11/9 Union

[BearLover]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

[Rosey]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

[BearLover]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

[Chris '03]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

[BearLover]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

[Rosey]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

So do I. But that's not a recipe for winning it all. I want them to win a national championship, and the way there is through a high-quality ECAC, not through an ECAC of scrubs like there used to be.

[Dafatone]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

So do I. But that's not a recipe for winning it all. I want them to win a national championship, and the way there is through a high-quality ECAC, not through an ECAC of scrubs like there used to be.

You can argue either way.  All they have to do is get into the NCAA tournament and win four games.  They can do that through luck, skill, overcoming the adversity of a tough schedule, or having all their opponents get mysterious stomach bugs.

Who cares?  The ECAC is strong now.  It was weak then.  It'll get weak again at some point.  Then strong again.  Etc.  Since we (us as fans and Cornell as a team) have no control over any of that, complaining about whether or not it's "bad" that ECAC teams were in the championship seems kinda pointless, doesn't it?

[BearLover]

You prefer 2003?  Then why the hell were you happy when Q and Yale made the finals last year?

Isn't the answer obvious? Because I want Cornell to dominate in a nationally-competitive league. (And a pony.)

My argument from March hasn't changed: Cornell can't be consistently competitive at the national level when it doesn't play nationally-competitive teams all the time. It's a necessary—but insufficient—condition.

What are you talking about?  Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC sucked.  Now they can't make the NCAAs, because the conference doesn't suck.

Blaming other teams for your own lack of success is loser-talk.

Oh, I didn't realize in hockey you don't actually play against other teams but just shoot pucks on unguarded nets.

::rolleyes::

I answered your stupid response with an equally stupid response.  The point is, everything in sports is relative.  It's not possible for everyone to get better.

Sure it is. Just look at the NHL: the level of play across the league gets better decade by decade.

It's not possible for everyone to win. Well...duh.

Winning teams look within when they lose, and try to figure out a way to win next time. Losing teams (and irritating fans) complain about the unfair advantages of the other teams.

Be a winner.

Elementary school soccer coach language aside, that doesn't make any sense because I'm not the Cornell hockey team.  I also don't know how any of that is relevant, because I've never complained about unfair advantages of other teams.  

I want Cornell to win.  They weren't the best team in the country when the ECAC wasn't as good.  Hell, half the time they weren't even the best team in the ECAC.  So no, I don't want to see everyone else get better to give Cornell more of a challenge.  Honestly, what the hell are you even saying?

So you'd rather Cornell play a D-III schedule and go 29-0 than go 15-14 and finish 5th in a competitive ECAC?

No, I never said anything suggesting that.  All I said is they weren't perfect before, they never won it all (recently, of course), so I don't know why you'd want to make it harder.  I prefer 2003 to 2013.

So do I. But that's not a recipe for winning it all. I want them to win a national championship, and the way there is through a high-quality ECAC, not through an ECAC of scrubs like there used to be.

But Cornell had ample chances to win a national championship when the conference "sucked."  [Note that, when the conference "sucked," Cornell still had to get in as an at-large team more than half the time.  So not only was Cornell winning the ECAC more, they were also getting at-large bids more.] They made it to the NCAAs more often than not, and they even made it as a 1-seed once and a 2-seed thrice.  You'd say that's not nationally competitive?  Because until they had to play national powerhouses like UNH and Minnesota, Cornell usually won in the NCAA's.  A few times they even beat those teams.  To say they weren't nationally competitive is incorrect unless "nationally competitive" entails being one of the absolute best few programs in the country.  Are you saying you want Cornell to be BC?  Cornell was only a small step below when the ECAC was weaker, and honestly that's probably the best anyone can ever realistically hope for.  I don't see how a harder ECAC is going to help them become BC.  They are a long shot to even make the tournament now...

[KGR11]

There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

[BearLover]

There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

The "rest of the ECAC" was really only Yale in 2008-09.  Using 2008-onwards as the modern era doesn't work because back then Yale was only real threat to Cornell; now it seems the entire conference has a great chance of beating Cornell any night.  Further, the 1998-2001 Cornell teams did not resemble those of 2002-present in terms of talent.  Why did you leave out '96/'97?  They made it to the NCAA's both those years.  I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but it seems like you're cherrypicking numbers.  My point is that Cornell was doing great up until the conference got really good.  They were awesome in the ECAC but rarely outright dominant, and they competed at a very high national level.  Now, it seems like a minor miracle if they make the tournament.

