Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by James
Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: James (---.d169bb.dial.xtelegent.net)
Date: December 08, 2004 10:51PM
What are the Ned Harkness Cup and the Cleary Bedpan? Could someone explain the history behind these two things?
Thanks a lot
Thanks a lot
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: pfibiger (---.we.client2.attbi.com)
Date: December 08, 2004 10:52PM
Ned Harkness Cup is the trophy awarded to the winner of the Everblades tournament. The Cleary Bedpan is the Cleary Cup, given to the regular-season ECAC(HL) champs.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: December 09, 2004 12:18AM
Calling it the Bedpan is basically indicative of the fact that it means squat now, ever since the NCAA took away autobids for RS champions.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Lowell '99 (---.c3-0.avec-ubr13.nyr-avec.ny.cable.r)
Date: December 09, 2004 12:36AM
And indicative of the fact that it's named after Bill Cleary, former coach and AD of Harvard (sucks!).
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: December 09, 2004 06:32AM
It's also consistent with what we've been telling Clarkson fans since at least the mid-1990s, that the ECAC champion is the winner of the tournament, not the regular season.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 09, 2004 08:51AM
And that has nothing to do with the fact that at the time (late 90's) we'd won the tournament 9 times and only finished in first place 5 times (and not since 1974) while Clarkson had almost the exact opposite - 3 championships and 9 first-place finishes...
Where you stand on this issue definitely depends on where you sit!
Where you stand on this issue definitely depends on where you sit!
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: December 09, 2004 12:08PM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
And that has nothing to do with the fact that at the time (late 90's) we'd won the tournament 9 times and only finished in first place 5 times (and not since 1974) while Clarkson had almost the exact opposite - 3 championships and 9 first-place finishes...
Where you stand on this issue definitely depends on where you sit!
[/q]
The point is that we didn't change our tune in 2002 when we won the RS without winning the tournament.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that at the time (late 90's) we'd won the tournament 9 times and only finished in first place 5 times (and not since 1974) while Clarkson had almost the exact opposite - 3 championships and 9 first-place finishes...
Where you stand on this issue definitely depends on where you sit!
[/q]
The point is that we didn't change our tune in 2002 when we won the RS without winning the tournament.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: December 09, 2004 09:22PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Robb Wrote:
And that has nothing to do with the fact that at the time (late 90's) we'd won the tournament 9 times and only finished in first place 5 times (and not since 1974) while Clarkson had almost the exact opposite - 3 championships and 9 first-place finishes...
Where you stand on this issue definitely depends on where you sit!
[/Q]
The point is that we didn't change our tune in 2002 when we won the RS without winning the tournament.[/q]
More importantly, for the first thirty years or so years of ECAC Division I hockey, finishing first in the ECAC regular season got you exactly nothing other than the highest seed for the ECAC tournament...until sometime in the 90s when the NCAA misguidedly decided to give an automatic tournament bid for such. Until then, no one even bothered to proclaim themselves "regular season champion." No one cared. It just didn't matter. The champion was decided by the post-season tournament.
Now, after this brief interval of aberrant behavior, normalcy [sic] has returned and winning the Cleary pisspot once again gets you exactly nothing other than highest seed for the ECAC tournament. Bottom line: For all but a handful of years of ECAC hockey's 43 year existence, finishing first in the regular season has been a non-event. Seriously. If you weren't following ECAC hockey prior to the 90s, you simply can't understand how utterly irrelevant finishing first in the regular season was in terms of measuring a season's success.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Robb (---.169.137.235.ts46v-07.otnc1.ftwrth.tx.charter.co)
Date: December 09, 2004 09:41PM
I know, I know. Jeez.
I still maintain that if you asked a Cornell senior in '99 and a Clarkson senior in '99 (both of whom had only followed college hockey for 4 years) which was more important, I bet that you'd have gotten different answers. Even if the CC rule had never been instituted, I bet a lot of CCT fans would still tout their first place finishes, and I predict that they'll continue to do so even now that the rule has been replealed. It has little/nothing to do with recent results, auto-bids, or longevity of hockey fandom. It's picking a measure that puts your program (in its entire history) in the best light.
