Cornell 4 St. Lawrence 3 (ot)

[billhoward]

Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link.  I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette.  I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there.  Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link.  I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette.  I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there.  Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

[David Harding]

Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link.  I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette.  I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there.  Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

Schott concludes exactly the same thing:

Winning the Cleary Cup would be nice. But having a healthy Grosenick ready for the ECACH tournament may be more important. If Grosenick's not 100 percent this coming week, give him the time off and play Stevens.

[KeithK]

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

When your team has been a perennial bottom feeder throughout its D1 existence, I can see h finishing first will mean an awful lot. But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

[Give My Regards]

But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

While a regular-season title isn't completely meaningless, IM(NS)HO attaching any sort of significance to it for determining bids to or seedings in the NCAA tournament only makes sense if the various leagues play a completely balanced regular-season schedule, with each team facing every league opponent the same number of times, home and away.  Currently the ECAC is the only league that does so.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

...I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

What are those? I might not need a history lesson in how abysmal Union's performances in Division I were until recently, but I am not sure what "Clarkson and CC rules" were.

[French Rage]

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

...I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

What are those? I might not need a history lesson in how abysmal Union's performances in Division I were until recently, but I am not sure what "Clarkson and CC rules" were.

Both RS and PS champions got NCAA bids, if you won both you got a bye (back when there were 12 teams).

[Jim Hyla]

Not that Cleary's Cup (whichever way you want to take it) means anything, but beating us and finishing first does mean something for Union. Setting aside Keith's criticism, being first does give an advantage in both tourneys. The ECAC seeding giving supposedly easier games and "home ice rules" at Atlantic City. They would also have a reasonable chance of a decent seeding in NCAAs. If they were to also win the real cup, a second group seed in the NCAAs would be advantageous. So for me, unless sitting out this weekend really had a definite medical advantage, I'd play him.

Now to think back on all the posts from earlier in the year, this has been one great year. Sure there were a lot of games where we looked inept, but going back to the beginning of the year, I can't think anyone would have been unhappy with a guarenteed first or second place. And this in a rebuilding year. And remember, it's been a rebuilding year for the coaching staff as well. You don't break up a staff like we had without some bumps. For all who complained that Yale was leaving us behind, too bad. Complaining that we (meaning Coach Schafer) can't adjust to a more wide-open uptempo style, too bad.

Before we get to this year's tourney, let's look at the last 4 years.

Code Select Expand


     CU YA UN
2011  2  1 NS
2010  1 NS  2
2009  2  1 NS
2008  3 NS NS
Yes, those 2 losses to Yale were terrible, but I still like our longevity.

Get to the NCAAs or not, this has been a great year.

[jtwcornell91]

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

...I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

What are those? I might not need a history lesson in how abysmal Union's performances in Division I were until recently, but I am not sure what "Clarkson and CC rules" were.

Both rules date back to the 1990s, when there were only four leagues with auto-bids.

The Clarkson Rule was relevant when there were 12 teams in the tournament, and the top four teams got a bye.  Any team which won its conference regular season and tournament titles automatically received one of the four byes, even if they were not in the top four according to the pairwise.  It was called the Clarkson Rule because they were the team most expected to benefit from it; actually it was named before it existed, in 1995.  There was a lot of controversy when someone suggested on an NCAA tournament conference call that such a rule might exist, but then backtracked.  As it turned out, Clarkson got upset by Princeton in the ECAC semis, and RPI won the ECACs, so it didn't matter.  I think it came into effect for the 1996 season, and the teams that ended up getting byes that they wouldn't have otherwise were BU in 1997 and Clarkson in 1999.  It went away in 2002, when the MAAC (predecessor of Atlantic Hockey) qualified for an auto-bid, which was coincidentally the last year of the 12-team tournament.

The CC rule stated that the regular season champion from each conference was guaranteed an at-large bid if they didn't get an auto-bid.  It's named for Colorado College, who missed the NCAAs in the early 90s after winning the McNaughton Cup and being upset in the WCHA tournament.  I'm a little fuzzy on exactly when that happened, since it was just before I started following college hockey obsessively.  It was also dropped when the MAAC got an auto-bid, because they certainly didn't want two MAAC teams in the NCAAs.

"Regular season champion" was always interpreted to be after the application of tiebreakers, i.e., #1 seed in the conference tournament.

I've got a lot of year-by-year explanations of how the process worked from about 1998 on.  (I had to refer to some of them to refresh my memory.)

• seeding analysis 1996-1998
  
• seeding analysis for 1998
  
• procedure for 1998
  
• procedure for 1999
  
• etc

Lots of other fun history can be found in the HOCKEY-L archives

[KeithK]

But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

While a regular-season title isn't completely meaningless, IM(NS)HO attaching any sort of significance to it for determining bids to or seedings in the NCAA tournament only makes sense if the various leagues play a completely balanced regular-season schedule, with each team facing every league opponent the same number of times, home and away.  Currently the ECAC is the only league that does so.

I do agree that a balanced schedule means that a league RS standings provide more confidence in the results. However, the tournament at-large system uses a (by its very nature ) much more unbalanced system.

While t ECAC is the only league that is using a balanced schedule right now I suspect the Big Twelesix and UberConference will go the balanced route given their numbers.

[RichH]

Now to think back on all the posts from earlier in the year, this has been one great year.

