Just in case you missed it...

Here's a piece on the Harvard-Cornell rivalry that ran on NHL.com a few weeks ago:

[nhl.com]

Mark, thanks, I had not seen that. It's a pretty good article, although N. Michigan will be mighty upset to learn that the '91 NCAA title went to Harvard.

Too bad an otherwise pretty good article had to be defaced with a picture of Mark Mazzoleni.

Nice article but I have to disagree, at least in part, with Schaeffer's assertion that the scholarship schools put "doubts in the minds" of recruits they are wooing. (The comment about being your own admissions office and financial aid office is also rather humerous.)

At Clarkson, for one, which I know about fairly well, and likely at least at some of the other ECAC non-Ivies, there is enough tradition (let's NOT say "mystique"...) and other positives, that the recruiter can sell the school on its merits and does not need to resort to being negative about another institution.

Besides which, most of these kids have done at least some research on their own by talking to others who have gone before them, etc, and know quite a bit about the schools they're considering. In most cases, their aware enough notto be swayed by negative stuff about other schools.

Schafer's comment about admissions and financial aid ("To me, there's no tougher job than an Ivy League assistant coach. I worked at a scholarship school, and it's easy. You're your own admissions boards and your own financial aid board." is dead spot on. Anyone who tells you differently is simply in denial--and how many times have we heard that song before.

I can't speak to Clarkson specifically, RichS, and it may be that the Clarkson program is purer than Ivory soap, but I would think that it is natural to try and run down your rivals on the recruiting trail. I don't think that Schafer meant any offense by it (and may have been sort-of confessing to doing the same thing at WMU).

Its really an over-simplification on Schaefer's part, perhaps to make his point more strongly. I don't doubt that recruiting at an Ivy is difficult, and we know it has its "non-scholarship" challenges but...to say its "easy" at a scholarship school is not "dead spot on" in the slightest! To say so is absurd.

The notion that a recruiter or a head coach at a non Ivy, ECAC scholarship school can circumvent the Admissions and, Financial Aid departments as some kind of a one man show is inaccurate. I'm not claiming that Clarkson's program is "purer than Ivory snow" and I never have, but then neither are the Ivy programs in this regard...as we all know...and should admit to!

What I do know factually from my Clarkson experience is that there are often questions, issues, etc regarding aid and admissions that inviolve plenty of other people, including alumni, beyond the coaching staff. I would think it's much the same at the other non Ivy ECAC schools.

Let's just say at some schools it's more "easy" than others.

Remember, Mike's non-Ivy recruiting experience was at a non-ECAC school.

I agree with that. It's the ECAC schools I'm most familiar with. And I assure you that it's not "easy" recruiting at Clarkson.

RichS wrote:

And I assure you that it's not "easy" recruiting at Clarkson.

I'd believe that. I mean, you have to convince a recruit to spend four years in Potsdam.

Amen Josh. You took the words right out of my mouth.

RichS wrote:

I agree with that. It's the ECAC schools I'm most familiar with. And I assure you that it's not "easy" recruiting at Clarkson.

Being primarily an engineering school, I think we'd all be willing to stipulate to that...even Al, even when coming from you, Rich.

But seriously, I think Al's comment was looking more broadly at D1 hockey as a whole, rather than a slight aimed at scholarship, non-Ivy ECAC programs because, in the end, even if they aren't Ivy caliber, the vast majority of ECAC schools are head and shoulders above most of the rest of the D1 programs, academically.

Moreover, while I don't think other ECAC schools would knock the Ivies in terms of workload during recruiting, I'm not as willing to conceed that assistant coaches in other leagues wouldn't. Personally, I think you should always go to the most selective school that accepts you. But not everyone looks at it that way. You don't think a BC or Michigan recruit for whom Cornell or Harvard are a reach but still has a shot at being accepted are reminded by an assistant coach about "how hard it will be to balance schoolwork with D1 athletics?"

