Cornell lacrosse 2022

[billhoward]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[Al DeFlorio]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

[CU77]

Now let's not have a repeat of 2008 ...

2009 and Syracuse is so burned into my brain, I kind of forget how we got laid low in 2008.

Cornell was the #8 seed, and the opponent was unheralded OSU. The first goal of the game was scored by the OSU goalie. Made Sports Center Top Ten. It was downhill from there. Cornell lost 15-7.

[kingpin248]

Here's the printable version of the bracket.

The top quarter (including Maryland and Brown) and bottom quarter (including Georgetown and Cornell) of the draw advance to quarterfinals in Columbus; the other two QFs (where the other four Ivy teams are) are at Hofstra.

[mike1960]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

In no way am I a Notre Dame fan, but I think they should have been in. They ended the season with 6 wins in a row and won their conference tournament. That should have been enough but the caravan moves on.

[scoop85]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

In no way am I a Notre Dame fan, but I think they should have been in. They ended the season with 6 wins in a row and won their conference tournament. That should have been enough but the caravan moves on.

ACC didn't have a tournament this year.

[mike1960]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

In no way am I a Notre Dame fan, but I think they should have been in. They ended the season with 6 wins in a row and won their conference tournament. That should have been enough but the caravan moves on.

ACC didn't have a tournament this year.

My bad. I thought the win against Duke was in a tournament.

[Al DeFlorio]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

In no way am I a Notre Dame fan, but I think they should have been in. They ended the season with 6 wins in a row and won their conference tournament. That should have been enough but the caravan moves on.

ACC didn't have a tournament this year.

So much for that argument.  

Three of those final six games were against Syracuse (4-10 record) and Marquette (4-11).  ND had a bizarre schedule.  Six of twelve games against fellow ACC teams.  But there are only four ACC teams besides ND.  Three games against B1G...losing two (one to OSU) and beating only Michigan (7-8 record).  Two against Big East, beating Marquette and losing to Georgetown.  And none against Ivies.  Finished 0-4 against teams making NCAAs.

Beat only two teams with over .500 records:  UNC and Duke.  Signature wins (two) were over Duke.  And when the committee had to narrow six teams down to the last four at-large slots, Duke was the first to get dumped, having lost to Syracuse, Jacksonville and Loyola.  ND lost their NCAA bid on the field.

[Trotsky]

2009 and Syracuse is so burned into my brain

LA LA LA NEVER HAPPENED

[Trotsky]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

In no way am I a Notre Dame fan, but I think they should have been in. They ended the season with 6 wins in a row and won their conference tournament. That should have been enough but the caravan moves on.

ACC didn't have a tournament this year.

So much for that argument.  

Three of those final six games were against Syracuse (4-10 record) and Marquette (4-11).  ND had a bizarre schedule.  Six of twelve games against fellow ACC teams.  But there are only four ACC teams besides ND.  Three games against B1G...losing two (one to OSU) and beating only Michigan (7-8 record).  Two against Big East, beating Marquette and losing to Georgetown.  And none against Ivies.  Finished 0-4 against teams making NCAAs.

Beat only two teams with over .500 records:  UNC and Duke.  Signature wins (two) were over Duke.  And when the committee had to narrow six teams down to the last four at-large slots, Duke was the first to get dumped, having lost to Syracuse, Jacksonville and Loyola.  ND lost their NCAA bid on the field.

Did Duke get screwed?

Don't get me wrong, nothing would make me happier.  But my Eighties Brain can't wrap itself around a reality where the Mid-Atlantics are not just evaluated fairly but perhaps are even at a disadvantage?

[BearLover]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

I agree that results on the field is all that matters. And whether those results come early in the season or later (starting out hot versus making a late run) shouldn't matter. But looking at these teams' full bodies of work purely from the perspective of on-field results, Duke was 7th in RPI, Notre Dame 11th. OSU is 14th and Harvard is 15th. I am more a hockey fan than a lax fan, but I know that in hockey people would be livid if Cornell were 7th in the Pairwise and got passed over for a 15th-ranked team that didn't make its conference tournament. What is the justification for totally ignoring RPI in lax? Smaller sample size of games, maybe—but why should the human eye be a better judge of this small sample?

