Not to get too far ahead of things, but here is hoping that Cornell gets placed in Manchester, my home town, as projected by Adam and Jason.
CU fans will really like the facility. Modern and all good seats. Matt Moulson is a bit of a legend in AHL history here in his days proceeding his college years.
Many good bars and pubs within walking distance of Arena. Not to be confused, until this year, it was Verizon Wireless Arena but SNHU (Southern NH University) recently
purchased naming rights but don't actually own the place,
I sure hope the experts are right about CU playing here. Traveled to Ithaca for Clarkson series and Lake Placid this weekend. A lot of miles. So unless they are in Manch or Providence at worst it's TV for me. If it's Manchester, I'll be glad to answer any questions about the arena and city any of elynah mates have.
It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
See you all in ManchVegas.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Minny vs. Ohio State
Sounds like a tough regional, but they were all going to be tough. Since we're IN and relatively close to home, I say it's a good result. Good luck to Cornell.
Couldn't have asked for better placement, personally - a game near Boston on my son's third birthday, during the day so he'll be awake! Stupid question: any way of knowing now what side of the arena should I be getting my tickets for?
Would it be possible to wait until after the game on Saturday to buy tickets for Sunday or will they be sold out by then?
Not the most ideal opponent since Lowell is a scary offensive team, but it's the NCAA and the best are going to be there.
Also, I imagine that first game will probably have the most attendance since Lowell also draws very well as I've seen first-hand.
In our experience, the regionals rarely sell out. When Cornell beats Lowell, there will be plenty of tickets available for Sunday's game.
it wont even be 2/3 full on sunday if we make it that far but many tickets will be sold early and probably dumped after the first round.
really depends on whether you want to sit in cornell section or just be in the building.
they havent even started selling the upper ring yet. it holds 10000..
last year in albany with lowell in it they had 5000 for sat and 3000 for sunday...
the other regional with BC in sold 6700 for the first game and 4500 for the finals..
Was any rationale given for not leaving it with #6 vs. #11 and #5 vs. #12? Why the flip?
Is there a section for Cornell? We would like to be near the band.
always wonder why the School doesnt have ticket info ready to go. hockey they knew we were in before today it was just a matter of where and that would have little to do with the school getting their tickets ready to go.
If history is any indication, you'll be able to sit near the Cornell section, no matter where your ticket says your seat is.
Quote from: IcebergAlso, I imagine that first game will probably have the most attendance since Lowell also draws very well as I've seen first-hand.
Lowell is only about 30 miles from Manchester, so while Saturday is unlikely to sell out, there's sure to be a large contingent of Lowell fans there.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Minny vs. Ohio State
Minny - ND
Quote from: CU2007Quote from: abmarksQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Minny vs. Ohio State
Minny - ND
No, it's minny (minnesota) v Notre Dame. No idea what the shorthand for UM-Duluth is but it's not minny. And UM-Duluth v Ohio State is in FARGO.
Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State
Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota
Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force
Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: CU2007Quote from: abmarksQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Minny vs. Ohio State
Minny - ND
No, it's minny (minnesota) v Notre Dame. No idea what the shorthand for UM-Duluth is but it's not minny. And UM-Duluth v Ohio State is in FARGO.
Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State
Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota
Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force
Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell
Right. So the rest of the regional is minny - ND. Not Minny - Ohio State.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: CU2007Quote from: abmarksQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Minny vs. Ohio State
Minny - ND
No, it's minny (minnesota) v Notre Dame. No idea what the shorthand for UM-Duluth is but it's not minny. And UM-Duluth v Ohio State is in FARGO.
Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State
Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota
Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force
Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell
Run this by me again.
Jeff says it's Manchester against Lowell and ugarte asks what are the other teams?
Then you, mistakenly I think, say Minny-OSU.
CU2007 corrects you to Minny-ND (meaning Notre Dame, not N. Dakota)
But then you somehow think they mean UMD-ND (meaning N. Dakota) and correct(?) it back to Minny-Notre Dame?
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: abmarksQuote from: CU2007Quote from: abmarksQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It's Manchester. Against Lowell.
What is the rest of the regional? (knock wood)
Minny vs. Ohio State
Minny - ND
No, it's minny (minnesota) v Notre Dame. No idea what the shorthand for UM-Duluth is but it's not minny. And UM-Duluth v Ohio State is in FARGO.
Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State
Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota
Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force
Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell
Run this by me again.
Jeff says it's Manchester against Lowell and ugarte asks what are the other teams?
Then you, mistakenly I think, say Minny-OSU.
CU2007 corrects you to Minny-ND (meaning Notre Dame, not N. Dakota)
But then you somehow think they mean UMD-ND (meaning N. Dakota) and correct(?) it back to Minny-Notre Dame?
Actually, Jim, you deciphered it.
My bad. I clearly need more sleep before posting; I'm impressed that you figured that out.
