Frozen Four

[Towerroad]

Furthermore, I am a sports fan--I want my team to win, I want my rivals to lose

I assume I'm in the minority but I couldn't care less about what a rival does.  I'm a Mets fan and I couldn't care less about the Yankees.  I'm an Islanders fan and, in addition to being inconsolably sad, I wish nothing ill to the Rangers, in fact I even kind of like them.  I understand this is a minority view because I see this behavior all the time, but I just don't give a flying fuck about anybody* but my team.

I used to care strongly about seeing my rivals lose. But over the years I've managed to mostly let that go. And I think I'm happier for it.  I suffer enough when my teams lose. I don't need to suffer more because someone else wins. The schadenfreude when they lose just doesn't balance it out.

Even Sucks?

[Trotsky]

Even Sucks?

I figured out at the Worcester (? the one where the lights went out) regional that I would even be driven to root for Them.  That was also when 0-19-3 was fresh in my mind.  It's be even easier now, with them having sucked for so long that the rivalry has cooled down to a sort of chore.

[Josh '99]

The bottom line is that Cornell has a worse chance of finishing at the top of the league, a worse chance of winning the ECAC, and a worse chance of qualifying for the NCAA's than it did ten years ago, and the biggest reason is the better competition.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.  


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March.  Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

While I'm in the "stronger ECAC is good for Cornell" camp, I think this is misleading.  Leave out '04, way at the beginning of the time frame, compare equal five-season intervals, and what you have is:

Average bids, '05-'09 = 2.4.  Average bids, '10-'14 = 2.6.  It seems like there was much more of a shift from '99-'04, when it was one or two teams in the tournament (with two autobids up until 2002, no?) and then from '05 onward, when it's been two or three teams in the tournament with one autobid.

[BearLover]

The bottom line is that Cornell has a worse chance of finishing at the top of the league, a worse chance of winning the ECAC, and a worse chance of qualifying for the NCAA's than it did ten years ago, and the biggest reason is the better competition.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.  


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March.  Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

While I'm in the "stronger ECAC is good for Cornell" camp, I think this is misleading.  Leave out '04, way at the beginning of the time frame, compare equal five-season intervals, and what you have is:

Average bids, '05-'09 = 2.4.  Average bids, '10-'14 = 2.6.  It seems like there was much more of a shift from '99-'04, when it was one or two teams in the tournament (with two autobids up until 2002, no?) and then from '05 onward, when it's been two or three teams in the tournament with one autobid.

Yeah, those numbers actually support the Better ECAC=Bad for Cornell argument.  They show that under the improved league, the number of bids has barely changed at all, whereas getting one of those bids is now considerably more difficult.

[jkahn]

The bottom line is that Cornell has a worse chance of finishing at the top of the league, a worse chance of winning the ECAC, and a worse chance of qualifying for the NCAA's than it did ten years ago, and the biggest reason is the better competition.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The increased strength of the ECAC overall has increased the margin of error for an ECAC team to get an at large bid. Yale got in last year on the back of a stronger ECAC. A few years ago, their semifinal loss would have ended the season. Last year, they got a bid. This year, the ECAC was one or two results away from putting four teams in.


ECAC bids by year:
'04 - 1
'05 - 3
'06 - 2
'07 - 2
'08 - 2
'09 - 3
'10 - 2
'11 - 3
'12 - 2
'13 - 3
'14 - 3

Average bids '04-'09 = 2.16. Average bids '10-'14 = 2.6.  


For years, fans bemoaned Cornell's SOS because of their weak conference and questioned their readiness to play the big boys in March.  Now we're finally in a conference that produces national champions. Yeah it burns me that now two other schools got there before Cornell did but I'm also glad to know that Cornell doesn't play in the JV anymore. It is harder to win the conference championship but that also means it should create more opportunity for a strong league to send more teams to the tournament.*

*- Admittedly, the increase in autobids may neutralize this effect as fewer at large bids are now available.

