11/9 Union

[RichH]

I don't have the time to muck through and pick out who is saying what here.

The argument seems to start these days with the question "How is it a good thing that Yale won? How can you be happy about this?" If all one cares about is the success of the Cornell team (and some of us here fall into that category) it isn't good when ANY team other than Cornell wins the National Championship. In that regard, conference doesn't matter. Yale, Quinnipiac, UML, SCSU...they all were "Not-Cornell," so who cares what conference they are from?  Once the seedings are set, it's a "national soup" and every other team in there in years Cornell makes the field is the enemy, be they from Colorado, Wisconsin, Alabama, or Massachussets.  If one of the Not-Cornells win, I'm upset.

Then this is where, for those of us who have either league pride or historical perspective (or both), other tenets of our college hockey fandom come to the surface. Yes, we're (mostly) all Cornell-firsters here. But what happens when the CU season comes to an early end?  I still watch the games. I still enjoy college hockey immensely. So knowing that the ECAC hasn't called a member champion since the 1980s, having pompous Western & Boston-centric D-bags crow for *years* that the league will never be relevant again and that it has sunk from the "Big 4" to be on par with Atlantic Hockey...this was very satisfying. Not joyous, mind you. Satisfying.  It trumpeted a return to relevance and a retirement of the "EZAC" moniker.  And most important of all, the whisper of "If they can do it, so can we" in everybody's ear from Ithaca to Potsdam to Providence.  That's why there was a positive reaction here.

Look, Yale was lucky. They had a great tournament, but they were incredibly lucky to have even made the tournament, if you recall. I remember that had they dropped one point (such as the OT win at Lynah or scoring with 0:03 left in OT vs. Colgate the night before a tough 2-1 win vs. Cornell in the final regular season game), they aren't in the NCAA field at all.  That was a team that had a stretch of 1-6 in the meat of the season, and got outscored 8-0 in Atlantic City.  Then, they played great with a hot goalie backing them up. They are Exhibit A of the "just get in, and anything can happen" nature of the NCAA Tournament.  It's a new era where the same teams of NoDak/Michigan/Minny/BU aren't stomping over no-names every year.  Now you have teams like BSU, RIT, Miami, and UVM making the Frozen Four on a regular basis.  Just get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

[BearLover]

Just get in, and it's "why not us?"  Yale did exactly that.

Yet another reason why I'd rather be dominating the ECAC every year ::faint::

[BearLover]

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

Agreed.

I don't recall saying anything about Cornell being finished.  I simply argued against all the people celebrating Yale's win.  I realistically think Yale winning makes Cornell worse off, and that's all I ever said.

[RichH]

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

Agreed.

I don't recall saying anything about Cornell being finished.  I simply argued against all the people celebrating Yale's win.  I realistically think Yale winning makes Cornell worse off, and that's all I ever said.

But what if UMass-Lowell or St. Cloud had won in Pittsburgh instead? Would that change anything about the state of affairs at the onset of this season?

[KeithK]

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

Agreed.

I don't recall saying anything about Cornell being finished.  I simply argued against all the people celebrating Yale's win.  I realistically think Yale winning makes Cornell worse off, and that's all I ever said.

You didn't say we were finished. It's the tone of how you argued the point and how vehement that made you come off as if the sky was falling. I suspect that was mostly your emotional reaction to seeing Yale win given that (if I'm remembering correctly) you can't stand Yale.

[Rosey]

and the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.  

Is it? What I see is a correlation between Cornell's recent woes and the rise of programs like Yale and Union and Quinnipiac, but I have seen no actual evidence the second is the cause of the first.

Personally, I'd say problems #1 and #2 are (in no particular order) the difficulty the coaching staff has had in adjusting to the faster, less physical game dominant now, and discipline/confidence/cohesion problems with the personnel. Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine. I simply don't get that feeling anymore. They struggle now to get their shit together in a way they never did even against superior out-of-conference teams. I contest that this is a problem with the competition: this feels way more like internal issues to me.

