Ned Harkness Cup and Cleary Bedpan?

[KeithK]

[q]For that matter, finishing with the best record in the RS, or the #1 seed in the ECAC playoffs, meant even less before the Great Divorce, given how unbalanced the schedules were back then.[/q]the unbalanced schedule is largely why we have a tournament to determine the champion in the first place, instead of just taking the top two RS teams to go to the national tournament.  With the unbalanced schedules in the 60's it just wasn't clear who was the better team from the RS.  if the top eastern teams had played a full home and home round robin back then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.  (Well, maybe we would anyway, because hockey seems to have a history of emphasizing post-season tournaments and letting way too many teams in.)

[KeithK]

[q]But it is conceivable that a team could come in last place of the ECAC(HL) regular season and be crowned national champion and that makes the Cleary clearly meaningless.[/q]No, the fact that Princeton still had a mathematical chance of winning last year's national championship as the playoffs began just shows how totally ****ed up the playoff system is.

[Robb]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:No, the fact that Princeton still had a mathematical chance of winning last year's national championship as the playoffs began just shows how totally ****ed up the playoff system is.[/q]

Yeah - screw the playoffs.  We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey.  All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies.  Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms...  ::bang::

[KeithK]

[q]Yeah - screw the playoffs. We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey. All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies. Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms.[/q]Yes, BCS is ridiculous.  But I'm not suggesting that.  I'm just saying that by the end of a 22 game round robin schedule you already know who the best teams in a given league are without needing a league tournament.  What you don't know with strong confidence, regardless of what KRACH might say is who the best team in the country is because of disparate schedules.  So you hold a national tournament populated by the teams that won their conferences based on RS standings.  That way you "decide it on the ice" but it's all transparent and objjective.

If you have to have a league tournament, for god's sake at least limit the number of teams.  Letting everyone in is ridiculous!

[Josh '99]

[Q]Robb Wrote:
Yeah - screw the playoffs.  We need a system much more like the BCS for hockey.  All this "decide it on the ice" stuff is for sissies.  Real men prefer media polls and smoke-filled rooms...  
[/q]Don't forget secret computer ranking systems.   ::screwy::

[Will]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

If you have to have a league tournament, for god's sake at least limit the number of teams.  Letting everyone in is ridiculous![/q]

Indeed.  But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams.  And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.

[KeithK]

[q]Indeed. But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams. And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.[/q]Of course.  And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.

[CUlater 89]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2]Indeed. But top-four tournaments make less money than top-twelve tournaments, at least for the top-seeded teams. And that's what it always ultimately comes down to--money.[/Q]
Of course.  And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.[/q]

So if you were born 50 years ago, you'd be railing against the LCS concept too?
 Do you rail against the wildcard in football?  Did you rail against it when there was just one?

This type of issue is so rooted in one's past; i.e. things were great back when I started following a sport and they should never change.

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm guilty of that too.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 And eight team baseball playoffs make more money than four teams, but that doesn't stop me from railing against the wild card.[/q]
Without which, of course, this year's fabulous, unbelievable, rivalling the Miracle-of-Coogan's-Bluff post-season outcome would never have happened. ::banana::

[KeithK]

[q]So if you were born 50 years ago, you'd be railing against the LCS concept too?
Do you rail against the wildcard in football? Did you rail against it when there was just one? [/q]Yes, I would prefer a league without an LCS.  I strongly believe in only the team that finishes first advancing - how can you be the overall champion if someone was better tahn you in the RS?  At least with the original 12 team baseball leagues (AL 69-77, NL 69-92) the schedules were sufficiently unbalanced (18 in division, 12 out) that you could claim that a direct comparison between east and west teams was not fair because of disparate schedules.

I admit I am less fervent about wild cards in football probably because there has always been one in my lifetime.  But I was annoyed when they expanded to two and then three wild cards per league.  Now with a four division setup I would prefer if they would eliminate the wild card altogether and simply have 8 division champs in the playoffs (even though it would hurt my team right now).

I don't pretend that I'm immune from sentimental attachment to the way things were.  I certainly do feel that way sometimes.  But I think that my opinions on this subject are more rooted in desire for "purity" than sentiment.  Note that I would support a system for NCAA and ECAC hockey that has never existed.   (BTW I am not old enough to remember pre-LCS times.  My user name no longer says it, but I'm class of '93.)

