Cornell 4 St. Lawrence 3 (ot)

I'll give you a topic. The St. Lawrence announcers suck. Discuss.

Trotsky
I'll give you a topic. The St. Lawrence announcers suck. Discuss.

I chalked it up mostly to jealous petulance. It was amusing in the beginning when it began in earnest, but then it got ridiculous with wanting phantom penalties (elbowing, other than Bardreau's almost call (I could not see that clearly enough to say whether that should have been called or not), etc.), it became entirely idiotic when they made it seem like Cornell hockey was about being crooked and taking cheap shots.

Big win. I'd imagine Cornell can't afford to lose another game before late in the ECAC tournament if they want an at-large bid, so this keeps them alive for that as well as for the number one seed in the ECAC. Big play from the seniors but they still haven't been able to shore up the defense and continue to blow leads.

Agree. And we just have to focus better in our own zone. On SLU's 3rd goal, our man (didn't see who) took a pass at the half wall standing still. He stopped the puck and then took his stick off the ice, so the puck was just sitting there in front of him for the SLU player to scoop up, walk in alone, and score. He needs to take that pass in stride OR one-touch it out of the zone - no messing around!

two shots at first next week.. win both or tie/win and union loses to colgate.. I win is probably needed to help the PWR out to keep those hopes alive. wonder what our record would look like if game were only 50 min long?

The only way I can see us getting at large bid is if we win both games next weekend (ties won't cut it) and then make it to Atlantic City. Even if we do that, we still might need to win the ECAC Tournament.

At one point the guy said something to the effect that the officials were afraid to make a call against Cornell.

Ummmmm, Mr. Playbyplay-

1. The game was on SLU home ice, and
2. Schafer wasn't coaching.

What's to be afraid of???

Just noticed that with Colgate's loss, we've clinched at least 2nd. Not too shabby for what I expected to be more of a rebuilding season!

TimV
At one point the guy said something to the effect that the officials were afraid to make a call against Cornell.

Ummmmm, Mr. Playbyplay-

1. The game was on SLU home ice, and
2. Schafer wasn't coaching.

What's to be afraid of???

Omar is kept in a rubber suit in a cage below the bench at each game. At a signal from Topher, Marrozzi surreptitiously raises the latch.

Last time it took more than a month to find all the bits of a linesman, the ref, and three trustees.

With such power comes great responsibility.

TimV
At one point the guy said something to the effect that the officials were afraid to make a call against Cornell.

Ummmmm, Mr. Playbyplay-

1. The game was on SLU home ice, and
2. Schafer wasn't coaching.

What's to be afraid of???

Why wasn't Schafer coaching, by the way? I noticed that the absurd announcers said it, but didn't know why.

Trotsky

TimV
At one point the guy said something to the effect that the officials were afraid to make a call against Cornell.

Ummmmm, Mr. Playbyplay-

1. The game was on SLU home ice, and
2. Schafer wasn't coaching.

What's to be afraid of???

Omar is kept in a rubber suit in a cage below the bench at each game. At a signal from Topher, Marrozzi surreptitiously raises the latch.

Last time it took more than a month to find all the bits of a linesman, the ref, and three trustees.

With such power comes great responsibility.

What is Omar's preferred airline airport?

upprdeck
two shots at first next week.. win both or tie/win and union loses to colgate.. I win is probably needed to help the PWR out to keep those hopes alive. wonder what our record would look like if game were only 50 min long?

[According to JTW's script] tie/win won't do it. Have to beat Union Friday. With a tie/win and COL win Saturday, the teams tie on points and head to head. U has more conference wins.

So we need to beat Union and then match or exceed their Saturday points.

Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

marty

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

billhoward

marty

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

Aaron M. Griffin

billhoward

marty

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

Schott concludes exactly the same thing:

Winning the Cleary Cup would be nice. But having a healthy Grosenick ready for the ECACH tournament may be more important. If Grosenick's not 100 percent this coming week, give him the time off and play Stevens.

Aaron M. Griffin
Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

When your team has been a perennial bottom feeder throughout its D1 existence, I can see h finishing first will mean an awful lot. But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

KeithK
But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

While a regular-season title isn't completely meaningless, IM(NS)HO attaching any sort of significance to it for determining bids to or seedings in the NCAA tournament only makes sense if the various leagues play a completely balanced regular-season schedule, with each team facing every league opponent the same number of times, home and away. Currently the ECAC is the only league that does so.

KeithK

Aaron M. Griffin
Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

...I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

What are those? I might not need a history lesson in how abysmal Union's performances in Division I were until recently, but I am not sure what "Clarkson and CC rules" were.

Aaron M. Griffin

KeithK

Aaron M. Griffin
Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

...I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

What are those? I might not need a history lesson in how abysmal Union's performances in Division I were until recently, but I am not sure what "Clarkson and CC rules" were.

