Who to root for beyond Cornell

[billhoward]

What's with all the hate for Princeton? Everyone has a matrix of who you love, who you hate, who you don't care about. But I think we ought to support our league if we believe we the other schools have some common ground, like our belief in taking over the world via LBOs.

One hierarchy:

• My school (rah! Cornell!)
• My league (people like us but ... maybe includes a school that rejected us)
• A school a child attends or works at (Go St. Lawrence! Son is the women's hockey trainer.)
• The state of my school (Cornell, Syracuse, Army all bring credit to the Empire State, also the state with the most lax players) (Obviously, some people hate most on in-state rivals: Alabama-Auburn, maybe Cornell-Syracuse.)
• The state I grew up in / live in / where our kids grew up (in NJ, I'd rather have Rutgers or Princeton win than Maryland)
• Schools with athletics budgets under $100M a year
• Schools that are academically similar (Go Northwestern, Go Stanford, Um maybe Go Duke).

If Cornell and Princeton were in the final four, that'd be a powerful statement to HS lax players who might be thinking about NIL money, such as it is today that the Ivies are as good a place to play as anywhere.

[RichH]

If you're referring to the lax tournament, I'm happy they lost because they posed one of the most serious threats to a Cornell championship. It's hard enough to beat a team that talented twice in one season, I hated the prospect of seeing them a third time.

Keeping the lax lenses on, they have been the most successful program in the league since Richie Moran's last few years. Our best teams continuously butting heads over many generations leads to a lot of rivalry-fueled resentment & hate. They're the lax equivalent of Harvard hockey, only they often win games in the ncaas.

[Tcl123]

If you're referring to the lax tournament, I'm happy they lost because they posed one of the most serious threats to a Cornell championship. It's hard enough to beat a team that talented twice in one season, I hated the prospect of seeing them a third time.

Keeping the lax lenses on, they have been the most successful program in the league since Richie Moran's last few years. Our best teams continuously butting heads over many generations leads to a lot of rivalry-fueled resentment & hate. They're the lax equivalent of Harvard hockey, only they often win games in the ncaas.

Agreed. Facing them for potentially a third time scared me. But everyone left can easily win the whole thing.

[upprdeck]

It comes down to which of the 4 have the highest ceiling vs the lowest floor

Cornell has played the most consistent for the entire season, but that doesn't mean much now

PSU has had 8 games they lost or came down the wire
Maryland has had 6
Syracuse has had 10
Cornell has had 4 and two of them were Richmond,  One was the PSU late debacle.

I think Cornell is the best team but the margin is small in any single one game effort

[Tcl123]

If it's not us, please don't let it be PSU. That's all I ask.

[BearLover]

If you're referring to the lax tournament, I'm happy they lost because they posed one of the most serious threats to a Cornell championship. It's hard enough to beat a team that talented twice in one season, I hated the prospect of seeing them a third time.

Is there any truth at all to the "it's hardest to beat a good time three times" trope? That always seemed to me like "a two-goal lead is the most dangerous lead in hockey"-style trope. If you've beaten a team twice already, that signals you're more, not less, likely to beat them a third time. We beat Princeton by five goals twice. I'd rather play them again than Penn State or Maryland.

I also found this article: https://www.si.com/nfl/eagles/opinion/busting-the-myth-that-its-hard-to-beat-a-team-three-times-in-a-season

[upprdeck]

I think the fact that 24 times a team won the first 2 and 9 times lost the 3rd actually shows that it is hard to beat a team 3 times,

But the real stat should be how many times did teams play 3 times and not win 3.

[RichH]

I think the fact that 24 times a team won the first 2 and 9 times lost the 3rd actually shows that it is hard to beat a team 3 times,

But the real stat should be how many times did teams play 3 times and not win 3.

It is an interesting question, sure. I do know that Princeton had 120 minutes of tape to study and see where they had the most success against us. They have motivation to change things up. We don't.

By this logic, I feel better about playing Penn St instead of Notre Dame. That loss was a disaster, but I noticed the coaching staff seemed to change 4th Q lockdowns after that, most noticeably vs Yale. We have every reason to be even more focused. Having a chip on these shoulders and a chance for revenge makes me even more amped for Saturday.

[billhoward]

Keeping the lax lenses on, they have been the most successful program in the league since Richie Moran's last few years. Our best teams continuously butting heads over many generations leads to a lot of rivalry-fueled resentment & hate. They're the lax equivalent of Harvard hockey, only they often win games in the ncaas.

Be interesting to see how good -- correction consistently good -- an Ivy school's best 2 or 3 teams is. This century three men's teams (plus probably polo) have been super consistent: lacrosse, hockey and, er, football, albeit not consistently good. I have hopes we are heading for the upper echelons and, is it possible, an Ivy football title that we do not share.

[Chris '03]

Keeping the lax lenses on, they have been the most successful program in the league since Richie Moran's last few years. Our best teams continuously butting heads over many generations leads to a lot of rivalry-fueled resentment & hate. They're the lax equivalent of Harvard hockey, only they often win games in the ncaas.

Be interesting to see how good -- correction consistently good -- an Ivy school's best 2 or 3 teams is. This century three men's teams (plus probably polo) have been super consistent: lacrosse, hockey and, er, football, albeit not consistently good. I have hopes we are heading for the upper echelons and, is it possible, an Ivy football title that we do not share.

The wrestling team would like a word.

[billhoward]

Oh, geez, yeah, wrestling. That's the third team (men's) that proves the point: Cornell's better teams stay very good over the years.

I did a quick scan: Hockey (men's) hasn't had many losing seasons going back to our departure from Beebe Lake. Losing teams in 2015,  2013, 1999, 1995, 1987, 1984, 1982, and most of the first half dozen years in Lynah.