[Jerseygirl]

Personally, I'd say problems #1 and #2 are (in no particular order) the difficulty the coaching staff has had in adjusting to the faster, less physical game dominant now, and discipline/confidence/cohesion problems with the personnel. Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine. I simply don't get that feeling anymore. They struggle now to get their shit together in a way they never did even against superior out-of-conference teams. I contest that this is a problem with the competition: this feels way more like internal issues to me.

What you said. From what (relatively little) I've seen, it seems like these guys don't mesh well in that intangible way a team needs to in order to be great, or even play at a level beyond what, on paper, they're capable of achieving. Who knows whether it's unchecked egos, lack of discipline, or just a group of young men who don't like each other much and haven't figured out the best way to rise about that and come together as a team. In the games I was able to see live last season (which included the game where Bardreau got his neck broke), I felt like talented guys were far too eager to get scrappy and risk taking stupid penalties.  

Kyle, thank you for being the far more credible poster here on whose opinion I'm piggybacking to express something I've sensed for a while.

[BearLover]

and the improved ECAC is the biggest reason.  

Is it? What I see is a correlation between Cornell's recent woes and the rise of programs like Yale and Union and Quinnipiac, but I have seen no actual evidence the second is the cause of the first.

Personally, I'd say problems #1 and #2 are (in no particular order) the difficulty the coaching staff has had in adjusting to the faster, less physical game dominant now, and discipline/confidence/cohesion problems with the personnel. Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine. I simply don't get that feeling anymore. They struggle now to get their shit together in a way they never did even against superior out-of-conference teams. I contest that this is a problem with the competition: this feels way more like internal issues to me.

Of course it's evidence of the first!  Ever notice that Yale, Q, and Union play Cornell twice (or more) each season?  

No one will disagree with you on your latter points, but the system failing to adapt is not mutually exclusive from other teams getting objectively better overall.  

I'm done discussing this.  I think the rise of the ECAC is a net negative for Cornell.  Others may disagree, but I think it's pretty clear-cut.  What we can all agree on, though, is that there are serious internal problems and that even with the improved ECAC, Cornell should be far better than how it's been playing the past 13 months.  It's tough to put a finger on what, but something significant has to change, and soon.

[Scersk '97]

Sure, Cornell will lose to Yale more often now than it would have 10 years ago because Yale is so much better; but does anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) actually think Cornell is playing like the well-oiled machine it used to be? Cornell used to be like the Terminator: emotionless and efficient at dispatching their opponents, with every player an interchangeable component of the machine.

1) Part of that well-oiled, terminating machine seems to be missing, to me: a true energy/shutdown line. All I've seen out there are a bunch of forwards, some of whom should know better, that have forgotten how to play defense. Some line has to step up and be able to be counted on. I mean, if you look at the plus/minuses (I know, I know), there are some (McCarron) who have never been good defensive types but can score. There are others (deSwardt) who have never been defensive types and can't. IMHO, it's time for deSwardt to sit a bit, senior year notwithstanding. Others, if they take the right mentality to heart, would seem perfectly able to fill those places. Where are the Mugfords, Vartaressians, Abbotts, and Hornbys?

2) On defense, everything is going fine for the skaters. The freshmen are freshmen, and will get better; Gotovets is Gotovets, and will be... Gotovets. A lot depends on him, actually.

3) Andy Iles is not on fire, to say the least.  .901 (55th in the nation) isn't great.

Yes, #3 depends a lot on #1, but vice versa as well. I don't know. I can only hope for the best, and that Schafer'll right the ship over the break.

[Robb]

I know I should let this die (or dieeeeeeeeeeeee, depending whether you're a whippersnapper), but put me in the camp of people who think a strong ECAC is good for Cornell.