Both RS and PS champions got NCAA bids, if you won both you got a bye (back when there were 12 teams).

Not that Cleary's Cup (whichever way you want to take it) means anything, but beating us and finishing first does mean something for Union. Setting aside Keith's criticism, being first does give an advantage in both tourneys. The ECAC seeding giving supposedly easier games and "home ice rules" at Atlantic City. They would also have a reasonable chance of a decent seeding in NCAAs. If they were to also win the real cup, a second group seed in the NCAAs would be advantageous. So for me, unless sitting out this weekend really had a definite medical advantage, I'd play him.

Now to think back on all the posts from earlier in the year, this has been one great year. Sure there were a lot of games where we looked inept, but going back to the beginning of the year, I can't think anyone would have been unhappy with a guarenteed first or second place. And this in a rebuilding year. And remember, it's been a rebuilding year for the coaching staff as well. You don't break up a staff like we had without some bumps. For all who complained that Yale was leaving us behind, too bad. Complaining that we (meaning Coach Schafer) can't adjust to a more wide-open uptempo style, too bad.

Before we get to this year's tourney, let's look at the last 4 years.

     CU YA UN
2011  2  1 NS
2010  1 NS  2
2009  2  1 NS
2008  3 NS NS

Yes, those 2 losses to Yale were terrible, but I still like our longevity.

Get to the NCAAs or not, this has been a great year.

Aaron M. Griffin

KeithK

Aaron M. Griffin
Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

...I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

What are those? I might not need a history lesson in how abysmal Union's performances in Division I were until recently, but I am not sure what "Clarkson and CC rules" were.

Both rules date back to the 1990s, when there were only four leagues with auto-bids.

The Clarkson Rule was relevant when there were 12 teams in the tournament, and the top four teams got a bye. Any team which won its conference regular season and tournament titles automatically received one of the four byes, even if they were not in the top four according to the pairwise. It was called the Clarkson Rule because they were the team most expected to benefit from it; actually it was named before it existed, in 1995. There was a lot of controversy when someone suggested on an NCAA tournament conference call that such a rule might exist, but then backtracked. As it turned out, Clarkson got upset by Princeton in the ECAC semis, and RPI won the ECACs, so it didn't matter. I think it came into effect for the 1996 season, and the teams that ended up getting byes that they wouldn't have otherwise were BU in 1997 and Clarkson in 1999. It went away in 2002, when the MAAC (predecessor of Atlantic Hockey) qualified for an auto-bid, which was coincidentally the last year of the 12-team tournament.

The CC rule stated that the regular season champion from each conference was guaranteed an at-large bid if they didn't get an auto-bid. It's named for Colorado College, who missed the NCAAs in the early 90s after winning the McNaughton Cup and being upset in the WCHA tournament. I'm a little fuzzy on exactly when that happened, since it was just before I started following college hockey obsessively. It was also dropped when the MAAC got an auto-bid, because they certainly didn't want two MAAC teams in the NCAAs.

"Regular season champion" was always interpreted to be after the application of tiebreakers, i.e., #1 seed in the conference tournament.

I've got a lot of year-by-year explanations of how the process worked from about 1998 on. (I had to refer to some of them to refresh my memory.)

• seeding analysis 1996-1998
• seeding analysis for 1998
• procedure for 1998
• procedure for 1999
• etc

Lots of other fun history can be found in the HOCKEY-L archives

Give My Regards

KeithK
But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

While a regular-season title isn't completely meaningless, IM(NS)HO attaching any sort of significance to it for determining bids to or seedings in the NCAA tournament only makes sense if the various leagues play a completely balanced regular-season schedule, with each team facing every league opponent the same number of times, home and away. Currently the ECAC is the only league that does so.

I do agree that a balanced schedule means that a league RS standings provide more confidence in the results. However, the tournament at-large system uses a (by its very nature ) much more unbalanced system.

While t ECAC is the only league that is using a balanced schedule right now I suspect the Big Twelesix and UberConference will go the balanced route given their numbers.

Jim Hyla
Now to think back on all the posts from earlier in the year, this has been one great year.

I agree, but it's also been a quirky year, but I guess that's to be expected when there have been so many ties in the league. Here's a list of interesting facts:

* Cornell has only three ECAC losses all year (two of those to one team),
* The Men's team has one more ECAC loss than the dominant Women's team (2 tough Men's games remaining)
* 9 "non-wins" vs. 11 wins in the ECAC, 13 "non-wins" vs. 14 wins overall
* There has only been one game all season in which Cornell trailed for the final 10 minutes.
* There have only been two games all season in which Cornell never led.
* Cornell led after 2 periods in 15 of 20 ECAC games.
* Cornell trailed after 2 periods in 2 of 20 ECAC games.
* 10 of 27 games have gone to OT
* 40% of Cornell's goals allowed were PPGs. (25 of 61)
* In ECAC play, Cornell is #4 in scoring and #2 in defense (Union is #1 in both)
* Cornell has scored 5 SHGs (so far) to rank #2 in the league. Austin Smith also has 5.
* All but one of Cornell's losses were by 1 goal.