To suggest that postseason championships is an objectively better standard for judging a program's history is a bit disingenuous. CCT's 9 first place finishes are very impressive, and I, for one, am envious of them. Would I trade away Whitelaw's for Bedpans? Not even if you offered 2-for-1, and I do think it's funny to refer to it as the bedpan, but only because I know a) who it was named for AND b) which team has the most. If the RS trophy were named the Harkness Cup (as it very arguably should be), we wouldn't call it the bedpan even if we'd *never* won it and had 20 championships. Similarly, we also wouldn't call it the bedpan if we'd won 10 of those along with our 10 championships.
I still maintain that if you asked a Cornell senior in '99 and a Clarkson senior in '99 (both of whom had only followed college hockey for 4 years) which was more important, I bet that you'd have gotten different answers. Even if the CC rule had never been instituted, I bet a lot of CCT fans would still tout their first place finishes, and I predict that they'll continue to do so even now that the rule has been replealed. It has little/nothing to do with recent results, auto-bids, or longevity of hockey fandom. It's picking a measure that puts your program (in its entire history) in the best light.
To suggest that postseason championships is an objectively better standard for judging a program's history is a bit disingenuous. CCT's 9 first place finishes are very impressive, and I, for one, am envious of them. Would I trade away Whitelaw's for Bedpans? Not even if you offered 2-for-1, and I do think it's funny to refer to it as the bedpan, but only because I know a) who it was named for AND b) which team has the most. If the RS trophy were named the Harkness Cup (as it very arguably should be), we wouldn't call it the bedpan even if we'd *never* won it and had 20 championships. Similarly, we also wouldn't call it the bedpan if we'd won 10 of those along with our 10 championships.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: December 09, 2004 10:03PM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
I do think it's funny to refer to it as the bedpan, but only because I know a) who it was named for AND b) which team has the most[/q]
I still think it's hilarious that the team that won the first two is the team that ended its namesake's head coaching career.
I do think it's funny to refer to it as the bedpan, but only because I know a) who it was named for AND b) which team has the most[/q]
I still think it's hilarious that the team that won the first two is the team that ended its namesake's head coaching career.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: atb9 (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: December 09, 2004 10:06PM
If you asked a Cornell Engineering senior and a Clarkson Engineering senior that question, I hope that the Cornell senior would prove her intelligence over the Clarkson student.
One would hope that the team that had performed the best over the course of a season would still be the best team come playoff time, ECAC's and NCAA's. Is it time to chant "it just doesn't matter" every time we lose during the regular season? Of course not! But it is conceivable that a team could come in last place of the ECAC(HL) regular season and be crowned national champion and that makes the Cleary clearly meaningless.
One would hope that the team that had performed the best over the course of a season would still be the best team come playoff time, ECAC's and NCAA's. Is it time to chant "it just doesn't matter" every time we lose during the regular season? Of course not! But it is conceivable that a team could come in last place of the ECAC(HL) regular season and be crowned national champion and that makes the Cleary clearly meaningless.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: December 09, 2004 10:45PM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
I know, I know. Jeez.
I still maintain that if you asked a Cornell senior in '99 and a Clarkson senior in '99 (both of whom had only followed college hockey for 4 years) which was more important, I bet that you'd have gotten different answers. Even if the CC rule had never been instituted, I bet a lot of CCT fans would still tout their first place finishes, and I predict that they'll continue to do so even now that the rule has been replealed. It has little/nothing to do with recent results, auto-bids, or longevity of hockey fandom. It's picking a measure that puts your program (in its entire history) in the best light.
To suggest that postseason championships is an objectively better standard for judging a program's history is a bit disingenuous. CCT's 9 first place finishes are very impressive, and I, for one, am envious of them. Would I trade away Whitelaw's for Bedpans? Not even if you offered 2-for-1, and I do think it's funny to refer to it as the bedpan, but only because I know a) who it was named for AND b) which team has the most. If the RS trophy were named the Harkness Cup (as it very arguably should be), we wouldn't call it the bedpan even if we'd *never* won it and had 20 championships. Similarly, we also wouldn't call it the bedpan if we'd won 10 of those along with our 10 championships.
