Frozen Four Results

[Trotsky]

I am also sick of reading stories about them every day in the local newspapers here in CT.

I'm sure this is a big part of it.  Familiarity breeds contempt.

[Trotsky]

and the hockey cheerleaders? Come on now!

With one exemption.  I loathe the Gophers, but this is traditional and, dare I say, classy:

[Ben]

I'll be pulling for the asteroid.

[BearLover]

The conference shedding its image as uncompetitive will obviously help us.  It will also help everyone else in our conference.  Yale, Q, and Union are going to reap the far majority of the reward.  The chances of Cornell winning the ECAC will significantly decrease (as they have the past 10 years, as the conference has gotten better).  That means fewer trips to the NCAAS.  That also means smart kids who are good at hockey will look elsewhere.  Altogether that results in a net loss.

This assumes the overall pie stays the same, but it won't.  Minnesota and Denver winning NCAA titles didn't hurt the WCHA, it kept the conference in a position where they could attract talent and roll up 3, 4 or even 5 NCAA bids a season.

However, I can understand your argument now.  I think we are arguing at different points on the supply curve.  The ECAC is currently a "poorly exploited" resource.  True, a rising tide can't lift all boats forever -- eventually the conference maxes out and at that point your concerns start to affect a given member's chances.  But we are nowhere near there right now, having been wandering in the wilderness now for decades.  If Cornell loses a blue chip to Yale but picks up two who are no longer worried about coming to the ECAC, that's a net gain.

I understand there are pros and cons.  I think the cons outweight the pros, because we are directly competing with the others schools that benefit from this.  Nationally, we may get some better recruits from the other conferences.  But recruits also want to go to a program that wins.  The ECAC slice of the recruit pie will increase, but Cornell's overall share I expect to stay largely the same, or increase slightly.  This is more than offset by the fact we will be losing a lot more to the other ECAC teams.

[Jordan 04]

However, I can understand your argument now.  I think we are arguing at different points on the supply curve.  The ECAC is currently a "poorly exploited" resource.  True, a rising tide can't lift all boats forever -- eventually the conference maxes out and at that point your concerns start to affect a given member's chances.  But we are nowhere near there right now, having been wandering in the wilderness now for decades.  If Cornell loses a blue chip to Yale but picks up two who are no longer worried about coming to the ECAC, that's a net gain.

I think this is a bit of a straw man. Of course if we continue to out-recruit Yale 2:1 on blue chip prospects, we'll be fine. The argument is that the more the QU's and Yales go to the Frozen Four, the Finals, and win titles, the less likely any of those 3 aforementioned blue-chippers are coming to Cornell, let alone two.  They theoretically become Yale's to "lose", not Cornell's.

I think this is the real point that BearLover doesn't buy into. This pending all-ECAC final will allow our coaches to more easily sell recruits on the fact that they can take advantage of all that Cornell offers and play in a league that truly offers the top competition available at the college level. I've been saying for years that the ECAC teams were improving accross the board, and I'm pleased that this year the results bear that out.

The fact that Yale or Q will almost certainly win the title will be feathers in their caps, but I don't think that at all means we'll lose all recruits to them or anyone else. I have every confidence that we'll get our share to top-shelf guys regardless who wins on Saturday, and our chances of getting the best academically qualified players can only be helped by the ECAC's stellar showing.

More straw men. Nobody has argued that our coaches won't be able to more easily sell the ECAC after an all-ECAC final.  Just that Cornell may have a tougher time selling Cornell, than Yale will have selling Yale (or QU, QU), than has historically been the case.

Of course we won't lose all of our recruits. Nobody's suggesting that.

[BearLover]

I'll be pulling for the asteroid.

+1

[Trotsky]

I think the cons outweight the pros, because we are directly competing with the others schools that benefit from this.  Nationally, we may get some better recruits from the other conferences.  But recruits also want to go to a program that wins.  The ECAC slice of the recruit pie will increase, but Cornell's overall share I expect to stay largely the same, or increase slightly.  This is more than offset by the fact we will be losing a lot more to the other ECAC teams.

I believe if we open up the pool of recruits we have a significant advantage on Yale.



I say this as a proud admittee.  

[BearLover]

I think the cons outweight the pros, because we are directly competing with the others schools that benefit from this.  Nationally, we may get some better recruits from the other conferences.  But recruits also want to go to a program that wins.  The ECAC slice of the recruit pie will increase, but Cornell's overall share I expect to stay largely the same, or increase slightly.  This is more than offset by the fact we will be losing a lot more to the other ECAC teams.

I believe if we open up the pool of recruits we have a significant advantage on Yale.



I say this as a proud admittee.  

No.  Two reasons:
1. Yale is better at hockey now; and
2.

[kaelistus]

Felix's standard order of cheering

Cornell
Ivys sans Harvard
ECAC Teams (hockey only)
Harvard
Any other non merit scholarship team
All other schools sorted by distance from my current home in Somerville
This space reserved for schools with no actual principles (Kentucky, Duke, Penn State)

[jtn27]

I don't think this is good for Cornell. Prospects want to play for good teams, not bad teams in good conferences (and until we prove otherwise, we're a bad team). If anything, this will make things harder on Cornell. If a prospect is getting recruited by Cornell and Yale, why go to Cornell when he can go to another Ivy that was just in the national championship game? Also, look at the SEC. Has their recent success benefited any team other than Alabama, LSU, and, to a lesser extent, Georgia and Florida? Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Miss State are still bad or mediocre at best. Even Auburn, two years removed from a national championship, and Arkansas, a preseason top 10, did terrible this past year.

[Rosey]

No need to repeat what Greg said. I'll just add that Cornell is hardly "a 9th place team" from the perspective of a recruit: Cornell has been the most consistently good team in the conference over the past decade and a half: one off year doesn't change that. By virtue of attracting recruits that would previously not have returned the calls of ECAC recruiters, a stronger conference will definitely benefit the strongest teams in the conference: Yale, Union, Quinnipiac, Cornell, and (yes) Harvard.

[Ben]

No need to repeat what Greg said. I'll just add that Cornell is hardly "a 9th place team" from the perspective of a recruit: Cornell has been the most consistently good team in the conference over the past decade and a half: one off year doesn't change that. By virtue of attracting recruits that would previously not have returned the calls of ECAC recruiters, a stronger conference will definitely benefit the strongest teams in the conference: Yale, Union, Quinnipiac, Cornell, and (yes) Harvard.

But not necessarily equally.

[Trotsky]

The world turned upside down.

[Rosey]

ALL ECAC, BITCHES.

[Rosey]

I now officially don't give a shit who wins on Saturday. Let the partying begin two days early!