Maybe not the best example, but I can't help but think of my brother-in-law. He was recruited by Miami, Nebraska and Syracuse, among others, to play offensive tackle. He ended up choosing Syracuse in spite of it being a lesser program footballwise because it was a better education even though he would actually need to work for his grades (at least compared to Nebraska and Miami.) At 18 years old, I can see a lot of guys choosing to go the easy route, particularly if you thought you we gonna go pro and not need your degree. (The postscript on my brother-in-law is that he quit football in spite of being a NFL prospect after having 2 separate season ending injuries, both of which he came back from. He is now an auditor with KPMG. )

Right...and that's so much more difficult than convincing a kid to spend 4 years in Ithaca.

Actually, for a lot of the recruits, being in Potsdam, or Canton, is a big plus since they are that much closer to home, specifically, the Ottawa and Toronto areas.

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

But seriously, I think Al's comment was looking more broadly at D1 hockey as a whole, rather than a slight aimed at scholarship, non-Ivy ECAC programs because, in the end, even if they aren't Ivy caliber, the vast majority of ECAC schools are head and shoulders above most of the rest of the D1 programs, academically.

Exactly right, John.

My sense is Rich went too far in one direction in pooh-poohing Mike's statement and I went too far in the other rebutting Rich's. Seems to me we're in tune on this issue now.

The admissions/aid situation will always be an obstacle for the ECAC to overcome in maintaining (regaining?) competitiveness.

Wow Josh, I had typed in almost the exact same thing, but decided not to post it to give our friend from the North Country a little break. Always nice to have someone else who's willing to say what everyone else is thinking.

RichS wrote:

Right...and that's so much more difficult than convincing a kid to spend 4 years in Ithaca.

Actually, for a lot of the recruits, being in Potsdam, or Canton, is a big plus since they are that much closer to home, specifically, the Ottawa and Toronto areas.

Your point about being closer to home is a valid one.

That first sentence is a long version of "I'm rubber, you're glue."

Al,

Your last statement is oh so true...and I just have to smile....and then laugh, whenever ANY ECAC team gets as high as cornell is in the polls currently because the ECAC bashers generally have nothing more substantive to say than ...."they CAN'T be that good...they're from the EZAC!"

I recall hearing that a few years back when Clarkson climbed as high as # 2 or #3.

Of course, it would be so much more fun for us if an ECAC team at least gets to the championship game. Hopefully, this year!!

Mark Mazzoleni, Harvard's fourth-year coach: "it was a one-way rivalry. Now it's 50-50 who's going to win the game."

Mark old boy, if you'd like an even steven bet on who wins when Cornell comes to Lynah East, look me up (And I won't tell the Commish you bet on your team).

Tom

There may be two ECAC teams that could have a go at it this year. I'd prefer the other one were Clarkson.

Been a long time since we had a RichS-Al shootout, and it looks like this one's pretty amicable. I think the old guys are slowing down... (looks at his approaching 40th birthday and shuts up).

My favorite quote from the story:
[Q]"Coach has a vision for what the team needs to be," Moore said. "I think he has been frustrated at times because it's an ongoing process and we haven't been able to do it. He's real eager this year. For the first time, he believes we can be in the top of the country."[/Q]
It's my favorite quote because it gives us a small window to look into the hell that must be Mark Mazzoleni's life this season. The year that his team is finally playing well enough to be the clear #1 in many ECAC seasons... well enough to dominate the league like the Crimson teams of the late '80s and early '90s did...happens to be the year that many believe another team from the league has what it takes to blow away the rest of the nation, and is taking away his press. Not only that, but that other team is the one that everyone keeps hassling him about having a rivalry with. It's gotta be driving him crazy. It also explains why he's been such a pompous a-hole to the media. I hated Ron TomASSoni, but every time M-ASS-oleni opens his mouth in the press with the whole "Harvard is God's gift to college hockey" attitude, the more he elevates himself over his predecessor in the SOB category.