[/q]
????
The point I was making is that nobody recognized such a thing as a "regular season champion" until the NCAA gave an autobid for it. So to look back, in hindsight, and say "geez, we won a bunch of regular season championships" pre-1990s is what's disingenuous. Everyone can decide for himself which is a "better standard for judging a program's history," but what I'm telling you is that in the 60s, 70s, and 80s nobody gave any thought to being a "regular season champion." What mattered to every team was winning the tournament, because that team was the champion. Declaring yourself the winner of a championship that no one at the time viewed as a championship doesn't make a lot of sense--to me at least.
Clarkson fans can "tout" whatever they'd like. It's their prerogative. They should be very proud of Clarkson's consistent record over the years, and their ECAC seedings over 43 years are testament to that year-in, year-out consistency.
Seems to me we can refer to it as the "bedpan," "pisspot," "spittoon," or whatever sobriquet we'd like, for whatever reason we choose.
I know, I know. Jeez.
I still maintain that if you asked a Cornell senior in '99 and a Clarkson senior in '99 (both of whom had only followed college hockey for 4 years) which was more important, I bet that you'd have gotten different answers. Even if the CC rule had never been instituted, I bet a lot of CCT fans would still tout their first place finishes, and I predict that they'll continue to do so even now that the rule has been replealed. It has little/nothing to do with recent results, auto-bids, or longevity of hockey fandom. It's picking a measure that puts your program (in its entire history) in the best light.
To suggest that postseason championships is an objectively better standard for judging a program's history is a bit disingenuous. CCT's 9 first place finishes are very impressive, and I, for one, am envious of them. Would I trade away Whitelaw's for Bedpans? Not even if you offered 2-for-1, and I do think it's funny to refer to it as the bedpan, but only because I know a) who it was named for AND b) which team has the most. If the RS trophy were named the Harkness Cup (as it very arguably should be), we wouldn't call it the bedpan even if we'd *never* won it and had 20 championships. Similarly, we also wouldn't call it the bedpan if we'd won 10 of those along with our 10 championships.
[/q]
????
The point I was making is that nobody recognized such a thing as a "regular season champion" until the NCAA gave an autobid for it. So to look back, in hindsight, and say "geez, we won a bunch of regular season championships" pre-1990s is what's disingenuous. Everyone can decide for himself which is a "better standard for judging a program's history," but what I'm telling you is that in the 60s, 70s, and 80s nobody gave any thought to being a "regular season champion." What mattered to every team was winning the tournament, because that team was the champion. Declaring yourself the winner of a championship that no one at the time viewed as a championship doesn't make a lot of sense--to me at least.
Clarkson fans can "tout" whatever they'd like. It's their prerogative. They should be very proud of Clarkson's consistent record over the years, and their ECAC seedings over 43 years are testament to that year-in, year-out consistency.
Seems to me we can refer to it as the "bedpan," "pisspot," "spittoon," or whatever sobriquet we'd like, for whatever reason we choose.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: December 09, 2004 11:22PM
For that matter, finishing with the best record in the RS, or the #1 seed in the ECAC playoffs, meant even less before the Great Divorce, given how unbalanced the schedules were back then.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 10:09AM
I definitely agree that it's not proper to refer to a first-place finish as a "championship," and that term may well have come into vogue because of the CC rule. Even UVM, who would dearly love to hang a championship banner in Gutterson put one up that reads "first place" for the 1995-96 season. The debate about whether it's more important than a tournament championship is still fun (and meaningless) no matter what you call it.
So I suppose that referring to the Cornell/Clarkson game on 1/26/01 as a "Alternate Belt" title game is disingenuous, too?
So I suppose that referring to the Cornell/Clarkson game on 1/26/01 as a "Alternate Belt" title game is disingenuous, too?
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 10:31AM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
I definitely agree that it's not proper to refer to a first-place finish as a "championship," and that term may well have come into vogue because of the CC rule. [/q]
Exactly right.