I mis-read the thing I quoted and thought CU had written the
Article about Quebec natives playing in the NCAA tourney (http://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/canadiens-prospects-join-quebecers-in-action-at-ncaa-hockey-tourney) discusses Yates, Anderson, and Kaldis
Selection committee's prioritizing profits over merit pits us against the fourth- rather than eighth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/)-best team in the country.
Quote from: BearLoverSelection committee's prioritizing profits over merit pits us against the fourth- rather than eighth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/)-best team in the country.
fifth rather than sixth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/) in the rankings that they actually use to make the selections, but don't let that spoil your righteous indignation.
It does kinda suck that we got UML and not WMU, but at this stage, I'm okay with it.
You have to go through the best teams at some point if you want to win it all.
Quote from: BearLoverSelection committee's prioritizing profits over merit pits us against the fourth- rather than eighth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/)-best team in the country.
Why are you quoting meaningless polls to make a point? I thought this stopped in 1998
Quote from: DisplacedCornellianQuote from: BearLoverSelection committee's prioritizing profits over merit pits us against the fourth- rather than eighth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/)-best team in the country.
fifth rather than sixth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/) in the rankings that they actually use to make the selections, but don't let that spoil your righteous indignation.
Here (http://www.printyourbrackets.com/thumbs/16-team-seeded-tourney-bracket.gif) is an ideal 16-team bracket and here (http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-12.20.09-PM.jpg) is the actual NC$$ bracket with PWR here (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php) (since the NC$$ are assholes and deliberately obscure that info on the bracket and I couldn't find anybody who notes it).
If all favorites win all games except we win our games, here is our path (we are PWR 11):
Ideal: WMU + Hvd + UMD + Den = 6 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 12
Actual: Low + Minn + Den + UMD = 5 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 12
No difference in difficulty.
Quote from: DafatoneIt does kinda suck that we got UML and not WMU, but at this stage, I'm okay with it.
You have to go through the best teams at some point if you want to win it all.
WMU is getting their two injured forwards back (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/03/23_WMUs-Dries,-Allison-to-Play.php) for at least tomorrow. Dries and Allison are tied for 3rd in scoring on that team (2nd in Points/Game), while missing 4 games. On the selection show, one of the pundits picked WMU for that region if they played, Harvard if they didn't.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: DafatoneIt does kinda suck that we got UML and not WMU, but at this stage, I'm okay with it.
You have to go through the best teams at some point if you want to win it all.
WMU is getting their two injured forwards back (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/03/23_WMUs-Dries,-Allison-to-Play.php) for at least tomorrow. Dries and Allison are tied for 3rd in scoring on that team (2nd in Points/Game), while missing 4 games. On the selection show, one of the pundits picked WMU for that region if they played, Harvard if they didn't.
Oh, then it sucks less. I'm just happy to be in. From here, it's up to us.
Quote from: DisplacedCornellianQuote from: BearLoverSelection committee's prioritizing profits over merit pits us against the fourth- rather than eighth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/d-i-mens-poll/)-best team in the country.
fifth rather than sixth (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/) in the rankings that they actually use to make the selections, but don't let that spoil your righteous indignation.
Righteous indignation? Whether the process is unfair is
completely independent of whether Cornell happened to benefit or suffer in this particular case. The two are wholly discrete questions, so I'll deal with them separately:
1. Is the process unfair? Yes--any pairing that takes into account attendance (i.e., profits) is necessarily doing so at the expense of merit.
2. Was the process unfair to Cornell in this case? Maybe slightly, maybe not at all--the above posters have done a good job arguing both sides.
I'm not unhappy with the pairing. I'm definitely not unhappy with it given where I predicted Cornell to finish at the start of the year.
who says that the brackets have to be done by merit? you could argue its only the attendance factor thats allowed it to go beyond a 4 team east vs west thing. once you are in it only the teams that get in outside the first 16 pwr could be argued as being easier wins
Quote from: upprdeckwho says that the brackets have to be done by merit? you could argue its only the attendance factor thats allowed it to go beyond a 4 team east vs west thing. once you are in it only the teams that get in outside the first 16 pwr could be argued as being easier wins
Then just choose the top 16 drawing teams (http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2016-2017/) every year, no matter what their record, with 16 @ 1, 15 @ 2, etc, and re-seeding each round. Why have merit enter into it at all?
HOW SOON BEFORE THE GAMES START!!!!!!! THERE'S TOO MUCH ANXIETY IN THE AIR.
merit gets you in..
why does seeding have to be done by merit..
Some thought has been given that random would be better,, what would happen if the ncaa did it random and a 16 seed ended up with the same type of seeding that a 1 getsnow.
the reward is to get in, why do they need addition rewards of playing an easier road if they really are a better team?
I love the idea that "Cornell was screwed" despite being kept away from a team that they have gone 0-3 against this year and is the hottest in the nation. Lowell being a relatively slightly more difficult first hurdle is balanced by Minnesota being a relatively slightly not as difficult second hurdle. Either way, Cornell is going to end the season as champions or not. If they're going to be champions, they should be able to put four of their best games together in a row. They don't deserve it otherwise.
