New Colgate Arena

[Josh '99]

A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal.  The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

Well, they have, just not since they joined the ECAC.

We beat them in 2002.

But they do boast in their media ads for the upcoming season about being the only team in the league to have won a playoff series in each of the past 7 seasons, which is true.

, ,
Neglecting the fact that we tend to play fewer playoff series than they do, so they get more chances to win?

Yes. That's neglecting a lot of things (which was in a sense my sarcastic point), like they've never finished the regular season with a bye, so they often face the dregs of the league in the first round, and they've only won a QF series once (*cough* we won't mention where that was *cough*) to advance to the championship weekend. Considering it took Union 18 seasons to win a single playoff round, advancing every year they've been a member is somewhat of an interesting quirk for Quinnipiac, I guess.

In their defense, they've been the team that's earned home ice against those dregs, rather than being the dregs themselves, for six years in a row now, which is more than a lot of teams can say.  In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

[Beeeej]

In their defense, they've been the team that's earned home ice against those dregs, rather than being the dregs themselves, for six years in a row now, which is more than a lot of teams can say.  In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

Even "perennial conference powerhouse" Union College?!  But, that's unpossible!!

[Trotsky]

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom seven at some point in the last thirteen years.  Except Cornell.

[Robb]

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom seven at some point in the last thirteen years.  Except Cornell.

Got me looking...  In 48 ECAC tournaments, Cornell has only skated off an opponent's ice after being eliminated 4 times:

--single game at Dartmouth, '65
--two games at Harvard, '94
--two games at Clarkson, '95
--two games at Princeton, '99

In that span, Cornell has won 6 series on the road:

--single game at Clarkson, '76
--single game at BC, '80
--win and tie at Clarkson, '89
--single game at Yale, '92
--2 and 1 at RPI, '98
--two games at Union, '08


The fact that we've only BEEN on the road for 10 series is remarkable enough, but to put up a 6-4 series record and a (8-8-1 overall) is pretty amazing.

[nyc94]

So 1993 was rock bottom?

[Robb]

In so many ways...  On the bright side, we didn't have to play a road series that year!

[Jim Hyla]

So 1993 was rock bottom?

Early 80's could match it.

[KeithK]

So 1993 was rock bottom?

Early 80's could match it.

Nothing says you can't hit rock bottom more than once.  But really? the '93 team had .250 WinPct, while the 80's squads never dropped below .429 and were no worse than 3rd in the Ivy division. Just basedon numbers the pit was deeper in '93 though maybe the distance fallen was similar.

Looking at the standings I am again reminded how greatful I am to be a Cornell hockey fan. '93 was a lousy season but we didn't stay at rock bottom very long, unlike some of the other teams in the league. May it stay that way!

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Even "perennial conference powerhouse" Union College?!  But, that's unpossible!!

U's involved in the two most heated East Coast college hockey rivalries: Harvard-Union and RPI-Union. It's on YouTube and USCHO threads, it must be true.

[Trotsky]

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom seven at some point in the last thirteen years.  Except Cornell.

Got me looking...  In 48 ECAC tournaments, Cornell has only skated off an opponent's ice after being eliminated 4 times:

--single game at Dartmouth, '65
--two games at Harvard, '94
--two games at Clarkson, '95
--two games at Princeton, '99

In that span, Cornell has won 6 series on the road:

--single game at Clarkson, '76
--single game at BC, '80
--win and tie at Clarkson, '89
--single game at Yale, '92
--2 and 1 at RPI, '98
--two games at Union, '08


The fact that we've only BEEN on the road for 10 series is remarkable enough, but to put up a 6-4 series record and a (8-8-1 overall) is pretty amazing.

A couple corrections:

'65 L was at Brown
There was a single game series win at SLU in '95

So we are 7-4, 9-8-1 in road games in the ECAC Tournament.

[Jim Hyla]

So 1993 was rock bottom?

Early 80's could match it.

Nothing says you can't hit rock bottom more than once.  But really? the '93 team had .250 WinPct, while the 80's squads never dropped below .429 and were no worse than 3rd in the Ivy division. Just basedon numbers the pit was deeper in '93 though maybe the distance fallen was similar.

Looking at the standings I am again reminded how greatful I am to be a Cornell hockey fan. '93 was a lousy season but we didn't stay at rock bottom very long, unlike some of the other teams in the league. May it stay that way!

The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

[Trotsky]

The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart.  The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses.  The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981).  The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

[Jim Hyla]

The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart.  The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses.  The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981).  The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

But of course, comparing 3 bad years in the 90's with 5 years in the 80's is not quite fair. If you looked at the 2 years prior to 93, you would add a second place and fifth place finish to the mix. That more than makes up for the eighth and fourth place in 80 and 81. Throwing out those years for both the 80's and 90's gives you:

Code Select Expand


         82  83  84  93  94  95
Finished 10   9  12  11   8   9
Playoffs No  No  No  No  1/4 1/4


1/4 means we were in quarterfinals, having won a play-in, and lost.

You can argue forever, really?:-}, but neither were good. I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

[Robb]

The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart.  The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses.  The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981).  The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

But of course, comparing 3 bad years in the 90's with 5 years in the 80's is not quite fair. If you looked at the 2 years prior to 93, you would add a second place and fifth place finish to the mix. That more than makes up for the eighth and fourth place in 80 and 81. Throwing out those years for both the 80's and 90's gives you:

Code Select Expand


         82  83  84  93  94  95
Finished 10   9  12  11   8   9
Playoffs No  No  No  No  1/4 1/4


1/4 means we were in quarterfinals, having won a play-in, and lost.

You can argue forever, really?:-}, but neither were good. I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

But in the 80s, there were 17 teams.  Scaling those up to 12 teams means that the finishes were equivalent to:

Code Select Expand


         82  83  84   93  94  95
Finished 7.1 6.4 8.5  11   8   9


The only thing the 90s stretch had going for it was that the ECAC decided to let more teams into the playoffs - that doesn't change the fact that the 90s teams were (proportionately) worse.

[Jim Hyla]

The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart.  The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses.  The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981).  The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

But of course, comparing 3 bad years in the 90's with 5 years in the 80's is not quite fair. If you looked at the 2 years prior to 93, you would add a second place and fifth place finish to the mix. That more than makes up for the eighth and fourth place in 80 and 81. Throwing out those years for both the 80's and 90's gives you:

Code Select Expand


         82  83  84  93  94  95
Finished 10   9  12  11   8   9
Playoffs No  No  No  No  1/4 1/4


1/4 means we were in quarterfinals, having won a play-in, and lost.

You can argue forever, really?:-}, but neither were good. I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

But in the 80s, there were 17 teams.  Scaling those up to 12 teams means that the finishes were equivalent to:

Code Select Expand


         82  83  84   93  94  95
Finished 7.1 6.4 8.5  11   8   9


The only thing the 90s stretch had going for it was that the ECAC decided to let more teams into the playoffs - that doesn't change the fact that the 90s teams were (proportionately) worse.

Like I said you can argue it forever. As most probably know, I like to argue, but enough on this for me, let's start doing it over student season ticket sales.