I definitely agree that it's not proper to refer to a first-place finish as a "championship," and that term may well have come into vogue because of the CC rule. [/q]
Exactly right.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 12:33PM
[q]For that matter, finishing with the best record in the RS, or the #1 seed in the ECAC playoffs, meant even less before the Great Divorce, given how unbalanced the schedules were back then.[/q]the unbalanced schedule is largely why we have a tournament to determine the champion in the first place, instead of just taking the top two RS teams to go to the national tournament. With the unbalanced schedules in the 60's it just wasn't clear who was the better team from the RS. if the top eastern teams had played a full home and home round robin back then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Well, maybe we would anyway, because hockey seems to have a history of emphasizing post-season tournaments and letting way too many teams in.)
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 12:35PM
[q]But it is conceivable that a team could come in last place of the ECAC(HL) regular season and be crowned national champion and that makes the Cleary clearly meaningless.[/q]No, the fact that Princeton still had a mathematical chance of winning last year's national championship as the playoffs began just shows how totally ****ed up the playoff system is.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 12:39PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:No, the fact that Princeton still had a mathematical chance of winning last year's national championship as the playoffs began just shows how totally ****ed up the playoff system is.[/q]
Yeah - screw the playoffs. We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey. All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies. Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms...
Yeah - screw the playoffs. We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey. All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies. Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms...
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 12:48PM
[q]Yeah - screw the playoffs. We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey. All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies. Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms.[/q]Yes, BCS is ridiculous. But I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying that by the end of a 22 game round robin schedule you already know who the best teams in a given league are without needing a league tournament. What you don't know with strong confidence, regardless of what KRACH might say is who the best team in the country is because of disparate schedules. So you hold a national tournament populated by the teams that won their conferences based on RS standings. That way you "decide it on the ice" but it's all transparent and objjective.
If you have to have a league tournament, for god's sake at least limit the number of teams. Letting everyone in is ridiculous!
If you have to have a league tournament, for god's sake at least limit the number of teams. Letting everyone in is ridiculous!
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 12:53PM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
Yeah - screw the playoffs. We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey. All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies. Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms...
[/q]Don't forget secret computer ranking systems.
Yeah - screw the playoffs. We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey. All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies. Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms...
[/q]Don't forget secret computer ranking systems.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 01:59PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
If you have to have a league tournament, for god's sake at least limit the number of teams. Letting everyone in is ridiculous![/q]
Indeed. But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams. And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.
If you have to have a league tournament, for god's sake at least limit the number of teams. Letting everyone in is ridiculous![/q]
Indeed. But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams. And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 02:52PM
[q]Indeed. But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams. And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.[/q]Of course. And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: CUlater 89 (64.244.223.---)
Date: December 10, 2004 04:50PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Indeed. But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams. And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.[/Q]
Of course. And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.[/q]
So if you were born 50 years ago, you'd be railing against the LCS concept too?
Do you rail against the wildcard in football? Did you rail against it when there was just one?
This type of issue is so rooted in one's past; i.e. things were great back when I started following a sport and they should never change.
I'm not afraid to admit that I'm guilty of that too.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 05:30PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.[/q]
Without which, of course, this year's fabulous, unbelievable, rivalling the Miracle-of-Coogan's-Bluff post-season outcome would never have happened.
And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.[/q]
Without which, of course, this year's fabulous, unbelievable, rivalling the Miracle-of-Coogan's-Bluff post-season outcome would never have happened.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2004 05:56PM by Al DeFlorio.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 10, 2004 05:48PM
[q]So if you were born 50 years ago, you'd be railing against the LCS concept too?
Do you rail against the wildcard in football? Did you rail against it when there was just one? [/q]Yes, I would prefer a league without an LCS. I strongly believe in only the team that finishes first advancing - how can you be the overall champion if someone was better tahn you in the RS? At least with the original 12 team baseball leagues (AL 69-77, NL 69-92) the schedules were sufficiently unbalanced (18 in division, 12 out) that you could claim that a direct comparison between east and west teams was not fair because of disparate schedules.