Also: look at past years--the first round is NEVER chalk.
Quote from: DafatoneIt does kinda suck that we got UML and not WMU, but at this stage, I'm okay with it.
You have to go through the best teams at some point if you want to win it all.
If you're not going to win it all, your season is more successful the more rounds you advance. Better to not play the best teams until the final four meet in Chicago.
"You have to go through the best teams at some point if you want to win it all" could be something the old coach would say, along with "The other guys put their pants on one leg at a time, just like we do." Somebody on our son's HS hockey team, hearing that before playing Delbarton (NJ), said, "And then they step into size 14 skates, one foot at a time."
Should we make it past UMass Lowell, Cornell is lucky, comparatively, in having the lowest of the 1-seeds in our bracket in Minnesota. That and not having to play them in Mariucci Arena. It's already been a good year for this century of Cornell hockey, getting to Lake Placid, to the title game, and into the NCAAs.
Percentage posters hedge their bets, while zealots are certain where certainty does not exist. Cornell wins, 3-1.
Quote from: HookingPercentage posters hedge their bets, while zealots are certain where certainty does not exist. Cornell wins, 3-1.
WOOHOOOOO!! Who won the other semi? Can't wait for the final on Sunday.
Just came from practice in Manchester. Things were very upbeat. Looked like cautious optimism to me.
USCHO Picks. (http://www.uscho.com/2017/03/24/picking-the-regionals-uscho-writers-dig-into-the-opening-weekend-of-the-2017-ncaa-tournament/)
At least they get better as you read down.
Quote from: Candace HorganNortheast Regional: The only regional with no NCHC teams. I don't know too much about any of these teams. Minnesota has looked good, but I'll pick UMass Lowell to make it through.
Quote from: Jim ConnellyNortheast Regional: UMass Lowell is playing its best hockey down the stretch. If that continues in the regional, look for the River Hawks, paced by balanced scoring, to emerge. Teams will have to play disciplined against the River Hawks if they want to win. Lowell boasts the third-best power play in the nation.
Quote from: Nathan FournierNortheast Regional: UMass Lowell — All Norm Bazin knows how to do is win as the River Hawks have made the NCAA tournament five of the past six years. They have the right mix of offense and defense. Being 40 minutes from campus, they could make Manchester a second home for the weekend.
Quote from: Paula C. WestonNortheast Regional: Minnesota over Notre Dame. The Golden Gophers have a deep, consistent, experienced team. The Fighting Irish have a deep, slightly less-consistent, experienced team. Notre Dame's defense may be the factor, but I see Minnesota advancing.
UMass Lowell over Cornell. Lowell is arguably the best team in this bracket, in spite of its second seed. The River Hawks have the third-best scoring margin in D-I and they've dropped just one game in their last 12.
UMass Lowell over Minnesota. I'm just not picking against the River Hawks.
Quote from: Dan RubinNortheast Regional: UMass Lowell — It seems a little cliche to pick the River Hawks, but I'm okay with it. They looked the part of a national champion in winning Hockey East, and they'll have the benefit of playing closer to home than everyone. Cornell is a sneaky sleeper pick for me here.
Quote from: Sean ShapiroNortheast Regional:
Minnesota over Notre Dame
Cornell over Umass Lowell
Minnesota over Cornell
The Gophers feel like a heavy favorite to me in this region. I don't see them falling short of Frozen Four.
Strange that everyone seems to think BU is doomed. Cohesiveness and coaching issues aside, they do have some highly skilled players on their roster, even if that west regional is nasty.
No. Dakota 1 - BU 1 after 2
Providence 0 - Harvard 0 after 1
looking at tickets available right now.. one section has none. cornell has a few left in their corner. one other has a few scattered around and one has just a touch more. less than 100 on ticket master and the upper bowl still seems closed.
lowell will have its crowd but its not like it will be 80% of the crowd.
Just sat down in the arena in providence as Harvard goes up 1-0.
So much for Harvard traveling well... No more than 100 Harvard fans here.
if you added up all the harvard fans at lynah the last 20 years would it add up to 100?
Quote from: upprdeckif you added up all the harvard fans at lynah the last 20 years would it add up to 100?
Lynah is just a bit further than an hour.
clarksons fans find a way to get there every year
BU vs. North Dakota going into OT, tied at 3.
It seems like the gong show at BU continues. They were up 3-1 for a bit.
And Harvard is now up 2-0 heading to the third
wow.. huge replay over rule in Ndak..
Quote from: andyw2100BU vs. North Dakota going into OT, tied at 3.
Now going into a second OT!
Edit: Duplicate Post.
If anyone is still waiting for the second OT to start, as I was, it started! Now on ESPNU instead of ESPN2.
