NCAA tourney

underskill
that argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.

What on earth does funding have to do with it? The argument works if you think Cornell hasn't reaped the benefits - or been able to reap the benefits - of the theoretical boat elevation that's been cited, regardless of the reasons they haven't. Despite what we may feel in our hearts, there is still a difference between Cornell's caché and that of Harvard or Yale, and that alone could make the difference in whether recent success by other teams actually fosters improvement in our recruiting.

We need to have someone set up a poll on this site asking who they want to win the tourney based on who's left. Be interesting to see if people prefer the hardware to be in or out of our conference.

Beeeej

billhoward

Beeeej

Dafatone

ugarte

Trotsky

jeff '84

billhoward

BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable

I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

DItto

Motion passes by acclamation.

NAY

I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.

I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

How would we measure that? # of NHL picks seems pretty fair. We're losing one (Buckles), retaining four (Starrett, Angello, Fiegl, Tshantz) have two already picked coming in (Song, Cairns) and maybe one to be picked in June (Green). That's 6 or 7 picks on next year's team, which IINM rivals Schafer's best rosters.

Beeeej

billhoward

Beeeej

Dafatone

ugarte

Trotsky

jeff '84

billhoward

BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable

I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

DItto

Motion passes by acclamation.

NAY

I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.

I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

Personally I like it a lot more when I can see, and often cheer for 3, maybe 4, ECAC teams in the NCAAs.

I don't know why so many are so strongly anti-Harvard, but I'm rooting for them to win it all.

Beeeej

underskill
that argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.

What on earth does funding have to do with it? The argument works if you think Cornell hasn't reaped the benefits - or been able to reap the benefits - of the theoretical boat elevation that's been cited, regardless of the reasons they haven't. Despite what we may feel in our hearts, there is still a difference between Cornell's caché and that of Harvard or Yale, and that alone could make the difference in whether recent success by other teams actually fosters improvement in our recruiting.

meaning if you argue that a stronger conference is good for Cornell, the only way that works is if the school tries to actually elevate its program, either through recruiting, facilities, etc. Otherwise, if we're just a middling program that maybe makes the tourney once every 3-5 years, I don't see how the stronger conference has done much for the program, esp. compared to where it was in the 2000's.

look i hate the harvard sucks THREAD but that doesn't mean i have any warm feelings for harvard. long may they fail.

underskill
the only way that works is if the school tries to actually elevate its program, either through recruiting, facilities, etc.

That will happen in fits and starts based on Andy's blood sugar, Admissions' casting of I Ching hexagrams, and whether one of our 1%er hockey-centered alums breaks his neck one morning falling off his pile of money.

We seem to be very healthy in the recruiting department -- we can't hold on to the best ones for the same systemic reasons that other programs lose theirs, too. The facility is the one factor our players consistently cite as our biggest positive discriminator compared to the other Ivies. And hopefully an NC$$ bid puts the RITUALLY DISEMBOWEL SCHAFER!!!1! types on the back burner for one summer.

billhoward

Beeeej

Dafatone

ugarte

Trotsky

jeff '84

billhoward

BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable

I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

DItto

Motion passes by acclamation.

NAY

I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.

I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

God, not this argument again. There has been no evidence thus far that Yale or Union winning an NCAA championship has lifted our boat whatsoever.

Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

Not that that's the same as recruiting success. It's funny how many of our best players aren't drafted.

Dafatone

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

I do not believe we have: draft picks.

BearLover
God, not this argument again.

221 days until the first Friday in November.

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

I do not believe we have: draft picks.

Here is the direct page.

Trotsky

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

I do not believe we have: draft picks.

Here is the direct page.

That's what I get for relying on my gut instinct.

Or. A lot of those earlier picks were 8th and 9th rounders, which no longer exist. Therefore I'm still right?

Nah.

Trotsky

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

I do not believe we have: draft picks.

Here is the direct page.

Oh, whoops--meant to link to that.

