HARVARD SUCKS

[Ben]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that after over 30 years of attending Cornell vs. Harvard hockey games, this past Saturday was the first time I attended one at Harvard. But being my first time at Bright Lynah East, I couldn't help but notice and immediately be pissed off by their banner titled "ECAC Championships" (or perhaps it reads "ECAC Champions" ) which includes all the years they came in first in the regular season. They have another banner titled "ECAC Tournament Championships" or something like that that correctly shows the years they really won championships.

Has this been discussed here before? Have others been as annoyed by this as I was? Does the ECAC really allow a team that comes in first in the regular season to call themselves "ECAC Champions" if they don't also win the tournament? I'm sure I'm tilting at windmills, but I'd like to see Harvard forced to take that banner down, or at least correct the title to add "Regular Season."

Fixed. And Regular Season Championships should be ECAC Championships. Sample size and all that.

[marty]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that after over 30 years of attending Cornell vs. Harvard hockey games, this past Saturday was the first time I attended one at Harvard. But being my first time at Bright, I couldn't help but notice and immediately be pissed off by their banner titled "ECAC Championships" (or perhaps it reads "ECAC Champions" ) which includes all the years they came in first in the regular season. They have another banner titled "ECAC Tournament Championships" or something like that that correctly shows the years they really won championships.

Has this been discussed here before? Have others been as annoyed by this as I was? Does the ECAC really allow a team that comes in first in the regular season to call themselves "ECAC Champions" if they don't also win the tournament? I'm sure I'm tilting at windmills, but I'd like to see Harvard forced to take that banner down, or at least correct the title to add "Regular Season."

I think there is a general consensus that grade inflation and 80% of the class graduating with honors and all is a bit overdone. The fact that the athletes were caught cheating this year may be a harbinger of fair grading on the horizon.  I'm sure the banners will also be corrected as the university makes its penance.

Well on second thought...

[RichH]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that after over 30 years of attending Cornell vs. Harvard hockey games, this past Saturday was the first time I attended one at Harvard. But being my first time at Bright Lynah East, I couldn't help but notice and immediately be pissed off by their banner titled "ECAC Championships" (or perhaps it reads "ECAC Champions" ) which includes all the years they came in first in the regular season. They have another banner titled "ECAC Tournament Championships" or something like that that correctly shows the years they really won championships.

Has this been discussed here before? Have others been as annoyed by this as I was? Does the ECAC really allow a team that comes in first in the regular season to call themselves "ECAC Champions" if they don't also win the tournament? I'm sure I'm tilting at windmills, but I'd like to see Harvard forced to take that banner down, or at least correct the title to add "Regular Season."

Fixed. And Regular Season Championships should be ECAC Championships. Sample size and all that.

I can't wait until the NHL's Presidents' trophy comes to my town!

[Chris '03]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that after over 30 years of attending Cornell vs. Harvard hockey games, this past Saturday was the first time I attended one at Harvard. But being my first time at Bright Lynah East, I couldn't help but notice and immediately be pissed off by their banner titled "ECAC Championships" (or perhaps it reads "ECAC Champions" ) which includes all the years they came in first in the regular season. They have another banner titled "ECAC Tournament Championships" or something like that that correctly shows the years they really won championships.

Has this been discussed here before? Have others been as annoyed by this as I was? Does the ECAC really allow a team that comes in first in the regular season to call themselves "ECAC Champions" if they don't also win the tournament? I'm sure I'm tilting at windmills, but I'd like to see Harvard forced to take that banner down, or at least correct the title to add "Regular Season."

Fixed. And Regular Season Championships should be ECAC Championships. Sample size and all that.

Says the soccer fan. :-P

If regular season finish equals champion then the Presidents' Trophy should be more valuable than the Stanley Cup.

In my eyes, tournament winner is ECAC Champion.  Winner of the 22 game round robin is top seed in the ECAC tournament.  The '02 Cornell team was not ECAC champion for example.

[Ben]

If regular season finish equals champion then the Presidents' Trophy should be more valuable than the Stanley Cup.

We've been socialized to think the reverse, but a larger sample size (particularly with a balanced schedule) is more likely to leave the best team at the top of the table. Playoffs may be more exciting, but they increase the importance of random variations -- bounces of the puck.

[KeithK]

If regular season finish equals champion then the Presidents' Trophy should be more valuable than the Stanley Cup.

We've been socialized to think the reverse, but a larger sample size (particularly with a balanced schedule) is more likely to leave the best team at the top of the table. Playoffs may be more exciting, but they increase the importance of random variations -- bounces of the puck.

I refuse to ::deadhorse::

[Trotsky]

The only reason the RS winner in US sports isn't called a "champion" is to hype the post-season.

Finishing first is definitely some sort of "championship," and I don't mind Harvard having its banners.  What I mind is those banners are in pastel shades reminiscent of 1970's toothpaste which have no relationship to the team colors.  Their NCAA Title banner used to look like a tampon ad.  Somebody in the AD's marketing office must have a deep-seeded (get it?) hate for bright (get that one too?) colors.

[ursusminor]

The only reason the RS winner in US sports isn't called a "champion" is to hype the post-season.

Finishing first is definitely some sort of "championship," and I don't mind Harvard having its banners.  What I mind is those banners are in pastel shades reminiscent of 1970's toothpaste which have no relationship to the team colors.  Their NCAA Title banner used to look like a tampon ad.  Somebody in the AD's marketing office must have a deep-seeded (get it?) hate for bright (get that one too?) colors.