While I'm in the "stronger ECAC is good for Cornell" camp, I think this is misleading.  Leave out '04, way at the beginning of the time frame, compare equal five-season intervals, and what you have is:

Average bids, '05-'09 = 2.4.  Average bids, '10-'14 = 2.6.  It seems like there was much more of a shift from '99-'04, when it was one or two teams in the tournament (with two autobids up until 2002, no?) and then from '05 onward, when it's been two or three teams in the tournament with one autobid.

Yeah, those numbers actually support the Better ECAC=Bad for Cornell argument.  They show that under the improved league, the number of bids has barely changed at all, whereas getting one of those bids is considerably more difficult.

But if you use last six years vs, prior six, it's 2.67 vs, 2.0, which portrays a much bigger swing.  Last four vs. prior 4 would be 2.75 vs. 2.25.  And even if a stronger league hinders our chances for making the NCAA's, playing tougher competition all year probably helps the chance of tournament success.  Yale was the 3rd ECAC team in the tournament last and won it.  In previous years we wouldn't be surprised if a 3rd WCHA did that, but would expect a 3rd ECAC team to be out quickly.

[underskill]

it sure doesn't feel like the team is more nationally competitive then a decade ago--if anything it feels like the program has slid backwards.

[Trotsky]

it sure doesn't feel like the team is more nationally competitive then a decade ago--if anything it feels like the program has slid backwards.

Our final poll position by year is a rough estimate.

Taking the USA poll only:

96 unranked
97 9
98 unranked
99 unranked
00 unranked
01 15
02 8
03 3
04 unranked
05 5
06 7
07 unranked
08 unranked
09 9
10 6
11 unranked
12 13
13 unranked
14 16

This is the first Cornell team to finish outside the top 10 for 4 consecutive seasons since 2001.

If we replace "unranked" with "25" as a very simplistic pseudo-value, then the four-year rolling average looks like this:

Code Select Expand


96 25
97 9
98 25
99 25 21.0
0 25 21.0
1 15 22.5
2 8 18.3
3 3 12.8
4 25 12.8
5 5 10.3
6 7 10.0
7 25 15.5
8 25 15.5
9 9 16.5
10 6 16.3
11 25 16.3
12 13 13.3
13 25 17.3
14 16 19.8


The program definitely needs a few seasons in the top 10 to reverse the trend and re-establish themselves.  As a 10.5 they're in the tourney as a 3 seed and have a shot.  As a 16.5 they're a bubble team that spends half their seasons looking in from the outside.  Huge difference.

[Chris '03]

it sure doesn't feel like the team is more nationally competitive then a decade ago--if anything it feels like the program has slid backwards.

Our final poll position by year is a rough estimate.

Taking the USA poll only:

96 unranked
97 9
98 unranked
99 unranked
00 unranked
01 15
02 8
03 3
04 unranked
05 5
06 7
07 unranked
08 unranked
09 9
10 6
11 unranked
12 13
13 unranked
14 16

This is the first Cornell team to finish outside the top 10 for 4 consecutive seasons since 2001.

If we replace "unranked" with "25" as a very simplistic pseudo-value, then the four-year rolling average looks like this:

Code Select Expand


96 25
97 9
98 25
99 25 21.0
0 25 21.0
1 15 22.5
2 8 18.3
3 3 12.8
4 25 12.8
5 5 10.3
6 7 10.0
7 25 15.5
8 25 15.5
9 9 16.5
10 6 16.3
11 25 16.3
12 13 13.3
13 25 17.3
14 16 19.8


The program definitely needs a few seasons in the top 10 to reverse the trend and re-establish themselves.  As a 10.5 they're in the tourney as a 3 seed and have a shot.  As a 16.5 they're a bubble team that spends half their seasons looking in from the outside.  Huge difference.

Same this with final PWR, which translates better to tournament selection that polls that take tournament performance into account.

Code Select Expand


2001 23
2002 9
2003 1
2004 16 12.25
2005 5 7.75
2006 8 7.5
2007 22 1275
2008 22 14.25
2009 11 15.75
2010 7 15.5
2011 27 16.75
2012 13 14.5
2013 24 17.75
2014 17 20.25