I admit I am less fervent about wild cards in football probably because there has always been one in my lifetime. But I was annoyed when they expanded to two and then three wild cards per league. Now with a four division setup I would prefer if they would eliminate the wild card altogether and simply have 8 division champs in the playoffs (even though it would hurt my team right now).
I don't pretend that I'm immune from sentimental attachment to the way things were. I certainly do feel that way sometimes. But I think that my opinions on this subject are more rooted in desire for "purity" than sentiment. Note that I would support a system for NCAA and ECAC hockey that has never existed. (BTW I am not old enough to remember pre-LCS times. My user name no longer says it, but I'm class of '93.)
Do you rail against the wildcard in football? Did you rail against it when there was just one? [/q]Yes, I would prefer a league without an LCS. I strongly believe in only the team that finishes first advancing - how can you be the overall champion if someone was better tahn you in the RS? At least with the original 12 team baseball leagues (AL 69-77, NL 69-92) the schedules were sufficiently unbalanced (18 in division, 12 out) that you could claim that a direct comparison between east and west teams was not fair because of disparate schedules.
I admit I am less fervent about wild cards in football probably because there has always been one in my lifetime. But I was annoyed when they expanded to two and then three wild cards per league. Now with a four division setup I would prefer if they would eliminate the wild card altogether and simply have 8 division champs in the playoffs (even though it would hurt my team right now).
I don't pretend that I'm immune from sentimental attachment to the way things were. I certainly do feel that way sometimes. But I think that my opinions on this subject are more rooted in desire for "purity" than sentiment. Note that I would support a system for NCAA and ECAC hockey that has never existed. (BTW I am not old enough to remember pre-LCS times. My user name no longer says it, but I'm class of '93.)
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Robb (---.169.137.235.ts46v-07.otnc1.ftwrth.tx.charter.co)
Date: December 11, 2004 01:27AM
More random thoughts:
I like the league tourneys, and I was trying to discect why. I guess that, as a fan (and probably as a player, too), there's no better experience than your team advancing deep into an elimination tournament. The games ratchet up and up in intensity - it's what the teams focus on all year long. If a player is slightly injured, he'll take a game or two off to heal up for the playoffs - that's the culmination of the season. A 22-game round robin tournament would certainly more accurate in determining who the best team is (though "the best team" can be time and schedule variant, so stretching the round-robin over 4 months is a bit odd, too. Factor in injuries, etc, and you just can't measure it fairly). I love going to regular season away games at Harvard/Brown, SLU/Clarkson, or even MSU/MSU. But that's NOTHING compared to going to a postseason final four, be it ECAC or NCAA. Being there with fans of the other schools (even if it's in Albany) is just fantastic. If the ECACHL were to decide to award the autobid to the First Place finisher, that would take just a little of the edge off the tournament, but probably not THAT much - I would think most people would still see that as the culmination of the season.
I think we can all agree that the tournaments aren't really about finding the best team - they're really not a great vehicle for that. But all the teams DO know the rules and the schedules ahead of time and have agreed that this will be the method to award something called a championship - as long as they all agree, then it's completely fair, no matter how arbitrary it may be. I don't think you'd find many people who would argue that Princeton (20 regular season points) was a better team than Yale (35 points) in 1998. But Princeton did put together a decent 4 game winning streak just at the time that other teams were trying their hardest, too. That's all the championship means - they won those few games. Nothing more, nothing less.
I like the league tourneys, and I was trying to discect why. I guess that, as a fan (and probably as a player, too), there's no better experience than your team advancing deep into an elimination tournament. The games ratchet up and up in intensity - it's what the teams focus on all year long. If a player is slightly injured, he'll take a game or two off to heal up for the playoffs - that's the culmination of the season. A 22-game round robin tournament would certainly more accurate in determining who the best team is (though "the best team" can be time and schedule variant, so stretching the round-robin over 4 months is a bit odd, too. Factor in injuries, etc, and you just can't measure it fairly). I love going to regular season away games at Harvard/Brown, SLU/Clarkson, or even MSU/MSU. But that's NOTHING compared to going to a postseason final four, be it ECAC or NCAA. Being there with fans of the other schools (even if it's in Albany) is just fantastic. If the ECACHL were to decide to award the autobid to the First Place finisher, that would take just a little of the edge off the tournament, but probably not THAT much - I would think most people would still see that as the culmination of the season.
