Wallowing

[billhoward]

Unless Cornell wins the ECAC tournament, it's a disappointing year, any way you slice it.

Made more disheartening if Atlantic City becomes the only tournament venue where Cornell will have never won the ECAC championship. Unless at some point the tournament retu-- never mind

Wash your mouth out with soap.

A one-two punch. First no ECACs in AC, now this: College sports scene gets more barren in the Garden State. NJ approves single-game betting. NCAA removes post-season tournaments such an NCAA quarterfinal round at Princeton or a title game at Meadowlands or a first-rounder where the NJ 1-seed was to have hosted the Pennsylvania 8-seed.

"Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA's mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."

[Trotsky]

Made more disheartening if Atlantic City becomes the only tournament venue where Cornell will have never won the ECAC championship. Unless at some point the tournament retu-- never mind

The only city, not venue.  Matthews (nee Boston) Arena hosted the tournament 1962-65.

[ugarte]

"Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA's mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."

This makes sense because all gambling is local and state-sanctioned.

[Trotsky]

"Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA's mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."

This makes sense because all gambling is local and state-sanctioned.

It also makes sense because the NCAA has been such a bulwark against the commercial exploitation of student athletics.

[Rosey]

"Maintaining the integrity of sports and protecting student-athlete well-being are at the bedrock of the NCAA's mission, and are reflected in our policies prohibiting the hosting of our championships in states that provide for single game sports wagering."

This makes sense because all gambling is local and state-sanctioned.

It also makes sense because the NCAA has been such a bulwark against the commercial exploitation of student athletics.

Hey, member schools are the only ones who should be able to profit off of student athletics because student athletes go pro in something other than sports mumble mumble.

[Tom Lento]

But you should know somebody used your name and password to start this thread with an awful list of stuff!

Ironic reference to the "fans" who immediately re-jumped back on the holocaust wagon the second we lost to Yale.  If they are going to whine, I would at least like them to whine informedly.

Also, the point of a chart like this isn't that we finished 9th.  It's that we finished in the top 4 12 of the previous 13 seasons, and what the fuck more do people want?

BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

I hope you're not too angry with me for highlighting how BC has been the dominant force in D-I men's hockey for the past 10 years. :/

[billhoward]

BC has shown Eastern if not ECAC hockey is a potent force. We should hope that Quinnipiac makes it to the title game or at least FF this year, just as we expected / hoped Yale and Union would do the ECAC proud the past couple years.

[marty]

BC has shown Eastern if not ECAC hockey is a potent force. We should hope that Quinnipiac makes it to the title game or at least FF this year, just as we expected / hoped Yale and Union would do the ECAC proud the past couple years.

This week's bracketology shows QPac in the same regional as BC.    This sucks. But Jason Moy is usually spot on. :-(

[Trotsky]

BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less.  The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds.  There are two groups

Code Select Expand



THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin


Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks.  If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

[Ben]

BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000.

As the son of a Badger, I'm obligated to remind you of Wisconsin's 2006 national title.

[css228]

BC has been to the tournament in 13 of the past 15 seasons, including 10 Frozen Fours and 4 national titles.
North Dakota has been to the tournament in 15 of the past 16 seasons, including 8 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
Michigan has been to the tournament for an incredible 22 straight seasons, including 11 Frozen Fours and 2 national titles.
BU has been. . . well, actually, BU hasn't done much better than Cornell during the Schafer era, but they did win a national title.
Wisconsin has. . . ok, actually, Wisconsin has not done as well as Cornell during the Schafer era, but they also won a national title.

Of course, being a juggernaut doesn't guarantee regular championships. BC is the only one of those three teams to take home the national title since NoDak last won it in 2000. I would have thought NoDak or Michigan would have taken one within the last 10-12 years, but it hasn't happened despite a combined 11 Frozen Four appearances for those two schools (with 3 advances to the championship game).

