2005-06 Schedule

so that leads back to my original assertion

Why cant we get teams like BU and Michigan on our schedule? I mean, yea, it would suck that that time would need to be at the beginning of the season. As a fan, I would much rather see a good team play and make it a close (or even win) rather than see us play Army and win by some staggering amount.
Bottom line is that Cornell needs to play more TUCs.
dave '02

[Q]dadeo Wrote:

technically, MN and CU are tied for 4th, and MN wins the tie-breaker.[/q]

No. Cornell and MN are tied in the PWR.

I linked to the KRACH which has MN in #4 and Cornell in #6. Not the same thing. KRACH is a better (not perfect*) measure than PWR.


But even if you ignore all that, your logic STILL doesn't make any sense.

[q]If we played better opponents, our RPI would be higher, and one loss to a TUC wouldn't kill us as much as it did against BC. [/q]

We won the RPI comparision, but if we played better teams, our RPI would have been higher so we would have won that by more? HUH?

[q]and one loss to a TUC wouldnt kill us as much as it did against BC.[/q]

Actually our TUC record isn't the problem. It's what, the 3rd or 4th best TUC record in the country? You're complaining that we have an awesome TUC and that someone else has one that's just a little better? Anyway, playing better teams can't improve our TUC record - if anything, we're more likely to lose to better teams.

The problem is with our COp comparision. We don't play enough WCHA and CCHA teams, so when we tank a couple of games to western teams, our COp comparision goes to shit. You CANNOT fix that by playing better opponents. You fix that by a) winning key NC games b) playing more western teams, good or bad. This year, sweeping the LAST place WCHA team (MTU) would have flipped the cOP comparison with MN. With a small number of games, quality has little to do with it.

As far as the number games we play, we're an Ivy and have a limited number of NC games. That's just the way it is.








*disclaimer for Keith :

Am I in Bizarro World? Are we really questioning the actions of a coach who has gotten Cornell an at-large bid three of the last four seasons? (Yes, we had two automatic bids, but Cornell had at-large bids "in its pocket" if it hadn't won the 2003 and 2005 ECACs.) And very likely would have been four of four if not for that inexplicable quarterfinal series loss to Clarkson (I may be remembering this part wrong, but I think Cornell was, or was very close to, the last team not to make the NCAAs last year.) What I've read and heard has lead me to believe that Schafer would like to schedule somewhat stiffer competition, but he can't because:
a) He insists on reciprocity.
b) Most established teams don't want anything to do with Lynah.

I agree with "a". We fans get upset when we perceive that Cornell isn't getting its due respect as a top tier program --and we should given what the team has accomplished the last few seasons. So how is Cornell supposed to find that respect if it agrees to dance to the tune of the Michigans and Minnesotas of the sport? But the interaction of "a" and "b" means it's going to be *very* difficult to fill our nc schedule with heavy weights. Would BU host Cornell at its flashy new arena for a game? Most likely. Would they do it when it means returning to Lynah? Nope. We should all accept that BU isn't coming back any time soon.

And I disagree with RatushnyFan's argument. I don't think one or two more tough opponents before Xmas break is going to have you more prepared for the NCAAs. Its the season as a whole that is important and is dominated, especially down the final stretch, by conference games and there's nothing Cornell can do to alter that scheduling.

It seems like Cornell's scheduling is working just fine: they are putting up staggering stats and W-L records that get them noticed and talked about in the media and qualifying for the NCAAs.

What has happened these last seasons was unfathomable during my particular four years in Lynah (Class of '95 --go to TBRW and look at those seasons *shiver*); I don't take any of it for granted and I'm loath to question the course Schafer and his staff are following. I'm just afraid that I'll wake up and find that it's all a dream: Cornell hockey is mired in mediocrity (or worse) and instead of TBRW and eLF we have something akin to Clarkson's forum (come on, RichS, let me have it).

Everyone's turning all whiny about an out-of-conference schedule that isn't that bad.