I believe five draft picks, the number on this year's team, was the lowest in some time for a Schafer team.

BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.

marty

BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.

Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament. I'd say '05/'06 was the last time we were clearly the best in the ECAC.

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

I simply want to support a team that is in a very good conference. Don't you want to watch a team playing against the best competition? I don't like the old days of the EZAC and SOS near the bottom.

Beeeej

billhoward

Beeeej

Dafatone

ugarte

Trotsky

jeff '84

billhoward

BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable

I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

DItto

Motion passes by acclamation.

NAY

I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.

I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

Another NAY for Sucks winning the tourney.

Trotsky

Beeeej

billhoward

Beeeej

Dafatone

ugarte

Trotsky

jeff '84

billhoward

BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable

I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

DItto

Motion passes by acclamation.

NAY

I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.

I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

How would we measure that? # of NHL picks seems pretty fair. We're losing one (Buckles), retaining four (Starrett, Angello, Fiegl, Tshantz) have two already picked coming in (Song, Cairns) and maybe one to be picked in June (Green). That's 6 or 7 picks on next year's team, which IINM rivals Schafer's best rosters.

Despite his age, I don't think Song is coming until 2018

Roy 82

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

I simply want to support a team that is in a very good conference. Don't you want to watch a team playing against the best competition? I don't like the old days of the EZAC and SOS near the bottom.

I'd lump that in with other subjective rooting interests. For me, a big part of my not wanting other teams to win a championship is that Cornell has been so good for so long that I feel we are far more due than a team like Yale or Union or Q. In the abstract, I do want to play in a competitive conference. I may even want the aforementioned opponents to make the Frozen Four. But I do no want them to win it all before we do. Now that that has happened, I no longer get the same feeling of Big Red Exceptionalism. And I don't think recruits seeking a strong academic school do either.

billhoward

BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable

I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

Nope. Can't do it. I can get myself on board to root on any other ECAC/Ivy team, in a "hey, good luck, pal of mine" kind of way, but not this one. I gave myself a day to reevaluate, but the heart wants what it wants, and mine continues to come back to this one sentiment:

[youtu.be]

With the old WCHA superiority complex mostly dissolved, I'm easily pulling for a Denver-Duluth Final.

Dafatone

Trotsky

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

I do not believe we have: draft picks.

Here is the direct page.

That's what I get for relying on my gut instinct.

Or. A lot of those earlier picks were 8th and 9th rounders, which no longer exist. Therefore I'm still right?

Nah.

Actually I think you're right. Eliminate those 8^th & 9^thers, and starting with current team draftees, I think you get 19 for last 10 years (2005-14) and 11 for prior 10 years (1995-2004). That seems like a significant increase.

One of our big problems was a great recruiting class, on paper, that never panned out. We can't hope to have great classes every year and when you get duds, your program suffers. I think we're over that now, and hope I'm right. If so, we may be in a period of extended NCAA appearances.

I'm not sure if I would have felt the same when I was younger, but I would rather see us swim towards the top of a big pond with decent results than have to practically go undefeated to earn a high ranking as the only big fish in a little pond.

cornell is vastly underfunded.

BearLover

marty

BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.

Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.

Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.

By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).

Talent alone does not produce winners. Attitude, coaching, strategy, teamwork and even fan support play large roles in determining a team's success. And the latter qualities, like recruiting, are variables which may be influenced by deliberate change.

Give My Regards

BearLover

marty

BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.

Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.

Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.

By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).

I don't think he's necessarily devaluing it, but it's a pretty fair point that Yale was the dominant team

Give My Regards

BearLover

marty

BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.

Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.

Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.

By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).

Yeah, I'm not devaluing anything. Cornell absolutely earned and deserved that trophy. But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

BearLover
But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."

Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).

I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.

RichH

BearLover
But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."

Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).

I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.

Most of the other best teams of the last fifteen or so years have had really bad stretches. I have to figure that we've had the best worst years (as in, our worst years were better than everyone else's worst years) in the conference over the period we're talking about. Maybe we'd prefer more hardware and a couple real clunkers, but it's debatable.