For lacrosse, Matt Kerwick 2016 and 2017 seasons (then departure) were 6-7 and 5-8 and before that I believe it was the final two years of Richie Moran's otherwise phenomenal three decades leading Cornell.

I also asked Chrome's AI helper and got this about hockey (actually without asking):

It's difficult to determine the exact number of "losing" seasons for the Cornell men's hockey team without a precise definition of what constitutes a losing season. However, the team has experienced periods of decline and struggled to meet their historical success. In 1993, the team tied their record for most losses in a season with 19. More recently, they have made significant strides, including a record-breaking 2019-2020 season where they were ranked #1 nationally and won the Cleary Cup.
To provide a more helpful answer, I need a clearer definition of what qualifies as a losing season. Would you consider a season with more losses than wins, or a season where the team fails to win the ECAC or NCAA championships?

[RichH]

Oh, geez, yeah, wrestling. That's the third team (men's) that proves the point: Cornell's better teams stay very good over the years.

I did a quick scan: Hockey (men's) hasn't had many losing seasons going back to our departure from Beebe Lake. Losing teams in 2015,  2013, 1999, 1995, 1987, 1984, 1982, and most of the first half dozen years in Lynah.

For lacrosse, Matt Kerwick 2016 and 2017 seasons (then departure) were 6-7 and 5-8 and before that I believe it was the final two years of Richie Moran's otherwise phenomenal three decades leading Cornell.

I also asked Chrome's AI helper and got this about hockey (actually without asking):

It's difficult to determine the exact number of "losing" seasons for the Cornell men's hockey team without a precise definition of what constitutes a losing season. However, the team has experienced periods of decline and struggled to meet their historical success. In 1993, the team tied their record for most losses in a season with 19. More recently, they have made significant strides, including a record-breaking 2019-2020 season where they were ranked #1 nationally and won the Cleary Cup.
To provide a more helpful answer, I need a clearer definition of what qualifies as a losing season. Would you consider a season with more losses than wins, or a season where the team fails to win the ECAC or NCAA championships?

1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999 were all losing seasons.

Why waste time with the innovation-destroying disaster of the AI world when we have tbrw? You're better off asking the flesh and blood A.I. (Allen Iverson).

http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_All_Games_500.html

[David Harding]

Keeping the lax lenses on, they have been the most successful program in the league since Richie Moran's last few years. Our best teams continuously butting heads over many generations leads to a lot of rivalry-fueled resentment & hate. They're the lax equivalent of Harvard hockey, only they often win games in the ncaas.

Be interesting to see how good -- correction consistently good -- an Ivy school's best 2 or 3 teams is. This century three men's teams (plus probably polo) have been super consistent: lacrosse, hockey and, er, football, albeit not consistently good. I have hopes we are heading for the upper echelons and, is it possible, an Ivy football title that we do not share.

The wrestling team would like a word.

For building rivalries, I'd claim that what you want is a sport to have two schools that are consistently at the top of the league.  For men's hockey, Cornell and Harvard.  For men's lacrosse, Cornell and Princeton.  For wrestling, Cornell and nobody, therefore no great rivalry.

[Chris '03]

Oh, geez, yeah, wrestling. That's the third team (men's) that proves the point: Cornell's better teams stay very good over the years.

I did a quick scan: Hockey (men's) hasn't had many losing seasons going back to our departure from Beebe Lake. Losing teams in 2015,  2013, 1999, 1995, 1987, 1984, 1982, and most of the first half dozen years in Lynah.

For lacrosse, Matt Kerwick 2016 and 2017 seasons (then departure) were 6-7 and 5-8 and before that I believe it was the final two years of Richie Moran's otherwise phenomenal three decades leading Cornell.

I also asked Chrome's AI helper and got this about hockey (actually without asking):

It's difficult to determine the exact number of "losing" seasons for the Cornell men's hockey team without a precise definition of what constitutes a losing season. However, the team has experienced periods of decline and struggled to meet their historical success. In 1993, the team tied their record for most losses in a season with 19. More recently, they have made significant strides, including a record-breaking 2019-2020 season where they were ranked #1 nationally and won the Cleary Cup.
To provide a more helpful answer, I need a clearer definition of what qualifies as a losing season. Would you consider a season with more losses than wins, or a season where the team fails to win the ECAC or NCAA championships?

1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999 were all losing seasons.

Why waste time with the innovation-destroying disaster of the AI world when we have tbrw? You're better off asking the flesh and blood A.I. (Allen Iverson).

http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_All_Games_500.html

Exactly. https://youtube.com/shorts/8Y6otl6DAZs?si=jAHCZA_7MLEvXctV

[jtwcornell91]

Keeping the lax lenses on, they have been the most successful program in the league since Richie Moran's last few years. Our best teams continuously butting heads over many generations leads to a lot of rivalry-fueled resentment & hate. They're the lax equivalent of Harvard hockey, only they often win games in the ncaas.

Be interesting to see how good -- correction consistently good -- an Ivy school's best 2 or 3 teams is. This century three men's teams (plus probably polo) have been super consistent: lacrosse, hockey and, er, football, albeit not consistently good. I have hopes we are heading for the upper echelons and, is it possible, an Ivy football title that we do not share.

The wrestling team would like a word.

For building rivalries, I'd claim that what you want is a sport to have two schools that are consistently at the top of the league.  For men's hockey, Cornell and Harvard.  For men's lacrosse, Cornell and Princeton.  For wrestling, Cornell and nobody, therefore no great rivalry.

At times in the past there was Cornell and Penn in football, but not in this century, sadly.