2023 ECAC Post Season

[marty]

With all the games now complete (my previous post with the final Pairwise edited to reflect that), adamw's final bracket projection — CHN has us in Manchester playing DU, with BU-Western Michigan the other matchup in that regional.

Fargo and Manchester are Thursday/Saturday; Allentown and Bridgeport are Friday/Sunday.

I came up with the same bracket as Adam's first one.

I like Adam's first bracket too.  But I'm wondering if Cornell might possibly be placed in Allentown instead of Manchester.  For attendance it might work out better. Flip Cornell with Colgate to achieve this.

With regard to the first bracket,  is it possible that the committee will favor it because it places the 4 Big10 teams in 2 locations.  Thus at most there would be only 2 Big10 teams in Tampa.  

I can't be the only person who thinks they were fortunate a bit more than deserving to have 4 in the top 14 computer ranked spots.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

With all the games now complete (my previous post with the final Pairwise edited to reflect that), adamw's final bracket projection — CHN has us in Manchester playing DU, with BU-Western Michigan the other matchup in that regional.

Fargo and Manchester are Thursday/Saturday; Allentown and Bridgeport are Friday/Sunday.

I came up with the same bracket as Adam's first one.

I like Adam's first bracket too.  But I'm wondering if Cornell might possibly be placed in Allentown instead of Manchester.  For attendance it might work out better. Flip Cornell with Colgate to achieve this.

With regard to the first bracket,  is it possible that the committee will favor it because it places the 4 Big10 teams in 2 locations.  Thus at most there would be only 2 Big10 teams in Tampa.  

I can't be the only person who thinks they were fortunate a bit more than deserving to have 4 in the top 14 computer ranked spots.

I would love it if we ended up in Allentown.  After all, I live about 3 miles from the rink.  

As to the Big 10 deserving 4 slots, it's an aspect (weakness) of the pairwise.  If one team does very well out of conference, all the teams in conference get a bonus.  That's especially true if the teams play each other 4 times, like they do in the Big 10.  And take a look at Penn State. They went 0.500 in the Big 10, but played all their out of conference games against AHA or Alaska and won them all.

[BearLover]

WTF I love the model now

[BearLover]

Seems to me like Cornell pretty much has to get Denver.

#1 Minnesota vs #16 Canisius is a given.
Then you have #2 Q and #15 Colgate, so you need to split them up.
The only thing that makes sense is Q vs #14 Merrimack, Colgate vs #3 Michigan.
Which leaves #4 Denver vs #13 Cornell.

If for the sake of argument Cornell got Michigan, then who does Colgate get? Denver? Then you'd be breaking bracket integrity for no reason—you'd have #15 vs #4 and #13 vs #3 rather than #15 vs #3 and #13 vs #4. So I don't see how Cornell doesn't end up playing Denver. I'm sure the committee will figure out some way to screw Cornell by giving them Michigan though. (Not saying Denver is easy, just easier than Michigan.)

[RichH]

I said it before and I'll say it again, there is a ridiculous talent disparity between Harvard and the rest of the league. Cornell had better hope that a large number of Harvard's 15 draft picks leave for the pros, and that something happens in the coming years to close the talent gap. This isn't tenable.

I've thought about this and laughed to myself multiple times over the past couple days.

"This isn't tenable."  Please spare me this.

It's always been this way, going back to the 50s where Harvard had a huge head start until 1963, when Ned started fighting back with recruiting strategies that had an internationally renowned university such as Harvard relying on jingoistic nationalism to call foul on our "foreigners."

Harvard players won 3 Hobeys in the 80s and were absolutely loaded with talent the entire decade. Clearly got his NC in OT in '89 and cranked out a teams who loaded the US national/Olympic rosters of that era and had lots of players go to the nhl. Yet they only won 2 league championships from the Divorce to the end of the Cleary / beginning of the Schafer eras. We had our lowest points during that time period.

Yet who still is winning the race in head-to-head record, in ECACs championships, and in Ivy titles? Cornell has somehow overcome the recruiting and geographic advantages Harvard has now, has always had, and always will have in this rivalry. The players they get are of a different type than the ones we get. They have always had more "blue chippahs" than us. Yet, we still have the record book to point to.

But hey draft picks... wait, sorry, you said "ridiculous talent disparity" had us taking them to OT, in 2 of 3 games. Both teams are top 10 in offensive output. Both are top 10 in defense. There is simply not a "ridiculous disparity" there. The ridiculous talent disparity between them and the rest of the league sure was on display against Colgate, wasn't it?

It's tenable. And I don't expect either team to fade anytime soon.

[djk26]

Ugh--so this weekend is the double torture of losing to Harvard--and then having to root for them in the next game.::pain::

I guess yesterday was the best of all possible results--four ECAC teams (apparently) in the NCAA tournament, and most importantly, Cornell is one of them.  We can talk about how it would have been nice to have an easier path to the Frozen Four, but the fact is, we had some bad losses this year and any at large can't complain about where they are placed.  

It did make the cheers more complicated yesterday...

"Screw BU, Harvard too, but only to the extent that either result will not hurt Cornell's relative placement in the Pair Wise Rankings."

Hard to chant.

Let's go Red! ::uptosomething::

[sah67]

A Denver matchup would also put us "against" Ben Scrivens, who's their current team manager.

[gored]

Agree with Rich. The rivalry is fairly even with each team having short runs of success before the balance tips back. Although we lost three times this year (two of which were winnable), we won some hardware and they did not.  And no they are not going to win the NCAA trophy.