To illustrate, from [www.thecrimson.com]
[Q]"St. Lawrence, Clarkson and Cornell have pretty much done their yeoman’s share of staying at the top, but we need the Harvards of the world to be there."
--Mark Mazzoleni[/Q]
What an ass. F*** Harvard as well as rooting for them "for the good of the league." There are 11 other teams I can root for "for the good of the league."

This is why I am convinced the Cornell fans are the most obnoxious in college hockey. I have heard probably about 4 or 5 interviews with mazzoleni this season, and in every single one, he mentions, at least once, how good Cornell is and all that jazz... He has a right to think his team is the best around because they have 18 points in the ECAC and Cornell has 10. Granted, they have played five more games than Cornell, but until Cornell wins those games, Harvard will be in first. I also believe Harvard plays better nonconference teams than Cornell does, probably because of their proximity to the hotbed of HE, and the three games they have lost have all been to ranked teams at some point or another. Do you expect them to say, "we want to come in second because we know Cornell is going all the way and we know they are better than us?" Of course not, there is no reason to think they can't beat us next time we play them. Dartmouth beat us, but that doesn't mean they are better than us. At this point, I have no more reason to suspect that Cornell will make it to the FF any more than Harvard will. Just because a coach or player says he thinks his team has what it takes to win it all, it isn't intended as a disparagement to Cornell. I think Cornell fans should get their pompous heads out of the sand and start realizing that other teams have just as much of a shot as Cornell does. The games are won on the ice...

The Harvards ?

If I may quote from Saved By the Bell,

"North, South, East, or West, theres only one.....HARRRRRRRRRVARD"

(in response to the Stansbury (read:Stanford) college recruiter calling them the Harvard of the west)

Jason,

Just so you are in the "know," Harvard plays the #16 strongest schedule and Cornell plays the #4 schedule (Non-conference games ARE included in that schedule).

Chill-out and go drink a beer. . .

Well, Rich might have been a little zealous in his statements (my feelings about Mazz fall somewhere in the "luke warm" to "mildly put off" range depending on the day) but I agree to a degree in that often after reading quotes by Mazz --for example, in the USCHO recap of this year's Cornell-Harvard game-- it strikes me that his praise of Cornell or other opposition is served up in a self-serving/piggybacking fashion. Rather than it being simply "They are good" it is "They are good but what is really important is that we every bit as good too". Maybe that's not a bad thing for a coach to be doing, but it can leave a sour taste in one's mouth when reading that stuff, for example (from the aforementioned recap):

"They're good at that [blocking shots]. That negates a lot of ability going through," Mazzoleni said.

and

"They move the puck well on the power play and we do," said Mazzoleni. "Both teams should have good special teams, we're good teams. Our penalty kill is getting better."

The first quote strikes me as a back-handed compliment and in the second the praise of Cornell feels like a pretense to say complimentary things about his own team. Maybe I just have a heightened sensitivity to this sort of thing when it's coming from the direction of Cambridge...

Jason, just as you have the right to think that Cornell fans are the most obnoxious in college hockey (especially considering many of us recently have ummm...asserted our presence on other boards), I have the right to think that Mazzoleni is the most obnoxious coach in college hockey...or at least in the East. I never demanded that he get down on his knees and proclaim to the hockey gods that Cornell is the greatest team to lace them up in the past 20 years and that his team isn't worthy of licking the bottom Coach Schafer's shoes. I don't even care if he makes comments about Cornell or not. His talented team is having a great season, and I never said that speaking about it is any disparagment to Cornell. I think most of us here would certainly agree that Harvard has the talent to make a lot of noise in the NCAAs, and has had that talent for a few years now. But the interviews *I* have read (which include the above quote I cited), as well as on-ice incidents such as his stick-chucking outburst last season at Lynah have led me to form my opinion, which is apparently different than yours. If you think that makes me obnoxious, then that's your prerogative.