Quote from: IcebergAnd Harvard is now up 2-0 heading to the third
Harvard wins 3–0.
(http://i.qkme.me/3v2r28.jpg)
Who are you going to believe, a cluster of effete statisticians or a seasoned Cornell Hockey Fan?
BU wins 4-3 on a gorgeous goal. Clayton Keller with an amazing display of puck possession threaded the needle to Charlie McAvoy on a diagonal cross ice pass, and McAvoy buried the puck. UND dominated the 1st overtime and most of the 2nd, and had the winning goal called off in the 1st OT on a hard to view offsides call (I did think the UND guy was offsides but hard to say if it was conclusive)
For those who would've preferred a match-up with Western Michigan, that wish might be justified. Air Force leads 2-0 after about 12 minutes and looks like the better team.
Figures. After listening to the first four periods on the drive, I get to the hotel in Manchester which has ESPN2 but not U. I finally set ny computer up to the WiFi and can't find the game because it's supposed to be over. I eventually find it but it freezes. Next time it plays they're already celebrating in the corner.
Bottom line is, Let's Go Red!
The Starrett in net for Air Force is Bo's brother.
Quote from: IcebergThe Starrett in net for Air Force is Bo's brother.
Beau's too?
Quote from: scoop85For those who would've preferred a match-up with Western Michigan, that wish might be justified. Air Force leads 2-0 after about 12 minutes and looks like the better team.
I turned it on for the back end of the first period - when the score was already 2-0 and definitely did not think this. I assumed by now WMU would be winning but they're down 3-1.
Looks like we'll be rooting for two Starretts tomorrow.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: scoop85For those who would've preferred a match-up with Western Michigan, that wish might be justified. Air Force leads 2-0 after about 12 minutes and looks like the better team.
I turned it on for the back end of the first period - when the score was already 2-0 and definitely did not think this. I assumed by now WMU would be winning but they're down 3-1.
I would like to amend this. Hoo boy does WMU look ba---
as I was typing this WMU scored to make it 4-2.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: ugarteQuote from: scoop85For those who would've preferred a match-up with Western Michigan, that wish might be justified. Air Force leads 2-0 after about 12 minutes and looks like the better team.
I turned it on for the back end of the first period - when the score was already 2-0 and definitely did not think this. I assumed by now WMU would be winning but they're down 3-1.
I would like to amend this. Hoo boy does WMU look ba---
as I was typing this WMU scored to make it 4-2.
4-3.
Before this, I was going to say that it feels like that 09 regional with AFA playing the role of Bemidji.
I blame Trump. He wins and suddenly Harvard is winning Beanpots and NCAA games. Up is down, left is right.
Quote from: French RageI blame Trump. He wins and suddenly Harvard is winning Beanpots and NCAA games. Up is down, left is right.
They haven't lost in his administration, that's true.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: French RageI blame Trump. He wins and suddenly Harvard is winning Beanpots and NCAA games. Up is down, left is right.
They haven't lost in his administration, that's true.
Jesus. I didn't need to know that.
AFA wraps it up 5-4 after WMU scores an EAG and then commits a major penalty while Air Force was icing the puck. Still nearly tied it up.
UMD is up 2-0 on OSU.
Quote from: ugarteUMD is up 2-0 on OSU.
Now going into OT, tied at 2. Supposedly first time since 2005 that both games in the same regional have gone to OT.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: ugarteUMD is up 2-0 on OSU.
Now going into OT, tied at 2. Supposedly first time since 2005 that both games in the same regional have gone to OT.
UMD wins it in OT.
Last night the four playoff teams had a total of 29 power plays but scored a total of TWO power play goals - a less than 7% success ratio. This seems low. How does it compare to regular season power-play success results?
Quote from: HookingLast night the four playoff teams had a total of 29 power plays but scored a total of TWO power play goals - a less than 7% success ratio. This seems low. How does it compare to regular season power-play success results?
It's low.
Union has a chance at allowing 10 goals. That certainly hasn't happened during the NCAA's in a long, long time.
Quote from: IcebergUnion has a chance at allowing 10 goals. That certainly hasn't happened during the NCAA's in a long, long time.
I just logged onto that game and was stunned to see PSU up 9-3
thats just a crazy score.
Quote from: IcebergUnion has a chance at allowing 10 goals. That certainly hasn't happened during the NCAA's in a long, long time.
It ended 10-3. The announcers said the last time a team scored ten goals in an NCAA tourney game before today was in 1990.
UMD knocks out BU on an amazing hustle play to keep the puck in the offensive zone, crisp passing, a shot that crippled a defenseman, a deke and a snipe. Great sequence.
Quote from: ugarteUMD knocks out BU on an amazing hustle play to keep the puck in the offensive zone, crisp passing, a shot that crippled a defenseman, a deke and a snipe. Great sequence.