Since 2000, the WCHA has won 7 of the 14 titles.  Only ONE of those was won by the WCHA regular season champ (Denver 2005).  The other six were won by teams who came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (twice each).  Between 1985 and 199 (the other years of essentially the same WCHA), they only won 4 out of 15 tournaments, and all 4 of those teams won the McNaughton (reg season) and the WCHA tournament. The conference got stronger after 2000, resulting in more national titles for the conference, but fewer for the "top" team in the conference.  Can it really be a coincidence that the ECAC's recent title was won by our 3rd place team in a year when the rest of the conference did not lose a postseason game outside of the conference?  I don't believe that for a second.

In the end, I think it comes down to a value judgement: would you take a reduced chance at winning a Cleary Bedpan and a Whitelaw Trophy for an increased chance at doing better in the NCAAs in general and maybe even winning the darn thing?  It really is a tough call, but for me, I'd rather be known as a perennial Frozen Four team than a team who perennially runs away with a weak league and then wins an NCAA game every so often.

[scoop85]

I know I should let this die (or dieeeeeeeeeeeee, depending whether you're a whippersnapper), but put me in the camp of people who think a strong ECAC is good for Cornell.

Since 2000, the WCHA has won 7 of the 14 titles.  Only ONE of those was won by the WCHA regular season champ (Denver 2005).  The other six were won by teams who came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (twice each).  Between 1985 and 199 (the other years of essentially the same WCHA), they only won 4 out of 15 tournaments, and all 4 of those teams won the McNaughton (reg season) and the WCHA tournament. The conference got stronger after 2000, resulting in more national titles for the conference, but fewer for the "top" team in the conference.  Can it really be a coincidence that the ECAC's recent title was won by our 3rd place team in a year when the rest of the conference did not lose a postseason game outside of the conference?  I don't believe that for a second.

In the end, I think it comes down to a value judgement: would you take a reduced chance at winning a Cleary Bedpan and a Whitelaw Trophy for an increased chance at doing better in the NCAAs in general and maybe even winning the darn thing?  It really is a tough call, but for me, I'd rather be known as a perennial Frozen Four team than a team who perennially runs away with a weak league and then wins an NCAA game every so often.

+1

[Jordan 04]

This whole argument is a bit silly, as it would appear we don't really have a choice anymore.  Things have changed, at least in the short- to medium- term, and Cornell isn't going to run roughshod over the league each year. We're going to have to compete with a number of very teams in order to get to, and succeed in, the NCAA's.  

That said, it seems crazy to me to not prefer a team that barrels through league play (regular season and tournament).  What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?  The winning at least 1 game each time they were in the NCAAs?  The trip to the Frozen Four?  The multiple one-goal (often OT) losses to national powerhouses?

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

[CowbellGuy]

What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?

A missing banner.

[Robb]

This whole argument is a bit silly, as it would appear we don't really have a choice anymore.  Things have changed, at least in the short- to medium- term, and Cornell isn't going to run roughshod over the league each year. We're going to have to compete with a number of very teams in order to get to, and succeed in, the NCAA's.  

That said, it seems crazy to me to not prefer a team that barrels through league play (regular season and tournament).  What about the 2000's indicates that doesn't prepare Cornell well for the NCAA's?  The winning at least 1 game each time they were in the NCAAs?  The trip to the Frozen Four?  The multiple one-goal (often OT) losses to national powerhouses?

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

[KGR11]

The fact that until 2012 over Michigan, we never (maybe once? too lazy to look up) beat a higher seeded team.  If you go with that trend, the only way to win it all is to go in with the #1 seed, and that didn't work either.

As Age says, "where's the banner?"

The first prerequisite for success in the NCAA's is being in it.  That happened - a lot - when Cornell was dominating the league. And IMO, the team looked like they belonged every year they were there.

Obviously dominating a weak league is a clear path to the dance.  Coming in 4th in the best conference in the nation is ALSO a clear path to the dance.  So, just wanting to get to the dance is not a reason to prefer one to the other.  I firmly believe that the 4th best team from the best conference has a better chance to win than a team that gets there by dominating a weak conference - that's happened at least twice since 2000, while no team that has dominated a weak conference has won it.

We did beat Northeastern when they were a 2 seed and we were a 3 in 2009.  Not sure if there are any other instances.