Cornell 1 RPI 2 (ot)

[TheMatrix]

My camera isn't great at low light but here's the Senior Night ceremony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBdvtxOFzxg

[Scersk '97]

Yes, the 2003 team's cycle was killer, wearing teams out and grinding them into submission.

I'll also argue the point that the 2003 era's teams were also strong because they played a puck-possession game. The reason they cycled so much was to maintain puck control.

Agreed, but I'll add out loud what we've talked about in person, that sometimes in the past we have seemed to cycle the puck with little urgency for getting it to the net.  This team does not do that, and it's very encouraging.

[Trotsky]

when this team concentrates it is deadly.  What I saw during the second two periods of the Union game was one of the most impressive offensive displays  I have ever seen by a Cornell team, or at least a Cornell team under Schafer.  I have to reach back to the Hughes, Andison, Derraugh years to find a comparison.

Yes, the 2003 team's cycle was killer, wearing teams out and grinding them into submission.  But this team, against the best defensive team in the nation mind you, played facing the net.  Skate, skate, skate, turn, indeed.  Delicate touch plays, fantastic rebound control, everything.  And I've never seen a Cornell team better at smelling blood in the water.  When our D starts rushing the slot, particularly D'Agostino, it's a thing of beauty.

Agreed.  I was thinking during the latter stretch that with the exception of some exhibition games against completely outclassed opponents, many of our fans may have never seen a Cornell team play like that.

And also: that is both a style and a level of commanding hockey that wins titles.  This team may yet win nothing (like the 91 team), but it has the capacity to win everything (also like the 91 team).

[Dafatone]

Don't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

If Cornell had defeated RPI we still would have fallen to 13 in Pairwise because of the added TUC loss via UMass.  However losing to RPI lowered our RPI enough to make this irrelevant.  Using the DIY Rankings I tried two scenarios to prevent UMass from becoming a TUC: changing their Saturday win over UNH to a loss and removing the game from the data set altogether. In both cases our losing to RPI still drops us to 16.  Our lower RPI flipped all of the comparisons.  UMass just means we're losing some of those comparisons by a wider margin.

That seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be better for us to lose to a TUC, meaning a team that is somewhat good, instead of a team that is not a TUC and thus not good? I guess that's not how PWR works though.

PWR involves a few different components.  One is RPI, which is an overall rating based on your record and your opponents' records and your opponents' opponents' records (I think).  Losing to a TUC would hurt less here than losing to a team that isn't a TUC.

Another component is record vs. TUCs.  So a TUC loss hurts here, whereas losing to a team that isn't a TUC has no impact.

[KeithK]

That seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be better for us to lose to a TUC, meaning a team that is somewhat good, instead of a team that is not a TUC and thus not good? I guess that's not how PWR works though.

PWR involves a few different components.  One is RPI, which is an overall rating based on your record and your opponents' records and your opponents' opponents' records (I think).  Losing to a TUC would hurt less here than losing to a team that isn't a TUC.

Another component is record vs. TUCs.  So a TUC loss hurts here, whereas losing to a team that isn't a TUC has no impact.

The Pairwise was not designed to be a logically consistent ranking system that is valid incrementally. If you're looking for that you need to look to something with a more rigorous mathematical basis, like KRACH (Bradley-Terry). KRACH should have the behavior that jtn27 is expecting, were a loss to a good team is better than a loss to a cellar dweller. (At least I think so. Correct me if I'm wrong please.)

In fact, I don't think PWR was really "designed" at all.  It developed more or less organically from the set of metrics that the tournament committee was using for tourney selection back when bids were done in the smoke filled room.  So it's based on what the coaches thought was important. They thought that beating good teams (TUCs) was a good metric of a team's quality so that's a factor. It's not an unreasonable metri, but it leads to a ranking system that has some counter intuitive behavior when viewed over time.

Keep in mind also that PWR was never "designed" to be used at any time other than the end of the hockey season when bids are awarded. That is, no attempt has been made to address the odd behavior of the relative rankings that happen from week to week and game to game due to small perturbations (like a team losing or gaining TUC status). The committee would argue that this is irrelevant because PWR only is applied at season's end. (The argument that this demonstrates the inherent instability of the ranking method is either over their heads or simply not of interest to them.)

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Last time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

[css228]

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Last time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

[Jim Hyla]

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Last time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

FYP

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Last time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

I was thinking that it was probably in the line of tradition surrounding the Prince of Wales Trophy. Actually, I was probably hoping in some ways that that is what Cornell has done and why it has done it. Was hoping that someone familiar with the trophy tradition would back my and your thoughts up about it.

