How bad is the ECAC in the NCAA tournament?
How bad is the ECAC in the NCAA tournament?
As I watched BC overcome its early second period hiccup against SLU and Cornell fall down 3-0 against BU, I was wondering, exactly how bad has the ECAC been in the NCAA tournament? We know the league has been terrible against WCHA for years, but are the league's teams clearly not as prepared for the postseason as Hockey East as well?
So (pending the BU-Cornell result) here are the ECAC's NCAA tournament results by conference
ECAC 5-5 (e.g. 5 intraconference matchups)
WCHA 4-16 (nine losses in a row since 2006)
HEA 1-5
CHA 2-1
Total (nonconference): 7-22
Ok, so that's pretty bad.
But a better question, does the ECAC at least still manage to win when it's the higher-seed team, so that good performance in the ECAC regular season is actually a good sign that you'll perform in the NCAA tournament? Let's break this down by favorites and underdogs.
When ECAC is higher-seeded:
WCHA: 2-1 (Harvard>Minnesota 2003s, SLU>UMD 2006q, Wisconsin>Harvard 2008s)
HEA: 0-2 (BC>Dartmouth 2007q, BU>Cornell 2011s)
CHA: 1-0 (Harvard>Mercyhurst 2005q)
Total 3-3
When ECAC is lower-seeded:
WCHA: 2-15 (only upsets: Brown>Minnesota 2002s, SLU>UMD 2005q, 8 straight Ls)
HEA: 1-3 (UNH>Harvard 2006q, SLU>UNH 2009q, UNH>SLU 2008q. BC>SLU 2012q)
CHA: 1-1 (Mercyhurst>SLU, 2009q, Cornell>Mercyhurst 2010s)
Total: 4-19
(In intra-ECAC NCAA play, favorites were 4-1, SLU>Dartmouth 2001s the only upset, while Harvard>SLU 2004s, Harvard>SLU 2005s, Harvard>Dartmouth 2008q, Cornell>Dartmouth 2011q were the others)
So I hadn't realized the ECAC team was the favorite in only 6 of its 30 interconference NCAA games. And the ECAC has performed okay as favorite at 3-3, though you expect a favorite to be a bit better than .500. If Cornell holds against BU, we're back at 4-3 for ECAC teams as the favorite. But if Cornell can't hold on here and the ECAC falls to 0-3 against Hockey East as the higher seed, then that's a really ugly result for the ECAC conference going forward. We'll see how it goes.
How bad is the ECAC in the NCAA tournament?
As I watched BC overcome its early second period hiccup against SLU and Cornell fall down 3-0 against BU, I was wondering, exactly how bad has the ECAC been in the NCAA tournament? We know the league has been terrible against WCHA for years, but are the league's teams clearly not as prepared for the postseason as Hockey East as well?
So (pending the BU-Cornell result) here are the ECAC's NCAA tournament results by conference
ECAC 5-5 (e.g. 5 intraconference matchups)
WCHA 4-16 (nine losses in a row since 2006)
HEA 1-5
CHA 2-1
Total (nonconference): 7-22
Ok, so that's pretty bad.
But a better question, does the ECAC at least still manage to win when it's the higher-seed team, so that good performance in the ECAC regular season is actually a good sign that you'll perform in the NCAA tournament? Let's break this down by favorites and underdogs.
When ECAC is higher-seeded:
WCHA: 2-1 (Harvard>Minnesota 2003s, SLU>UMD 2006q, Wisconsin>Harvard 2008s)
HEA: 0-2 (BC>Dartmouth 2007q, BU>Cornell 2011s)
CHA: 1-0 (Harvard>Mercyhurst 2005q)
Total 3-3
When ECAC is lower-seeded:
WCHA: 2-15 (only upsets: Brown>Minnesota 2002s, SLU>UMD 2005q, 8 straight Ls)
HEA: 1-3 (UNH>Harvard 2006q, SLU>UNH 2009q, UNH>SLU 2008q. BC>SLU 2012q)
CHA: 1-1 (Mercyhurst>SLU, 2009q, Cornell>Mercyhurst 2010s)
Total: 4-19
(In intra-ECAC NCAA play, favorites were 4-1, SLU>Dartmouth 2001s the only upset, while Harvard>SLU 2004s, Harvard>SLU 2005s, Harvard>Dartmouth 2008q, Cornell>Dartmouth 2011q were the others)
So I hadn't realized the ECAC team was the favorite in only 6 of its 30 interconference NCAA games. And the ECAC has performed okay as favorite at 3-3, though you expect a favorite to be a bit better than .500. If Cornell holds against BU, we're back at 4-3 for ECAC teams as the favorite. But if Cornell can't hold on here and the ECAC falls to 0-3 against Hockey East as the higher seed, then that's a really ugly result for the ECAC conference going forward. We'll see how it goes.
Last edited:
In all fairness, I see that in the NESCAC, a student-athlete must have reached junior academic standing with a cumulative GPA of at least 3.35 – pretty high standards as well. HockeyEast appears to have the same standards as the ECAC. Just some observations – not intended to rile anyone. Given the time commitment involved in playing a sport at the D1 or D3 level, I give credit to student-athletes who can maintain high grades. It is good to know there are so many bright young people, as they will be running the country when I am enjoying my “Golden Years.”