1) As has been mentioned above, it's far better to play Niagara, an often dangerous CHA team, than anybody in Atlantic Hockey.
2) Quinnipiac will not be last place in the league next year, since that's reserved for Yale for some time yet. At the same time, one of the historic powers, probably Clarkson but maybe St. Lawrence, will return to the top 4 and start kicking some out-of-conference butt; the other will be a top 6 team. Teams looking up for next year: Brown, Clarkson, Princeton, (St. Lawrence), Union; stay the same: us, Dartmouth, RPI, (St. Lawrence), Yale; on the way down: Harvard, Colgate. Harvard and Colgate will only be down for a year, though. The ECAC(HL) as a whole will be just as good next season as it was this season. After that, watch out: the ECAC will be moving up in the world at, probably, the CCHA's expense. Harvard and Colgate will come back and both North Country teams will be at full strength. Count the strong teams: Brown, Clarkson, Colgate, Cornell, Harvard, St. Lawrence, and (ta-da) Quinnipiac. (Take a look at how heavily freshman-laden Quinnipiac is some time. With those scholarships, they're chomping at the bit.)
3) We're still playing Michigan State twice. We'll also play two of Northeastern (improved without Crowder), Maine (who will be a top 5 team next year), and tUMD (a WCHA that we should beat but who will create some problems in league).
4) RIT is a local program and it's good to get our name in the press outside of Ithaca. When they go D-I with scholarships and such, which has been talked about, I see RIT as a potential repacement for Union, who, after a couple of years of mild success, will soon take a nose dive in the much more competitive ECAC(HL). Union will leave for the AHA and we'll take RIT.

We'll be fine. Even a worse performance than this year will wrap up an at-large, though it might be a #3 seed. A similar performance to this year will have us challenging for a #1 seed again. After next year, things are going to get a lot tougher in league, but I think Schafer is already prepared for that. In fact, if the next couple seasons of recruits work out, we're going to be a defensive powerhouse with some scary offensive capabilities.

As far as BU, Michigan, and the others go? Parker will be back. He just doesn't want to come back until he has a team that can handle us. 2003 was too embarrassing. ("I think it was men playing with boys, both nights." BC will never come, due to their delusions of grandeur, and the rest of Hockey East is, well, scared.

We're unfortunate that the smaller CCHA schools aren't doing very well right now. Those Ferris State and Western Michigan games were nice matchups when their teams were good. I wish we'd get a two-year home and home with Nebraska-Omaha. Good fans who'd be happy to see us.

Perhaps we could entice CC into a home and home? A small school with a relatively small rink. Might work, but they already have an established relationship with the North Country schools.

The others? They're too money-grubbing and scared to come to Lynah. F' em. Let's just kick their asses in the tournament.

I'm definitely picking Quinnipiac to finish in dead last next year. Yale will be better. The only other team that could contend for 12th in my opinion is Union.

1) Amen to all of Scersk's post...


2)

[Q]Why cant we get teams like BU and Michigan on our schedule? I mean, yea, it would suck that that time would need to be at the beginning of the season. As a fan, I would much rather see a good team play and make it a close (or even win) rather than see us play Army and win by some staggering amount.
Bottom line is that Cornell needs to play more TUCs.
dave '02[/Q]

-BU may never come back. Parker was quoted after the last visit as saying that the rivalry would not be renewed. Also, the only way they *mightt* play us is at their brand new 6000 seat arena.

-Michigan won't ever come east either. Berenson has made it plain and clear (there was an early season USCHO article on NC scheduling this year if you can find it...) he said that they'll play NC foes, but at their home rink. They make money and give the opposition the experience of playing at Michigan. Not to mention their home-court advantage.

-And re: MSU, take it when you can get it- those are home games at least.

-Finally, we can't play only top teams for NC games. Like any other team we need some easier games as well. Assuming RIT is a home game, we make money, get a win, and do the hockey world a favor. There is a tradition of this in hockey. That's why UAF and UAA exist at all - WCHA and CCHA took them in for the good of the game.

Two with Niagra, home and home? That covers our CHA/AHA games for the year.

Then we get two with some combo of UMD/Maine/Northeastern.

Totals:
2 CCHA at home
1-2 HE neutral ice at the tourney
0-1 WCHA if we play UMD in the tourney
2 CHA vs. Niagra, one home, one away.
and then the RIT game.

That sounds pretty balanced to me.