[ugarte]

There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

The "rest of the ECAC" was really only Yale in 2008-09.  Using 2008-onwards as the modern era doesn't work because back then Yale was only real threat to Cornell; now it seems the entire conference has a great chance of beating Cornell any night.  Further, the 1998-2001 Cornell teams did not resemble those of 2002-present in terms of talent.  Why did you leave out '96/'97?  They made it to the NCAA's both those years.  I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but it seems like you're cherrypicking numbers.  My point is that Cornell was doing great up until the conference got really good.  They were awesome in the ECAC but rarely outright dominant, and they competed at a very high national level.  Now, it seems like a minor miracle if they make the tournament.

You got hit on the head by an acorn. Stop screaming about the fucking sky.

[Trotsky]

Top 3 ECAC teams, final PWR:

Code Select Expand


2002  9 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  18 RPI  22 Clk
2003  1 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  12 Hvd  19 Drt
2004 15 Col  16 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  20 Drt
2005  5 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]   9 Hvd  14 Col
2006  5 Hvd   8 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  15 Drt
2007  3 Clk  12 SLU  19 Drt
2008 10 Clk  15 Hvd  16 Prn
2009  5 Yal  11 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  12 Prn
2010  7 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]   9 Yal  19 Uni
2011  1 Yal   8 Uni  15 RPI
2012  3 Uni  13 [color=#d61616]Cor[/color]  21 Hvd
2013  1 Qpc  12 Uni  15 Yal


[BearLover]

There's a graphic in tbrw.info that shows NCAA Postseason opponents that paints a good picture of Cornell's success in the NCAA tournament and their ability to make it in.

In my opinion, the point at which "the rest of the ECAC (Yale, Union, Q) started to get better" was 2008-2009 when we had no prayer of beating Yale.  Since that time, Cornell has made it to the tournament 3/5 times and won a single game in the tournament 2/3 of those times.

If you go back between seasons ending in 1998-2008, there was ONLY ONE ECAC NCAA tournament win that wasn't Cornell's (Clarkson 2008), I took this as indication that the ECAC was bad at this time (After all, the reason we're saying the ECAC is better is because other teams have started to win NCAA tournament games).  During that time Cornell had an awesome stretch (2002-2006) when it made the tournament 4 times, won at least one game each time, and made it to the FF once, and a lousy stretch (1998-2001) when they didn't make the tournament.  So when the ECAC was lousy, Cornell got in 4/11 times (but won at least 1 game each time), but didn't get in 7/11 times.

My conclusion from this data is that the ECAC being stronger doesn't hurt Cornell.  I encourage anyone who is interested to lengthen the scope of analysis beyond 1998.

The "rest of the ECAC" was really only Yale in 2008-09.  Using 2008-onwards as the modern era doesn't work because back then Yale was only real threat to Cornell; now it seems the entire conference has a great chance of beating Cornell any night.  Further, the 1998-2001 Cornell teams did not resemble those of 2002-present in terms of talent.  Why did you leave out '96/'97?  They made it to the NCAA's both those years.  I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but it seems like you're cherrypicking numbers.  My point is that Cornell was doing great up until the conference got really good.  They were awesome in the ECAC but rarely outright dominant, and they competed at a very high national level.  Now, it seems like a minor miracle if they make the tournament.

You got hit on the head by an acorn. Stop screaming about the fucking sky.

I never said anything about the sky falling...I just said you're all rooting for the wrong things.  the question does not concern whether Cornell is a good team, but whether they are trending in the right direction.  I think they are trending in the wrong direction, and the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.  

Remember, in addition to losing far more games each year, a quieter Lynah, etc....there are only so many recruits who want to play at a good school that is also good at hockey, only so many who don't need a scholarship.  Cornell is getting a smaller slice of the pie now, even if the ECAC as is doing better relative to the other conferences than it did before.

[KeithK]

I never said anything about the sky falling...I just said you're all rooting for the wrong things.  the question does not concern whether Cornell is a good team, but whether they are trending in the right direction.  I think they are trending in the wrong direction, and the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.

That's the crux of this argument and has been since it started in April.  Rooting for the wrong things!  First and foremost everyone here is rooting for the same thing - the success of Cornell hockey.  (Well, not our various guests from other schools, but still.) The other stuff is secondary. Having dealt with years of "EZAC" bullshit from western fans I am happy that a member of our conference won the national title. You're not ad you don't have to be. But whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

[MattS]

But whether or not you think the sky is falling you come off sounding that way.

Agreed.