[arugula]

In 1986 my apartment mate and I watched Letterman then hopped in his Honda and drove all night to Newark and hopped on a Peoples Express flight to Dallas.  Barely made our connection to Denver. Went to the the chapter of his fraternity (can't recall which one) at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. They were on spring break and the boys graciously allowed this non-member to crash at their place and even fed us. We went to the NCAA quarterfinals at DU's old place.  Nasty fans iirc. We lose game 1, 4-2 in a two game total goal set. We take a 4-1 lead in game two but end up "winning" 4-3. Not good enough in Dadswell's last game. Great weekend even if disappointing end.  Recall people tho king we were Cornell College in Iowa. Ego deflating.

[andyw2100]

In 1986 my apartment mate and I watched Letterman then hopped in his Honda and drove all night to Newark and hopped on a Peoples Express flight to Dallas.  Barely made our connection to Denver. Went to the the chapter of his fraternity (can't recall which one) at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. They were on spring break and the boys graciously allowed this non-member to crash at their place and even fed us. We went to the NCAA quarterfinals at DU's old place.  Nasty fans iirc. We lose game 1, 4-2 in a two game total goal set. We take a 4-1 lead in game two but end up "winning" 4-3. Not good enough in Dadswell's last game. Great weekend even if disappointing end.  Recall people tho king we were Cornell College in Iowa. Ego deflating.

I was a senior. My future first wife and I were skiing in Vermont for spring break. I remember finding a newspaper with the scores, and, of course, being annoyed at how the total goals format had screwed us.

[arugula]

Better than a one and done though. It was sae at Colorado school of mines. Thanks to SAE many years later.

Interesting thing about that series was that, unlike now, we were way smaller than our opponent.  I recall virtually their entire roster was over six feet and maybe 2-3 of our guys were-Nieuwendyk of course. Schafer's last game.

[upprdeck]

Playing thurs-sat.  

I wonder how that messes with attendance?  

Its one thing to get out on Thursday to play friday but now people may have to  miss 2-3 days of work to watch this thing.

[CU2007]

Playing thurs-sat.  

I wonder how that messes with attendance?  

Its one thing to get out on Thursday to play friday but now people may have to  miss 2-3 days of work to watch this thing.

Putting an off-day in the regionals was the worst possible idea anyone could have come up with.

[BearLover]

I said it before and I'll say it again, there is a ridiculous talent disparity between Harvard and the rest of the league. Cornell had better hope that a large number of Harvard's 15 draft picks leave for the pros, and that something happens in the coming years to close the talent gap. This isn't tenable.

I've thought about this and laughed to myself multiple times over the past couple days.

"This isn't tenable."  Please spare me this.

It's always been this way, going back to the 50s where Harvard had a huge head start until 1963, when Ned started fighting back with recruiting strategies that had an internationally renowned university such as Harvard relying on jingoistic nationalism to call foul on our "foreigners."

Harvard players won 3 Hobeys in the 80s and were absolutely loaded with talent the entire decade. Clearly got his NC in OT in '89 and cranked out a teams who loaded the US national/Olympic rosters of that era and had lots of players go to the nhl. Yet they only won 2 league championships from the Divorce to the end of the Cleary / beginning of the Schafer eras. We had our lowest points during that time period.

Yet who still is winning the race in head-to-head record, in ECACs championships, and in Ivy titles? Cornell has somehow overcome the recruiting and geographic advantages Harvard has now, has always had, and always will have in this rivalry. The players they get are of a different type than the ones we get. They have always had more "blue chippahs" than us. Yet, we still have the record book to point to.

But hey draft picks... wait, sorry, you said "ridiculous talent disparity" had us taking them to OT, in 2 of 3 games. Both teams are top 10 in offensive output. Both are top 10 in defense. There is simply not a "ridiculous disparity" there. The ridiculous talent disparity between them and the rest of the league sure was on display against Colgate, wasn't it?

It's tenable. And I don't expect either team to fade anytime soon.

Well I'm certainly honored to hear that my forum posts carry enough weight to occupy so large a space in your mind that you'll think about a single post multiple times over a span of days.

Your argument essentially boils down to: Harvard has always had these same recruiting advantages, but we've been more successful than them anyway. Maybe, but that's not responding to the crux of my post. By "not tenable," I'm talking about current  trends, not history from 50 years ago. Current trends clearly suggest that Harvard is going to pass us in ECAC titles and NCAA success soon and Cornell's route to an ECAC championship is going to remain as narrow as it has been for over a decade now.

The fact we're still ahead in the metrics you cited (head-to-head, Ivy titles, ECAC championships) just isn't persuasive. That's like saying Georgetown basketball shouldn't worry about Villanova because they win the historical head-to-head, have more league titles, etc. If Harvard wins the Ivy and ECAC next year and ties us in both categories, will you change your tune?

I could just as easily cherry-pick historical stats to show Harvard has surpassed us. Their most recent national championship is 19 years more recent than our last one. Their most recent frozen four is 14 years more recent than our last one. They've won three ECAC titles since we last won one. I don't find these arguments which rely on one-off events persuasive either, but at least they speak to recent trends rather than old history.

The biggest problem with your point that Harvard has always had these advantages is that you speak only to the direction of the advantage, but not to the degree. Yes, Harvard has for many decades held a recruiting advantage. But in the Schafer era that advantage has never been as large as it is now. 15 draft picks for them to 3 for us. 9 Harvard players on NHL opening night rosters as compared to 1 Cornell player (with Farrell and Coronato soon to follow). This isn't a point about direction of the talent disparity, it's a point about degree.

Cornell will continue to compete for NCAA bids and ECAC titles into the future. But Harvard has lapped us in recruiting and is frankly just a more successful program overall right now (with no signs of slowing down whatsoever).

[ugarte]

WTF I love the model now

hard to argue when it's proven accurate