TBRW Statistical Reflections on the 2003 RS

[Al DeFlorio]

Greg wrote:

Depressingly, just as in basketball, we now see such a devaluation of the conference tournaments that fans care more about an uptick of one or two PWR slots than they do an uptick of one or two places in the conference standings.  Heresy, I say! :-( ;-)

And I say amen to this--heartily--although I'm more interested in the tournament placement--and there's only one place that matters--than the regular season finish.  It's simply absurd, IMHO, that tournament games get no more weight in the PWR (or KRACH) calculations than a regular season game.

My point is, winning the ECAC meant winning the tournament until the NCAA "rewarded" the regular season winner with an automatic bid.  Prior to that point, finishing first rather than second in the regular season meant playing an eighth-seeded slightly sub-.500 team vs. a seventh-seeded slightly sub-.500 team the following Tuesday night--which was barely worth a shrug.  If you had a couple of key players nicked up on the final regular season weekend, you rested them for the tournament rather than risking them in the final regular season games to get a #1 seed vs. a #2 seed.  After the Colorado and Clarkson "rules" were promulgated, there was suddenly big incentive for finishing #1 (automatic NCAA bid and shot at a bye if you also won your tournament)--so teams pulled out all stops to get that top spot, because it made a difference.

I just think it's misleading to go back in time and attribute something (i.e., a regular season championship) to a team that at the time had no clue they were even winning such a thing--and, more importantly, at a time when the supposed also-rans had no idea they were losing it.

[rhovorka]

Peter, there are certainly others who feel the way you do.  For example, we had some interesting discussions with Clarkson fans in the mid-90s when Cornell won the tournament, and Tech fans were touting that they were the *real* ECAC champions since they won over the course of a long regular season.  

My answer to that?  To make a fair parallel to professional sports...you can take the Presidents trophy and the best NHL regular season record...I'll take the Stanley Cup over that any year.  In MLB, Oakland won a league-high 103 games over a greuling 162-game schedule and a tough AL-West race over 2 strong teams in Anaheim and Seattle.  Do you think they're satisfied with the season, given the playoff results?  After all, you only have to win 11 games in the playoffs...


Screw the Cleary.  I want Whitelaw!

[Dart~Ben]

[q]Cornell wins the Ivy League title by a remarkable 5 point margin out of 10 games, possibly the largest margin ever:[/q]

Possible, but unlikely, in so much as Dartmouth went 10-0-0 in Ivy Play back in 58-59. Unless the runner-up went unbeaten and untied against everyone but Dartmouth, they would've finished at least 5 points ahead of the 2nd place team.

[Greg Berge]

Rich, I understand what you're saying, although perhaps it's mainly the word "championship" that's getting you down.  Teams did know in the past that they were either winning or losing the #1 seed, and this did mean something for them in the tourny -- relatively weaker opponents in every round, and last line change in every game.

Once upon a time I actually did call it a list of #1 seeds, but I liked the parallelism of the RS/PS titles more.

I argue very much in your vein when it comes to the Ivy League "championships" of the period 1934-1953.  There was no Ivy League for hockey prior to 1954, but not only do the teams who finished first in games among the Ivy participants claim those as "titles," but even worse, the Ivy League web site itself lists them as titles.  This is much worse, in my opinion -- it's as if Hockey East went back and took the subset records of their members in years prior to 1985 and retroactively awarded Hockey East championships.  That's just silly.

[kingpin248]

On the subject of the Ivy League championships - the web site's listings for hockey become more curious in light of the fact that for many other sports (basketball, lacrosse, soccer, football), champions are only listed from 1955-56 (1956 for football), which I believe was when full round-robin play began (though the Ivy Group Agreement was signed in 1954).

[JordanCS]

As far as the RS ECAC 'title' and tourny title being compared to the President's Trophy and the Stanley Cup, I have to say it's a bit different.

The Stanley Cup playoffs are 4 series of 7 games.  It's nearly impossible to knock off a top seed simply because you got lucky.  You need to get lucky 4 times.  That doesn't happen very often, and so if a team wins after finishing the RS poorly, they deserve the Cup the most...it takes consistently good hockey against the best of the best for the entire playoffs.  The ECAC (and NCAA) title can be won by a #4 seed pretty easily...they need to beat a lower opponent in 2 of 3 (which shouldn't be tough), then have 2 good games.  One good game to knock off the top seed.  Needless to say, it's a lot easier for the top seed to lose the ECACs and have a cinderella team win.

I personally hold a little more weight to the Cleary as far as determining the better team.  Although I consider the ECAC Championship to be the tourny.  Were we the best team in the ECAC last year?  Yes, I think so.  Were we the ECAC champions...no.  But the Cleary is a damn proud achievement, and I think is more prestigious than an Ivy title.  I DO think it would be nice to track the Cleary Cup wins on our banners....heck, we put up banners for NCAA tourny appearances.  The banners woudn't have to say anything about ECAC champions...just put 2003 - Cleary Cup.  