And I couldn't agree more about the games being won on the ice. I just wish Mazz would realize that as well when he opens his mouth.

Edit: I agree with Jason N '95's entire post, but especially the bit about me being over-zealous in my first post. Like him, my opinion swings a bit, and I just happened to be caught in the nadir of my opinion of Mazzoleni.

Ok, so I have a question then. How in the world do you *objectively* determine the strength of a schedule you haven't played yet? Wouldn't you say you can't possibly know precisely what the empirical strength of a team is until the day you play them, because isn't strength determined by a team's performance? If strength of schedule is determined by the previous year's performances of the opposing teams, then it doesn't mean a damn thing, and if strength of schedule is an estimated determination based on an extrapolated manipulation of numbers, well, then that doesn't mean a damn thing either because hockey is a sport, and not an easily predictable one. So how is it determined before the schedule is actually played?

The way I see it, Harvard has some teams on their schedule, like Brown, BC, BU, and Maine, that have been ranked fairly high when Harvard played them, or will play them shortly (Beanpot). Cornell, OTOH, has played Ohio State, which I don't believe was really ranked, and Western Mich, which also wasn't ranked, out of conference. No, I did not forget about the BU games. But what other teams, as of yet, has Cornell beaten that were ranked, other than BU and Harvard, which was 14 at the time, I believe? I look at strength of schedule as being determined as we play the schedule, otherwise it's a bunch of stats, which don't mean a damn thing. True, we will play Maine, but unless we beat them, the Harvard tie against BC was more impressive. And we haven't seen what Harvard will do to Maine, yet. My point is, if you guys claim all these stats don't mean a damn thing in December, then don't use them to bolster your argument. I'm just looking at the teams' schedules as we play them, and right now, Cornell is knocking everyone's socks off, but Harvard is certainly holding their own as well.

as you said "the games are won on the ice."

so, to be "objective," the only stat you need is:

Cornell 5
Harvard 2

In this case, I do agree with Jason in terms of SOS. Harvard has done a great job in setting up an excellent OOC schedule, IMO. It's a little odd that BC and BU played Harvard, seeing as HU has a good shot at seeing these 2 teams anyway at the Beanpot. And the Badger showdown seems like a pretty good show as well with NMU and Wisc. the likely opponents. Having BU and Maine as common opponents is a good thing for the top of the ECAC.

BTW...reading Jason's posts get confusing to me as he uses "we" to refer to Cornell, when I have it in my mind that he's a Crimson representative...not just a sympathizer.

I assume he's talking about [slack.net] which has a strength of schedule measure for each team based on the performance so far this season of the teams they've played so far this season. There's another measure of schedule strength so far at [slack.net] and according to that Cornell's schedule is the 6th hardest and Harvard's is the 27th. The main reason for this seems to be that Harvard has played so many ECAC games, and much of the ECAC is doing pretty poorly overall. WMU may not be as strong as we'd hoped pre-season, but they're stronger than Clarkson and SLU so far.

You can see breakdowns of the two teams' schedules at [slack.net] and [slack.net]

Alright, so I just finally read the nhl.com article...

I didn't realize Murray was on Long Island for a couple years before college, anybody know where on the Island?

> but we need the Harvards of the world to be there."
> --Mark Mazzoleni

If the objection is primarily to this quote, it exactly mirrors what Mazzoleni said in the pregame before the Cornell game earlier this year. There he said that the league needs its traditional powers like Harvard and Cornell to be strong because the intensification of these rivalries allows all ECAC teams to gain in exposure and stature.

Note that Coach Schafer agreed with him 100%. I've heard this said in many sports about traditional rivals over the years, and I've heard every Cornell coach say it except for Coach McCutcheon, who tried from the beginning to play down the importance of the Harvard games (and we all know how well that worked out).

I don't know whether Mazzoleni is a jerk, but I do know that he and Schafer appear to be working together to improve the cache of Ivy hockey in particular and ECAC hockey in general. I wouldn't accuse him of hubris for the above quotation at least, since it's more of a cliche than anything else.