Speaking of colors, have you looked at the UMD message board recently? ::crazy::

[Jim Hyla]

Here's how the ECAC describes the "Cups":

On March 16, 2001, at the 40th league championship in Lake Placid, N.Y., ECAC Hockey paid tribute to retiring Harvard Director of Athletics William J. "Bill" Cleary Jr. by re-naming its regular-season trophy the William J. Cleary Cup.

On March 9, 1989, the league paid tribute to retiring Commissioner Robert M. "Scotty" Whitelaw by announcing that the Division I Men's Ice Hockey Championship trophy would be named the Whitelaw Cup.

In doing a quick search of the ECAC site, I couldn't find reference to regular season champion, it's probably there somewhere, but when you search "champion" the first batch of results all refer to tournament champions. There probably is some justification for it somewhere, but any time someone asks "Who was the (year) champion?", I'm sure the response would be the tourney winner.

But, I say let them have their little celebrations, I'm much happier to see responses such as was posted on the Harvrd game thread by Ben:

Text from a Sucks student friend (her first hockey game): "Your school took over our arena."

That's enough to forget about banners.

[Al DeFlorio]

Having observed every ECAC season since its founding, I would say there was no "regular season champion" until the time in the 90s when the NCAA decided to award an automatic bid to the team that finished first in the regular season, and the ECAC used that as a reason to declare there was now going to be a "regular season champion."  Prior to that, no one even gave a thought to there being a "regular season champion," so, to engage in revisionist history and claim one for a season preceding that is disingenuous at best.  Yes, teams sought to win games to gain a higher seed for the tournament that determined the champion, but no one on the ice, behind the bench, in the press, or among the teams' fans, felt there was a "championship" involved.

I think it's important to keep in mind that Ben's "best team" and a league's or sport's or country's "champion" may indeed be, and often are, two different teams.  Does anyone remember which major league baseball team had the best regular season record in 2010?  But the Giants, who blew everyone away in the playoffs after making said playoffs only with a win on the seaon's last day, are and always will be the 2010 World Series champions.  How about Ken Dryden's Canadiens in 1971?  Are the 1971 Boston Bruins proud and content to say they were the "best team" in 1971 because they blew everyone else away in the regular season?  Ask Bobby Orr or Phil Esposito and see what they have to say.

[KeithK]

keep in mind that there was no set ECAC schedule until the 80's and it wasn't balanced until the HE teams left. Crowning a champion based on RS games would have been difficult or unfair when teams played radically different schedules.  Having a tournament addressed this problem.

Champion has been intended to be the same as best in some sports at certain points in time.  For example: baseball pre-expansion, where the pennant winner was simply the best team in the league. The WS was to pick a best team of the two league champions.  Hockey has never really had this model though.  The NHL has pretty much always used a large post-season tournament format.

[Josh '99]

Vanessa has acquired Beer Darts from Josh '99, since he's being lame and not coming.

Well that's a fine "thank you"!  :-}

[Josh '99]

If regular season finish equals champion then the Presidents' Trophy should be more valuable than the Stanley Cup.

We've been socialized to think the reverse, but a larger sample size (particularly with a balanced schedule) is more likely to leave the best team at the top of the table. Playoffs may be more exciting, but they increase the importance of random variations -- bounces of the puck.

This is America, and in America we don't want to hear about your "sample size" and your "math"!  The playoff champion is the champion!

Which is to say, you're right that a double round robin, like the ECAC regular season or all the big European soccer leagues, is a better way of determining the best team, but it seems pretty universally accepted in North American sports that the winner of the playoffs is the "champion.  (Sorry Clarkson.)  I find it interesting that the WCHA seems to feel more strongly about the regular season champion being the "champion" than any other North American sports league that I'm aware of (as indicated by the ridiculously oversized MacNaughton Cup), when the degree of unbalance in their schedule (a team plays each other team either twice or four times in a season, as opposed to in Hockey East where at least it's either twice or three times) makes it less likely to be the case than in a league with a balanced schedule.

[Trotsky]

This is America, and in America we don't want to hear about your "sample size" and your "math"!  The playoff champion is the champion!

Granted America has a herpa-derp problem, we used to be grown up enough to recognize NL and AL pennant winners.

[Give My Regards]

I find it interesting that the WCHA seems to feel more strongly about the regular season champion being the "champion" than any other North American sports league that I'm aware of (as indicated by the ridiculously oversized MacNaughton Cup), when the degree of unbalance in their schedule (a team plays each other team either twice or four times in a season, as opposed to in Hockey East where at least it's either twice or three times) makes it less likely to be the case than in a league with a balanced schedule.

History probably plays a role there.  The WCHA has been around since 1960, and it evolved from some other conglomeration of Western teams (WIHL, maybe?) that came together around 1950 or so.  The NCAA tournament took only four teams, generally two "East" and two "West", until 1981, and for a large number of those years, the WCHA post-season produced two finalists with no championship game.  Why?  Because those two finalists were (I want to say "always" but I better stick with "almost always" ) immediately given the two West spots in the NCAAs.  Since there was no post-season champ in the WCHA, they made a bigger fuss over the regular-season champ.  I think in those days the WCHA did play a more balanced schedule than they do now.