On the replay you can see the BU forward was dinged when he blocked the prior shot and was unable to move out toward the Duluth player, who was able to move in closer for the winner
check out Donatos goal to make it 2-0 over AFA. What I wouldn't give to get one guy on the big red with that level of skill
Quote from: abmarkscheck out Donatos goal to make it 2-0 over AFA. What I wouldn't give to get one guy on the big red with that level of skill
https://twitter.com/NCAAIceHockey/status/845812906226782208
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: abmarkscheck out Donatos goal to make it 2-0 over AFA. What I wouldn't give to get one guy on the big red with that level of skill
https://twitter.com/NCAAIceHockey/status/845812906226782208
Thing is, we have guys who can do that 1 time in 10, but Donato is in complete control the whole run and is already setting up move n+1 while he is doing move n.
I believe the cliche is "you can't teach that."
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: abmarkscheck out Donatos goal to make it 2-0 over AFA. What I wouldn't give to get one guy on the big red with that level of skill
https://twitter.com/NCAAIceHockey/status/845812906226782208
Thing is, we have guys who can do that 1 time in 10, but Donato is in complete control the whole run and is already setting up move n+1 while he is doing move n.
I believe the cliche is "you can't teach that."
Agreed. Let's skip trying to teach it. How about we focus on recruiting it instead?
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: abmarkscheck out Donatos goal to make it 2-0 over AFA. What I wouldn't give to get one guy on the big red with that level of skill
https://twitter.com/NCAAIceHockey/status/845812906226782208
Thing is, we have guys who can do that 1 time in 10, but Donato is in complete control the whole run and is already setting up move n+1 while he is doing move n.
I believe the cliche is "you can't teach that."
Agreed. Let's skip trying to teach it. How about we focus on recruiting it instead?
Come on Schafer! Have a coordinated kid!
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: abmarksQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: abmarkscheck out Donatos goal to make it 2-0 over AFA. What I wouldn't give to get one guy on the big red with that level of skill
https://twitter.com/NCAAIceHockey/status/845812906226782208
Thing is, we have guys who can do that 1 time in 10, but Donato is in complete control the whole run and is already setting up move n+1 while he is doing move n.
I believe the cliche is "you can't teach that."
Agreed. Let's skip trying to teach it. How about we focus on recruiting it instead?
Come on Schafer! Have a coordinated kid!
Never mind Schafer. I'm on it. He'll be ready in 9 years.
All we have to do is move to Canada so he gets on their radar.
Lowell falls in overtime and Notre Dame will only need a bus ride to get the Frozen Four in 2 weeks.
But is Donato any good at playing a trap defense?
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
Lowell was rather pedestrian today, far off of the game they played against us yesterday. Lots of fumbled passes, etc. Just goes to show on "any given day" as last week they pasted ND 5-1.
Quote from: scoop85Lowell was rather pedestrian today, far off of the game they played against us yesterday. Lots of fumbled passes, etc. Just goes to show on "any given day" as last week they pasted ND 5-1.
But ND's OT winner came on a very questionable play. The winning goal scorer looked to have pulled the stick out of a Lowell defender's hand, enabling him to become wide open in the slot.
Quote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (
any) winning the tournament.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Quote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: IcebergUnion has a chance at allowing 10 goals. That certainly hasn't happened during the NCAA's in a long, long time.
It ended 10-3. The announcers said the last time a team scored ten goals in an NCAA tourney game before today was in 1990.
I saw the score and figured everyone got confused by those ridiculous football helmets Penn State plays hockey in.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: IcebergUnion has a chance at allowing 10 goals. That certainly hasn't happened during the NCAA's in a long, long time.
It ended 10-3. The announcers said the last time a team scored ten goals in an NCAA tourney game before today was in 1990.
I saw the score and figured everyone got confused by those ridiculous football helmets Penn State plays hockey in.
Right: a TD plus a FG for each side. They could national titles next couple years in wrestling, ice hockey, and lacrosse.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.
that argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.
Quote from: underskillthat argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.
What on earth does funding have to do with it? The argument works if you think Cornell hasn't reaped the benefits - or been able to reap the benefits - of the theoretical boat elevation that's been cited, regardless of the reasons they haven't. Despite what we may feel in our hearts, there is still a difference between Cornell's caché and that of Harvard or Yale, and that alone could make the difference in whether recent success
by other teams actually fosters improvement in our recruiting.
We need to have someone set up a poll on this site asking who they want to win the tourney based on who's left. Be interesting to see if people prefer the hardware to be in or out of our conference.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: billhowardQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.
How would we measure that? # of NHL picks seems pretty fair. We're losing one (Buckles), retaining four (Starrett, Angello, Fiegl, Tshantz) have two already picked coming in (Song, Cairns) and maybe one to be picked in June (Green). That's 6 or 7 picks on next year's team, which IINM rivals Schafer's best rosters.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: billhowardQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.
Personally I like it a lot more when I can see, and often cheer for 3, maybe 4, ECAC teams in the NCAAs.