I'd sign up for a season with only 3-5 ECAC losses games most years. We never get blown out, even when we're overmatched. Our historic strengths (3rd period lockdowns and PK) have been our biggest weaknesses. Fix that, and this is a dominant team.

RichH

Jim Hyla
Now to think back on all the posts from earlier in the year, this has been one great year.

I agree, but it's also been a quirky year, but I guess that's to be expected when there have been so many ties in the league. Here's a list of interesting facts:

* Cornell has only three ECAC losses all year (two of those to one team),
* The Men's team has one more ECAC loss than the dominant Women's team (2 tough Men's games remaining)
* 9 "non-wins" vs. 11 wins in the ECAC, 13 "non-wins" vs. 14 wins overall
* There has only been one game all season in which Cornell trailed for the final 10 minutes.
* There have only been two games all season in which Cornell never led.
* Cornell led after 2 periods in 15 of 20 ECAC games.
* Cornell trailed after 2 periods in 2 of 20 ECAC games.
* 10 of 27 games have gone to OT
* 40% of Cornell's goals allowed were PPGs. (25 of 61)
* In ECAC play, Cornell is #4 in scoring and #2 in defense (Union is #1 in both)
* Cornell has scored 5 SHGs (so far) to rank #2 in the league. Austin Smith also has 5.
* All but one of Cornell's losses were by 1 goal.

I'd sign up for a season with only 3-5 ECAC losses games most years. We never get blown out, even when we're overmatched. Our historic strengths (3rd period lockdowns and PK) have been our biggest weaknesses. Fix that, and this is a dominant team.

Hear hear. It has been a great year.

if CU wins two games this weekend there is a good chance we move up 2-4 spots in the pwr, hard to complain about a one seed and a solid chance to get into the NCAA's. for team with issues we have had a pretty good year. the late leads vs union/colgate/CC and the no goal vs BU would have made it a really great year.

KeithK

Give My Regards

KeithK
But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

While a regular-season title isn't completely meaningless, IM(NS)HO attaching any sort of significance to it for determining bids to or seedings in the NCAA tournament only makes sense if the various leagues play a completely balanced regular-season schedule, with each team facing every league opponent the same number of times, home and away. Currently the ECAC is the only league that does so.

I do agree that a balanced schedule means that a league RS standings provide more confidence in the results. However, the tournament at-large system uses a (by its very nature ) much more unbalanced system.

While t ECAC is the only league that is using a balanced schedule right now I suspect the Big Twelesix and UberConference will go the balanced route given their numbers.

Actually, the NCHC already announced they plan to have a 24-game schedule with 8 teams, which will be unbalanced. (21 games would be 3/pair, and 28 would be 4/pair.)

Note that the at-large bids are based on an unbalanced schedule, but they don't use straight winning percentage like the RS championships do. Now, if the leagues would assign auto-bids based on in-conference KRACH...

jtwcornell91
The Clarkson Rule was relevant when there were 12 teams in the tournament, and the top four teams got a bye. Any team which won its conference regular season and tournament titles automatically received one of the four byes, even if they were not in the top four according to the pairwise. It was called the Clarkson Rule because they were the team most expected to benefit from it; actually it was named before it existed, in 1995.

I think part of the reason it was known as the Clarkson Rule was a carry-over from what happened to the Golden Knights in 1991. That year, they won the ECAC regular-season title (ouch, even 21 years later) and the ECAC tournament, and wound up with a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney. It was the first time in the 12-team-tournament era that a team that had won both titles had been seeded so low, and there was a lot of griping in certain ECAC circles about "lack of respect" or some such -- which clearly ignored the fact that the selection process at the time (mainly RPI, this was pre-PWR) clearly indicated that a 4 was pretty much where that team belonged.

The CC rule stated that the regular season champion from each conference was guaranteed an at-large bid if they didn't get an auto-bid. It's named for Colorado College, who missed the NCAAs in the early 90s after winning the McNaughton Cup and being upset in the WCHA tournament. I'm a little fuzzy on exactly when that happened, since it was just before I started following college hockey obsessively.

It was 1994. CC lost their first-round series to the #10 seed, and that was just enough to drop them out of NCAA tournament consideration, which caused a whole lot of pissing and moaning, and eventually led to the CC rule. I always found it hilarious that so much was made out of CC missing the NCAA tournament after winning the regular-season title when precisely the same thing happened to Harvard two years before (won the ECAC regular-season, lost in the first round to #10-seed RPI, left out of the NCAAs) and no one really cared. Then again, it was Harvard, so why would they have?