And for you guys screaming for more games, it ain't gonna happen. First off, there's an advantage to playing fewer games - a lot less wear and tear. And then the obvious: you went to an Ivy league school. And Cornell isn't going to go changing things just because all of a sudden we have some sustained success. If you want guaranteed NCAA appearances everyyear, go to Michigan. Things are what they are. If you win, that's all tha matters. Go undefeated all year and you win the NCAA title, even if you are from the CHA.

Arik

p.s. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun to root for if we had a Michigan type situation. Having gone to grad school at UM (Scersk lets see if you agree with this) it's just not as much fun when the suspense isnt there. There's something to being the underdog that adds to the experience. I was at Michigan from 97-99 and was in Boston to watch UM beat BC in OT for the NCAA title. It was fantastic. But nothing like what it would be to see Cornell win the title. In 2005, would you rather be a Red Sox or a Yankee fan? Sure the Yanks won a bunch of titles. But do you think that Yankee fans enjoyed any single one of them as much as Red Sox fams enjoyed this year's series victory?

[Q]abmarks Wrote:
But do you think that Yankee fans enjoyed any single one of them as much as Red Sox fams enjoyed this year's series victory?[/q]

Before I give you my answer, let me say that the last thing we need right now is another Yankees-Red Sox pissing match. So I'll give you my answer to this very arrogant question and try to bring it into context of your argument.

Yes. Yes, I most certainly do.

My point is that somewhere there's are Angel fans whose enjoyment of 2002 matched the thrill of many Red Sox or Yankee fans in their years. Or fans of the 1970s Cincinatti Reds. Or the 1990s Bulls. Or the NE Patriots of this decade. There exist fans who don't care about expectations or dynasty dominance. And I'm sure there were UMich fans who were elated for every minute of those less-fun-for-you championships in the late '90s.

Compare the feeling at the ECAC finals of 1996 and 1997 with the Final in 2005. Also 2003. Did you have more or less fun? Why? I know I had a blast, and was about equally hoarse for all of 'em. The only difference this year (for me) was that the tension was eased before the clock hit 0:00. Yeah, we were favored to win this year, and didn't disappoint. I'm still buying my Championship gear just as I did in previous years. Maybe some fans felt more relief than jubilation, and there are those who were too concerned with our PWR to take a swig out of the Whitelaw, but that's what makes us different. There are those of us who think we should blast away at the Hirsch situation, and some think it's wrong.

It's also interesting to see your definition of "underdog." It seems to be "someone who hasn't won in a long time." We were the #1 overall seed in 2003...even the media had tagged us as the favorites, and I can guarantee every damn one of us wearing Red would've gone Ape-sh*t had we won it all. So say Schafer leads us to 4 straight National Titles. Won't that suck? That would not be fun, by your arguments.

Disclaimer...yeah, I know I put words in your mouth, Arik, and I rambled a lot way past the point of your post...I apologize. Just a little pre-roadtrip giddiness. But I did take exeption to your suggestion that once a team becomes successful, no fans enjoy winning anymore.

As far as strength of OOC games: Look everyone wants a shot at the "good" schools. Not everyone can play them. Demanding that "we're good now, why are we even bothering with these crappy teams" is showing a bit of elitism. Keep going, and you'll pull out arguments to form 1-A and 1-AA divisions, and while you're at it you'll take away the CHA and AHA auto-bids. Remember that Michigan, Ohio St., and Cornell all went through HORRIBLE stretches.

That doesn't mean that these schools were not expecting to win all that time - you can bet that Minny certainly did.

I think you get the point anyway.

[Q]abmarks Wrote:

And for you guys screaming for more games, it ain't gonna happen. First off, there's an advantage to playing fewer games - a lot less wear and tear. And then the obvious: you went to an Ivy league school. And Cornell isn't going to go changing things just because all of a sudden we have some sustained success. If you want guaranteed NCAA appearances everyyear, go to Michigan. Things are what they are. If you win, that's all tha matters. Go undefeated all year and you win the NCAA title, even if you are from the CHA.

In 2005, would you rather be a Red Sox or a Yankee fan? Sure the Yanks won a bunch of titles. But do you think that Yankee fans enjoyed any single one of them as much as Red Sox fams enjoyed this year's series victory?[/q]

Less wear and tear vs more playing opportunites? I think only the players & coaches could answer that one. Maybe they have since there doesn't seem to be any public campaigning by the coaches and players to add the games to their schedule.

