Guaranteed ECAC Title vs Guaranteed NCAA Advance

[Trotsky]

IIRC, we discussed this a little last year, but it's a new season, with new posters, and another year of success may be changing people's minds.  So, here's a series of choices -- which would you elect, if you had to choose:

(1) (a) winning the ECAC title and losing the NCAA first round game, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing one round in the NCAAs prior to losing in the QF?

(2) (a) winning the ECAC title, take your chance in the NCAA first round game, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing one round in the NCAAs, then take your chance in the NCAA QF?

Personally, I'd pick (1)(a) and (2)(a), but I have a feeling that many Faithful -- especially younger ones who have gotten "used to" winning the ECACs, would choose at least (2)(b).

Now, if the choices are:

(3) (a) winning the ECAC title and advancing one round in the NCAAs prior to losing in the QF, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing to the Frozen Four prior to losing the SF?

(4) (a) winning the ECAC title and advancing one round in the NCAAs, take your chance in the QF, or (b) failing to win the ECAC title but then advancing to the Frozen Four, take your chance in the SF?

I'd switch to (3)(b) and (4)(b).  Reaching the F4 > winning the ECAC title, by a little; starting with a guaranteed 25% shot at the national title wins in a rout.

Discuss.

[oceanst41]

I would say I fall into the younger Faithful category, but I can unequivocally say that watching Harvard and Clarkson play for the ECAC Championship was just awful. I had the pleasure of being there in person  ::yark:: .

That said I'd much rather win the ECACs, because if the selection committee is going to screw us anyway, we might as well already have some hardware to show for it. Plus, if we don't win we have to listen to more of the "you're not even the best team in the ECAC, how can Cornell beat/be ranked ahead of [insert HE, CCHA, WCHA team here]." Of course, a run to the Frozen Four should come ahead of the ECACs. To be one of the best four teams at the end of year says a lot more than being second or third best in Albany.

[andyw2100]

I absolutely agree with you on 1A and 2A. I guess I would also take 4b, tough as it is to give up the ECAC title. But with 4b we still have a shot at the National Championship. And I would still take 3A over 3B. (The only choice of yours I disagree with.)
                        Andy W. '86

[pfibiger]

This year in particular, I think i'd be more likely to choose the B's for 2 and 4. I feel like there's a huge amount of parity in college hockey this year, and I think that while this Cornell team doesn't feel dominant like it did in '03 (or even in '05), I think there's a pretty good chance they could upset anyone in the country.

[HeafDog]

I'm not a young'un.  I was a freshman in '94.  But I still place the importance of the NCAAs way above the ECACs now.  Why?  Because we've won the ECACs four times since I was in school, and the sheen has worn off a bit.  Yes, you could say that I'm now sort of used to winning the conference.  As a result, it pretty much seems to me that the only thing left for us to do is win the national championship.

[KeithK]

I'd definitely take the ECAC titles.

[Jordan 04]

1a and 2a.  2a seems like the pretty easy choice since you have the ECAC title and you haven't defined any finality to the season.  If it was making the Frozen Four, it may be a different story...

**Ok, I swear, I started writing this response before looking at #3 and #4. But as I wrote Frozen Four, I thought "Wait a sec...I think I know where he might be going!"**

That progression being what it is, I agree it's 1a, 2a, 3b, 4b easy.  I think it's not only a matter of being a step closer, but also the slight advantages that might be gained in recruiting by being in the Frozen Four and national (college hockey) spotlight for a week or two -- advantages which I don't think are gained at all by piling up ECAC titles.

[Lauren '06]

The question is often posed, would you rather have a team that is consistantly dominant for years at a time but never wins national titles, or one that wins a national title and then has a stretch of really awful years afterward.  I will always choose the first one.  The in-game experiences mean more to me than notches in the belt.

[calgARI '07]

The #1 goal is a National Championship and thus whatever takes them closer is what I want.  It's great to win the IVY and ECAC, but all that really matters is that National Championship.

[KeithK]

Exactly.  Would I be want to sit through 20 yeas of seasons like 1993 in return for one national championship?  Heck no.  I'd rather have my team be very good every year and come up just short every year.  Much more enjoyable over the long haul.

[Josh '99]

1a, 2b, 3a, 4a.  I find any scenario where we take our chances in the NCAAs over any scenario with a guaranteed early NCAA exit.  But, if either choice is a guaranteed loss in the NCAAs, I'll take the ECAC over advancing further prior to that loss.  I'd rather win something, and I'd rather have a chance at winning in the NCAA over a guaranteed ECAC title, but a trip to the NCAA or even the Frozen Four isn't winning anything, it's merely qualifying (not all that much of a prize if there's a guaranteed loss).

4 is the most interesting question by far.

[Rita]

[quote Section A Banshee]The question is often posed, would you rather have a team that is consistantly dominant for years at a time but never wins national titles, or one that wins a national title and then has a stretch of really awful years afterward.  I will always choose the first one.  The in-game experiences mean more to me than notches in the belt.[/quote]

Are you, perhaps, a fan of the Atlanta Braves? ;-)

Coach Schafer has brought the program to the point where the Frozen Four is a realistic goal. But with that said, our limited OOC schedule/ Ivy league game limit leaves us little room for error when we have a season such as this where we have a few bad losses. Winning the ECACHL's our only guaranteed for getting an invite to the party (even if the "party" begins in WHCA land).

But if Greg can make so that Cornell gets into the tourney even though they lose the  the ECACHL tourney, then I would take 2b/4b. Just get into the tourney and let the puck bounce as it may.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote calgARI '07]The #1 goal is a National Championship and thus whatever takes them closer is what I want.  It's great to win the IVY and ECAC, but all that really matters is that National Championship.[/quote]

You know, I used to find that sentiment very annoying in BU fans, like the one who said after getting upset by Providence in the 1996 Hockey East tournament something like "at least that's over so we can concentrate on the one that counts".

[Rosey]

[quote jtwcornell91]You know, I used to find that sentiment very annoying in BU fans, like the one who said after getting upset by Providence in the 1996 Hockey East tournament something like "at least that's over so we can concentrate on the one that counts".[/quote]
I don't think Ari's saying that we don't value the ECAC championships... but after 10 years of being at or near the top of the conference, and after winning several of these things, it would be acceptable to sacrifice that if (for some reason) it meant winning the national championship.

Personally, I think all this speculation is pointless, because the NCAA seeding process seems sufficiently random (or malicious towards Cornell; take your pick) that losing the ECAC tournament probably won't reliably help our chances in the NCAA tourney.  I want to attend both an ECAC championship and an NCAA championship, preferably every year.

Cheers,
Kyle

[canuck89]

I definitely agree with you.  It would be far more enjoyable to continue watching close, competitive games at Lynah -- or on TV -- than know we can say we are the champions for one year.  Reputation is gained not through a single victory, but a consistent string of hard fought wins (even if they're not "the one").