I don't know why so many are so strongly anti-Harvard, but I'm rooting for them to win it all.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: underskillthat argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.
What on earth does funding have to do with it? The argument works if you think Cornell hasn't reaped the benefits - or been able to reap the benefits - of the theoretical boat elevation that's been cited, regardless of the reasons they haven't. Despite what we may feel in our hearts, there is still a difference between Cornell's caché and that of Harvard or Yale, and that alone could make the difference in whether recent success by other teams actually fosters improvement in our recruiting.
meaning if you argue that a stronger conference is good for Cornell, the only way that works is if the school tries to actually elevate its program, either through recruiting, facilities, etc. Otherwise, if we're just a middling program that maybe makes the tourney once every 3-5 years, I don't see how the stronger conference has done much for the program, esp. compared to where it was in the 2000's.
look i hate the harvard sucks THREAD but that doesn't mean i have any warm feelings for harvard. long may they fail.
Quote from: underskillthe only way that works is if the school tries to actually elevate its program, either through recruiting, facilities, etc.
That will happen in fits and starts based on Andy's blood sugar, Admissions' casting of
I Ching hexagrams, and whether one of our 1%er hockey-centered alums breaks his neck one morning falling off his pile of money.
We seem to be very healthy in the recruiting department -- we can't hold on to the best ones for the same systemic reasons that other programs lose theirs, too. The facility is the one factor our players consistently cite as our biggest positive discriminator compared to the other Ivies. And hopefully an NC$$ bid puts the RITUALLY DISEMBOWEL SCHAFER!!!1! types on the back burner for one summer.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
God, not this argument again. There has been no evidence thus far that Yale or Union winning an NCAA championship has lifted our boat whatsoever.
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
Quote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
Not that that's the same as recruiting success. It's funny how many of our best players aren't drafted.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks (http://www.tbrw.info/).
Quote from: BearLoverGod, not this argument again.
221 days (http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/roses-are-red-violets-are-blue-fk-offseason-hockey-i-miss-you-27f20.png) until the first Friday in November.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks (http://www.tbrw.info/).
Here (http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_NHL_Draft.html) is the direct page.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks (http://www.tbrw.info/).
Here (http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_NHL_Draft.html) is the direct page.
That's what I get for relying on my gut instinct.
Or. A lot of those earlier picks were 8th and 9th rounders, which no longer exist. Therefore I'm still right?
Nah.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks (http://www.tbrw.info/).
Here (http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_NHL_Draft.html) is the direct page.
Oh, whoops--meant to link to that.
I believe five draft picks, the number on this year's team, was the lowest in some time for a Schafer team.
Quote from: BearLover...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....
There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Quote from: martyQuote from: BearLover...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....
There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament. I'd say '05/'06 was the last time we were clearly the best in the ECAC.
Quote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
I simply want to support a team that is in a very good conference. Don't you want to watch a team playing against the best competition? I don't like the old days of the EZAC and SOS near the bottom.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: billhowardQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.
Another NAY for Sucks winning the tourney.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: billhowardQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: jeff '84Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.
Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.
How would we measure that? # of NHL picks seems pretty fair. We're losing one (Buckles), retaining four (Starrett, Angello, Fiegl, Tshantz) have two already picked coming in (Song, Cairns) and maybe one to be picked in June (Green). That's 6 or 7 picks on next year's team, which IINM rivals Schafer's best rosters.
Despite his age, I don't think Song is coming until 2018
Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
I simply want to support a team that is in a very good conference. Don't you want to watch a team playing against the best competition? I don't like the old days of the EZAC and SOS near the bottom.
I'd lump that in with other subjective rooting interests. For me, a big part of my not wanting other teams to win a championship is that Cornell has been so good for so long that I feel we are far more due than a team like Yale or Union or Q. In the abstract, I do want to play in a competitive conference. I may even want the aforementioned opponents to make the Frozen Four. But I do no want them to win it all before we do. Now that that has happened, I no longer get the same feeling of Big Red Exceptionalism. And I don't think recruits seeking a strong academic school do either.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverLuckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
Nope. Can't do it. I can get myself on board to root on any
other ECAC/Ivy team, in a "hey, good luck, pal of mine" kind of way, but not this one. I gave myself a day to reevaluate, but the heart wants what it wants, and mine continues to come back to this one sentiment:
https://youtu.be/mCjBspxuUmU
With the old WCHA superiority complex mostly dissolved, I'm easily pulling for a Denver-Duluth Final.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverSince the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks (http://www.tbrw.info/).
Here (http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_NHL_Draft.html) is the direct page.
That's what I get for relying on my gut instinct.
Or. A lot of those earlier picks were 8th and 9th rounders, which no longer exist. Therefore I'm still right?
Nah.
Actually I think you're right. Eliminate those 8
th & 9
thers, and starting with current team draftees, I think you get 19 for last 10 years (2005-14) and 11 for prior 10 years (1995-2004). That seems like a significant increase.