[Al DeFlorio]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

I agree that results on the field is all that matters. And whether those results come early in the season or later (starting out hot versus making a late run) shouldn't matter. But looking at these teams' full bodies of work purely from the perspective of on-field results, Duke was 7th in RPI, Notre Dame 11th. OSU is 14th and Harvard is 15th. I am more a hockey fan than a lax fan, but I know that in hockey people would be livid if Cornell were 7th in the Pairwise and got passed over for a 15th-ranked team that didn't make its conference tournament. What is the justification for totally ignoring RPI in lax? Smaller sample size of games, maybe—but why should the human eye be a better judge of this small sample?

The fatal flaw in RPI, in my opinion, is it does not look at whom you beat and to whom you lost.  It looks at your overall won-lost record, the won-lost records of your opponents, and the records of their opponents.  A win over Georgetown and a loss to Syracuse has the same effect as a win over Syracuse and a loss to Georgetown.  Doesn't matter which games you won and which you lost, just the sum of wins and the sum of losses.

What RPI does provide is a reasonable, but not precise (especially with lacrosse's short schedules), framework for the committee to start a deeper dive into the won-lost records of those teams it decides are on the bubble.  And this, to its credit, is what the committee did this year.  That deep dive first exposed Duke:  mediocre wins, three bad losses.  Then, with Duke exposed, Notre Dame's two best wins...over Duke...were exposed.  Buh bye.  Maybe ND has terrific talent.  Didn't do enough with it.

[dbilmes]

Cornell Daily Sun names Piatelli the Male Senior Athlete of the Year.

[Swampy]

USA Lacrosse Magazine announces its All-American men's lacrosse teams.

First Team
D - Gavin Adler

Honorable Mention
A - CJ Kirst
A - John Piatelli

Alumni in the Pros (Third Team AA)
M -  Jonathan Donville (Maryland)

[BearLover]

The 1987 Cornell team was good, made the title game, lost to Hopkins by a goal, the 1988 team was unseeded, made the final (and lost to Syracuse), finished 9-6. So there is potential and there's history of an underdog Cornell team making it through to Memorial Day.

Also, Rob Pannell '12 on Twitter, amazed that Notre Dame (and Duke) didn't make the show. https://twitter.com/RobPannell3/status/1523473196443648000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

You pick the teams that earned it by whom they beat and to whom they lost.  Notre Dame might be the fifth best team...or fourth...or third, but their wins and losses on the field just didn't get it done.

I agree that results on the field is all that matters. And whether those results come early in the season or later (starting out hot versus making a late run) shouldn't matter. But looking at these teams' full bodies of work purely from the perspective of on-field results, Duke was 7th in RPI, Notre Dame 11th. OSU is 14th and Harvard is 15th. I am more a hockey fan than a lax fan, but I know that in hockey people would be livid if Cornell were 7th in the Pairwise and got passed over for a 15th-ranked team that didn't make its conference tournament. What is the justification for totally ignoring RPI in lax? Smaller sample size of games, maybe—but why should the human eye be a better judge of this small sample?

The fatal flaw in RPI, in my opinion, is it does not look at whom you beat and to whom you lost.  It looks at your overall won-lost record, the won-lost records of your opponents, and the records of their opponents.  A win over Georgetown and a loss to Syracuse has the same effect as a win over Syracuse and a loss to Georgetown.  Doesn't matter which games you won and which you lost, just the sum of wins and the sum of losses.

What RPI does provide is a reasonable, but not precise (especially with lacrosse's short schedules), framework for the committee to start a deeper dive into the won-lost records of those teams it decides are on the bubble.  And this, to its credit, is what the committee did this year.  That deep dive first exposed Duke:  mediocre wins, three bad losses.  Then, with Duke exposed, Notre Dame's two best wins...over Duke...were exposed.  Buh bye.  Maybe ND has terrific talent.  Didn't do enough with it.

But why should beating Syracuse and losing to Georgetown be treated differently from the reverse?