Guaranteed ECAC Title vs Guaranteed NCAA Advance

IIRC, we discussed this a little last year, but it's a new season, with new posters, and another year of success may be changing people's minds. So, here's a series of choices -- which would you elect, if you had to choose:

(1) (a) winning the ECAC title and losing the NCAA first round game, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing one round in the NCAAs prior to losing in the QF?

(2) (a) winning the ECAC title, take your chance in the NCAA first round game, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing one round in the NCAAs, then take your chance in the NCAA QF?

Personally, I'd pick (1)(a) and (2)(a), but I have a feeling that many Faithful -- especially younger ones who have gotten "used to" winning the ECACs, would choose at least (2)(b).

Now, if the choices are:

(3) (a) winning the ECAC title and advancing one round in the NCAAs prior to losing in the QF, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing to the Frozen Four prior to losing the SF?

(4) (a) winning the ECAC title and advancing one round in the NCAAs, take your chance in the QF, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing to the Frozen Four, take your chance in the SF?

I'd switch to (3)(b) and (4)(b). Reaching the F4 > winning the ECAC title, by a little; starting with a guaranteed 25% shot at the national title wins in a rout.

Discuss.

I would say I fall into the younger Faithful category, but I can unequivocally say that watching Harvard and Clarkson play for the ECAC Championship was just awful. I had the pleasure of being there in person .

That said I'd much rather win the ECACs, because if the selection committee is going to screw us anyway, we might as well already have some hardware to show for it. Plus, if we don't win we have to listen to more of the "you're not even the best team in the ECAC, how can Cornell beat/be ranked ahead of [insert HE, CCHA, WCHA team here]." Of course, a run to the Frozen Four should come ahead of the ECACs. To be one of the best four teams at the end of year says a lot more than being second or third best in Albany.

I absolutely agree with you on 1A and 2A. I guess I would also take 4b, tough as it is to give up the ECAC title. But with 4b we still have a shot at the National Championship. And I would still take 3A over 3B. (The only choice of yours I disagree with.)
Andy W. '86

This year in particular, I think i'd be more likely to choose the B's for 2 and 4. I feel like there's a huge amount of parity in college hockey this year, and I think that while this Cornell team doesn't feel dominant like it did in '03 (or even in '05), I think there's a pretty good chance they could upset anyone in the country.

I'm not a young'un. I was a freshman in '94. But I still place the importance of the NCAAs way above the ECACs now. Why? Because we've won the ECACs four times since I was in school, and the sheen has worn off a bit. Yes, you could say that I'm now sort of used to winning the conference. As a result, it pretty much seems to me that the only thing left for us to do is win the national championship.

I'd definitely take the ECAC titles.

1a and 2a. 2a seems like the pretty easy choice since you have the ECAC title and you haven't defined any finality to the season. If it was making the Frozen Four, it may be a different story...

**Ok, I swear, I started writing this response before looking at #3 and #4. But as I wrote Frozen Four, I thought "Wait a sec...I think I know where he might be going!"**

That progression being what it is, I agree it's 1a, 2a, 3b, 4b easy. I think it's not only a matter of being a step closer, but also the slight advantages that might be gained in recruiting by being in the Frozen Four and national (college hockey) spotlight for a week or two -- advantages which I don't think are gained at all by piling up ECAC titles.

The question is often posed, would you rather have a team that is consistantly dominant for years at a time but never wins national titles, or one that wins a national title and then has a stretch of really awful years afterward. I will always choose the first one. The in-game experiences mean more to me than notches in the belt.

The #1 goal is a National Championship and thus whatever takes them closer is what I want. It's great to win the IVY and ECAC, but all that really matters is that National Championship.

Exactly. Would I be want to sit through 20 yeas of seasons like 1993 in return for one national championship? Heck no. I'd rather have my team be very good every year and come up just short every year. Much more enjoyable over the long haul.

1a, 2b, 3a, 4a. I find any scenario where we take our chances in the NCAAs over any scenario with a guaranteed early NCAA exit. But, if either choice is a guaranteed loss in the NCAAs, I'll take the ECAC over advancing further prior to that loss. I'd rather win something, and I'd rather have a chance at winning in the NCAA over a guaranteed ECAC title, but a trip to the NCAA or even the Frozen Four isn't winning anything, it's merely qualifying (not all that much of a prize if there's a guaranteed loss).

4 is the most interesting question by far.

Section A Banshee
The question is often posed, would you rather have a team that is consistantly dominant for years at a time but never wins national titles, or one that wins a national title and then has a stretch of really awful years afterward. I will always choose the first one. The in-game experiences mean more to me than notches in the belt.

