11/9 Union

[RichH]

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

[KeithK]

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

Yes, but as I recall we were pretty infuriated by that seeding at the time. By the numbers Cornell and Miami should have been the 4-5 game that year but were switched to 3-6 for other reasons (can't remember if it was better second round matchup or something else). Cornell had a higher total PWR than Miami, which to date had been the usual way to set seeds. Instead they gave Miami the higher seed because they won the head to head comparison, largely on the strength of their win at Lynah the previous November. Long story short, that's not a really good counter example.

[KeithK]

How about we compromise?  Let's all root for Cornell to dominate a conference that is the best in college hockey?

[RichH]

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.

1997, Cornell as a 6W seed beat Miami (3W)

Yes, but as I recall we were pretty infuriated by that seeding at the time. By the numbers Cornell and Miami should have been the 4-5 game that year but were switched to 3-6 for other reasons (can't remember if it was better second round matchup or something else). Cornell had a higher total PWR than Miami, which to date had been the usual way to set seeds. Instead they gave Miami the higher seed because they won the head to head comparison, largely on the strength of their win at Lynah the previous November. Long story short, that's not a really good counter example.

Sure, except for the cold facts of seeds. It still felt great beating future nemesis Mark Mazzolini, who, as rumor had it at the time, told his Miami team not to pack their bags before heading to the arena because they were going to stick around the extra day.  Anyway, you can pick a similar example in nearly every tournament seeding.  IIRC, one of either 2005 or 2006 we were given the 2 seed due to a flip, and you can't say Quinnipiac deserved the 5 seed over Harvard in 2002, but it gave us a very lucky break in the first-round matchup.

[Josh '99]

Just get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

Yet another reason why I'd rather be dominating the ECAC every year ::faint::

But the same contributing factors (especially broader dispersion of talented players) have led to Cornell not dominating the ECAC every year and to the wide-open tournament field that RichH mentioned and you seem to agree is a good thing.  I don't know that you can have one without the other.

[Josh '99]

Now you have teams like BSU, RIT, Miami, and UVM making the Frozen Four on a regular basis.  Just get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

*snicker*