Cornell lacrosse 2024

[mike1960]

Bracketology on IL has us as number 8-playing Penn State (no!), if we win playing Notre Dame. Oh boy...

Bring 'em on. Bring 'em ALL on!

[billhoward]

Bracketology on IL has us as number 8-playing Penn State (no!), if we win playing Notre Dame. Oh boy...

Bring 'em on. Bring 'em ALL on!

a) Thank you to everyone who avoided saying, "If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best."

b) We lucked out en route to the 2022 final because we did not have to play #1 Maryland until the title game and en route we faced unranked (i.e. not a top-8 seed) Ohio State, then unranked Delaware (thank you for taking down #2 Georgetown), then #6 Rutgers in the semifinals, and only then Maryland, which had disposed of tournament opponents 21-5, 18-9, 13-8 (Princeton) and only then did we find outselves losing by 2 to the Terps. So the pendulum swings.

[arugula]

Bracketology on IL has us as number 8-playing Penn State (no!), if we win playing Notre Dame. Oh boy...

And then potentially Syracuse and Denver in the rematch tour.

Speaks to strength of schedule which will help in myriad ways.

[BearLover]

Cornell hockey won the ECAC and qualified for the NCAAs this season in large part because they didn't have to beat anybody especially good on their way to the title.

[abmarks]

Cornell hockey won the ECAC and qualified for the NCAAs this season in large part because they didn't have to beat anybody especially good on their way to the title.

So what.   We'd have had a better shot at winning the whole thing if we'd learned from (and beat).much better teams.

You want a lottery ticket.

I'd rather have a much stronger chance of winning the rhing5

[arugula]

But hockey did beat several good teams-BU, ASU, drew UMASS.  Not the best schedule but not terribly weak.

[BearLover]

Cornell hockey won the ECAC and qualified for the NCAAs this season in large part because they didn't have to beat anybody especially good on their way to the title.

So what.   We'd have had a better shot at winning the whole thing if we'd learned from (and beat).much better teams.

You want a lottery ticket.

I'd rather have a much stronger chance of winning the rhing5

Huh? Cornell outplayed #5 Maine in the first round of the NCAAs and then evenly played #3 Denver, who ultimately won the national championship, in the quarterfinals. Where's the evidence Cornell was hurt by its easy schedule? If Cornell lost to Quinnipiac in the ECAC tournament, there would have been no NCAA tournament, the season would have been over. Cornell was inches away from the Frozen Four in large part because we dodged having to play anyone good on its way to the league championship.

This season we saw a clear benefit of an easy ECAC, and we saw none of the (hypothetical) downsides.

Back to lacrosse—I think it is obviously better to avoid having to play good teams, if possible, particularly in one-and-done games which end your season.

[Swampy]

Cornell hockey won the ECAC and qualified for the NCAAs this season in large part because they didn't have to beat anybody especially good on their way to the title.

So what.   We'd have had a better shot at winning the whole thing if we'd learned from (and beat).much better teams.

You want a lottery ticket.

I'd rather have a much stronger chance of winning the rhing5

Huh? Cornell outplayed #5 Maine in the first round of the NCAAs and then evenly played #3 Denver, who ultimately won the national championship, in the quarterfinals. Where's the evidence Cornell was hurt by its easy schedule? If Cornell lost to Quinnipiac in the ECAC tournament, there would have been no NCAA tournament, the season would have been over. Cornell was inches away from the Frozen Four in large part because we dodged having to play anyone good on its way to the league championship.

This season we saw a clear benefit of an easy ECAC, and we saw none of the (hypothetical) downsides.

Back to lacrosse—I think it is obviously better to avoid having to play good teams, if possible, particularly in one-and-done games which end your season.

It really depends on various stochastic events. Because of our tough schedule in lacrosse we have a relatively high RPI & SOS. Had RG30 not made a freshman mistake, we had a good chance of beating #1 ND, which would have ensured a place in the NC tourney. As is, unless we lose to a much lower-ranked Ivy in the first round of the ILT, which would lower our RPI substantially, because of our schedule and record we have a good chance of making the NC tourney even if we don't win the ILT. And having played some really tough competition, hopefully we'll be better prepared for the NC tourney, which will likely be the most evenly matched in recent memory.