BTW, CC's 1994 season is a perfect example of why I'm against auto-bids for regular-season winners that play unbalanced schedules. In all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that followed CC's being left home for the 1994 NCAA tourney, no one bothered to mention that CC had won their title by one point over the second-place school (Minnesota, I think), and that thanks to the WCHA's unbalanced schedule CC had played the two weakest teams in the league four times each while the second-place team had played them twice each.

Give My Regards

jtwcornell91
The Clarkson Rule was relevant when there were 12 teams in the tournament, and the top four teams got a bye. Any team which won its conference regular season and tournament titles automatically received one of the four byes, even if they were not in the top four according to the pairwise. It was called the Clarkson Rule because they were the team most expected to benefit from it; actually it was named before it existed, in 1995.

I think part of the reason it was known as the Clarkson Rule was a carry-over from what happened to the Golden Knights in 1991. That year, they won the ECAC regular-season title (ouch, even 21 years later) and the ECAC tournament, and wound up with a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney. It was the first time in the 12-team-tournament era that a team that had won both titles had been seeded so low, and there was a lot of griping in certain ECAC circles about "lack of respect" or some such -- which clearly ignored the fact that the selection process at the time (mainly RPI, this was pre-PWR) clearly indicated that a 4 was pretty much where that team belonged.

The CC rule stated that the regular season champion from each conference was guaranteed an at-large bid if they didn't get an auto-bid. It's named for Colorado College, who missed the NCAAs in the early 90s after winning the McNaughton Cup and being upset in the WCHA tournament. I'm a little fuzzy on exactly when that happened, since it was just before I started following college hockey obsessively.

It was 1994. CC lost their first-round series to the #10 seed, and that was just enough to drop them out of NCAA tournament consideration, which caused a whole lot of pissing and moaning, and eventually led to the CC rule. I always found it hilarious that so much was made out of CC missing the NCAA tournament after winning the regular-season title when precisely the same thing happened to Harvard two years before (won the ECAC regular-season, lost in the first round to #10-seed RPI, left out of the NCAAs) and no one really cared. Then again, it was Harvard, so why would they have?

BTW, CC's 1994 season is a perfect example of why I'm against auto-bids for regular-season winners that play unbalanced schedules. In all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that followed CC's being left home for the 1994 NCAA tourney, no one bothered to mention that CC had won their title by one point over the second-place school (Minnesota, I think), and that thanks to the WCHA's unbalanced schedule CC had played the two weakest teams in the league four times each while the second-place team had played them twice each.

Thank you both for the historical background and perspective.

I find it odd that winning the regular season "championship" has no weight with the national postseason, but it is unfair to grant an autobid for regular season "champions" when conferences such as the CCHA and WCHA play unbalanced schedules. I would not have such an issue if every conference moved to playing balanced schedules. Otherwise, teams could load their schedule with arranging playing "rivals" who are of inferior quality to boost their point totals in their conference. (As an example, Michigan has played Michigan State five times this season and has received points for all those games while playing other teams in CCHA no more than four times). This problem will not go away anytime soon with NCHC playing unbalanced schedules in the future.

I do know that the B1G Hockey Conference will play a balanced hockey schedule. Each member will play every other member four times, two home and two away.

bnr24
Why wasn't Schafer coaching, by the way? I noticed that the absurd announcers said it, but didn't know why.

Coach Schafer told us last week he was taking the night off to go up to Ontario for his niece's wedding. It was the first time he's voluntarily missed a game as head coach. I recall he missed one on an away weekend following an injury, and had been suspended for at least one.

Aaron M. Griffin
I find it odd that winning the regular season "championship" has no weight with the national postseason, but it is unfair to grant an autobid for regular season "champions" when conferences such as the CCHA and WCHA play unbalanced schedules. I would not have such an issue if every conference moved to playing balanced schedules. Otherwise, teams could load their schedule with arranging playing "rivals" who are of inferior quality to boost their point totals in their conference. (As an example, Michigan has played Michigan State five times this season and has received points for all those games while playing other teams in CCHA no more than four times). This problem will not go away anytime soon with NCHC playing unbalanced schedules in the future.

I don't think even Red Berenson has the pull to manipulate league schedules that way. The unbalanced league slates usually rotate in some pre-determined fashion.

If it's unfair to award an auto-bid after an unbalanced RS championship it's really only unfair to the other teams in that league who might have had a better chance to win if the playing field was level. But they agreed to play that schedule so thems the breaks. It only affects teams in other conferences tenuously (changing the rankings for at large bids).

I just hate the whole attitude that the RS doesn't matter once you have a tourney bid locke up or that finishing first is meaningless. It shouldn't be.

Aaron M. Griffin
I do know that the B1G Hockey Conference will play a balanced hockey schedule. Each member will play every other member four times, two home and two away.

Figured that. But I forgot how many teams were in the NCHC. Eight teams makes home and home balanced difficult (it would eat up 28 of 34 possible games).

