NCAA tournament 2016

[Trotsky]

Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really).  2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump.  This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.

[underskill]

Meh. We said that about them and Yale a couple years ago too. Hasn't happened so far.

[Rosey]

Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really).  2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump.  This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.

Not sure that relying on other teams to get worse is a good plan for the future.

[andyw2100]

I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

[jtwcornell91]

I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

I've always supported other ECAC teams in the NCAAs, but a number of us don't think Q belongs in the ECAC.  (And it's not an elitist thing, since I was happy to root for UVM in the 90s back when they represented the ECAC in the tournament.)

[KeithK]

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

We've been over this at length in previous years.  Some people would like to see our rivals do poorly.  Bad feeling for a rival is stronger than any conference loyalty for them.  Some also feel that other teams in the ECAC doing well is bad for Cornell from a long term perspective (e.g. recruiting).

I don't agree with them but I understand the argument.

[BearLover]

I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

Same reason Duke fans weren't rooting for UNC today.  Fans of a certain team tend to hate that team's rivals.  

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

Also also, the ECAC being better generally makes it harder for Cornell to do well.  (People here will argue otherwise, but there's no evidence to support this claim.)

[Rosey]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

[Trotsky]

Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really).  2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump.  This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.

Not sure that relying on other teams to get worse is a good plan for the future.

You leave the Islanders out of this.

[Trotsky]

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

We've been over this at length in previous years.  Some people would like to see our rivals do poorly.  Bad feeling for a rival is stronger than any conference loyalty for them.  Some also feel that other teams in the ECAC doing well is bad for Cornell from a long term perspective (e.g. recruiting).

I don't agree with them but I understand the argument.

This.  It's actually cool that there seems to be a fairly even divide on this question.  It's boring when we all agree with a premise.

I'm obviously in the "My conference, right or wrong" column, but I also understand the contrary viewpoint.  I think for people of about my age the contempt with which the ECAC was held over the late 90s and 00s was so irksome that it made all the ECAC teams brothers in arms when the NC$$s came around. I've noticed this age split on other ECAC team threads in USCHO, too.

Perhaps if the ECAC continues to routinely produce F4 teams and national champions we'll start to feel more comfortable rooting against rivals in April.

[RichH]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Exactly. Or as I like to say whenever I hear the "D" word when it comes to sports, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."

https://youtu.be/dpDkYZWeeVg

[Iceberg]

Some things I noticed at the games on Saturday as a spectator.

-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.
-Quinnipiac had a pretty decent turnout. There were quite a number of folks around with their colors, although the few students that were there still aren't very creative with their jeers (Sucks! only goes so far).
-Lowell had a good turnout too, but many of their fans weren't there for the first game. I had the pleasure of sitting below the Lowell section and they had some very orchestrated stuff similar to what you would hear in Lynah. There were curses too but the staff didn't seem to care one bit.
-The Lowell band is very very good and I would pay to hear them perform. One of the people near me mentioned that they have a good music program--that was pretty evident.
-Attendance for the first game was definitely better than that of the second one. The arena seemed somewhere from 40-60% full to me, but I haven't seen the exact figures.
-I didn't see who it was, but I could hear one of the Yale players quite audibly shout "Fuck!" as he headed into the locker room after the 3rd period. We all know what happened about 20 minutes later.
-Times Union Center is an OK arena considering where it is. For some reason, there was no display with scores for other regionals anywhere in the arena; and the announcer almost never mentioned the other scores. Of course, there was no public Wifi in the building.

[jtwcornell91]

-Times Union Center is an OK arena considering where it is.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wolff's+Biergarten,+Broadway,+Albany,+NY/Times+Union+Center,+51+S+Pearl+St,+Albany,+NY+12207/@42.654696,-73.7543147,16z/am=t/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89de0981b20bd87b:0xf6a253b0f68f54cb!2m2!1d-73.7446372!2d42.660903!1m5!1m1!1s0x89de0a23955e9771:0x6c5c715665f19384!2m2!1d-73.755216!2d42.6486671!3e2

[BearLover]

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

[ugarte]

Here's an important point. I turned the game on at 1-0 at some point in the second period. From that point on, at least, Q made Lowell look like they had never previously played hockey.