One of our big problems was a great recruiting class, on paper, that never panned out. We can't hope to have great classes every year and when you get duds, your program suffers. I think we're over that now, and hope I'm right. If so, we may be in a period of extended NCAA appearances.
I'm not sure if I would have felt the same when I was younger, but I would rather see us swim towards the top of a big pond with decent results than have to practically go undefeated to earn a high ranking as the only big fish in a little pond.
cornell is vastly underfunded.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: martyQuote from: BearLover...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....
There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.
Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.
By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).
Talent alone does not produce winners. Attitude, coaching, strategy, teamwork and even fan support play large roles in determining a team's success. And the latter qualities, like recruiting, are variables which may be influenced by deliberate change.
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: martyQuote from: BearLover...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....
There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.
Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.
By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).
I don't think he's necessarily devaluing it, but it's a pretty fair point that Yale was the dominant team
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: martyQuote from: BearLover...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....
There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.
Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.
By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).
Yeah, I'm not devaluing anything. Cornell absolutely earned and deserved that trophy. But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.
Quote from: BearLoverBut this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.
2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."
Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).
I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: BearLoverBut this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.
2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."
Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).
I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.
Most of the other best teams of the last fifteen or so years have had really bad stretches. I have to figure that we've had the best worst years (as in, our worst years were better than everyone else's worst years) in the conference over the period we're talking about. Maybe we'd prefer more hardware and a couple real clunkers, but it's debatable.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: BearLoverBut this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.
2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."
Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).
I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.
I'm talking beyond simply 2010: between 2009 and 2011, our games vs. Yale were:
L 3-4
L 2-4
L 0-5 (ECAC Championship Game)
L 2-4
L 1-2 (OT) (I was at that game, and it was nowhere near as close as the score; SOG were 56-21)
L 2-4
L 1-4
L 0-6 (ECAC Championship Game)
And whether they've surpassed us as a program or not, Yale's NC didn't come out of nowhere--they'd had sustained success since 2008--and that success didn't end in 2013--they also made the NCAAs in 2015 and 2016.
EDIT: missed the 2009 ECAC Championship Game result. Cornell lost two ECAC tournament finals to Yale by a combined 11-0.
I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).
This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).
Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.
Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?
Quote from: KGR11I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).
This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).
Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.
Couldn't this be interpreted as saying that Cornell's performance is a constant, and when the ECAC is improved, Cornell looks relatively worse?
Quote from: nshapiroQuote from: KGR11I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).
This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).
Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.
Couldn't this be interpreted as saying that Cornell's performance is a constant, and when the ECAC is improved, Cornell looks relatively worse?
Wouldn't that be the same as saying the rising tide doesn't lift all ships/yachts, since Cornell's, um, schooner, didn't uhh...elevate?
Quote from: HookingHave rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?
The calls and the rules have been evolving to discourage "impedance" (interference, hooking, holding, tripping) and to lower the threshold of hits being considered roughing. IMO the college game has opened up over the last decade -- noticeably, although of course we are nowhere near the 8-7 firewagon hockey of the late 70s and early 80s. I watch maybe 2 NHL games a year so I have no idea whether the pros have been affected.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: HookingHave rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?
The calls and the rules have been evolving to discourage "impedance" (interference, hooking, holding, tripping) and to lower the threshold of hits being considered roughing. IMO the college game has opened up over the last decade -- noticeably, although of course we are nowhere near the 8-7 firewagon hockey of the late 70s and early 80s. I watch maybe 2 NHL games a year so I have no idea whether the pros have been affected.
For sure..... I don't think the 02-03 Cornell team would be nearly as successful now as it was then... They would be spending a LOT more time in the penalty box, especially one Mr. Murray!!! God, how I used to love watching him hit people...
The annual "Other ECAC teams winning national titles is great for.... Cornell!" argument. Completes my eLynah Bingo card.
Quote from: email receivedAdditional Frozen Four Tickets Available!
TICKETS
HOSPITALITY
EXCHANGE
BRACKET
ADDITIONAL TICKET OPTIONS AVAILABLE!
LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS NOW AVAILABLE FOLLOWING TEAM TICKET ALLOTMENT RETURNS
The fans of which
team returned those tickets?
Quote from: martyQuote from: email receivedAdditional Frozen Four Tickets Available!
TICKETS
HOSPITALITY
EXCHANGE
BRACKET
ADDITIONAL TICKET OPTIONS AVAILABLE!
LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS NOW AVAILABLE FOLLOWING TEAM TICKET ALLOTMENT RETURNS
The fans of which team returned those tickets?
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtwcornell91Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.
All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtwcornell91Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.
All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?
I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....
Quote from: martyQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtwcornell91Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.
All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?
I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....
...so that they can wear the appropriate letter.
Quote from: martyQuote from: martyQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtwcornell91Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.
All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?
I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....
...so that they can wear the appropriate letter.
http://i.imgur.com/utzTCyo.png
I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.