It's interesting looking at a few other sports (based on a nano-sample): Cornell's wrestling NC, Travis Lee, wrestled 38 matches this year. Oklahoma's NC, Teyon Ware, wrestled 35 matches, and Michigan's NC, Ryan Bertin, wrestled 32 matches. The men's basketball team played their first game on Nov. 12th, 4 days before Elite 8 Arizona's first game and a week before the Big East's Seton Hall played their first game. Factoring out pre-season tournaments (which can be found on almost any big-time program's schedule) and post-season conference tournaments, Cornell played 26 games while Arizona & Seton Hall each played 27 games. Then, in the fall, there's football, where the Big Red play fewer games than most good high school teams. In the end, it doesn't matter. Coach will do what he has to do to get his team ready, and the players will play, and the schedule will be what the schedule will be.

Red Sox...Yankees? I'm not going to touch that one.

[Q]But I did take exeption to your suggestion that once a team becomes successful, no fans enjoy winning anymore.[/Q]

That's a bit too much hyperbole. Rather, the first in a string is likely the *most* enjoyable.

And while we were favored in 03, maybe underdog isn't the right word. We had something to prove. Like it or not we were still the EZAC in the eyes of many until we won something, so to me that adds a bit of *underdog* status.

[Q]As far as strength of OOC games: Look everyone wants a shot at the "good" schools. Not everyone can play them. Demanding that "we're good now, why are we even bothering with these crappy teams" is showing a bit of elitism. Keep going, and you'll pull out arguments to form 1-A and 1-AA divisions, and while you're at it you'll take away the CHA and AHA auto-bids. Remember that Michigan, Ohio St., and Cornell all went through HORRIBLE stretches.[/Q]

That was basically my point.

And re the whole Sox-Yanks reference, I'm not taking sides here on who's better etc...just that I think it would be hard to dispute that winning for the first time in 86 years was more exciting/memorable/whatever then winning say for the third year in a row.

This year's pat's championship was a blast, but it certainly wasn't as much fun as the first of the three, when we were not expected to win and hadn't seen a title of any sort around here in ages. This year we just expected to win. SO it was fun to live up to that, but just not as much of an emotional high. I'm sure the players themselves would disagree, but I'm speaking from a fan's perspective.

[Q]Less wear and tear vs more playing opportunites?[/Q]

Just pointing out the flip-side. Absoluteley something to be learned from more playing experience....but there should be less opportunity to get injured/beat up etc.

[Q]abmarks Wrote:
p.s. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun to root for if we had a Michigan type situation. Having gone to grad school at UM (Scersk lets see if you agree with this) it's just not as much fun when the suspense isnt there. There's something to being the underdog that adds to the experience. I was at Michigan from 97-99 and was in Boston to watch UM beat BC in OT for the NCAA title. It was fantastic.[/q]

Well, I think my perspective on the situation is a little different:

I went to three or four Michigan hockey games during seven years in Ann Arbor.

I don't know. For a long time there, I just couldn't stand anything to do with "Go Blue" and Michigan athletics. Everything felt so, well, corporate. As far as I'm concerned, the only things Michigan has going for it are Yost and a reasonably loud student section. The latter is, while loud, horrendously uncreative. Don't even get me started on the Pep Band. For as much praise as gets ladeled all over their Pep Band, you would think they'd be good. They're not: their arrangements suck, since they're the same as the Marching Band's patented "lack o' soul" arrangements; they don't travel; they're not student run; and their enthusiasm during games leaves a lot to be desired. What cinched it, for me, were the Bizarro Lynah cheers. Everything I was familiar with was roboticized or Midwestern-ized. "One, two, three, four! We want *moooooooooooooorrrrreeeeee* goals! Sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve! It's all your fault! It's all your fault! It's all your fault! [Cowbell]"

I can't begin to intimate how much it has disturbed me to hear Lynah's goal cheer mutate into a similarly regimented number of "sieves" and "faults." I was worried for a while, but now I don't think Lynah can ever go truly corporate. We should all thank our lucky stars for our tradition of liberal education, our tradition of contrariness, and the tradition of student run organizations at Cornell.