RichH

BearLover
But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."

Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).

I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.

I'm talking beyond simply 2010: between 2009 and 2011, our games vs. Yale were:
L 3-4
L 2-4
L 0-5 (ECAC Championship Game)
L 2-4
L 1-2 (OT) (I was at that game, and it was nowhere near as close as the score; SOG were 56-21)
L 2-4
L 1-4
L 0-6 (ECAC Championship Game)


And whether they've surpassed us as a program or not, Yale's NC didn't come out of nowhere--they'd had sustained success since 2008--and that success didn't end in 2013--they also made the NCAAs in 2015 and 2016.

EDIT: missed the 2009 ECAC Championship Game result. Cornell lost two ECAC tournament finals to Yale by a combined 11-0.

I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).

This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).

Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.

Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?

KGR11
I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).

This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).

Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.

Couldn't this be interpreted as saying that Cornell's performance is a constant, and when the ECAC is improved, Cornell looks relatively worse?

nshapiro

KGR11
I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).

This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).

Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.

Couldn't this be interpreted as saying that Cornell's performance is a constant, and when the ECAC is improved, Cornell looks relatively worse?

Wouldn't that be the same as saying the rising tide doesn't lift all ships/yachts, since Cornell's, um, schooner, didn't uhh...elevate?

Hooking
Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?

The calls and the rules have been evolving to discourage "impedance" (interference, hooking, holding, tripping) and to lower the threshold of hits being considered roughing. IMO the college game has opened up over the last decade -- noticeably, although of course we are nowhere near the 8-7 firewagon hockey of the late 70s and early 80s. I watch maybe 2 NHL games a year so I have no idea whether the pros have been affected.

Trotsky

Hooking
Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?

The calls and the rules have been evolving to discourage "impedance" (interference, hooking, holding, tripping) and to lower the threshold of hits being considered roughing. IMO the college game has opened up over the last decade -- noticeably, although of course we are nowhere near the 8-7 firewagon hockey of the late 70s and early 80s. I watch maybe 2 NHL games a year so I have no idea whether the pros have been affected.

For sure..... I don't think the 02-03 Cornell team would be nearly as successful now as it was then... They would be spending a LOT more time in the penalty box, especially one Mr. Murray!!! God, how I used to love watching him hit people...

The annual "Other ECAC teams winning national titles is great for.... Cornell!" argument. Completes my eLynah Bingo card.

email received


Additional Frozen Four Tickets Available!

TICKETS

HOSPITALITY

EXCHANGE

BRACKET

ADDITIONAL TICKET OPTIONS AVAILABLE!
LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS NOW AVAILABLE FOLLOWING TEAM TICKET ALLOTMENT RETURNS

The fans of which team returned those tickets?

marty

email received


Additional Frozen Four Tickets Available!

TICKETS

HOSPITALITY

EXCHANGE

BRACKET

ADDITIONAL TICKET OPTIONS AVAILABLE!
LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS NOW AVAILABLE FOLLOWING TEAM TICKET ALLOTMENT RETURNS

The fans of which team returned those tickets?

Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

jtwcornell91

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....

marty

jtwcornell91

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....

...so that they can wear the appropriate letter.

marty

marty

jtwcornell91

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....

...so that they can wear the appropriate letter.

http://i.imgur.com/utzTCyo.png

I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.

Hooking
I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.

I believe that would be Ohio State.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Hooking
I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.

I believe that would be Ohio State.

This is also officially "scarlet."

Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

Trotsky
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

And hitting two posts after the goal

scoop85

Trotsky
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

And hitting two posts after the goal

Good.

I wanted them to either feel embarrassment or pain (like a mask save, for example). This did nicely.

See ya.

Denver up 2-0 late in the 1st, and completely dominant

scoop85
Denver up 2-0 late in the 1st, and completely dominant

Now 5-0 so you had a pretty good read on how it was going to go.