Are you, perhaps, a fan of the Atlanta Braves?

Coach Schafer has brought the program to the point where the Frozen Four is a realistic goal. But with that said, our limited OOC schedule/ Ivy league game limit leaves us little room for error when we have a season such as this where we have a few bad losses. Winning the ECACHL's our only guaranteed for getting an invite to the party (even if the "party" begins in WHCA land).

But if Greg can make so that Cornell gets into the tourney even though they lose the the ECACHL tourney, then I would take 2b/4b. Just get into the tourney and let the puck bounce as it may.

calgARI '07
The #1 goal is a National Championship and thus whatever takes them closer is what I want. It's great to win the IVY and ECAC, but all that really matters is that National Championship.

You know, I used to find that sentiment very annoying in BU fans, like the one who said after getting upset by Providence in the 1996 Hockey East tournament something like "at least that's over so we can concentrate on the one that counts".

jtwcornell91
You know, I used to find that sentiment very annoying in BU fans, like the one who said after getting upset by Providence in the 1996 Hockey East tournament something like "at least that's over so we can concentrate on the one that counts".

I don't think Ari's saying that we don't value the ECAC championships... but after 10 years of being at or near the top of the conference, and after winning several of these things, it would be acceptable to sacrifice that if (for some reason) it meant winning the national championship.

Personally, I think all this speculation is pointless, because the NCAA seeding process seems sufficiently random (or malicious towards Cornell; take your pick) that losing the ECAC tournament probably won't reliably help our chances in the NCAA tourney. I want to attend both an ECAC championship and an NCAA championship, preferably every year.

Cheers,
Kyle

I definitely agree with you. It would be far more enjoyable to continue watching close, competitive games at Lynah -- or on TV -- than know we can say we are the champions for one year. Reputation is gained not through a single victory, but a consistent string of hard fought wins (even if they're not "the one".

[q]Are you, perhaps, a fan of the Atlanta Braves? [/q]Ask yourself, which team would you rather root for? The Braves with their 14 division championships in 15 years and many, many playoff disappointments or the Florida MArlins with their two wild card World Championships and lousy finishes most other seasons including the two purges. I'd pick Atlanta's results in a heartbeat.

Not a perfect analogy, of course, because Atlanta has actually won the World Series once during this run.

I am underwhelmed by any scenario in which we fail to win an ECAC championship.

4b starts to sound a bit attractive until I remember the absolutely crushing feeling of the semifinal loss in Buffalo. Without the ameliorative qualities of that championship afterglow, Thursday in Buffalo would have been rather black.

jtwcornell91

calgARI '07
The #1 goal is a National Championship and thus whatever takes them closer is what I want. It's great to win the IVY and ECAC, but all that really matters is that National Championship.

You know, I used to find that sentiment very annoying in BU fans, like the one who said after getting upset by Providence in the 1996 Hockey East tournament something like "at least that's over so we can concentrate on the one that counts".

Well I'm annoyed by just the opposite. I want to win everything. But two years ago, there were actually some people who were satisfied with the Ivy League Championship and the embarrassment on home ice. Winning championships is imperative, but go and ask Schafer or Moulson what they would take over anything else and they would tell you a National Championship. I think winning the ECAC is great and very important but I don't like how the team celebrates as if they've won the whole thing after they win it. In the NHL, the conference champion rarely even touchs the Campbell or Wales trophy when they are awarded it. In college basketball, powerhouse teams are very excited by winning their confernece post season tournament but their focus all along is winning the National Championship. I know college hockey is a little different in that regard and that's fine. But it's all about ultimate supremacy as far as I'm concerned and I refuse to acknowledge Cornell as one of powerhouses of college hockey until 1970 isn't the last NCAA Championship that they've one. I would have been pissed if Cornell lost to Harvard in the ECAC Championship last year but not that much more pissed than when they had lost to them in January because I knew they were going to the NCAA Tournament.

Section A Banshee
The question is often posed, would you rather have a team that is consistantly dominant for years at a time but never wins national titles, or one that wins a national title and then has a stretch of really awful years afterward. I will always choose the first one. The in-game experiences mean more to me than notches in the belt.

The only reason that is posed is because the 2nd option has to be made to look as bad as possible for it to even have a chance of being overtaken by the first.

The answer to this scenario is easily the 2nd one, even if having to accept the awful years.