Speaking of Union making a big deal out of winning the Jell-O Mold, has anyone seen this? I stumbled upon it the other day.

Union College Banner Raising Ceremony 2011-12

[Jim Hyla]

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Last time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

I was thinking that it was probably in the line of tradition surrounding the Prince of Wales Trophy. Actually, I was probably hoping in some ways that that is what Cornell has done and why it has done it. Was hoping that someone familiar with the trophy tradition would back my and your thoughts up about it.

Speaking of Union making a big deal out of winning the Jell-O Mold, has anyone seen this? I stumbled upon it the other day.

Union College Banner Raising Ceremony 2011-12

And to go up to date, Ken Schott's blog on "Union will be presented Cleary Cup Tuesday night at Bombers Burrito Bar".

If anyone has the correct info on our team not touching the cup, I'd like to email it to him.

[Chris '03]

My vague recollection is that in '02 and/or '03 the captains were presented the trophy before a home game after they'd clinched. They politely accepted the trophy, put it down, and moved on with their lives. It certainly wasn't skated or anything of the sort in either year.

I specifically recall Clarkson being given the trophy in 2001 at Lake Placid. Of course, fittingly, the team didn't qualify to be there to accept. I got the sense at the time that the trophy was new that year and I'm not sure it had been named yet.

[Ben]

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

This is probably (1)blasphemous and (2)the non-American sports fan in me, but I usually value regular season success above tournament success. A team that plays the best over twenty-two games is probably better than one who wins four (or six) games in the playoffs. The larger sample size reduces the importance of bad calls, weird bounces, and balances out home advantage. (This obviously doesn't work as well with an unbalanced schedule.)

[CowbellGuy]

My vague recollection is that in '02 and/or '03 the captains were presented the trophy before a home game after they'd clinched. They politely accepted the trophy, put it down, and moved on with their lives. It certainly wasn't skated or anything of the sort in either year.

I specifically recall Clarkson being given the trophy in 2001 at Lake Placid. Of course, fittingly, the team didn't qualify to be there to accept. I got the sense at the time that the trophy was new that year and I'm not sure it had been named yet.

That was the incident to which I was referring. I certainly remember it vividly, as you described, but it may not have been 2005. I'm too lazy to look up the standings, but it may not have been presented to them at Lynah in 2005.

[Beeeej]

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Last time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

In addition to what previous repliers have said about mirroring the tradition farther up the hockey food chain, the Cornell program has a history with Bill Cleary that is somewhat different from the classy, honorable image Harvard presents of him and that the ECACHL "honored" by naming the cup after him.

Cleary and his Harvard team won the 1989 Frozen Four, and it wasn't even that improbable a victory - they had a lot of great players on that team, including Hobey Baker winner Lane McDonald, and they had won the ECAC tournament in 1987 (though not in 1988 or 1989).  A number of very strong players returned for the 1989-1990 season, and expectations were high for at least a repeat appearance in the NCAAs, and it was all the more meaningful because everyone knew it would be Cleary's final season at the helm before he stepped into an administrative position as Harvard's Athletics Director.  Somewhere along the way, the wheels came off a bit, and they finished 6th in the ECAC at 12-9-1, and only 13-14-1 overall.

At the time, we were in the 10-team playoff structure, where 7 hosted 10 and 8 hosted 9 for the first round, and the top 6 got a bye, so with Cornell's #3 finish, we would host Harvard after the bye week no matter what happened in the first round.

Cornell's 1990 team included some pretty serious firepower themselves, including future NHLers Kent Manderville, Corrie D'Alessio, Dan Ratushny, and Ryan Hughes (though the latter three only had a cup of coffee in the NHL), plus the infamous scoring machines on Hughes's line, Trent Andison and Doug Derraugh.  When Harvard arrived at Lynah, Cornell pretty much shut them down, sweeping the "quintafinals" 6-2 and 4-2.  Cleary's coaching career was over, and it didn't end prettily.

If I recall correctly - and it's entirely possible that I don't, but this is how I remember it - after the second game, despite giving Cornell coach Brian McCutcheon a hug, Cleary directed his players to skate off the ice without shaking the Cornell players' hands.

And that is part of why we don't have much respect for Cleary, and part of the reason why we don't have much respect for the cup named after him.

[Trotsky]

This is probably (1)blasphemous and (2)the non-American sports fan in me, but I usually value regular season success above tournament success. A team that plays the best over twenty-two games is probably better than one who wins four (or six) games in the playoffs.

True, but a tournament trophy doesn't represent the best team, it represents winning, often over better competition.  Cardiff City certainly isn't the second best team in the English football league, but they came within a couple bad pens of their League Cup.

I think both have great value. and should be recognized.