I think we can all agree that the tournaments aren't really about finding the best team - they're really not a great vehicle for that. But all the teams DO know the rules and the schedules ahead of time and have agreed that this will be the method to award something called a championship - as long as they all agree, then it's completely fair, no matter how arbitrary it may be. I don't think you'd find many people who would argue that Princeton (20 regular season points) was a better team than Yale (35 points) in 1998. But Princeton did put together a decent 4 game winning streak just at the time that other teams were trying their hardest, too. That's all the championship means - they won those few games. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: December 11, 2004 02:03AM
Other voices have noted here before: Playoffs produce tournament winners who are called champions. They don't always settle who's the best team. (For instance, 2003 nationally.)
Some of Cornell's finest moments in hockey (also lacrosse circa 1987 and 1988 and then the past couple years) have been catching fire late in the season and going further than the RS record would have suggested possible.
I think Cornell has always been cognizant of finishing first in the standings when it did finish first, and I also agree with Al that it was never a big thing in ice hockey. It was winning the ECAC tournament that mattered. That got you to the NCAAs.
Different story if you're talking hoops or lacrosse.
Some of Cornell's finest moments in hockey (also lacrosse circa 1987 and 1988 and then the past couple years) have been catching fire late in the season and going further than the RS record would have suggested possible.
I think Cornell has always been cognizant of finishing first in the standings when it did finish first, and I also agree with Al that it was never a big thing in ice hockey. It was winning the ECAC tournament that mattered. That got you to the NCAAs.
Different story if you're talking hoops or lacrosse.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
Date: December 11, 2004 10:05AM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
More random thoughts:
I like the league tourneys, and I was trying to discect why. I guess that, as a fan (and probably as a player, too), there's no better experience than your team advancing deep into an elimination tournament. The games ratchet up and up in intensity - it's what the teams focus on all year long. If a player is slightly injured, he'll take a game or two off to heal up for the playoffs - that's the culmination of the season. A 22-game round robin tournament would certainly more accurate in determining who the best team is (though "the best team" can be time and schedule variant, so stretching the round-robin over 4 months is a bit odd, too. Factor in injuries, etc, and you just can't measure it fairly). I love going to regular season away games at Harvard/Brown, SLU/Clarkson, or even MSU/MSU. But that's NOTHING compared to going to a postseason final four, be it ECAC or NCAA. Being there with fans of the other schools (even if it's in Albany) is just fantastic. If the ECACHL were to decide to award the autobid to the First Place finisher, that would take just a little of the edge off the tournament, but probably not THAT much - I would think most people would still see that as the culmination of the season.
I think we can all agree that the tournaments aren't really about finding the best team - they're really not a great vehicle for that. But all the teams DO know the rules and the schedules ahead of time and have agreed that this will be the method to award something called a championship - as long as they all agree, then it's completely fair, no matter how arbitrary it may be. I don't think you'd find many people who would argue that Princeton (20 regular season points) was a better team than Yale (35 points) in 1998. But Princeton did put together a decent 4 game winning streak just at the time that other teams were trying their hardest, too. That's all the championship means - they won those few games. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/q]
Agreed, Robb.
One other thought: The tournament can (but not always will) do a better job of determining who the best team is at the time of the tournament, and this can be useful in deciding who represents the league in the big dance. One might look back at the 1998 situation you cited above for an example of that, or--the one we all love best--1980. A team with a lot of underclassmen might struggle early in the season, but, as a result of giving those younger players significant game experience--even at the cost of a few early season losses--might be much stronger than it would otherwise have been come March and April.