The "in-game experiences" will occur whether or not the team is competitive. If the Mets win the World Series this year, I wouldn't care less about the final results of the last 5 years, and the next 5. Dae-Sung Koo still doubled off Randy Johnson last year and "stole" home on the next play, and David Wright still made the 2 sickest catches of the year, despite the final mediocre results. And Piazza still homered in his first game back from his groin tear during a 66 win season. And so on and so forth...

*sigh* 14 more days 'til pitchers and catchers...

calgARI '07
Winning championships is imperative, but go and ask Schafer or Moulson what they would take over anything else and they would tell you a National Championship.

I don't think anyone ever said anywhere they would "take" an ECAC championship over an NCAA championship. That oversimplification completely misstates the issue being discussed here.

Nor do I recall anyone ever saying they were satisfied by an Ivy League championship. I would guess all that most, if not all, of us think about in terms of the Ivy is that we'd prefer not seeing the banner hanging in someone else's rink--in particular at Lynah East.

Scersk '97
4b starts to sound a bit attractive until I remember the absolutely crushing feeling of the semifinal loss in Buffalo. Without the ameliorative qualities of that championship afterglow, Thursday in Buffalo would have been rather black.

If I recall correctly, that Thursday afternoon was pretty black anyway.

I know I'm very much in the minority when I say this, but I kind of feel like you shouldn't be playing for the National Championship if you can't even win your own conference. Win or go home at each stage. I really hope that when Cornell wins their next national title they also win the ECACs. Otherwise part of me will think it somewhat tainted.

calgARI '07
I want to win everything. But two years ago, there were actually some people who were satisfied with the Ivy League Championship and the embarrassment on home ice.

Really? Who, exactly?

Beeeej

KeithK
I know I'm very much in the minority when I say this, but I kind of feel like you shouldn't be playing for the National Championship if you can't even win your own conference. Win or go home at each stage. I really hope that when Cornell wins their next national title they also win the ECACs. Otherwise part of me will think it somewhat tainted.

So do you think there should be no at-large bids, then?

KeithK
I know I'm very much in the minority when I say this, but I kind of feel like you shouldn't be playing for the National Championship if you can't even win your own conference. Win or go home at each stage. I really hope that when Cornell wins their next national title they also win the ECACs. Otherwise part of me will think it somewhat tainted.

Six conference tourny champions. Top two get first round byes, bottom four play (a.k.a., the ECAC and the CCHA play the two minor champs). Survivors meet in the Frozen Four.

Go sell the WCHA on it and we're all with you.

I'm with Keith. The all-WCHA Frozen Four from last year, while probably exciting on the ice, was a big yawn as far as I was concerned. I really don't think the 5th-place WCHA team or, this year, the 5th-place CCHA team has any business playing for a national championship. Frankly, I'd rather see another Atlantic Hockey or CHA team in.

Of course, what a clearly ECAC-type viewpoint. If we get four teams in this year, which would, no matter how much it's been discussed, be quite unlikely, I won't complain. Just, geez, another year of Wisconsin and CC and Denver and North Dakota and Minnesota... There's kind of a "rich get richer" quality to it.

KeithK
I know I'm very much in the minority when I say this, but I kind of feel like you shouldn't be playing for the National Championship if you can't even win your own conference. Win or go home at each stage. I really hope that when Cornell wins their next national title they also win the ECACs. Otherwise part of me will think it somewhat tainted.

I can still remember vividly when only conference champions were invited to the NCAA basketball dance (and perhaps a few worthy independents). I can tell you it made for some very exciting ACC tournaments.

If I know that we aren't going to win it all, we better win the ECAC (1a and 3a). I'll still take the conference championship if it is open ended anyway (2a) unless I know that we get to the Frozen Four (4b).

Repeat after me: "The conference championship matters." These are the teams that we see every year, the rivalries that we care about, the fans that we interact with. Maybe it is provincial, but I don't care what Scooby thinks of us. I want RichS to know that we have a better team - and I want it to hurt like hell when he is celebrating a win by the Knights at Lynah. Once the conference championship stops mattering, the whole season is just data for the PWR and that is depressing.

Keith - I don't like the one-and-done sorta-randomness of one tournament (conference) being the only deciding factor for entry into another (NCAA). Basketball learned this lesson a long time ago.

[q]Keith - I don't like the one-and-done sorta-randomness of one tournament (conference) being the only deciding factor for entry into another (NCAA). Basketball learned this lesson a long time ago.[/q]True. I'm also in the minority thinking that the RS championship is more indicative of the better team when you have a balanced schedule. I've said it here before - having a tournament to decide the champion made perfect sense in the old unbalanced schedule days but not so much now.