I believe he had relatives that lived there, so I think he lived with them and attended private school (Portledge School?) while playing for Apple Core, which was also Ryan's old team.

Greg,

That partial qoute was preceded by his referring to Clarkson, Slu, and Vermont (I think) having done "yeoman work....BUT". The implication is that the ECAC is better off when "the Harvards" and presumably "the Cornells" are at the top of the league. I gather thats what you were interpreting him to mean.

Frankly, I don't see the validity in that. I'd say that Clarkson and Slu are just as much "traditional powers" within the ECAC as anyone else. If he's concerned about the standing and image of the ECAC in the college hockey world, the issues are elsewhere...and improving image, etc isn't going to depend on Harvard or cornell winning more titles than the others.

Mazz needs to take off the Crimson tinted glasses.

I'm with Rich. Clarkson is nothing if not a traditional ECAC power. Saying it's better for the league to have Harvard at the top than Clarkson is like saying the CCHA is better off when Michigan rather than Lake State is making noise in the NCAAs.

Maybe it's more of an Ivy League thing than an ECAC thing. Ivy teams play less games throughout the year, and everyone knows that, so Harvard and Cornell (and of course the other four Ivies) have that added cross to bear when proving themselves on the national stage. What's good for the Ivies is certainly good for the ECAC as a whole--the fact that Ivy teams are currently dominating the ECAC standings (except for Princeton...damn you, pull your own weight! ) can only help the ECAC gain recognition, I believe.

(Note that as I make this post, I am going on only a few hours of interrupted sleep and I'm in the midst of having a fight with my girlfriend, so if this isn't coherent, I apologize.)

Ivies at the top of the ECAC is certainly good for the league in on regard: it means we don't have to listen to the nonsense about the Ivies holding down potential Hockey East powerhouses like Clarkson and Vermont.

Yeah right...the day Clarkson moves to Hockey East, I'll be a millionaire.

Seriously though, how is the ECAC any better off if Ivies dominate? The league hardly suffered when UVM, Slu, and Clarkson were at the top, and also Colgate for awhile.

The general greater name recognition attached to Ivies doesn't extend to college hockey, as far as I can tell.

That msg was pretty coherent...me thinks you need to pay more attention to that squabble with your girlfriend!

The league doesn't suffer when the Clarksons and SLUs and UVMs are at the top, but when that happens there is always a segment of the unwashed masses that starts spouting crap about the Ivies holding the ECAC back. At least when the Ivies are at the top, you don't hear that. That's all he was saying.

Thank you, Age, for clarifying my point.


[Q]That msg was pretty coherent...me thinks you need to pay more attention to that squabble with your girlfriend! [/Q]
I was already in the middle of composing that post when the fight started, Rich. AIM just isn't the proper battlefield in which to have a lovers' quarrel.

College hockey should be nice to the Ivies.

To also quote Saved By The Bell (the best show ever!):
"Class of 2003, Be kind to geeks, nerds and dweebs. Ten years from now, they'll be the ones with all the money!" - Screech

(Video time capsule episode)

Jason, assuming the subjective rankings at the current time define strength of schedule (which I strongly disagree with):

Teams Cornell has beaten that were ranked at the time of game:
Harvard, Ohio State, BU (twice), Brown.

Teams Harvard has beaten that were ranked at the time of game:


Both schools have Maine on their schedule coming up. So what's your point?

RichS,

Here's what I'm assuming.

Mazz: "The ECAC is better off when Harvard is winning, because the name recognition brings more respect to the league."

Morris/Palmer/whoever: "The ECAC is better off when Clarkson is winning, because the continuing presence of traditional powers in the tourny from year to year brings more respect to the league."

Quesnelle: "The ECAC is better off when Princeton is winning, because spreading the spoils around brings more respect to the league."

Taylor: "Huh? What? Gridlock!!!"