Jordan

[rhovorka]

Don't get me wrong.  I value earning as high a place in the regular season as possible.  My senior year, I was tickled to have made it all the way to #4, and the following year, the fight for the top seed with a great Todd White led Clarkson team was very exciting.  But the thrill, intensity, and a sort of urgency to the post-season made those playoff runs in '96-'97 more important to me than what happened in the regular season.  After all is said and done, more people (including the players and coaches) care about how you performed when it "counted" (to use an awkward word in this situation).  Sort of a "put your money where your mouth is" type of challenge.  Your opinion is valid, I just disagree.  :-)  There's also the fact that the award we receive has a name that is synonymous with a hated rival.  ;-)  Up until recently, there was no pomp or award other than gaining the #1 seed.

As far as the banners go, I'm starting to agree that the NCAA Tournament participant banners are getting less meaningful.  When the tourney consisted of a 4 team field (up to 1980), I think they meant something more.  With the field increasing from 12 to 16 teams this year, it's certainly easier to grab a spot than it was when the banners started going up (which was when?).  Perhaps that should just be a list on one of the banners on the West wall with the Olympians.  But at least we don't hang banners for ECAC Final Four like they do at Brown (I think it was Meehan where we saw that).

[Greg Berge]

NCAA appearances aren't all *that* degraded.  Back when the tourny was 4 teams, there were really only about 20 teams that would ever have a shot in their wildest dreams -- the other 10+ D1 teams were strictly ballast.  Now it's 16 teams out of 60, but with the CHA and MAAC bids almost all 60 have a shot.  A higher ratio, but not insanely higher.  For that matter, the ratio of ECAC members:ECAC teams in the NCAA has actually remainded stable, from a dependable 17:2 to a current 12:1.5ish :`(

I for one love the NCAA appearance banners.  Even in the relatively less "pure" 8- and 12- seed periods, from 82 through 85, then from 87 through 90, then from 92 through 95, and then from 98 through 2001, Cornell failed to qualify.  Those were long periods, often corresponding with an entire graduating class' tenure.  It's a big accomplishment and it deserves recognition.  Also, note that although it may seem like everybody's making it these days, the ECAC is only throwing one legit team into the mix this year (and hopefully only one rep!).  After the grad wave, making the NCAAs at all next year with such a young team would be one helluva accomplishment.

[rhovorka]

True enough, Greg.  I retract my dissing of the NCAA tournament banners.  I'll just enjoy the rafters getting really crowded.  :-)

[jtwcornell91]

Jordan Steele '01 wrote:

I DO think it would be nice to track the Cleary Cup wins on our banners....heck, we put up banners for NCAA tourny appearances.  The banners woudn't have to say anything about ECAC champions...just put 2003 - Cleary Cup.  

Do you really think we're ever going to hang Cleary's name from the rafters as long as Schafer (long may he reign) is head coach? ;-)

[Greg Berge]

I think Mike would be in favor for anything involving hanging Cleary.

[Al DeFlorio]

Greg wrote:

I argue very much in your vein when it comes to the Ivy League "championships" of the period 1934-1953.  There was no Ivy League for hockey prior to 1954, but not only do the teams who finished first in games among the Ivy participants claim those as "titles," but even worse, the Ivy League web site itself lists them as titles...That's just silly.

Greg, in my view what you've written above describes precisely what it is to attribute a "regular season championship" to the #1 seed prior to the ECAC describing it as a championship and giving some kind of award or recognition for it.  Especially in the pre-divorce era, when schedules were wildly inconsistent, it makes no sense.  As you wrote above, it's "just silly."

Now in saying this, in no way do I or did I intend to open again the whole discussion of "which championship is more important."  That's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.  The "championship" is whatever the ECAC says is the "championship."  If the ECAC says there are two championships, then there are two championships.  Rank their importance as you wish--or perhaps ask the players which one they think matters most.  

Back on the original point:  in my opinion, you can call someone an "ECAC regular season champion" dating from whatever point in time--and I have no idea when that was--the ECAC recognized the existence of such a championship.  Awarding championships retroactively to teams that didn't realize they were competing for such championships is...well..."just silly."

[JordanCS]

I just want to make things a bit clearer, since I didn't say it explicitly earlier:  I would rather have an ECAC Championship (tourny) than the Cleary Cup any day.  I was at the final last year, and it was agonizing.  However, my point was that I view the RS 'champ' as probably the league's best team.  If they lose in the tourny, they weren't the best on that day, but are still probably the better team overall.

Anyway, I just hope we can kick Harvard's teeth in should we play them in the ECAC finals... I want revenge on last year, darnit!

[Josh '99]

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

Screw the Cleary.  I want Whitelaw!

Well, since we already have the Cleary, I want both.  :-D

[DeltaOne81]

Speaking of revenge, I thought the "best" playoff structure would be Colgate in the quarters, Dartmouth in the semi's, and Hahvahd in the final. Not the easiest mind you, but most satisfying should we get through it. Had Dartmouth only not passed Yale, we'd be set up perfectly for it. Instead, it's not possible. Although, the concept of going to Albany with a guaranteed final of Hahvahd *or* Dartmouth, isn't too bad. Again, this all being if we make it that far, as we deserve to.