NCAA Regional Final: Cornell (1) vs. Bemidji (4) - FINAL

[Lowell '99]

[quote TimV][quote ugarte]16 seed in hockey is NOT equivalent to the 64 seed in basketball. Jesus H. Christ.[/quote]


Totally agree.  That was so stupid....[/quote]

What is it the equivalent of then, exactly?  A 49 seed?  Bemidji wasn't just a 4 seed; they were clearly the last team in the tournament.  While the difference between #1 and #64 in basketball is much, much bigger than #1 and #16 in hockey, from the playoff standpoint, it's the same thing.

[lynah80]

[quote TimV][quote lynah80] The team will miss Mugford, Michael Kennedy, Seminoff, the two Davenports and Punches...[/quote]

What- you don't think we'll miss Barlow???[/quote]

Sorry, my mistake.  He will be a huge loss.

[ugarte]

[quote abmarks]
Face it, CORNELL isn't that good this year.  Look at where some of our losses came. ... As of this morning you really think we were that big a favorite?[/quote]
I agree with your first point and don't know where you came up with your second.

We aren't a very good team this year. Definitely not one of the best 8 in the country. We, probably more than any team I saw play in the tournament, has a style that makes it hard to blow us out - and if the game is close, we can win it.

As for whether we were a big favorite this morning, I'd say no. But we were a small favorite. Against ND we are a huge dog.

As for whether we ran into a team that exploited our lack of speed, I'd say that for the most part they did not. They scored one goal - the second - that I'd attribute to their team speed. The first goal (like our first) was a lucky shot from the blue line. The third goal came as a result of an INCREDIBLY LAZY clear attempt. We got to the puck first but handed it to Bemidji to stick in the net. And I still can't believe that Mugford slid by the puck and left it sitting in the crease - we were there first then also.

I don't want to repeat what I'm about to type in the postgame thread but the short version is that we lost because of our team's basic flaws - the same flaws that every team, fast or slow, takes advantage of when we play them: bad passing and an inability to finish.

[ugarte]

[quote Lowell '99][quote TimV][quote ugarte]16 seed in hockey is NOT equivalent to the 64 seed in basketball. Jesus H. Christ.[/quote]


Totally agree.  That was so stupid....[/quote]

What is it the equivalent of then, exactly?  A 49 seed?  Bemidji wasn't just a 4 seed; they were clearly the last team in the tournament.  While the difference between #1 and #64 in basketball is much, much bigger than #1 and #16 in hockey, from the playoff standpoint, it's the same thing.[/quote]
The NCAA basketball talent pool is so much deeper. I'd say that on any given night the 64 seed in hoops has a .00001% chance of beating the 1 seed. In hockey it is probably ~5%. The 16th team in hockey is a lot closer to a 10 or 11 seed. An upset, sure, but it is a lot less surprising than a Morgan State win over Louisville would have been.

[TimV]

[quote Lowell '99][quote TimV][quote ugarte]16 seed in hockey is NOT equivalent to the 64 seed in basketball. Jesus H. Christ.[/quote]


Totally agree.  That was so stupid....[/quote]

What is it the equivalent of then, exactly?  A 49 seed?  Bemidji wasn't just a 4 seed; they were clearly the last team in the tournament.  While the difference between #1 and #64 in basketball is much, much bigger than #1 and #16 in hockey, from the playoff standpoint, it's the same thing.[/quote]

The concept is valid- it is the last seeded team after all, but the talent difference between the 64 team in basketball and the 1 seed is much different, no?  Use RPI difference in both instances and see what you think.

[TimV]

You said it much more effectively than I did.

[Lowell '99]

[quote TimV][quote Lowell '99][quote TimV][quote ugarte]16 seed in hockey is NOT equivalent to the 64 seed in basketball. Jesus H. Christ.[/quote]


Totally agree.  That was so stupid....[/quote]

What is it the equivalent of then, exactly?  A 49 seed?  Bemidji wasn't just a 4 seed; they were clearly the last team in the tournament.  While the difference between #1 and #64 in basketball is much, much bigger than #1 and #16 in hockey, from the playoff standpoint, it's the same thing.[/quote]

The concept is valid- it is the last seeded team after all, but the talent difference between the 64 team in basketball and the 1 seed is much different, no?  Use RPI difference in both instances and see what you think.[/quote]

Well, we're really in agreement on the principles.  Still, there's something about being Bemidji specifically that does make it pretty unlikely - they were like 38th in RPI.  So that's either like a 10 seed making the Final Four, or the 203rd (38/58 ~ 203/310) team in DI college basketball, depending on which argument you choose to make.

[lynah80]

[quote Lowell '99][quote TimV][quote Lowell '99][quote TimV][quote ugarte]16 seed in hockey is NOT equivalent to the 64 seed in basketball. Jesus H. Christ.[/quote]


Totally agree.  That was so stupid....[/quote]

What is it the equivalent of then, exactly?  A 49 seed?  Bemidji wasn't just a 4 seed; they were clearly the last team in the tournament.  While the difference between #1 and #64 in basketball is much, much bigger than #1 and #16 in hockey, from the playoff standpoint, it's the same thing.[/quote]

The concept is valid- it is the last seeded team after all, but the talent difference between the 64 team in basketball and the 1 seed is much different, no?  Use RPI difference in both instances and see what you think.[/quote]

Well, we're really in agreement on the principles.  Still, there's something about being Bemidji specifically that does make it pretty unlikely - they were like 38th in RPI.  So that's either like a 10 seed making the Final Four, or the 203rd (38/58 ~ 203/310) team in DI college basketball, depending on which argument you choose to make.[/quote]

I think upsets occur more often in hockey than in basketball because of the nature of the game.