That said, it is the way the ECAC decides its championship, so it is important. Besides, there's a lot of history to the tournament that gives it more validity to me than if it were just recently invented.

Josh - I am against at large bids in principle. I am also against baseball wild cards (with a passion) and would go so far as to root against my team if they were the wild card team (and did in 1997, though not in 1995).

KeithK
I'm also in the minority thinking that the RS championship is more indicative of the better team when you have a balanced schedule.

I think a lot of people would agree with this but still think that the tournament is too much damn fun to give up, even if it means that the best team in the conference doesn't always go to the NCAA's. Me, for example.

KeithK
I'm also in the minority thinking that the RS championship is more indicative of the better team when you have a balanced schedule. I've said it here before - having a tournament to decide the champion made perfect sense in the old unbalanced schedule days but not so much now.

I don't think many would disagree with you that the round robin competition of the league determines the "best team." But a tournament is not about identifying the best team, it's about winning a championship in a series of win-or-die situations.

These are two distinct and non-comparable types of competition. If the "best team" was all that mattered, we wouldn't have any elimination tournies at any level. Each conference would determine an RS champ by round robin, and then the champions would play a round robin, similar to the CHL Memorial Cup, to determine the national "best team."

If the "championship" was all that mattered, we'd simply bracket up all the teams in November, play elimination rounds, and crown a national champion by Christmas.

You said it in the fewest words. A good team wants to win the league title. A great team wants to win it all.

Nobody remembers that some putz from Brown tied David McKee or David Leneveu for Ivy rookie of the year.

Okay, every Ivy League and ECAC banner hoisted to the rafters at Lynah attenuates about 0.5dB of sound, which is not bad. But the ones that matter are dated 1967 and 1970, plus the ones the list Cornell Olympians.

I suspect a lot of people would be happy finishing second in the Ivies (independent of whether you advance in the postseason) so long as second place was attained via two victories over Harvard.


C'mon, aren't you frustrated that Cornell hasn't won a national champsionship (in hockey) since before you were born and almost certainly since before you attended Cornell? If you were a Cornell undergrad and saw Cornell win the NCAA title, you're at least, what, 53 years old. Harvard may suck, but Harvard has won an NCAA championship more recently than that. RPI too. Look at the roster of teams that has won an NCAA championship in the last 50 years and look at who has had the longest dry spell ...

billhoward
Look at the roster of teams that has won an NCAA championship in the last 50 years and look at who has had the longest dry spell ...

Collorado College? I agree with your general sentiment though.

redhair34

billhoward
Look at the roster of teams that has won an NCAA championship in the last 50 years and look at who has had the longest dry spell ...

Collorado College? I agree with your general sentiment though.

I believe we're #2 on the list, though.

NCAA title is what Cornell should hope for this year, next year, before the decade is out.

More realistically, given the increase in competition (Ohio State was not a threat to Ned Harkness, let alone Miami of Ohio), is making the Final Four / Frozen Four several times this decade. We've done it once, we should have done it twice, we need to do it twice more before 2010 or 2009, depending on when your believe a decade ends.

billhoward
NCAA title is what Cornell should hope for this year, next year, before the decade is out.

More realistically, given the increase in competition (Ohio State was not a threat to Ned Harkness, let alone Miami of Ohio), is making the Final Four / Frozen Four several times this decade. We've done it once, we should have done it twice, we need to do it twice more before 2010 or 2009, depending on when your believe a decade ends.

I think that is a good and realistic target and it would effectively put them amongst the elite. That is if they win one of them which I think they will in the next five years.

billhoward
Okay, every Ivy League and ECAC banner hoisted to the rafters at Lynah attenuates about 0.5dB of sound, which is not bad. But the ones that matter are dated 1967 and 1970, plus the ones the list Cornell Olympians.

I'm pretty damned happy about the ones dated 1996 and 1997 myself.

All this good team/great team talk reminds me of a statement from Ken Dryden attributed to Coach Harkness. When asked why he didn't go to Princeton the statement was like: Princeton said they were building for an ECAC title, Harkness said he was building for an NCAA title.

billhoward
C'mon, aren't you frustrated that Cornell hasn't won a national champsionship (in hockey) since before you were born and almost certainly since before you attended Cornell? If you were a Cornell undergrad and saw Cornell win the NCAA title, you're at least, what, 53 years old. ...

There are few of us here, and within our lifetimes (if not memories) the Cornell football team beat Michigan. That does bias my aspirations for the team.