If Michigan hadn't been so corporate feeling, I probably would've gone to more games. I could imagine myself going to grad school at, say, oh, I don't know, Northern Michigan--though I would never have gone there--and watching hockey. Still, the feelings you develop for your grad school never compare to those for your alma mater. The lack of enthusiasm you described, Arik, is not due to your expectations but due to the mental work of substitution: I'm sure that, while watching Michigan winning that championship, more than once you wished those sweaters would turn from maize and blue to carnelian and white.

After a while, I loosened up a bit. It was easier to cheer for Michigan football since Cornell will never play them. There was also a lot of drinking involved. I even grew to like Ann Arbor and now feel somewhat nostalgic for my old stomping grounds. But Ann Arbor will never compare to Ithaca, and Michigan will never compare to Cornell.

So, I guess my answer is this: if by a "Michigan situation" you mean constantly being a top team and periodically winning national champoinships, even as a so-called "favorite," I think I could get used to that; if by a "Michigan situation" you mean becoming a virtually soulless corporate machine while constantly being a top team and winning national championships, I could never get used to that. I don't think that "Red Sox-Yankees" obtains. Certain factors, as I mentioned above, affect Cornell hockey fandom that would transform the idea of a dynasty. Look back at those articles I mined out of the Crimson: I believe that our fans, during the late 60s dynasty period, were as generally respected, or envied, as we are now.

Scersk-

Ann Arbor will never compare to Ithaca, nor Michigan to Cornell, you're right. I think I should have taken more careful time to make clear what I meant.

I grow up in Burlington VT and attended almost every UVM game from the time I was 5 until I got out of high school. THen on to Ithaca, and later on to UM. I was lucky to have been able to go to what have been widely considered three of the best barns in the country. (I won't try and rank them against each other.) ANd yes, I wish it had been CU (or UVM) winning the title rather than UM.

I never meant to say I had any lack of enthusiasm for Michigan games though. I loved Michigan hockey. I flew from Ann Arbor to Boston, skipped clasees and interviews just to see them in teh Frozen Four. I went bananas when we won the final in OT. On a scale of 1 to 10, call it a 9. If Cornell had done the same it would be a 12 on the 10 scale. Part of my post also came from observing closely people who had been UM hockey fans for years. SUre they relished every title, but they expected it. ANd that takes a bit of the edge off IMHO.

And yes, I meant *michigan situation* as being a perennial national contender. I was not getting into your soulless corporate version of things. (And by the way, just as there are CU chants used at Michigan, we stole some of theirs too, search the archives on ELF - I've posted long details of that since I was there for the theft). Sure I'd love it if Cornell was a perennial contender. But in reality that's unlikely unless we leave the Ivy League. All I was pointing out was that each title we might win would have more meaning as things stand now. Win once every thirty years and it's a huge victory. Win every four or five and it's not quite so new and exciting. Not unexciting, just a bit less so.

That's all a long way of saying that since we are at a competitive disadvantage with no scholarships, arena size, location, game schedule etc. and I don't think any of that will change anytime soon, realize that getting to the top against this adversity is all the sweeter for it.

Arik,

First of all, I have a distaste for the "corporateness" of Michigan athletics, not for the fans, the teams, and such. But there are a couple of exceptions:

1) I think their Pep Band and Marching Band are completely soulless and not worthy of the praise ladeled on them. I see them as walking, breathing extensions of the Michigan athletic department's cold, clammy, money-grubbing hands. Boring, boring, boring and without an ounce of spirit. I have no idea why a student would want to join other than a misguided idea that it's the cool thing to do.

2) I think Berenson could be a much more articulate member of the college hockey community. I think, in general, he does what he has to do. Maybe he wishes he could do something else? Who knows. The man is tight lipped. At least he's come out very strongly against players leaving without finishing their educations.

Now, I think it's great that you could "get into" Michigan hockey while you were out there. I remind you that I myself have cheered very strongly for the Michigan football team, an arguably even more corporate arm of the machine. I had very little in my experience which compares to Ann Arbor on a football Saturday. I enjoyed it immensely. I plan to see some games in the future, and I'll always cheer for the maize and blue on the field. I can't rationally explain the dissonance between that statement and what I'm about to write.