Also, since 2000 (inclusive):

NoDak/BC/UM: 20 FF appearances, 11 finals appearances, 5 titles (BC - 8 FF, 7 finals, 4 titles)
Rest of D-I: 32 FF appearances, 15 finals appearances, 8 titles

Compare that to the ECAC, with a whopping 3 FF appearances and 0 trips to the finals.

People want Cornell to win a title, but when that happens they'll want to be the fourth team in that elite group, and when that happens they'll want to be the equivalent of the Jerry York BC teams.

Everybody "wants" that, but there is a significant difference between aiming for the national title and being satisifed with nothing less.  The former is admirable in a fan; the latter is obnoxious.

Let's look at the period 2000-2012 in NCAA seeds.  There are two groups

Code Select Expand



THE SUPER POWERS

13 Michigan
12 North Dakota
11 UNH
10 BC

THE POWERS

 8 Denver
 8 Maine
 8 Michigan State
 7 BU
 7 CC
 7 Cornell
 7 Wisconsin


Obviously, we would love to eventually move into the upper group, but let's not forget that being in the second group rocks.  If we can maintain that level of play over the next 13 seasons, I will be very happy.

Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

[Trotsky]

Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance.  We'll see what happens next year.  If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it.  Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.

[ursusminor]

Much as I enjoy seeing Cornell fans wallowing, it should be mentioned that Michigan, who as noted has been in the NCAA tourney 22 straight years, finished 7th in the CCHA and thus is not currently in a position to get a bid this year either. It serves them right for stealing your cheers.

[jtwcornell91]

No doubt what the Princeton coaches did was very smart. Great move, that many would not make.

To try to get home-ice advantage in the CCHA quarterfinals, Ferris State tried the same thing against Michigan at Yost. Had Ferris State scored, Michigan would have lost home-ice advantage for the first round.

The hockey game finished in a 1-1 tie, and Michigan prevailed in the shootout. The shootout result impacted the playoff seedings, but not which teams got home-ice advantage.

And we had it tried against us, by Clarkson. 1989 Quarters, this time I'm correct Beeeej:-D. We won the first game, and if Clarkson would win the second game, we'd have to go to that stupid mini game. It was a 0-0 tie when Clarkson pulled their goalie, but didn't score. Not quite the same since they knew they had to win, but still pulled a goalie in a tie game. So Clarkson couldn't perform, but Princeton could.

SLU also scored an ENG in overtime (at 4:59!) against us in 1998.  [box]  IIRC it was to get a really minor seeding advantage, and not a bye or home ice or anything...

[RichH]

Yes, but I think we can all agree that for a team this talented, a bottom four finish was flat out unacceptable. Not much changes if they finish 8th as opposed to 9th, but still I don't really think its entitlement if you're disappointed when your team has a losing season, with a 500ish record at home. If you're okay with that, you're actively supporting mediocrity.

Variance.  We'll see what happens next year.  If this is a blip then all the talk about "flat out unacceptable" or "actively supporting mediocrity" is just bloviation that belongs on Bleacher Report.

If it's a trend, I'll worry about it.  Right now annoyance at the team turning in a poor season is significantly lower than annoyance at fans who want to audition for Mike Francesa's job.

The typical ECAC three-tier finish never established itself, thanks to QU's run (10 points ahead is the most since 1984.) Six points separated 3rd from 10th. Compared to most seasons, this ECAC is closer to 2002, when CU finished 9 points in front, and four points separated 3rd from 11th. It's not like we finished buried deep. For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad. I've always seen the end of the regular season as "jockeying for a seed" time. This is the time where seasons become successful or not. If this team is  actually hitting their stride, there's no reason to think they can't make a run here. But they have to start playing their best hockey of the year. NOW. (And for their best chances, hopefully they can avoid Connecticut in the QF, should they get past Princeton.)

So why are people who were so vocal in giving up on the team last month still coming here regularly? When I quit, I commit to stay quitted. **]