More random thoughts:
I like the league tourneys, and I was trying to discect why. I guess that, as a fan (and probably as a player, too), there's no better experience than your team advancing deep into an elimination tournament. The games ratchet up and up in intensity - it's what the teams focus on all year long. If a player is slightly injured, he'll take a game or two off to heal up for the playoffs - that's the culmination of the season. A 22-game round robin tournament would certainly more accurate in determining who the best team is (though "the best team" can be time and schedule variant, so stretching the round-robin over 4 months is a bit odd, too. Factor in injuries, etc, and you just can't measure it fairly). I love going to regular season away games at Harvard/Brown, SLU/Clarkson, or even MSU/MSU. But that's NOTHING compared to going to a postseason final four, be it ECAC or NCAA. Being there with fans of the other schools (even if it's in Albany) is just fantastic. If the ECACHL were to decide to award the autobid to the First Place finisher, that would take just a little of the edge off the tournament, but probably not THAT much - I would think most people would still see that as the culmination of the season.
I think we can all agree that the tournaments aren't really about finding the best team - they're really not a great vehicle for that. But all the teams DO know the rules and the schedules ahead of time and have agreed that this will be the method to award something called a championship - as long as they all agree, then it's completely fair, no matter how arbitrary it may be. I don't think you'd find many people who would argue that Princeton (20 regular season points) was a better team than Yale (35 points) in 1998. But Princeton did put together a decent 4 game winning streak just at the time that other teams were trying their hardest, too. That's all the championship means - they won those few games. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/q]
Agreed, Robb.
One other thought: The tournament can (but not always will) do a better job of determining who the best team is at the time of the tournament, and this can be useful in deciding who represents the league in the big dance. One might look back at the 1998 situation you cited above for an example of that, or--the one we all love best--1980. A team with a lot of underclassmen might struggle early in the season, but, as a result of giving those younger players significant game experience--even at the cost of a few early season losses--might be much stronger than it would otherwise have been come March and April.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: December 11, 2004 03:59PM
I agree with you that the current system is fair. Everyone knows the rules beforehand and plays by them. Just somewhat arbitrary. Not completely arbitrary, because as you say everyone gets up for these games and knows the stakes.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: December 11, 2004 04:04PM
[q]this can be useful in deciding who represents the league in the big dance.[/q]Well, if the point is to put the league team in the tournament that has the best chance of winning or representing, then maybe it's a good system. I would rather see the best team in the league rewarded for a great season.
Not that the tourney winning team necessarily has the best chance to win in the NCAAs either. If the goalie for the last place time suddenly channels Dryden for a couple of games and the team gets a few lucky bounces they could win the league tournament. But that kind of luck tends to run out, esp. against national contenders.
At least cut the field down to 8 schools though so the RS means something other than seeding!
Not that the tourney winning team necessarily has the best chance to win in the NCAAs either. If the goalie for the last place time suddenly channels Dryden for a couple of games and the team gets a few lucky bounces they could win the league tournament. But that kind of luck tends to run out, esp. against national contenders.
At least cut the field down to 8 schools though so the RS means something other than seeding!
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: December 11, 2004 04:12PM
Hallelujah. Although standing around and scratching themselves while their opponents score at will wouldn't be a very good way for a team to prepare themselves for the post-season tournament, I've never understood why it should nevertheless be good enough to qualify them for it.
Beeeej
Beeeej
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Beeeej, Esq.
"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: December 11, 2004 04:52PM
There is no one perfect team to represent a league at the tournament.
The RS points leader ("regular season champion" won more games but that's over the course of the season. It might not be the best team to represent because it slipped due to injuries (Cornell w/o Vesce last year) or another team jelled the last two months.
There is no title or award for the team whose winning percentage sloped upward later in the season. Maybe this team wins the playoffs, maybe not.
The first-round (eg ECAC) tournament champion got hot for 3-4-5 games and maybe that provides momentum going into the NCAAs but maybe it was also lucky. If Cornell played Clarkson again in the best of three opening, what are the odds Clarkson's luck would hold out again?
You could have every round be best 2-games-of-3 to avoid the odd off game, but that wouldn't avoid the odd off two games. (Think Red Sox here.) Funny in the ECAC that it's the first round, where theoretically the teams are most apart in talent and one game should be enough, that it's a best of 3 series.