First penalty of the game. Too many men.

Still haven't seen any sites announced for 2018 NCAA regionals. Unless I missed something, one certainly could deduce that home sites of top 8 seeds might be used which
frankly I support. Anyone have any new or additional information?

wakester2468
Still haven't seen any sites announced for 2018 NCAA regionals. Unless I missed something, one certainly could deduce that home sites of top 8 seeds might be used which
frankly I support. Anyone have any new or additional information?

No promises, but today is traditionally a day the NC$$ likes to do announcements (e.g., Hobey).

Consider that the official NC$$ site does not yet have the 2017 regionals listed. Those will come any day now...

I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.

Iceberg
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.

One of a very few schools that could do a double, in both hockey and lacrosse.

RichH

scoop85

Trotsky
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

And hitting two posts after the goal

Good.

I wanted them to either feel embarrassment or pain (like a mask save, for example). This did nicely.

See ya.

+1

Iceberg
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.

I'm leaning toward Denver because I've been partying today my friend is Jannsen's cousin. I'm rooting for a 3-2 final decided in the third or the first OT.

Speaking of Denver, Will Butcher gets the Hobey Baker; the first defender to win it since 2009.

Pretty silly that the Hobey, like the Hart Trophy, almost never goes to a D-man/goalie. Forwards see the least ice time of all the positions! (Bad argument, but still.)

BearLover
Pretty silly that the Hobey, like the Hart Trophy, almost never goes to a D-man/goalie. Forwards see the least ice time of all the positions! (Bad argument, but still.)

"Offense sells tickets; defense wins championships."

Iceberg
Speaking of Denver, Will Butcher gets the Hobey Baker

Based on the photo on ESPN he looks like a 37-year old junior account executive for a Boulder real estate firm.

Everybody stop what you're doing and just go watch Denver's second goal.

First natural since Lodboa?

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

No.

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

Game got better after the injury (creepily). The right team won.

Hey, Mike. Offense wins championships too.

GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Trotsky

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.

Hooking
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.

imafrshmn

Hooking
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. That Duluth team would be the ideal model for the modern Cornell teams. Obviously that style of play still works even if Duluth didn't manage to win the final game.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.

Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Iceberg

imafrshmn

Hooking
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. That Duluth team would be the ideal model for the modern Cornell teams. Obviously that style of play still works even if Duluth didn't manage to win the final game.

I wouldn't say no to that Denver team either.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.

Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.

Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?

marty

Iceberg
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.

I'm leaning toward Denver because I've been partying today my friend is Jannsen's cousin. I'm rooting for a 3-2 final decided in the third or the first OT.

I didn't get my wish but did notice that yesterday's 3-2 win was the sixth, all since 1996, but the first that was not decided in OT.

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.

Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.

Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?

He's saying Lukosevicius didn't have a natural because of the Iafallo goal.

ugarte

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.

Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.

Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?

He's saying Lukosevicius didn't have a natural because of the Iafallo goal.

You got it. I didn't think it was that hard.

I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?

Hooking
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?

I'm sure you do.

Hooking
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?

Actually, no--recruits go in completely blind as to their chosen school's style of play. In fact, a sizable number pick their college out of a hat containing every Division I school, while some pick out of a hat containing only schools that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as their own first name. It is widely known that Colin Greening thought he was entering a program that played firewagon hockey and was shocked--almost to the point of transferring to St. Cloud State--when Schafer told him he'd have to play two ways.

BearLover

Hooking
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?

Actually, no--recruits go in completely blind as to their chosen school's style of play. In fact, a sizable number pick their college out of a hat containing every Division I school, while some pick out of a hat containing only schools that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as their own first name. It is widely known that Colin Greening thought he was entering a program that played firewagon hockey and was shocked--almost to the point of transferring to St. Cloud State--when Schafer told him he'd have to play two ways.

Edit: Deleted.

Does anybody have any idea what the payout is, if any, to the ECAC or the individual schools that make the NCAA hockey tournament ?