I agree, but it's also been a quirky year, but I guess that's to be expected when there have been so many ties in the league. Here's a list of interesting facts:

* Cornell has only three ECAC losses all year (two of those to one team),
* The Men's team has one more ECAC loss than the dominant Women's team (2 tough Men's games remaining)
* 9 "non-wins" vs. 11 wins in the ECAC, 13 "non-wins" vs. 14 wins overall
* There has only been one game all season in which Cornell trailed for the final 10 minutes.
* There have only been two games all season in which Cornell never led.
* Cornell led after 2 periods in 15 of 20 ECAC games.
* Cornell trailed after 2 periods in 2 of 20 ECAC games.
* 10 of 27 games have gone to OT
* 40% of Cornell's goals allowed were PPGs. (25 of 61)
* In ECAC play, Cornell is #4 in scoring and #2 in defense (Union is #1 in both)
* Cornell has scored 5 SHGs (so far) to rank #2 in the league. Austin Smith also has 5.
* All but one of Cornell's losses were by 1 goal.

I'd sign up for a season with only 3-5 ECAC losses games most years. We never get blown out, even when we're overmatched. Our historic strengths (3rd period lockdowns and PK) have been our biggest weaknesses. Fix that, and this is a dominant team.

[ajh258]

Now to think back on all the posts from earlier in the year, this has been one great year.

I agree, but it's also been a quirky year, but I guess that's to be expected when there have been so many ties in the league. Here's a list of interesting facts:

* Cornell has only three ECAC losses all year (two of those to one team),
* The Men's team has one more ECAC loss than the dominant Women's team (2 tough Men's games remaining)
* 9 "non-wins" vs. 11 wins in the ECAC, 13 "non-wins" vs. 14 wins overall
* There has only been one game all season in which Cornell trailed for the final 10 minutes.
* There have only been two games all season in which Cornell never led.
* Cornell led after 2 periods in 15 of 20 ECAC games.
* Cornell trailed after 2 periods in 2 of 20 ECAC games.
* 10 of 27 games have gone to OT
* 40% of Cornell's goals allowed were PPGs. (25 of 61)
* In ECAC play, Cornell is #4 in scoring and #2 in defense (Union is #1 in both)
* Cornell has scored 5 SHGs (so far) to rank #2 in the league. Austin Smith also has 5.
* All but one of Cornell's losses were by 1 goal.

I'd sign up for a season with only 3-5 ECAC losses games most years. We never get blown out, even when we're overmatched. Our historic strengths (3rd period lockdowns and PK) have been our biggest weaknesses. Fix that, and this is a dominant team.

Hear hear. It has been a great year. ::drunk::

[upprdeck]

if CU wins two games this weekend there is a good chance we move up 2-4 spots in the pwr, hard to complain about a one seed and a solid chance to get into the NCAA's. for team with issues we have had a pretty good year.   the late leads vs union/colgate/CC and the no goal vs BU would have made it a really great year.

[jtwcornell91]

But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

While a regular-season title isn't completely meaningless, IM(NS)HO attaching any sort of significance to it for determining bids to or seedings in the NCAA tournament only makes sense if the various leagues play a completely balanced regular-season schedule, with each team facing every league opponent the same number of times, home and away.  Currently the ECAC is the only league that does so.

I do agree that a balanced schedule means that a league RS standings provide more confidence in the results. However, the tournament at-large system uses a (by its very nature ) much more unbalanced system.

While t ECAC is the only league that is using a balanced schedule right now I suspect the Big Twelesix and UberConference will go the balanced route given their numbers.

Actually, the NCHC already announced they plan to have a 24-game schedule with 8 teams, which will be unbalanced.  (21 games would be 3/pair, and 28 would be 4/pair.)

Note that the at-large bids are based on an unbalanced schedule, but they don't use straight winning percentage like the RS championships do.  Now, if the leagues would assign auto-bids based on in-conference KRACH... ;-)

[Give My Regards]

The Clarkson Rule was relevant when there were 12 teams in the tournament, and the top four teams got a bye.  Any team which won its conference regular season and tournament titles automatically received one of the four byes, even if they were not in the top four according to the pairwise.  It was called the Clarkson Rule because they were the team most expected to benefit from it; actually it was named before it existed, in 1995.

I think part of the reason it was known as the Clarkson Rule was a carry-over from what happened to the Golden Knights in 1991.  That year, they won the ECAC regular-season title (ouch, even 21 years later) and the ECAC tournament, and wound up with a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney.  It was the first time in the 12-team-tournament era that a team that had won both titles had been seeded so low, and there was a lot of griping in certain ECAC circles about "lack of respect" or some such -- which clearly ignored the fact that the selection process at the time (mainly RPI, this was pre-PWR) clearly indicated that a 4 was pretty much where that team belonged.

The CC rule stated that the regular season champion from each conference was guaranteed an at-large bid if they didn't get an auto-bid.  It's named for Colorado College, who missed the NCAAs in the early 90s after winning the McNaughton Cup and being upset in the WCHA tournament.  I'm a little fuzzy on exactly when that happened, since it was just before I started following college hockey obsessively.

It was 1994.  CC lost their first-round series to the #10 seed, and that was just enough to drop them out of NCAA tournament consideration, which caused a whole lot of pissing and moaning, and eventually led to the CC rule.  I always found it hilarious that so much was made out of CC missing the NCAA tournament after winning the regular-season title when precisely the same thing happened to Harvard two years before (won the ECAC regular-season, lost in the first round to #10-seed RPI, left out of the NCAAs) and no one really cared.  Then again, it was Harvard, so why would they have?

BTW, CC's 1994 season is a perfect example of why I'm against auto-bids for regular-season winners that play unbalanced schedules.  In all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that followed CC's being left home for the 1994 NCAA tourney, no one bothered to mention that CC had won their title by one point over the second-place school (Minnesota, I think), and that thanks to the WCHA's unbalanced schedule CC had played the two weakest teams in the league four times each while the second-place team had played them twice each.