Frozen Four Results

[Jim Hyla]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

[Jim Hyla]

From New Haven Register article.

About 15 fans, some as young as 5, were there to welcome the Bulldogs home.

A police escort of three motorcycles met the men's bus at Bradley International Airport to take them home to Ingalls Rink.

I wonder if they counted the 3 policemen as fans.

[Josh '99]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

-  In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

-  Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002?  I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye.  And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.  

-  The record for 2013 is wrong.  Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2.  5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

[nyc94]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

-  In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

-  Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002?  I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye.  And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.  

-  The record for 2013 is wrong.  Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2.  5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional.  Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1.  Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye.  They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four.  Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

[Josh '99]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

-  In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

-  Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002?  I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye.  And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.  

-  The record for 2013 is wrong.  Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2.  5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional.  Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1.  Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye.  They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four.  Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

Thanks, couldn't remember which pair was which in 2002.

[marty]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

-  In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

-  Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002?  I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye.  And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.  

-  The record for 2013 is wrong.  Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2.  5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional.  Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1.  Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye.  They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four.  Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

The ECAC should have won at least one more in 2000.  There were about 6 TV replay views of a Colgate no goal in OT vs. Michigan that should have counted.  In 2001 the overhead cameras became mandatory for NCAA play, I believe.

[ugarte]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

-  In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

-  Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002?  I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye.  And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.  

-  The record for 2013 is wrong.  Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2.  5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional.  Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1.  Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye.  They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four.  Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

The ECAC should have won at least one more in 2000.  There were about 6 TV replay views of a Colgate no goal in OT vs. Michigan that should have counted.  In 2001 the overhead cameras became mandatory for NCAA play, I believe.

How are there so many nested responses before someone points out that Cornell isn't getting credit for the 2003 Final Four?

[Josh '99]

From article in Troy-Record.

Code Select Expand


ä A look at ECAC schools that have competed in the NCAA Tournament since 2000.

Year    No. Bids    Schools    Reg.seed    W-L Record    

2000    1    St. Lawrence    No. 4 of 6    2-1

2001     1    St. Lawrence    No. 6 of 6    0-1

2002    2    Cornell-1; Harvard-6          1-3

2003    2    Cornell-1 (of 4); Harvard-4        2-2

2004    1    Harvard-1        0-1

2005    3    Corn.-2; Harv.-3; Colgate-4;        1-3

2006    2    Harvard-2; Cornell-2        1-2

2007    2    Clarkson-1; St. Lawrence -3        0-2

2008    2    Clarkson-3; Princeton-4        1-2

2009    3    Yale-2; Princeton-3; Cornell-3        1-3

2010    2    Cornell-2; Yale-3        1-2

2011    3    Yale-1; Union-2; RPI-4        1-3

2012    2    Union-1*; Cornell-4        3-2

2013    3    Quinnipiac-1*; Yale-3*#; Union-3;        5-1

 *--Reached Frozen Four. #--National champs.


Not bad showing for Cornell.

There seem to be some errors here:

-  In 2000, St. Lawrence reached the Frozen Four, but aren't indicated as having done so.

-  Was Cornell a 1 seed in 2002?  I thought it was a 3 seed, which was why the first-round game was against Quinnipiac before playing UNH, who were a top-two seed in the regional and had a bye.  And the ECAC was 1-2 that year, not 1-3, since there isn't any way for two entries in a single elimination tournament to lose three games between them.  

-  The record for 2013 is wrong.  Quinnipiac was 3-1, Yale was 4-0, Union was 1-1, so the total record should be 8-2.  5-1 was the ECAC's record before the Frozen Four.

In 2002, Cornell was the #4 seed in the 6 team East Regional.  Quinnipiac was #5 and UNH was #1.  Harvard was the East #6 and lost to #3 Maine in OT.

In 2000 St Lawrence was the #2 seed in the East and had a bye.  They beat BU and lost to BC at the Frozen Four.  Colgate was the #4 in the East and lost to Michigan.

The ECAC should have won at least one more in 2000.  There were about 6 TV replay views of a Colgate no goal in OT vs. Michigan that should have counted.  In 2001 the overhead cameras became mandatory for NCAA play, I believe.

How are there so many nested responses before someone points out that Cornell isn't getting credit for the 2003 Final Four?

::doh::

[adamw]

I think I read somewhere in the CT media love-fest this week that families making $80k or less pay $0 for Yale and it's a sliding scale after that.  Cornell doesn't have those resources and may never given the size of the student body.  While it will match packages from HYP, it can't do anything for a kid who needs the financial help and can't get into HYP. It's not a great position to be in for Cornell's recruiting approach to have to be "we want you to come here. Now go apply to HYP and when you get in, we'll get you a free ride here."

HYP have an enormous financial aid advantage right now over  Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth.  Cornell has history, tradition, etc., which is great.  But eventually money talks.

I believe this is my article you're referencing - and I didn't read through the rest of this thread to see if someone responded to this ... but, while the advantage was in Harvard-Yale-Princeton's favor for a few years ... the other Ivy League schools, about two years ago, got a rule passed that counter-balanced this, and was considered a very big deal.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/11_ecac_presence_in_frozen_four.php

In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

[ugarte]

I think I read somewhere in the CT media love-fest this week that families making $80k or less pay $0 for Yale and it's a sliding scale after that.  Cornell doesn't have those resources and may never given the size of the student body.  While it will match packages from HYP, it can't do anything for a kid who needs the financial help and can't get into HYP. It's not a great position to be in for Cornell's recruiting approach to have to be "we want you to come here. Now go apply to HYP and when you get in, we'll get you a free ride here."

HYP have an enormous financial aid advantage right now over  Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth.  Cornell has history, tradition, etc., which is great.  But eventually money talks.

I believe this is my article you're referencing - and I didn't read through the rest of this thread to see if someone responded to this ... but, while the advantage was in Harvard-Yale-Princeton's favor for a few years ... the other Ivy League schools, about two years ago, got a rule passed that counter-balanced this, and was considered a very big deal.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/11_ecac_presence_in_frozen_four.php

In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

As someone else pointed out, that only means that we can match people who can get into H/Y/P, which diminishes the advantage we get from the lower AI - and also puts us in a weird position of encouraging our recruits to check out H/Y/P in order to get a matchable offer.

[adamw]

In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

As someone else pointed out, that only means that we can match people who can get into H/Y/P, which diminishes the advantage we get from the lower AI - and also puts us in a weird position of encouraging our recruits to check out H/Y/P in order to get a matchable offer.

What I can tell you for sure is that the coaches at Cornell-Brown-Dartmouth were very pumped about finally getting back on equal footing with H-Y-P. So there must be a benefit.

[Jim Hyla]

In the very same paragraph you seem to be referring to - I wrote the following:

Furthermore, even though Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth do not have the endowments to do that, they successfully lobbied the Ivy League to allow their athletic programs to match whatever package Princeton, Harvard and Yale are offering.

As someone else pointed out, that only means that we can match people who can get into H/Y/P, which diminishes the advantage we get from the lower AI - and also puts us in a weird position of encouraging our recruits to check out H/Y/P in order to get a matchable offer.

What I can tell you for sure is that the coaches at Cornell-Brown-Dartmouth were very pumped about finally getting back on equal footing with H-Y-P. So there must be a benefit.

Adam, I don't think ugarte meant there was no benefit, but that the benefit came with strings attached, such as having recruits accepted at rivals before they can claim the benefit. (I also fixed your "incorrect quotes".:-D)