NCAA Tournament

[HockeyMan]

Nonetheless, it's official: Yale is better than Cornell at hockey right now.  I don't mean this current team, I mean the entire current program.  They've now been doing this for an extended period of time, despite losing players to graduation, with a great system that Cornell can't ever beat.

So... "extended period of time" = 6 years?  Troll, or too young to understand time?

The more accurate statement would be that Yale is better than Harvard right now, i.e., that they've replaced Harvard as the second-best Ivy.

Nope, they replaced Cornell as the best Ivy.  Six years is forever in sports, and more than enough to show their success is more than one great player or a lucky recruiting class.  Love the talking down to on these forums, though.  It seems like I've been accused of being a troll or an idiot quite a few times in the past few days when it's been obvious I haven't been trolling and I've supported my arguments perfectly well.

Agree.  Yale is the better program right now, no question, and the casual way people are tossing out the trolling accusation is silly and annoying in equal measure. Quite apart from the results, I much prefer Allain's brand of hockey to Schafer's, but I've also thought Yale has been flat out the better team during recent years.  And it's been impressive to watch Yale not merely beat Minnesota and NoDak but hang with them, stride for stride, check for check. I would argue Schafer has some built-in recruiting advantages vis-a-vis Allain (the storied tradition, Lynah, the Ag School, the alumni support), but they're not translating into supremacy on the ice.

I saw nothing "reasoned" about BearLover's assertion, made in the manner of an overheated schoolboy, that Yale's program is "better," whatever that means, than ours is right now.  Where is the support?  Feel free to be pedantic.

I'll help you.  Use Allain's tenure, since you love him so.  We're 4-10-2 vs. them, with two very high profile losses.  They've won 2 ECAC championships; we've won one.  They've "won" two #1 seeds; we've won none.  (But then, the RS "championship" is worth a warm bucket of piss.)

Have they had our number lately?  Yes.  Are they unbeatable, no.  Just show some perspective.  For my part, I'm beginning to be... worried.  Come back to me when we haven't beaten them in the regular season for 10 years or so.  Come back to me when they've been in the final four multiple times, particularly if they win a championship.  Come back to me in, well, three years or so.  Then we'll have a discussion.

They've had the best of us, lately.  So what?  It probably won't last.

A tad defensive, aren't we? Who said anything about Yale being unbeatable? We've won now and then against them in recent years, and we'll continue to do so; what's that got to with the issue at hand? When you say you don't want to have a discussion until after we go 0 for 20 against them in the RS in the next decade, you sound like, well, an overheated schoolboy.

[Trotsky]

When you say you don't want to have a discussion until after we go 0 for 20 against them in the RS in the next decade, you sound like, well, an overheated schoolboy.

I think that was a reference to The Streak against Harvard from 1986-95, when we actually were 0-for-decade (0-17-3).

Schafer has followed that up by going 22-11-3 in the RS againsat Harvard.

[ugarte]

I think it is a little silly to say that Yale has bypassed us as a program already. It is NOT silly to say that they have been our equal or better over the course of the last 5-6 years - though these have hardly been lean times for Cornell - nor that they are a real threat to bypass us in the coming years.

On the other hand, Cornell is still pulling in blue-chip recruits, played very good hockey at the end of the season, were a goal away from the Final Four 12 months ago...  so I hardly think it is time to push the panic button.

[dag14]

and meanwhile, Union is up 3-0 over BC almost halfway through the second period

[Trotsky]

I think it is a little silly to say that Yale has bypassed us as a program already. It is NOT silly to say that they have been our equal or better over the course of the last 5-6 years - though these have hardly been lean times for Cornell - nor that they are a real threat to bypass us in the coming years.

A: Games over .500 in ECAC RS, 2008-2013:

+36 Yale
+33 Union
+26 Cornell
+12 Quinnipiac
+02 Princeton
all others at or under .500


B: Games over .500 in ECAC RS, 2002-2007:

+63 Cornell
+29 Harvard
+29 Dartmouth
+19 Colgate
all others at or under .500


C: Games over .500 in ECAC RS, 1996-2001:

+61 Clarkson
+31 St. Lawrence
+22 Cornell
+17 Colgate
+13 RPI
all others at or under .500

Appearance (1 yes, 0 no) in Tables C, B, A:

111 Cornell
011 Colgate
100 Clarkson
100 St. Lawrence
100 RPI
010 Harvard
010 Dartmouth
001 Yale
001 Union
001 Quinnipiac
001 Princeton
000 Brown

[Ben]

I saw nothing "reasoned" about BearLover's assertion, made in the manner of an overheated schoolboy, that Yale's program is "better," whatever that means, than ours is right now.  Where is the support?  Feel free to be pedantic.