[mike1960]

Cornell hockey won the ECAC and qualified for the NCAAs this season in large part because they didn't have to beat anybody especially good on their way to the title.

So what.   We'd have had a better shot at winning the whole thing if we'd learned from (and beat).much better teams.

You want a lottery ticket.

I'd rather have a much stronger chance of winning the rhing5

Huh? Cornell outplayed #5 Maine in the first round of the NCAAs and then evenly played #3 Denver, who ultimately won the national championship, in the quarterfinals. Where's the evidence Cornell was hurt by its easy schedule? If Cornell lost to Quinnipiac in the ECAC tournament, there would have been no NCAA tournament, the season would have been over. Cornell was inches away from the Frozen Four in large part because we dodged having to play anyone good on its way to the league championship.

This season we saw a clear benefit of an easy ECAC, and we saw none of the (hypothetical) downsides.

Back to lacrosse—I think it is obviously better to avoid having to play good teams, if possible, particularly in one-and-done games which end your season.

It really depends on various stochastic events. Because of our tough schedule in lacrosse we have a relatively high RPI & SOS. Had RG30 not made a freshman mistake, we had a good chance of beating #1 ND, which would have ensured a place in the NC tourney. As is, unless we lose to a much lower-ranked Ivy in the first round of the ILT, which would lower our RPI substantially, because of our schedule and record we have a good chance of making the NC tourney even if we don't win the ILT. And having played some really tough competition, hopefully we'll be better prepared for the NC tourney, which will likely be the most evenly matched in recent memory.

I wouldn't put the loss on RG30. It was a critical moment in the game, yes, but there were many times when we could have pushed an advantage or stopped the ND offense, and we didn't always get it done. That's how it goes.

I don't think anyone in the country is looking forward to seeing us in their bracket in the big tournament. We are primed to make a run. We'll go as far as our defense can take us.

[upprdeck]

D has gotten better. Goalie play has improved.  Better job winning faceoffs.  It all adds up.

A few less unforced turnovers so the offense has more chances would help as well.

[Swampy]

Cornell hockey won the ECAC and qualified for the NCAAs this season in large part because they didn't have to beat anybody especially good on their way to the title.

So what.   We'd have had a better shot at winning the whole thing if we'd learned from (and beat).much better teams.

You want a lottery ticket.

I'd rather have a much stronger chance of winning the rhing5

Huh? Cornell outplayed #5 Maine in the first round of the NCAAs and then evenly played #3 Denver, who ultimately won the national championship, in the quarterfinals. Where's the evidence Cornell was hurt by its easy schedule? If Cornell lost to Quinnipiac in the ECAC tournament, there would have been no NCAA tournament, the season would have been over. Cornell was inches away from the Frozen Four in large part because we dodged having to play anyone good on its way to the league championship.

This season we saw a clear benefit of an easy ECAC, and we saw none of the (hypothetical) downsides.

Back to lacrosse—I think it is obviously better to avoid having to play good teams, if possible, particularly in one-and-done games which end your season.

It really depends on various stochastic events. Because of our tough schedule in lacrosse we have a relatively high RPI & SOS. Had RG30 not made a freshman mistake, we had a good chance of beating #1 ND, which would have ensured a place in the NC tourney. As is, unless we lose to a much lower-ranked Ivy in the first round of the ILT, which would lower our RPI substantially, because of our schedule and record we have a good chance of making the NC tourney even if we don't win the ILT. And having played some really tough competition, hopefully we'll be better prepared for the NC tourney, which will likely be the most evenly matched in recent memory.

I wouldn't put the loss on RG30. It was a critical moment in the game, yes, but there were many times when we could have pushed an advantage or stopped the ND offense, and we didn't always get it done. That's how it goes.

I don't think anyone in the country is looking forward to seeing us in their bracket in the big tournament. We are primed to make a run. We'll go as far as our defense can take us.