Regarding hockey, there was just too much experience with Cornell hockey that comes to bear. You grew up in Burlington; I grew up in Lansing... NY. My family has had season tickets since 1988. That's 18 years of association, more than half my life. (Same as you, I believe. You graduated in '91, no? You're hanging around half your life yourself.) I saw my first game in 1985, a 5-4 win over Western Ontario, from the middle of section A. I saw Schafer and Nieuwendyk play, though I don't remember it. Cornell hockey is an ingredient in the glue (or grout, "Grout it out loud!" that binds together my memories of my childhood, my teenage years, my college years, and whatever the hell years I'm in now.

I have always seen Michigan as a rival, not an alternative. (Remember that we played them my junior year, '96, and it was a turning point in that season.) Michigan won the national championship my junior year and made the final four my sophomore and senior years. As far as I was concerned, they were the evil empire. I desperately wanted us to play and beat them. I still do.

Now, I didn't mean to suggest that you're some traitor for being able to enjoy a Michigan hockey game. That's just stupid. I know where your loyalties lie, and I know for whom you would cheer should the two teams meet in the future. My inability to enjoy Michigan hockey was simply part of an overall anhedonia that characterizes my first few years in Ann Arbor. Your ability to enjoy Michigan hockey just means that you were in a much better "place" during your years than I was. During those first years, I was incredibly homesick. Going to a hockey game would've just made it worse. Eventually, I found my way out.

But there is something to this "corporateness." I think it's what encourages fans to "expect" titles and such. If we ever become a perennial contender, which I think we are precariously close to becoming right now, I will never expect it. Every title will be a gift from hockey heaven. I hope that Cornell fans will always feel that way.

As far as I'm concerned, Cornell hockey is on a crusade. Look at squeakball: other than Duke, a basketball program with striking similarities (except for those pesky scholarships) to what Schafer is trying to do at Cornell, you have to go back to Villanova in '85 to find a non-city/state school. Now look at hockey: LSSU in 1994 and then only BC and Denver since. Harvard was the last non-scholarship win in 1989. If we win a few national championships, it will be incredibly good for the sport, reminding all the smaller schools out there that they still have a chance vs. the tendrils of "corporatism" in college athletics. The Clarksons, CCs, RPIs, and Mercyhursts of the world will be buoyed by our success. Talk of the Big Ten Hockey Conference will cease. There will be peace in the Middle East. Famine will be eradicated. Etc.

Once we win a championship (or five), or if Michigan goes through a down period, I'll let up on Michigan hockey a bit. Until then, I just can't. And it'll only be a bit.

[Q]But there is something to this "corporateness." I think it's what encourages fans to "expect" titles and such. If we ever become a perennial contender, which I think we are precariously close to becoming right now, I will never expect it. Every title will be a gift from hockey heaven. I hope that Cornell fans will always feel that way. [/Q]

That's what I was trying to say in a nutshell!


Also, for whoever disputed the notion of Cornell as an underdog there's this quote from the Ithaca Journal yesterday...

[Q] "Even though we were in first place in our league and we won the ECAC title, we've kind of been underdogs the whole time. People look at our league and say we've beaten weaker teams, and stuff like that. So I think we have something to prove no matter who we play..." - Matt Moulson [/Q]


[www.theithacajournal.com]

[Q]JasonN95 Wrote:
And I disagree with RatushnyFan's argument. I don't think one or two more tough opponents before Xmas break is going to have you more prepared for the NCAAs. Its the season as a whole that is important and is dominated, especially down the final stretch, by conference games and there's nothing Cornell can do to alter that scheduling.

It seems like Cornell's scheduling is working just fine: they are putting up staggering stats and W-L records that get them noticed and talked about in the media and qualifying for the NCAAs.
[/q]
I will believe this until the day I die. Having a new Union in the conference (QU) is going to exacerbate the schedule strength issue in my view. I'm sure that Schafer wants to play the best and that logistics and economics get in the way. I wish that he'd relax the reciprocity line to get a tougher schedule but I know that a lot of you will disagree. I enjoyed watching Cornell play Michigan in '97 at Yost even though I don't think they got a home game the following year.