KeithK
If it's unfair to award an auto-bid after an unbalanced RS championship it's really only unfair to the other teams in that league who might have had a better chance to win if the playing field was level. But they agreed to play that schedule so thems the breaks. It only affects teams in other conferences tenuously (changing the rankings for at large bids).

That would be true if every conference got two guaranteed bids and could split them as they saw necessary, since how those two were parceled out would only affect those teams in that conference. But in this case a team could get one or two bids depending on how things played out, so a weak team whose weak schedule hot them the RS title would essentially be stealing an at-large bid from a team in another conference.

So, an interesting post by Ken Schott. Pizza Hut revenge?

Virus strikes Colgate
There must be something in the water, or food, up in the North Country that makes visiting hockey teams sick.

A virus struck 11 members of the Colgate hockey team before Saturday's game at Clarkson. The Raiders requested to have the game postponed a day, but it wasn't because it was Clarkson's Senior Night. Colgate tried to play through it, but it dropped a 2-1 decision to the Golden Knights.

"We didn't have our energy tonight, clearly," Colgate coach Don Vaughan told the Watertown Daily Times' Cap Carey. "I've never had this happen. We had 11 guys come down with a really violent stomach virus. Our trainer had it. One of our assistant coaches had it, and we have some guys who are getting it."

The virus that struck Colgate brought back to mind a food poisoning incident with Cornell about 12 years ago up in the North Country. And I unfortunately, had a similar experience up there. It's not fun.

I wonder what we'd do if it was our "Senior Night"? I wonder what Casey might have done if he had been at Cornell when we went through it?

I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

Exactly how I look at it, Ken. Two autobids per conference is one too many.

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

ugarte
I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.

I prefer giving the trophy to a team that does well in tournament-style play, but the ECAC tournament should be a single weekend, played among the top four regular season finishers only: make the regular season mean something.

Kyle Rose

ugarte
I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.

I prefer giving the trophy to a team that does well in tournament-style play, but the ECAC tournament should be a single weekend, played among the top four regular season finishers only: make the regular season mean something.

As if the E$A$ will ever do that!

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ugarte
I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.

I prefer giving the trophy to a team that does well in tournament-style play, but the ECAC tournament should be a single weekend, played among the top four regular season finishers only: make the regular season mean something.

As if the E$A$ will ever do that!

You mean the €¢£¢?

ugarte

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

I know when I'm being mocked without footnotes.

But I appreciate the effort.

ugarte

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season. That would be like calling the team with the most wins in the regular season in the NFL the champion and then just playing the Super Bowl for fun. The auto-bid is the award, just like the Lombardi Trophy is the award in the NFL.

jtn27

ugarte

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season. That would be like calling the team with the most wins in the regular season in the NFL the champion and then just playing the Super Bowl for fun. The auto-bid is the award, just like the Lombardi Trophy is the award in the NFL.

Actually, the Whitelaw Trophy is the award. But there are some cases where the regular season winner is considered the champion, e.g., most Ivy League sports, the McNaughton Cup over in the WCHA, most European soccer leagues... It's slightly unusual to use the standings of the regular season to seed a playoff and also consider the RS winner as the champion. (E.g., in English soccer, the Premiership is a sort of RS title, and there's a simultaneous FA cup, which is seeded mostly randomly and played concurrently with the premiereship season.)

jtn27

ugarte

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season.

Not that I don't think Keith is up to the task, but playing devil's advocate here, why not? In a balanced schedule, winning the regular season demonstrates that you were consistently the best team over the course of the long haul. You beat the other teams in the conference more often than any of the other teams did. Winning the conference tournament could just mean you got hot enough to win two games out of three three weekends in a row - or even two weekends in a row.

I think you think it makes no sense just because it's not how we do it now. But that's certainly how they do it in Ivy League basketball. Finish the regular season on the top of the standings? Boom. NCAA auto-bid.

Beeeej


I think you think it makes no sense just because it's not how we do it now. But that's certainly how they do it in Ivy League basketball. Finish the regular season on the top of the standings? Boom. NCAA auto-bid.

Key difference: No tournament in Ivy b-ball. If the regular-season winner gets the auto-bid, then just scrap the then-irrelevant tournament.

Ivy lacrosse, incidentally, is just the reverse. Win the regular season? You're Ivy champ, but no aut0o-bid. Win the tournament? Auto-bid.

Personally, I'm with Kyle, except maybe I'd allow six teams in the ECAC tournament, although four is also fine. Finish in the bottom half of the league? See ya next year.

I think six is a little silly because, although it represents the "top half" as you note, it still creates the same unwieldy bye system we have now. I think eight is a fine number, and I thought so back when it was eight (and thought ten was absolutely absurd), even on the rarest of occasions when that meant Cornell didn't make it.