I'll help you.  Use Allain's tenure, since you love him so.  We're 4-10-2 vs. them, with two very high profile losses.  They've won 2 ECAC championships; we've won one.  They've "won" two #1 seeds; we've won none.  (But then, the RS "championship" is worth a warm bucket of piss.)

Have they had our number lately?  Yes.  Are they unbeatable, no.  Just show some perspective.  For my part, I'm beginning to be... worried.  Come back to me when we haven't beaten them in the regular season for 10 years or so.  Come back to me when they've been in the final four multiple times, particularly if they win a championship.  Come back to me in, well, three years or so.  Then we'll have a discussion.

They've had the best of us, lately.  So what?  It probably won't last.

Since 2008-09, Yale is 10-2-0 against us (goals 46-26), have finished above us in four of the last five seasons (avg. finish 2.6 vs 3., have taken 146 ECAC points to our 133, two ECAC first-place finishes (none), two ECAC titles (one), four Ivy titles (one), four NCAA appearances (three), one Frozen four (none). That's a bit more comprehensive as a comparison than you gave. Last I checked, the goal of hockey is to win games by scoring more goals than your opponent, and Yale has done more of this than us in the last five seasons. I'm not going to let us get whupped for another five seasons before pointing out that there may be something wrong here. And why couldn't it last?

[Scersk '97]

A tad defensive, aren't we? Who said anything about Yale being unbeatable? We've won now and then against them in recent years, and we'll continue to do so; what's that got to with the issue at hand? When you say you don't want to have a discussion until after we go 0 for 20 against them in the RS in the next decade, you sound like, well, an overheated schoolboy.

Yale figured as unbeatable:

They've now been doing this for an extended period of time, despite losing players to graduation, with a great system that Cornell can't ever beat.

Otherwise, you just reiterated the point I'm trying to make.  I'm perfectly willing to say that Yale has replaced Harvard, particularly until Harvard fires Teddy; Yale'll need to dominate us for a while before I'll crown them the Ivy All-Time Champeen!!!111

I might—might—entertain the notion that, recently, Yale has pulled even with us.  I think that's temporary; BearLover seems not to think so.

As far as support and pedantry goes, though:  Do you know to what I'm referring with 0 and 20?  When that happened, we weren't the best Ivy...  by a long shot.  What about my list of stats?  That's support, which I've seen none of from BearLover.  How does he support his notion that Yale will continue to "have our number?"

And sure I'm defensive.  What I wonder is why everyone else isn't?  Many people on this forum seem ready to throw in the towel, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and/or [insert further homespun phrase here]. What I read here lately are the ramblings of a bunch of pretty fair-weather fans who lack perspective.  As a '97 grad, it's something I'll never understand, probably because I saw much of '87–'93 as a townie, and all of '93–'95 as a student; indeed, I'm trying to bring some of that perspective to this discussion.  Take it for what you will.

[KeithK]

Not sure why people here want Yale to keep winning.  It doesn't actually do Cornell any bit of good because the rankings are computerized, and I don't want Cornell to no longer be the team that has gotten the farthest in the NCAA tourney in recent memory.  

Nonetheless, it's official: Yale is better than Cornell at hockey right now.  I don't mean this current team, I mean the entire current program.  They've now been doing this for an extended period of time, despite losing players to graduation, with a great system that Cornell can't ever beat.

When the other teams in the ECAC do well it does directly help Cornell. There's the ranking effect - strength of schedule. There's the "playing quality opponents" effect. And there's the reputation effect (easier to recruit good players when they don't think they're going to play in some backwater league that won't help their hockey development.)

Not rooting for ECAC teams in the tournament is fine if 1) you want Cornell to be a big fish in a small pond and are happy for anything that keeps the pond smaller  and 2)you like seeing the big name schools dominate and then bad mouth the less fortunate.