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
2) I think Berenson could be a much more articulate member of the college hockey community. I think, in general, he does what he has to do. Maybe he wishes he could do something else? Who knows. The man is tight lipped. At least he's come out very strongly against players leaving without finishing their educations.
[/q]
I'm not sure I agree. I went to Michigan for grad school from '95-'97 and have closely followed them since. Red tells it like it is. He could probably be coaching in the NHL if he wanted to (already has) or be retired. He simply has a passion for college hockey and Michigan. He's good for a quote and he's honest about his players in the press. Really cares about academics over hockey goals as you've said - witness his consistent comments about players leaving early, the value of an education, and benching players who aren't getting it done in the classroom (Bobby Hayes, Mike Legg, etc.). I'm not sure where your view comes from ........... seems to me he is the epitome of what a college hockey coach should be.

Michigan/Ann Arbor will never be Cornell/Ithaca, but it certainly doesn't suck. Yost is great, Red always has them playing well come tournament time (what happened against CC is unprecedented), and the atmosphere is the second best in the country in my view. I've been to a lot of rinks in my day. And there's nothing like winning a national championship. Nothing. Most of you wouldn't know unless you're old timers or have also gone to another school. I can't get that excited about conference tournaments. Can't wait for Cornell to break through and win one. It will come.

Eric H. '92

As the third member of this list who went this route, let me jump in. Michigan hockey wasn't always like this. I was there in 72-78 and the fall I arrived was persuaded by a friend who'd gone to Brown to go halves on a season ticket. I'd been warned not to expect much, but I had no idea... This was hockey purgatory. Games were played in a small, scuzzy, out-of-the way rink, play was uninspired, and the coaching staff seemed as if they were mailing it in. They had a small, but loyal fan base. Hockey was clearly an also-ran sport at U-M that no one knew much about except for people who loved the game. Going from the last of the Harkness years to watching a team that won all of 6 games that year was a hard landing.

Things changed for the better next year. Michigan hired a young, bright coach in Dan Farrell - who had spent time observing the Soviets and their training methods - and they moved the program to Yost. The first three of Farrell's teams had records of about .500, but this was such a huge improvement that it made Michigan hockey fans delirious and brought new fans into the building. Michigan couldn't skate with the likes of Herb Brooks' Minnesota or Bob Johnson's Wisconsin teams, but Farrell adopted a style of play - aggressive defense and a simple dump and chase offense - that allowed them to compete. They were almost always an underdog but were able to get it together often enough to pull off some impressive wins. I went to a Wisconsin game in 74 that they won 8-1 and that was regarded as a breakthrough game for the program. The Wisconsin goalie reportedly broke down as he left the ice, and Yost rocked.

In 76-77, when the team had four of Farrell's recruiting classes on board, they went 28-17 and made it to the NCAA finals, where they lost to Wisconsin in OT. The Frozen Four was in Detroit that year, and I went to the semis to see U-M - again an underdog - beat a BU team with Davie Silk and Jim Craig in goal 6-4. If I couldn't see Cornell do this, watching Michigan do it was the next best thing. However, at the beginning of the game, I had some bad flashbacks. I hadn't seen a Cornell game in five years, and watching a fast eastern team in red and white competing against Michigan's blue-collar game reminded me of how much I missed eastern hockey. I had to remember that this was BU on the ice, and that I really did want to see them lose.

So, Scersk, this was a very different experience from yours. It was hugely fun and different from the Berenson years. I've continued to follow the Michigan program and enjoy their successes, remembering where they had started, but was confronted with my ultimate nightmare two years ago when both Michigan and Cornell got to the Frozen Four. What if... It didn't take long to decide what color I bleed, and I've never been able to muster quite as much enthusiasm for Michigan hockey since then. I'm even looking forward to the day when Schafer is able to corner Berenson.

1 day until the Hobey announcement.

191 days until the Red-White game
198 days until the CU-Nat game
204 days until the Michigan State game

It's a LOOONG summer.

[www.twissbrooks.org]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Cornell hockey is on a crusade. Look at squeakball: other than Duke, a basketball program with striking similarities (except for those pesky scholarships) to what Schafer is trying to do at Cornell, you have to go back to Villanova in '85 to find a non-city/state school. Now look at hockey: LSSU in 1994 and then only BC and Denver since. Harvard was the last non-scholarship win in 1989. If we win a few national championships, it will be incredibly good for the sport, reminding all the smaller schools out there that they still have a chance vs. the tendrils of "corporatism" in college athletics. The Clarksons, CCs, RPIs, and Mercyhursts of the world will be buoyed by our success. Talk of the Big Ten Hockey Conference will cease. There will be peace in the Middle East. Famine will be eradicated. Etc.[/q]I agree with what you said, Scott, but I'm confused by the part I underlined. Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?