[Robb]

More random thoughts:

I like the league tourneys, and I was trying to discect why.  I guess that, as a fan (and probably as a player, too), there's no better experience than your team advancing deep into an elimination tournament.  The games ratchet up and up in intensity - it's what the teams focus on all year long.  If a player is slightly injured, he'll take a game or two off to heal up for the playoffs - that's the culmination of the season.   A 22-game round robin tournament would certainly more accurate in determining who the best team is (though "the best team" can be time and schedule variant, so stretching the round-robin over 4 months is a bit odd, too.  Factor in injuries, etc, and you just can't measure it fairly).  I love going to regular season away games at Harvard/Brown, SLU/Clarkson,  or even MSU/MSU.  But that's NOTHING compared to going to a postseason final four, be it ECAC or NCAA.  Being there with fans of the other schools (even if it's in Albany) is just fantastic.  If the ECACHL were to decide to award the autobid to the First Place finisher, that would take just a little of the edge off the tournament, but probably not THAT much - I would think most people would still see that as the culmination of the season.

I think we can all agree that the tournaments aren't really about finding the best team - they're really not a great vehicle for that.  But all the teams DO know the rules and the schedules ahead of time and have agreed that this will be the method to award something called a championship - as long as they all agree, then it's completely fair, no matter how arbitrary it may be.  I don't think you'd find many people who would argue that Princeton (20 regular season points) was a better team than Yale (35 points) in 1998.  But Princeton did put together a decent 4 game winning streak just at the time that other teams were trying their hardest, too.  That's all the championship means - they won those few games.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[billhoward]

Other voices have noted here before: Playoffs produce tournament winners who are called champions. They don't always settle who's the best team. (For instance, 2003 nationally.)

Some of Cornell's finest moments in hockey (also lacrosse circa 1987 and 1988 and then the past couple years) have been catching fire late in the season and going further than the RS record would have suggested possible.

I think Cornell has always been cognizant of finishing first in the standings when it did finish first, and I also agree with Al that it was never a big thing in ice hockey. It was winning the ECAC tournament that mattered. That got you to the NCAAs.

Different story if you're talking hoops or lacrosse.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 More random thoughts:

I like the league tourneys, and I was trying to discect why.  I guess that, as a fan (and probably as a player, too), there's no better experience than your team advancing deep into an elimination tournament.  The games ratchet up and up in intensity - it's what the teams focus on all year long.  If a player is slightly injured, he'll take a game or two off to heal up for the playoffs - that's the culmination of the season.   A 22-game round robin tournament would certainly more accurate in determining who the best team is (though "the best team" can be time and schedule variant, so stretching the round-robin over 4 months is a bit odd, too.  Factor in injuries, etc, and you just can't measure it fairly).  I love going to regular season away games at Harvard/Brown, SLU/Clarkson,  or even MSU/MSU.  But that's NOTHING compared to going to a postseason final four, be it ECAC or NCAA.  Being there with fans of the other schools (even if it's in Albany) is just fantastic.  If the ECACHL were to decide to award the autobid to the First Place finisher, that would take just a little of the edge off the tournament, but probably not THAT much - I would think most people would still see that as the culmination of the season.

I think we can all agree that the tournaments aren't really about finding the best team - they're really not a great vehicle for that.  But all the teams DO know the rules and the schedules ahead of time and have agreed that this will be the method to award something called a championship - as long as they all agree, then it's completely fair, no matter how arbitrary it may be.  I don't think you'd find many people who would argue that Princeton (20 regular season points) was a better team than Yale (35 points) in 1998.  But Princeton did put together a decent 4 game winning streak just at the time that other teams were trying their hardest, too.  That's all the championship means - they won those few games.  Nothing more, nothing less.
[/q]
Agreed, Robb.  

One other thought:  The tournament can (but not always will) do a better job of determining who the best team is at the time of the tournament, and this can be useful in deciding who represents the league in the big dance.  One might look back at the 1998 situation you cited above for an example of that, or--the one we all love best--1980.  A team with a lot of underclassmen might struggle early in the season, but, as a result of giving those younger players significant game experience--even at the cost of a few early season losses--might be much stronger than it would otherwise have been come March and April.

[KeithK]

I agree with you that the current system is fair.  Everyone knows the rules beforehand and plays by them.  Just somewhat arbitrary. Not completely arbitrary, because as you say everyone gets up for these games and knows the stakes.

[KeithK]

[q]this can be useful in deciding who represents the league in the big dance.[/q]Well, if the point is to put the league team in the tournament that has the best chance of winning or representing, then maybe it's a good system.  I would rather see the best team in the league rewarded for a great season.

Not that the tourney winning team necessarily has the best chance to win in the NCAAs either.  If the goalie for the last place time suddenly channels Dryden for a couple of games and the team gets a few lucky bounces they could win the league tournament.  But that kind of luck tends to run out, esp. against national contenders.

At least cut the field down to 8 schools though so the RS means something other than seeding!