

BearLover

Josh '99

Chris '03

BearLover


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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March. Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

While I'm in the "stronger ECAC is good for Cornell" camp, I think this is misleading. Leave out '04, way at the beginning of the time frame, compare equal five-season intervals, and what you have is:

Average bids, '05-'09 = 2.4. Average bids, '10-'14 = 2.6. It seems like there was much more of a shift from '99-'04, when it was one or two teams in the tournament (with two autobids up until 2002, no?) and then from '05 onward, when it's been two or three teams in the tournament with one autobid.

Yeah, those numbers actually support the Better ECAC=Bad for Cornell argument. They show that under the improved league, the number of bids has barely changed at all, whereas getting one of those bids is considerably more difficult.

But if you use last six years vs, prior six, it's 2.67 vs, 2.0, which portrays a much bigger swing. Last four vs. prior 4 would be 2.75 vs. 2.25. And even if a stronger league hinders our chances for making the NCAA's, playing tougher competition all year probably helps the chance of tournament success. Yale was the 3rd ECAC team in the tournament last and won it. In previous years we wouldn't be surprised if a 3rd WCHA did that, but would expect a 3rd ECAC team to be out quickly.

it sure doesn't feel like the team is more nationally competitive then a decade ago--if anything it feels like the program has slid backwards.

underskill
it sure doesn't feel like the team is more nationally competitive then a decade ago--if anything it feels like the program has slid backwards.

Our final poll position by year is a rough estimate.

Taking the USA poll only:

96 unranked
97 9
98 unranked
99 unranked
00 unranked
01 15
02 8
03 3
04 unranked
05 5
06 7
07 unranked
08 unranked
09 9
10 6
11 unranked
12 13
13 unranked
14 16

This is the first Cornell team to finish outside the top 10 for 4 consecutive seasons since 2001.

If we replace "unranked" with "25" as a very simplistic pseudo-value, then the four-year rolling average looks like this:

96	25	
97	9	
98	25	
99	25	21.0
0	25	21.0
1	15	22.5
2	8	18.3
3	3	12.8
4	25	12.8
5	5	10.3
6	7	10.0
7	25	15.5
8	25	15.5
9	9	16.5
10	6	16.3
11	25	16.3
12	13	13.3
13	25	17.3
14	16	19.8

The program definitely needs a few seasons in the top 10 to reverse the trend and re-establish themselves. As a 10.5 they're in the tourney as a 3 seed and have a shot. As a 16.5 they're a bubble team that spends half their seasons looking in from the outside. Huge difference.

Trotsky

underskill
it sure doesn't feel like the team is more nationally competitive then a decade ago--if anything it feels like the program has slid backwards.

Our final poll position by year is a rough estimate.

Taking the USA poll only:

96 unranked
97 9
98 unranked
99 unranked
00 unranked
01 15
02 8
03 3
04 unranked
05 5
06 7
07 unranked
08 unranked
09 9
10 6
11 unranked
12 13
13 unranked
14 16

This is the first Cornell team to finish outside the top 10 for 4 consecutive seasons since 2001.

If we replace "unranked" with "25" as a very simplistic pseudo-value, then the four-year rolling average looks like this:

96	25	
97	9	
98	25	
99	25	21.0
0	25	21.0
1	15	22.5
2	8	18.3
3	3	12.8
4	25	12.8
5	5	10.3
6	7	10.0
7	25	15.5
8	25	15.5
9	9	16.5
10	6	16.3
11	25	16.3
12	13	13.3
13	25	17.3
14	16	19.8

The program definitely needs a few seasons in the top 10 to reverse the trend and re-establish themselves. As a 10.5 they're in the tourney as a 3 seed and have a shot. As a 16.5 they're a bubble team that spends half their seasons looking in from the outside. Huge difference.

Same this with final PWR, which translates better to tournament selection that polls that take tournament performance into account.

2001	23	
2002	9	
2003	1	
2004	16	12.25
2005	5	7.75
2006	8	7.5
2007	22	1275
2008	22	14.25
2009	11	15.75
2010	7	15.5
2011	27	16.75
2012	13	14.5
2013	24	17.75
2014	17	20.25