2023 NCAA Tournament: Regionals

[BearLover]

Quinnipiac—7

tell me again how cornell is supposed to compete with this on an even playing field and why we should pretend that this is anything except the base reality? under the circumstances of our participation - which will not change - Cornell is literally the best case scenario but for puck luck.

I don't disagree with this at all though

[upprdeck]

We are so close to not competing that we lost in the regional finals by a goal.

[Trotsky]

We are so close to not competing that we lost in the regional finals by a goal.

And... scene.

[Dafatone]

I think it's important to remember that we're not entitled to anything.

Cornell has a long and storied history, a really good coach, consistent performance over the last two decades, and a pretty kickass rink and fanbase. But none of that guarantees success. Even our "bad" years, like last season, had us as one of the better teams nationally, just not quite good enough to get an NCAA bid (and not making Lake Placid always hurts).

We can't hand out scholarships. A Cornell degree is obviously a big draw, but let's face it, the other Ivies can say the same thing, and most of the rest of the ECAC offers high quality education. The grad eligibility rules sting. There aren't really many inherent advantages that keep us competitive.

I live near Nebraska. Let me tell you, Nebraska football fans LOVE to yell, "we should be better than this because we're Nebraska!" And they're wrong. There aren't many programs that can make that claim solely based on their brand. I'm not saying we shouldn't be bummed to lose in the ECAC semis and the NCAA regional finals, but overall, we're very lucky that we get to see the consistent success we see.

Granted, I'm yelling at the void here, because even our less-thrilled compatriots seem relatively pleased with how this season shook out. But I've been a fan for 20 years and there's really only been one season that felt like gee, we're kinda bad at this hockey thing, aren't we. That's impressive.

[Trotsky]

I've been a fan for 20 years and there's really only been one season that felt like gee, we're kinda bad at this hockey thing, aren't we. That's impressive.

2013 left a scar.

[Dafatone]

I've been a fan for 20 years and there's really only been one season that felt like gee, we're kinda bad at this hockey thing, aren't we. That's impressive.

2013 left a scar.

I don't know the Xs and Os of it, but after that season, Schafer said we tried something different and we're giving up on it.

[BearLover]

I've been a fan for 20 years and there's really only been one season that felt like gee, we're kinda bad at this hockey thing, aren't we. That's impressive.

2013 left a scar.

He also said that after 2015, the actual worst season since I've been a fan.

I don't know the Xs and Os of it, but after that season, Schafer said we tried something different and we're giving up on it.

[jtwcornell91]

Regionals results by conference:

Big T*n:    6-2 (2 left alive)
ECAC:       3-3 (1 left)
Hockey East:2-1 (1 left)
NCHC:       1-3
CCHA:       0-2
Atlantic H: 0-1

Granted, our numbers are padded by Quinnipiac, but the ECAC ended up with a pretty respectable regionals performance, notwithstanding the Friday Night Massacre.

[Dafatone]

Regionals results by conference:

Big T*n:    6-2 (2 left alive)
ECAC:       3-3 (1 left)
Hockey East:2-1 (1 left)
NCHC:       1-3
CCHA:       0-2
Atlantic H: 0-1

Granted, our numbers are padded by Quinnipiac, but the ECAC ended up with a pretty respectable regionals performance, notwithstanding the Friday Night Massacre.

I am aware of how the numbers shook out, but it remains weird to me that the ECAC could have one of its weakest years and still get 4 teams in.

[billhoward]

I am aware of how the numbers shook out, but it remains weird to me that the ECAC could have one of its weakest years and still get 4 teams in.

2023 was a weaker year overall for the ECAC but the top three teams deserved to go based on the season's work, and Colgate got in by the expedient of winning the tournament. Quinnipiac and Harvard were top ten teams and had to go. And Cornell was borderline but still good enough to go based on RPI. Cornell and Q showed they belonged based on the round-of-16 games. Harvard had a terrible one-and-done outing and Colgate, like Cinderella, stayed out too late.

[ugarte]

Quinnipiac—7

tell me again how cornell is supposed to compete with this on an even playing field and why we should pretend that this is anything except the base reality? under the circumstances of our participation - which will not change - Cornell is literally the best case scenario but for puck luck.

I don't disagree with this at all though

So then what's all the caterwauling about? You're better off shouting into a hole than posting what you do on this topic here because at least the hole won't yell back.

We aren't Q because we can't compete in the gutter and we aren't Harvard because we can't compete on brand. Somehow we're still consistently better at recruiting and converting those recruits into players than the *other* schools with bettter brands than us, who probably consider us Q-lite on admissions AND we're consistently better at recruiting and converting the recruits into players than the schools who consider us Harvard-lite. It is kind of a bummer that Yale caught a heater and won the tournament from the 4 seed or that Union did by presaging the rise of Q but goddamn it doesn't mean anything! It certainly doesn't mean anything that we can do anything about!

[adamw]

It is kind of a bummer that Yale caught a heater and won the tournament from the 4 seed or that Union did by presaging the rise of Q but goddamn it doesn't mean anything! It certainly doesn't mean anything that we can do anything about!

Always amazes me how short memories are.  Al knows way more about this than I do - but I wrote about this topic a bunch of times in that era ... But the Big 3 Ivies had a distinct "scholarship advantage" for a number of years there. Until the other Ivies decided to get together and agree that it was OK to match their non-athletic aid for sports purposes. After that happened, things turned back around pretty quickly for Cornell vis-a-vis Yale.

[Trotsky]

We aren't Q because we can't compete in the gutter and we aren't Harvard because we can't compete on brand. Somehow we're still consistently better at recruiting and converting those recruits into players than the *other* schools with bettter brands than us, who probably consider us Q-lite on admissions AND we're consistently better at recruiting and converting the recruits into players than the schools who consider us Harvard-lite. It is kind of a bummer that Yale caught a heater and won the tournament from the 4 seed or that Union did by presaging the rise of Q but goddamn it doesn't mean anything! It certainly doesn't mean anything that we can do anything about!

Concise and comprehensive.
 In a just world this would bring the curtain down.

[upprdeck]

The biggest reason Cornell struggles to recruit is the lack of marginal kids they are allowed to bring in compared to the other ivys

[Trotsky]

The biggest reason Cornell struggles to recruit is the lack of marginal kids they are allowed to bring in compared to the other ivys

...