Beeeej
I think six is a little silly because, although it represents the "top half" as you note, it still creates the same unwieldy bye system we have now. I think eight is a fine number, and I thought so back when it was eight (and thought ten was absolutely absurd), even on the rarest of occasions when that meant Cornell didn't make it.

I think 8 was ideal, particularly in a 12-team league. It used to be 8 when the ECAC had 17 teams! (But for that matter, the NCAAs used to just be 4.)

jtwcornell91
Actually, the Whitelaw Trophy is the award. But there are some cases where the regular season winner is considered the champion, e.g., most Ivy League sports, the McNaughton Cup over in the WCHA, most European soccer leagues... It's slightly unusual to use the standings of the regular season to seed a playoff and also consider the RS winner as the champion. (E.g., in English soccer, the Premiership is a sort of RS title, and there's a simultaneous FA cup, which is seeded mostly randomly and played concurrently with the premiereship season.)

The Barclays Premier League (cha-ching) is only a 'regular season'. Play everyone home and away, most points wins. It's by far the fairest system possible considering the time constraints of the football season. Playoffs are not the most accurate way of determining the best team, but they are a necessary instrument in college sports, where there are far too many teams for everyone to play everyone else. Of course, the ECAC doesn't need playoffs, but as stated above, it is all about the money.

Al DeFlorio

Beeeej


I think you think it makes no sense just because it's not how we do it now. But that's certainly how they do it in Ivy League basketball. Finish the regular season on the top of the standings? Boom. NCAA auto-bid.

Key difference: No tournament in Ivy b-ball. If the regular-season winner gets the auto-bid, then just scrap the then-irrelevant tournament.

Ivy lacrosse, incidentally, is just the reverse. Win the regular season? You're Ivy champ, but no aut0o-bid. Win the tournament? Auto-bid.

Personally, I'm with Kyle, except maybe I'd allow six teams in the ECAC tournament, although four is also fine. Finish in the bottom half of the league? See ya next year.

(I can't help myself.) If the idea is to select the best team in the league then RS champion after completing a balanced roud robin schedule is superior to a tournament. So if that's the goal just use the RS and skip the tournament entirely.

We have an ECAC tournament because once upon a time the schedule was anything but balanced. There were 17 ECAC teams and everyone made up their own schedules. It wasn't fair to pick best just on winning percentage so you play a tournament as a next best way to decide the championship. Plus it's a fun event.

We have a tournament and after 50 years of history (and dollars) we aren't going to scrap it, Still, it's better to have a smaller field so that the RS means something. (I like teams, 6 wouldn't be bad and 8 at least sends some bad teams home.)

On top of that I like the idea of using the RS standings/championship as part of NCAA championship selection/seeding because it provides more information among teams in the same league and it rewards finishing first. There's a whole host of ways to do that other than that giving an autobid to RS champ.

Beeeej

jtn27

ugarte

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

It would make no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season.

Not that I don't think Keith is up to the task, but playing devil's advocate here, why not? In a balanced schedule, winning the regular season demonstrates that you were consistently the best team over the course of the long haul. You beat the other teams in the conference more often than any of the other teams did. Winning the conference tournament could just mean you got hot enough to win two games out of three three weekends in a row - or even two weekends in a row.

I think you think it makes no sense just because it's not how we do it now. But that's certainly how they do it in Ivy League basketball. Finish the regular season on the top of the standings? Boom. NCAA auto-bid.

You kind of took what I was saying out of context (or maybe I just wasn't clear). It makes no sense to give the auto-bid to the winner of the regular season AND have a playoff. If there's a tournament (and there is) then the winner of that has to be the champion and get the auto-bid, otherwise the tournament is pointless. It would only make sense to give the auto-bid to the team with the best regular season record if there's no tournament.

KeithK

Al DeFlorio

Beeeej


I think you think it makes no sense just because it's not how we do it now. But that's certainly how they do it in Ivy League basketball. Finish the regular season on the top of the standings? Boom. NCAA auto-bid.

Key difference: No tournament in Ivy b-ball. If the regular-season winner gets the auto-bid, then just scrap the then-irrelevant tournament.

Ivy lacrosse, incidentally, is just the reverse. Win the regular season? You're Ivy champ, but no aut0o-bid. Win the tournament? Auto-bid.

Personally, I'm with Kyle, except maybe I'd allow six teams in the ECAC tournament, although four is also fine. Finish in the bottom half of the league? See ya next year.

(I can't help myself.) If the idea is to select the best team in the league then RS champion after completing a balanced roud robin schedule is superior to a tournament. So if that's the goal just use the RS and skip the tournament entirely.

We have an ECAC tournament because once upon a time the schedule was anything but balanced. There were 17 ECAC teams and everyone made up their own schedules. It wasn't fair to pick best just on winning percentage so you play a tournament as a next best way to decide the championship. Plus it's a fun event.