[q]Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?[/q]They are both private. JSo is the University of Pennsylvannia if you were wondering.

Well, in order to clear things up, I'll just go through the last few champs and say who I think is a "good guy" and who I think is part of the problem:

2004  Denver             Good
2003  Minnesota          Bad
2002  Minnesota          Bad
2001  Boston College     Bad?
2000  North Dakota       Bad
1999  Maine              Bad
1998  Michigan           Bad
1997  North Dakota       Bad 
1996  Michigan           Bad  
1995  Boston University  Good?
1994  Lake Superior      Good
1993  Maine              Bad
1992  Lake Superior      Good
1991  Northern Michigan  Good
1990  Wisconsin          Bad
1989  Harvard            Good (crap!)

In general, I think that I tend to harbor ill feelings towards large public universities that dominate their respective states. (Gee... I wonder why...) (Obviously, I have fewer ill feelings for public/privates, but I digress.) The financial advantages these schools build up through, often, their football and basketball teams allow their hockey programs to operate in relative autonomy from financial worries. Coupled with the almost robotic allegiances held by many of the states' citizens, this advantage creates an extremely favorable recruiting environment that makes it very hard for smaller, less-fortuitously located schools (LSSU, Cornell, Clarkson, etc.) to compete for recruits.

I don't like the attitude that says, "Well, I'm a gifted Minnesota hockey player, so, obviously, I'll go play for the Gophers, since they're abso-bleepin'-wonderful! You betcha! Plus they pay well." Similarly, I don't like the attitude that says, "I'm athletically gifted and pretty far from brain dead, obviously I'll go to Harvard because it's the best! Go Cantabs!" Neither do I like the attitude that says, "I'm catholic and smart, so I'll go to BC." I feel there's a lot of brainwashing going on in academia these days that a large, research-oriented university setting is what's right for everyone. If you're not going to Harvard, Michigan, or State U (or Cornell, for that matter) you're dropping out of society. Suffice it to say, that, having been on the inside of two of that type of institution, I have seen some of the disadvantages.

Anyway, that was all a bit beside the point. To address my list again: Denver is "good" because they are an old power returned, but not yet returned to being the biggest show in Colorado quite obviously (UofC and CSU), or even in Denver; BC and BU are toughies--BC athletics is the big show in the Boston collegiate scene, hands down, while BU is a question mark since, even though they are a traditional power, titles haven't exactly been dropping in Jackie-boy's lap; UND tips to the bad because they exert similar power over North Dakota circles as a Minnesota or Michigan, and I have an eastern bias; and LSSU and Northern Michigan, though state schools, are not the dominant state schools in Michigan by a pretty long stretch. However much it pains me to say it, and however much I would root against them at any juncture, I have to admit that another Harvard national championship would be one for the "good" guys. It's the non-scholarship thing. In fact, I think that I would actually root for Harvard against one of the "bad" guys.

So, that was a long way around to cover my feelings about rooting for Harvard. And, oh, by the way, one has to cheer for CC in the frozen four this year--longest drought without a championship of all the teams and a small private to boot!

But, now that I see they're going to lose today, I think you have a very tough choice between UND and Denver. I like the idea of a Denver win only because we all know what happened the last time Denver won two in a row...

(Hmmm... that would make this analogy--'67:'03::'69:'05::'70:'06. You see, in a more closely competitive collegiate hockey environment, one could well translate the '67 team's only slightly less than dominant championship performance into a 30-5-1 season and a semifinal loss. Similarly, the '69 team's crushing finals loss in hostile territory could translate into a crushing quarterfinal loss in hostile territory. How does one translate an undefeated team, though? I leave that up to the imagination.)

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?[/Q]
They are both private. So is the University of Pennsylvannia if you were wondering.[/q]Heh, yes, I knew Penn was private. I never can really say for sure about some schools though. Aren't BU and Michigan also private? (And LSSU not, given that they're a "State University"?)