Air Force

In case anyone's missed it, Air Force is still undefeated and untied. They knocked off CC last night and play Denver tonight. After that the best team on the schedule is... Yale.

I found this article on Air Force recruiting fascinating: [www.denverpost.com]

In sum, Serratore recruits guys who all come in at 20+ years old (average age on the roster is 23.6), knowing that these are the last four years of their hockey career. They aren't blue chippers but they are a bunch of solid, older hockey players. The physical and mental maturity gives them an edge against teams stocked with teen draft picks.

Serratore
I don't want boys. We can't play against teams like these with boys. We need to be deep, and we need to be old.

Denver is up 1-0 early in the 3rd.

Check that. AF just tied it up.

And now 2-1 Denver.

CowbellGuy
Check that. AF just tied it up.

Even if AF ends up losing this game I think this weekend is going to convince everyone that their gaudy record isn't a mirage.

CowbellGuy
And now 2-1 Denver.

What the hell? Did both teams pull their goalies?

DU 4, Air Force 1 final. AF held onto their unbeaten streak just one day longer than we did, but definitely showed they can compete with some of the best in the country with the win over CC last night.

and for at least one more year, Cornell has the only hockey team to go both undefeated and untied in a season

Cornell11
and for at least one more year, Cornell has the only Division 1 Men's National Champion hockey team to go both undefeated and untied in a season

Minnesota and Clarkson have both gone undefeated in a season. Minnesota's was before the NCAA title era, and Clarkson chose not to go to the NCAAs because they (knowingly) used players who were eligible under the conference rules but not the NCAA tournament rules.

I find the "so called" Clarkson undefeated team interesting. Clarkson used eight Freshmen all year during an era when freshmen were not eligible under NCAA rules. In my opinion that makes the entire season meaningless under the prevailing rules in college sports. They were AN undefeated team but not an undefeated team under the prevailing rules in college sports. However, one could argue that playing freshmen while others were not, was probably not an advantage. It is certainly not the otherwise equally unqualified equivalent of using higher level unqualified players such as semi-pro or pro players. Did I say that right? In any event, I don't think they qualify as an undefeated NCCA hockey team, despite what Clarkson fans would like to think.

Robb
Minnesota's was before the NCAA title era,

This is legit.

Robb
and Clarkson chose not to go to the NCAAs

Tough. A team that sits out an entire season is also trivially undefeated and untied. A team that plays in a conference so bad that it has no auto bids and that doesn't get an at-large bid could also theoretically finish undefeated and untied. For the same reason, neither of these would count.

Kyle

Redscore
I find the "so called" Clarkson undefeated team interesting. Clarkson used eight Freshmen all year during an era when freshmen were not eligible under NCAA rules. In my opinion that makes the entire season meaningless under the prevailing rules in college sports. They were AN undefeated team but not an undefeated team under the prevailing rules in college sports. However, one could argue that playing freshmen while others were not, was probably not an advantage. It is certainly not the otherwise equally unqualified equivalent of using higher level unqualified players such as semi-pro or pro players. Did I say that right? In any event, I don't think they qualify as an undefeated NCCA hockey team, despite what Clarkson fans would like to think.

Weren't the eligible players Seniors who were in their 4th varsity season? They had played as Freshmen in 52-53.


Edit: I meant "ineligible".

You are correct. My memory failed me. I think that makes it a bit worse.

Robb
Clarkson chose not to go to the NCAAs because they (knowingly) used players who were eligible under the conference rules but not the NCAA tournament rules.

IIRC, in at least one of the "magic years" between 1967 and 1970, Cornell had to play without a significant player in the NCAAs because of eligibility requirements.

Trotsky
IIRC, in at least one of the "magic years" between 1967 and 1970, Cornell had to play without a significant player in the NCAAs because of eligibility requirements.

Dick Bertrand was ruled ineligible for the 1970 NCAA tournament, I believe because he was too old. He was something like 28 at the time. I'm not sure, but I think this ruling was issued a few days before the tournament began and was not a known issue.

And they were knocked off tonight by Quinnipiac. It's easy to win a lot of games when you play a weak schedule.

lynah80
And they were knocked off tonight by Quinnipiac. It's easy to win a lot of games when you play a weak schedule.

Clearly it's not that easy if they just lost.