[Trotsky]

When the other teams in the ECAC do well it does directly help Cornell. There's the ranking effect - strength of schedule. There's the "playing quality opponents" effect. And there's the reputation effect (easier to recruit good players when they don't think they're going to play in some backwater league that won't help their hockey development.)

This is especially important for the ECAC right now in its history.  When a recruit is winnowing down his choices to the ECAC and, say, Hockey East, it's very hard to counter the argument that since the ECAC has not won an NCAA title since 1989, and has not even appeared in a NCAA Final since 1991, the league is inferior competition and not as strong for the recruit's development.

The ECAC needs to do well in the NCAA.  We need championships.  Once the ECAC tournament ends, the other 11 members become my second favorite team.

Union 4-0 over BC in the 2nd.  This is great.

[Scersk '97]

And why couldn't it last?

Oh, it could.  I won't say that Yale's success, particularly against us, hasn't been a bit disturbing.  I just think it won't last.  Just a hunch, that's all.

A couple of months ago, forecasters predicted that we'd have a pretty quick end to winter.  Turns out that the skiing has been great this spring.  Maybe it'll be great next year too, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Predictions work like that.

[ugarte]

And sure I'm defensive.  What I wonder is why everyone else isn't?

I dunno. I guess I think some good points are being made by the pro-Yale forces. I've disagreed where I thought it was relevant without getting defensive. You can start to sound a little unhinged when you get defensive.

Hypothetically.

[Trotsky]

2nd period in the books, Union up 4-0 and outshooting BC 2:1.  This is an ass-whooping so far.

[Ben]

And sure I'm defensive.  What I wonder is why everyone else isn't?  Many people on this forum seem ready to throw in the towel, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and/or [insert further homespun phrase here]. What I read here lately are the ramblings of a bunch of pretty fair-weather fans who lack perspective.  As a '97 grad, it's something I'll never understand, probably because I saw much of '87–'93 as a townie, and all of '93–'95 as a student; indeed, I'm trying to bring some of that perspective to this discussion.  Take it for what you will.

I hear this a lot in sports. Never question your own team and its leadership, or you're being a bad fan. It's as ridiculous to say that we're in a golden age of Cornell hockey because you were first exposed to it in the early '90s as it would be to say that we've been terrible for ages if you first watched in the late '60s and early '70s. Averaging out over a long period of time (mid-60s to now), I think it's reasonable to expect the following each season: between 5th and 3rd or above in the RS; first round playoff victory at home; ECAC last four and NCAA appearances every 2/3 years; ECAC title every 3-5 years. These aren't rigorous criteria, but a set of expectations over several years. While this season did not live up to any of those expectations, the more important concern is that it drags the program down from that set of expectations as a moving average, and may be the start of a downward trend. We may be the Faithful, but my faith doesn't involve being led around blind and unquestioning.

[Jim Hyla]

Not sure why people here want Yale to keep winning.  It doesn't actually do Cornell any bit of good because the rankings are computerized, and I don't want Cornell to no longer be the team that has gotten the farthest in the NCAA tourney in recent memory.  

Nonetheless, it's official: Yale is better than Cornell at hockey right now.  I don't mean this current team, I mean the entire current program.  They've now been doing this for an extended period of time, despite losing players to graduation, with a great system that Cornell can't ever beat.

When the other teams in the ECAC do well it does directly help Cornell. There's the ranking effect - strength of schedule. There's the "playing quality opponents" effect. And there's the reputation effect (easier to recruit good players when they don't think they're going to play in some backwater league that won't help their hockey development.)

Not rooting for ECAC teams in the tournament is fine if 1) you want Cornell to be a big fish in a small pond and are happy for anything that keeps the pond smaller  and 2)you like seeing the big name schools dominate and then bad mouth the less fortunate.

So right you are. That's why right now I'm ecstatic. Assuming U can hold on, we'll have a Frozen Four with 2 ECAC teams, 1 HE, and 1 WCHA or CCHA. How the hell can't you be happy with that. Go to the FF, wear your jersey with pride. See what those WCHA fans say now. Yes, it may only be one year, but as Keith said, it can be head a long distance when you go to recruit.

[Trotsky]

Assuming U can hold on, we'll have a Frozen Four with 2 ECAC teams, 1 HE, and 1 WCHA or CCHA. How the hell can't you be happy with that.

Ecstatic.

And for those of you wondering hypothetically, those two bracket entries do not intersect in the SF.  Just sayin'.