We have a tournament and after 50 years of history (and dollars) we aren't going to scrap it, Still, it's better to have a smaller field so that the RS means something. (I like teams, 6 wouldn't be bad and 8 at least sends some bad teams home.)

On top of that I like the idea of using the RS standings/championship as part of NCAA championship selection/seeding because it provides more information among teams in the same league and it rewards finishing first. There's a whole host of ways to do that other than that giving an autobid to RS champ.

Here, here. No need for Brown to get a playoff series. Perhaps that way the Ivies could extend their regular season and give another weekend of OOC to the teams without starting earlier as they seem so loathe to do.

KeithK

ugarte

KenP
I think it's good that each "valid conference" received one not two autobids to the NC$$ tourney. The question then is how to award the autobid. If ECAC gave the autobid to the regular season champion there would be much less relevance to the ECAC tournament championship. Given the choice I'd keep the current system which lessens the benefit of the Jell-O Mold.

I'd flip this. I like the tournament but I wish it were the ceramic dalmatian. Change the name from Cleary to Dryden and give the autobid to the regular season winner.*


* I am trying to get a +1 from KeithK.

I know when I'm being mocked without footnotes.

But I appreciate the effort.

It wasn't mockery! It was sincere. I wouldn't mind giving the autobid to the regular season champion and following it with a meaningless tournament.

If the ECAC made the tournament meaningless, they'd lost the big payday they get from the capacity crowds that flock each year to the tournament held in the heart of ECAC country.

Trotsky

Beeeej
I think six is a little silly because, although it represents the "top half" as you note, it still creates the same unwieldy bye system we have now. I think eight is a fine number, and I thought so back when it was eight (and thought ten was absolutely absurd), even on the rarest of occasions when that meant Cornell didn't make it.

I think 8 was ideal, particularly in a 12-team league. It used to be 8 when the ECAC had 17 teams! (But for that matter, the NCAAs used to just be 4.)

With eight teams you will almost inevitably have teams with a losing record in the tournament. That makes no sense to me. Have 3-6 and 4-5 single-game elimination followed by a four-team weekend tournament. Give the top two teams an advantage. And I see nothing at all "unwieldy" about a "bye system."

OK, so most people want it changed. I'll say I like it the way it is, not AC however. The tourney "supposedly" picks the best team at season's end. Having all teams in allows a team like last year's Colgate to show how good they are when they finally get it together. After all, their run last year showed how much different they might be this year. If a team like RPI gets booted out, they have the NCAAs to fall back on. The top 4 teams get a bye to rest injured players, that might help us this year, and they play teams that might have had their own injury problems from playing the week before. The reseeding allows the best teams to play the supposed worst, not Colgate however. The playoff weekends are exciting, and having 3 of them adds excitement. As far as I can see the only downside is AC, and that can't be solved by any tournament.

The reason lacrosse, and even basketball tournaments are not as relavent, IMHO, is because their league seasons are so short, so who cares about a tournament. Would we have a wrestling tournament?

And if we went to fewer teams in the tournament, we'd have to give back some of our trophys. Do you really want Clarkson to have more than us, or do you like the idea that of all schools, we seem to have the ability to peak at the end, and Clarkson does the opposite.

Al DeFlorio

Trotsky

Beeeej
I think six is a little silly because, although it represents the "top half" as you note, it still creates the same unwieldy bye system we have now. I think eight is a fine number, and I thought so back when it was eight (and thought ten was absolutely absurd), even on the rarest of occasions when that meant Cornell didn't make it.

I think 8 was ideal, particularly in a 12-team league. It used to be 8 when the ECAC had 17 teams! (But for that matter, the NCAAs used to just be 4.)

With eight teams you will almost inevitably have teams with a losing record in the tournament. That makes no sense to me. Have 3-6 and 4-5 single-game elimination followed by a four-team weekend tournament. Give the top two teams an advantage. And I see nothing at all "unwieldy" about a "bye system."

I'm not fond of the bye week but I wouldn't really call it unwieldy. while it does give the top seeds a chance to rest it also means a week without playing, which sometimes leads to rust. For fans it means breaking up the rhythm of the season, which isn't a good thing.

If the players weren't students I think a six team field with Tuesday night first round games (like in the old days) for 3 through 6 would work nicely.

Jim Hyla

And if we went to fewer teams in the tournament, we'd have to give back some of our trophys. Do you really want Clarkson to have more than us, or do you like the idea that of all schools, we seem to have the ability to peak at the end, and Clarkson does the opposite.

Jim, the only year Cornell won the Whitelaw and didn't finish in the top four was 1980. That year Cornell finished eighth of seventeen teams, in the top half of the league, and had a .500 record. With seventeen teams instead of the current twelve, eight teams was not an unreasonable number to have in the championship tournament. Eight of twelve, in my opinion, is too many. If a team "peaks at the end" and still finishes in the bottom half of the league, they peaked too late.