Quote from: HookingI believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.
I believe that would be Ohio State.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: HookingI believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.
I believe that would be Ohio State.
This (http://gvjerseys.com/data/college/images/BogosianRF.jpg) is also officially "scarlet."
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds
Quote from: TrotskyFuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds
And hitting two posts after the goal :-O
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyFuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds
And hitting two posts after the goal :-O
Good.
I wanted them to either feel embarrassment or pain (like a mask save, for example). This did nicely.
See ya.
Denver up 2-0 late in the 1st, and completely dominant
Quote from: scoop85Denver up 2-0 late in the 1st, and completely dominant
Now 5-0 so you had a pretty good read on how it was going to go.
First penalty of the game. Too many men.
Still haven't seen any sites announced for 2018 NCAA regionals. Unless I missed something, one certainly could deduce that home sites of top 8 seeds might be used which
frankly I support. Anyone have any new or additional information?
Quote from: wakester2468Still haven't seen any sites announced for 2018 NCAA regionals. Unless I missed something, one certainly could deduce that home sites of top 8 seeds might be used which
frankly I support. Anyone have any new or additional information?
No promises, but today is traditionally a day the NC$$ likes to do announcements (e.g., Hobey).
Consider that the official NC$$ site does not yet have the 2017 (http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2013-12-11/2014-18-ncaa-championship-sites) regionals listed. Those will come any day now...
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.
Quote from: IcebergI'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.
One of a very few schools that could do a double, in both hockey and lacrosse.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyFuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds
And hitting two posts after the goal :-O
Good.
I wanted them to either feel embarrassment or pain (like a mask save, for example). This did nicely.
See ya.
+1
Quote from: IcebergI'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.
I'm leaning toward Denver because
I've been partying today my friend is Jannsen's cousin. I'm rooting for a 3-2 final decided in the third or the first OT.
Speaking of Denver, Will Butcher gets the Hobey Baker; the first defender to win it since 2009.
Pretty silly that the Hobey, like the Hart Trophy, almost never goes to a D-man/goalie. Forwards see the least ice time of all the positions! (Bad argument, but still.)
Quote from: BearLoverPretty silly that the Hobey, like the Hart Trophy, almost never goes to a D-man/goalie. Forwards see the least ice time of all the positions! (Bad argument, but still.)
"Offense sells tickets; defense wins championships."
Quote from: IcebergSpeaking of Denver, Will Butcher gets the Hobey Baker
Based on the photo on ESPN he looks like a 37-year old junior account executive for a Boulder real estate firm.
Everybody stop what you're doing and just go watch Denver's second goal.
First natural since Lodboa?
Quote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
No.
Quote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
Game got better after the injury (creepily). The right team won.
Hey, Mike. Offense wins championships too. :-) ;)
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Quote from: HookingGREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.
Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.
Quote from: imafrshmnQuote from: HookingGREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.
Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. That Duluth team would be the ideal model for the modern Cornell teams. Obviously that style of play still works even if Duluth didn't manage to win the final game.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.
Quote from: IcebergQuote from: imafrshmnQuote from: HookingGREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.
Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. That Duluth team would be the ideal model for the modern Cornell teams. Obviously that style of play still works even if Duluth didn't manage to win the final game.
I wouldn't say no to that Denver team either. :-)
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.
Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.
Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?
Quote from: martyQuote from: IcebergI'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.
I'm leaning toward Denver because I've been partying today my friend is Jannsen's cousin. I'm rooting for a 3-2 final decided in the third or the first OT.
I didn't get my wish but did notice that yesterday's 3-2 win was the sixth, all since 1996, but the first that was not decided in OT.
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.
Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.
Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?
He's saying Lukosevicius didn't have a natural because of the Iafallo goal.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyFirst natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.
Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.
Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?
He's saying Lukosevicius didn't have a natural because of the Iafallo goal.
You got it. I didn't think it was that hard.::twak::
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
Quote from: HookingI wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
I'm sure you do.
Quote from: HookingI wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
Actually, no--recruits go in completely blind as to their chosen school's style of play. In fact, a sizable number pick their college out of a hat containing every Division I school, while some pick out of a hat containing only schools that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as their own first name. It is widely known that Colin Greening thought he was entering a program that played firewagon hockey and was shocked--almost to the point of transferring to St. Cloud State--when Schafer told him he'd have to play two ways.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: HookingI wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
Actually, no--recruits go in completely blind as to their chosen school's style of play. In fact, a sizable number pick their college out of a hat containing every Division I school, while some pick out of a hat containing only schools that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as their own first name. It is widely known that Colin Greening thought he was entering a program that played firewagon hockey and was shocked--almost to the point of transferring to St. Cloud State--when Schafer told him he'd have to play two ways.
Edit: Deleted.
Does anybody have any idea what the payout is, if any, to the ECAC or the individual schools that make the NCAA hockey tournament ?