You add more teams to the tournament, you increase the odds a nobody knocks out a somebody. Sixty-four teams play for the basketball title, meaning you have to win six in a row, not five or six as in much earlier days. That increases the odds a favored Duke or NC or UCLA doesn't make it. How often is the best (by some definition) team superior enough to win six in a row against good competitiion by dint of talent not odds?
You play multiple games each round, the players miss almost a month of school.
So long as we all agree the tournament crowns a tournament champion, not the best team, all's well and good, and it gives eLynah and eMinnesotaGophers etcetera something to grouse about for the six months of the off-season.
The RS points leader ("regular season champion"
won more games but that's over the course of the season. It might not be the best team to represent because it slipped due to injuries (Cornell w/o Vesce last year) or another team jelled the last two months.
There is no title or award for the team whose winning percentage sloped upward later in the season. Maybe this team wins the playoffs, maybe not.
The first-round (eg ECAC) tournament champion got hot for 3-4-5 games and maybe that provides momentum going into the NCAAs but maybe it was also lucky. If Cornell played Clarkson again in the best of three opening, what are the odds Clarkson's luck would hold out again?
You could have every round be best 2-games-of-3 to avoid the odd off game, but that wouldn't avoid the odd off two games. (Think Red Sox here.) Funny in the ECAC that it's the first round, where theoretically the teams are most apart in talent and one game should be enough, that it's a best of 3 series.
You add more teams to the tournament, you increase the odds a nobody knocks out a somebody. Sixty-four teams play for the basketball title, meaning you have to win six in a row, not five or six as in much earlier days. That increases the odds a favored Duke or NC or UCLA doesn't make it. How often is the best (by some definition) team superior enough to win six in a row against good competitiion by dint of talent not odds?
You play multiple games each round, the players miss almost a month of school.
So long as we all agree the tournament crowns a tournament champion, not the best team, all's well and good, and it gives eLynah and eMinnesotaGophers etcetera something to grouse about for the six months of the off-season.
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: December 12, 2004 10:40AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
What you don't know with strong confidence, regardless of what KRACH might say is who the best team in the country is because of disparate schedules.[/q]
KRACH itself makes no claims of confidence. It does the best it can using all the available won-loss data. I believe Ken actually did experiment at one point with assigning confidences to the orderings of teams, and they were pretty low. Of course, the same is also true at the end of a twelve team home-and-home round robin. (Or even a 162-game relatively balanced schedule; note how the Red Sox were considered the favorites entering the LCS.)
I like a little middle ground. Have playoffs to determine the champion, but only let the best teams, based on the results throughout the season, participate. I've softened a little on the issue of letting more than half the league into the postseason in the case of college sports, but 8 or 10 out of 12 would be preferable to 12 out of 12.
But if you're going to have a postseason tournament seeded based on the RS, you should call the winner of that the champion. If the RS winner is the champion, why bother having playoffs?
What you don't know with strong confidence, regardless of what KRACH might say is who the best team in the country is because of disparate schedules.[/q]
KRACH itself makes no claims of confidence. It does the best it can using all the available won-loss data. I believe Ken actually did experiment at one point with assigning confidences to the orderings of teams, and they were pretty low. Of course, the same is also true at the end of a twelve team home-and-home round robin. (Or even a 162-game relatively balanced schedule; note how the Red Sox were considered the favorites entering the LCS.)
I like a little middle ground. Have playoffs to determine the champion, but only let the best teams, based on the results throughout the season, participate. I've softened a little on the issue of letting more than half the league into the postseason in the case of college sports, but 8 or 10 out of 12 would be preferable to 12 out of 12.
But if you're going to have a postseason tournament seeded based on the RS, you should call the winner of that the champion. If the RS winner is the champion, why bother having playoffs?
Re: Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: December 13, 2004 02:13AM
I wasn't really trying to rip on KRACH or make a statement about confidence intervals. Just wanted to pre-empt someone from saying that the rankings tell us for sure who is better.
I agree that if you bother having a playoff, the playoff winner has to be the league champion.
I agree that if you bother having a playoff, the playoff winner has to be the league champion.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.