I agree: we could have won several ways, but we didn't. Nonetheless, had we succeeded in any one of the crucial moments you mention, our chances of winning the game would have increased substantially. I pointed to RG30's mistake because he is a first-year student. In both men's lacrosse and men's hockey, we've had an unusually large cohort of first-years getting regular playing time. This is testimony to how well the coaching staffs in both sports are recruiting. And, not coincidentally, both the ND lacrosse match and the Denver hockey match were lost by events that took place shortly after extremely talented first-year players made critical mistakes.

The implication is that as they mature and become more experienced, such mistakes are likely to become more infrequent. In other words,in both sports the future looks extremely bright,and we may look back at these two critical losses as necessary learning experiences on the way to realistic shots at NCs in both sports.

[ugarte]

lax punishes a weak schedule much more than hockey. a good ivy league that we are not dogshit in is more of an advantage than a good ecac is in hockey, imo. i still find the debate re: hockey tedious because it's essentially not susceptible of compelling proof either way.

[Al DeFlorio]

Scroll down to the photo of the 1948 RPI lacrosse team that represented USA in the Olympics.  The young guy in the baseball cap later put Cornell lacrosse and hockey on the national map.

https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/college/men/rpi-looks-add-programs-rich-history-championship-pedigree

[billhoward]

Final weekend of the regular season. Ivy League nicely stacked the 3 games (Penn DNP today) so we can watch 2 1/2 of them without a lot of overlap. The current standings:

Code Select Expand


Cornell   4-1
Yale      4-1
Penn      4-2
Princeton 3-2
Brown     2-3
Harvard   1-4
Dartmouth 0-5

Princeton @ Yale, 12 noon. Princeton needs the win to guarantee it makes the ILT. A loss and maybe the Tigers would be 3-3 Ivy, 8-5 overall, maybe don't make the ILT and maybe don't make the NCAA tournament. Possibly the most talented team omitted. Game should finish by 2:15, time for a breather then ...

Brown @ Harvard, 3:30 pm. Of interest because if Princeton loses and Brown wins, Brown becomes the ILT four-seed. Harvard does not make the ILT win or lose.

Cornell @ Dartmouth, 4 pm. A win and Cornell assures itself at least a tie for the Ivy title and the 1-seed for the ILT since Cornell won the H2H over Yale. The only downside to such a late game is the team doesn't get back until midnight.

Sunday there is no selection show for the ILT since it's all determined by W-L and H2H comparisons. It's Friday 2 vs. 3 seed in semifinal 1, and 1 vs. 4 semifinal 2 Friday (they fixed the graphic that had all 3 games played Sunday, but removed the game times).

[billhoward]

Cornell cruising up in New Hampshire. 10-5 at the half, 4-1–5 for CJ Kirst. Dartmouth shut out in the third, Cornell eases off the throttle, puts Tully in goal. Finally Cornell 15-10. . I can't tell if the game is moving more methodically (slowly) than our games against Yale-Princeton-Penn or if it's just finishing off the RS and getting ready for the ILT. Kirst 4-3--7, Danny Cadigan 3G. Back to Ithaca and home field advantage for the Ivy tournament.

Code Select Expand


Cornell   6  4  2  3 --  15
Dartmouth 2  3  0  5 --  10


Harvard dismantling the Brown dream (of making the ILT if also and only Princeton collapsed). Harvard 6, Brown 3 nearing halftime. Brown shuts out Harvard in the fourth quarter, comes up one goal short.

Code Select Expand


Brown     2  2  3  3  -- 10
Harvard   5  2  4  0  -- 11



Princeton playing well at Yale, maintaining a lead of a couple goals in the first half. Opens to 5 at the half: Princeton, 9-4. Princeton 12-4 midway into the third period. Sorry, Brown, your Cinderella dream of eking into that ILT four spot is fading. P13-7 after 3. Final: Princeton 15, Yale 8.

Code Select Expand

Princeton 4  5  4  2 -- 15
Yale      2  2  3  1 --  8
Nice to see the Yale video crew (like Cornell's) has trouble keeping the player with the ball in the scene, including some trouble tracking a Tiger long pole chugging halfway halfway across the field to score.

Looks as if the Brown-Harvard game is not consequential. Brown making the 4-seed required Y>Pr and B>H. So, ILT looks like:
ILT host: Cornell.  Games: Cornell vs. Penn and Princeton vs. Yale.