Wallowing

[RichH]

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.

Gee, the last time they finished as low as 7th was all the way back in...2010.  


And they won the damned CCHA tournament to extend that cursed streak.

[css228]

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.

Variance doesn't take a top 4 team and turn it into a bottom 4 team over night. We're not talking SEC football here. The ECAC is not a top to bottom good conference. We lost this season to the 42nd, 43rd, 45th, and 46th rated teams in KRACH. In fact we got a combined 3 points in the 7 games against the worst teams we played this season. How is that in any regards acceptable in any season. The team took a month and a half off, where they weren't skating. They took stupid penalties night in and night out when they knew their penalty kill was atrocious. I don't know about you, but in the ECAC it really shouldn't be hard to at least get a home playoff series every year, even being top 4 every year is unrealistic.

[KeithK]

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.

Variance doesn't take a top 4 team and turn it into a bottom 4 team over night. We're not talking SEC football here. The ECAC is not a top to bottom good conference. We lost this season to the 42nd, 43rd, 45th, and 46th rated teams in KRACH. In fact we got a combined 3 points in the 7 games against the worst teams we played this season. How is that in any regards acceptable in any season. The team took a month and a half off, where they weren't skating. They took stupid penalties night in and night out when they knew their penalty kill was atrocious. I don't know about you, but in the ECAC it really shouldn't be hard to at least get a home playoff series every year, even being top 4 every year is unrealistic.

I don't think he's saying that this season's performance is due to bad bounces or breaks or some other sort of random effect. Just that there is variance in human endeavors and sometimes the outcome isn't determined by the true talent level you see on paper. If it turns out to be a one year blip then hopefully this season will help us appreciate success all the more. If it turns into a trend we can reassess then.

[Tom Lento]

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.

I'm totally confused by this, since a) I mentioned Wisconsin's national title in the post and b) the "three teams" in question here are BC, NoDak, and Michigan. What do the Badgers have to do with anything?

(edit - I just realized maybe you're talking about Wisconsin beating BC in 2006, although BC did return the favor in 2010)

[Trotsky]

For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad.

Hey!  I'm one of those people! ::smashfreak::

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.]

"Stacy, we broke up two months ago."

"Well, that doesn't mean we can't still go out, does it?"

[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.

Variance doesn't take a top 4 team and turn it into a bottom 4 team over night. We're not talking SEC football here. The ECAC is not a top to bottom good conference. We lost this season to the 42nd, 43rd, 45th, and 46th rated teams in KRACH. In fact we got a combined 3 points in the 7 games against the worst teams we played this season. How is that in any regards acceptable in any season. The team took a month and a half off, where they weren't skating. They took stupid penalties night in and night out when they knew their penalty kill was atrocious. I don't know about you, but in the ECAC it really shouldn't be hard to at least get a home playoff series every year, even being top 4 every year is unrealistic.

I don't think he's saying that this season's performance is due to bad bounces or breaks or some other sort of random effect. Just that there is variance in human endeavors and sometimes the outcome isn't determined by the true talent level you see on paper. If it turns out to be a one year blip then hopefully this season will help us appreciate success all the more. If it turns into a trend we can reassess then.

That is mostly what I'm saying, although it is also true that because the season is not all that long, and teams bunch up in the middle. a few bad breaks (or a couple nights not showing up one period) can cost a team 4 or 5 places in the RS.  The average number of points between each place from 3rd to 10th is nearly exactly 2 points.  Since hockey game scores are very close, that means if the random perturbations in a season happen to line up primarily in one direction by pure chance, a team can "plummet" in the standings.

tl;dr: I'd rather be a 20-point team playing its best hockey in March than a 30-point team playing its worst.

[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.

I'm totally confused by this, since a) I mentioned Wisconsin's national title in the post and b) the "three teams" in question here are BC, NoDak, and Michigan. What do the Badgers have to do with anything?

(edit - I just realized maybe you're talking about Wisconsin beating BC in 2006, although BC did return the favor in 2010)

Sorry, I thought you meant five, not three, and were referring to all of the teams you mentioned above.

[marty]

For those of you who see the regular season as a "championship" to be won, I can only guess you're mad.

Hey!  I'm one of those people! ::smashfreak::

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.]

"Stacy, we broke up two months ago."

"Well, that doesn't mean we can't still go out, does it?"

So those fans are not married to the team. Friends with benefits?

[Josh '99]

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...

I was at that game.  It sucked.

[Trotsky]

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...

I was at that game.  It sucked.

SLU was actually one second from elimination, and winning that game kept them alive for the 10th and final playoff slot.  I remember the SLU fans went batshit crazy and we had no idea why at the time.

That whole road trip sucked, as we lost to Clarkson in overtime on the following night.  IIRC Elliott was injured so Burt was playing for him and in front of him we looked dreadful.  (Elliott then made a triumphant return in the Trojan War the next weekend.)

[BearLover]

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. **]

I don't view the regular season as a championship to be won.  I see it as a less random way to ensure a bid to the national tournament than winning the ECAC tournament.  I also attend every home game and want to see Cornell win.  One of a team's objectives should be winning at home for their fans.  They blew this regular season.  I mean "blew" in both slang senses of the word: a) they sucked this season; b) they blew a great chance to qualify for the national tournament without have to go on a very difficult run in the ECACs.  That's why I said they need to hoist the ECAC trophy for me to consider this season a success.  

tl;dr: I'd rather be a 20-point team playing its best hockey in March than a 30-point team playing its worst.

It doesn't work that way, or if it does, it's a very marginal effect.  The "hot" team is no more likely to win its next game than the "cold" team (given that, on average, the teams are equal).  A team that goes 0-3 13-0 to make the NFL playoffs has been shown to win no more than a team that goes 13-0 0-3.

[TimV]

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.

I must be misunderstanding the table.  Why is Minnesota missing?

[Josh '99]

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...

I was at that game.  It sucked.

SLU was actually one second from elimination, and winning that game kept them alive for the 10th and final playoff slot.  I remember the SLU fans went batshit crazy and we had no idea why at the time.

That whole road trip sucked, as we lost to Clarkson in overtime on the following night.  IIRC Elliott was injured so Burt was playing for him and in front of him we looked dreadful.  (Elliott then made a triumphant return in the Trojan War the next weekend.)

More notably (in my opinion anyway), that was the game when Willie Mitchell shot the puck into the Cornell bench after touching up on two simultaneous delayed penalties and hit Schafer in the head.

http://www.elynah.com/news/PastYears/Box98/clark.0307

[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.

I must be misunderstanding the table.  Why is Minnesota missing?

Because I suck.  Minnesota, with 9, is floating in between the two groups.

[RichH]

tl;dr: I'd rather be a 20-point team playing its best hockey in March than a 30-point team playing its worst.

It doesn't work that way, or if it does, it's a very marginal effect.  The "hot" team is no more likely to win its next game than the "cold" team (given that, on average, the teams are equal).  A team that goes 0-3 13-0 to make the NFL playoffs has been shown to win no more than a team that goes 13-0 0-3.

Until you factor in injuries (both publicly known and those more minor/secretive), tinkering with line combinations, and psychological confidence of key players like the goaltender.  A d-man pulling up to finish a check because he's tentative due to a recent penalty, or a winger losing a step because he's skating on a tender ankle both matter.  Ken Dryden himself has written how there were times when his concentration and focus was so acute, the game felt like it was moving in slow-motion for him.  I'm a fan of sports statistical analysis, but I believe that team streaks do happen, and they can be a result of a lot of human factors.