Al DeFlorio

Trotsky
I think 8 was ideal, particularly in a 12-team league. It used to be 8 when the ECAC had 17 teams! (But for that matter, the NCAAs used to just be 4.)

With eight teams you will almost inevitably have teams with a losing record in the tournament. That makes no sense to me.

I like the symmetry of having 4 teams get QF home, 4 teams get QF road, and 4 teams eliminated. It keeps a balance between too many teams having nothing to play for and the RS being meaningless.

David Harding

Aaron M. Griffin

billhoward

marty

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

Schott concludes exactly the same thing:

Winning the Cleary Cup would be nice. But having a healthy Grosenick ready for the ECACH tournament may be more important. If Grosenick's not 100 percent this coming week, give him the time off and play Stevens.

It appears as though Bennett is going to play Grosenick against Cornell on Friday night.

Rick Bennett
No, no we’re not. We’re going to push him as best we possibly can, and hopefully he’s ready to go. We don’t have time to be cautious. If Troy can go, he’s going to play. I think it’s a lot better than people made it out to be.

I am not sure what I think of that. It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

Aaron M. Griffin

David Harding

Aaron M. Griffin

billhoward

marty

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

Schott concludes exactly the same thing:

Winning the Cleary Cup would be nice. But having a healthy Grosenick ready for the ECACH tournament may be more important. If Grosenick's not 100 percent this coming week, give him the time off and play Stevens.

It appears as though Bennett is going to play Grosenick against Cornell on Friday night.

Rick Bennett
No, no we’re not. We’re going to push him as best we possibly can, and hopefully he’s ready to go. We don’t have time to be cautious. If Troy can go, he’s going to play. I think it’s a lot better than people made it out to be.

I am not sure what I think of that. It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

I don't think it makes a huge difference to us. We scored 4 goals last time and we could do it again, even if they have a better goalie. It really depends on how our players perform and respond to pressure more than anything else.

ajh258

Aaron M. Griffin

David Harding

Aaron M. Griffin

billhoward

marty

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott writes about Union's quandry after Union goalie Grosenick reinjured his ankle this weekend.

Thanks for posting this link. I feel brain dead after realizing that getting to some of Ken Schott's writing is as easy as clicking on the blogs area of the Gazette. I had been clicking on "Sports" and since I don't have a subscription, was blocked out of the content there. Too bad the Troy Record doesn't hide Weaver's homerism from the masses.

Schott says, "I believe Union coach Rick Bennett is going to have an interesting decision to make over the next few days. He will have to weigh what is more important — winning the Cleary Cup or having a healthy Troy Grosenick for the ECAC Hockey tournament." If the ankle is injured, not just a boo-boo that a bandaid will fix, you get your team healthy for the playoffs and rest the goalie.

Union prioritizes winning the Jell-O Mold way too much. It defines the success of its program by competing for and winning it. I don't get it. I don't need a history lesson in response to that claim, I realize how general success is new to them, but winning the regular season doesn't advance one's season beyond where it was going inevitably, especially once a team has a bye. I am going to lose respect for Bennett if he puts winning an arguably meaningless trophy over the welfare of a player. It doesn't seem like the hard decision that Schott presents.

Schott concludes exactly the same thing:

Winning the Cleary Cup would be nice. But having a healthy Grosenick ready for the ECACH tournament may be more important. If Grosenick's not 100 percent this coming week, give him the time off and play Stevens.

It appears as though Bennett is going to play Grosenick against Cornell on Friday night.

Rick Bennett
No, no we’re not. We’re going to push him as best we possibly can, and hopefully he’s ready to go. We don’t have time to be cautious. If Troy can go, he’s going to play. I think it’s a lot better than people made it out to be.

I am not sure what I think of that. It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

I don't think it makes a huge difference to us. We scored 4 goals last time and we could do it again, even if they have a better goalie. It really depends on how our players perform and respond to pressure more than anything else.

Personally I hope they put a goalie thats not 100% out there. Grosenick's good but not so good that an injured Grosenick is necessarily their best option.

css228
Personally I hope they put a goalie thats not 100% out there. Grosenick's good but not so good that an injured Grosenick is necessarily their best option.

Backup sieve, injured sieve, either way it favors us.

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I believe last time we played Union we faced their back-up. So, putting in 4 goals, while still nice is not as impressive.

Aaron M. Griffin
I am not sure what I think of that. It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

I take issue with the use of hated to describe Colgate from the perspective of a Cornell fan.

Jim Hyla

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

Thanks. That provided certainly a lot of entertainment.

I enjoyed how Scott misspelled Keith Kinkaid's name. That's a dedicated fan. I know how to spell his name from when Cornell blanked Union in the 2010 ECAC Championship Final.

Scott Muirhead
Union’s...presence among the nation’s top program.

I think Scott needs a little perspective. One NCAA appearance does not a "nation's top program" make. I think for a program to be a top program in the nation that it needs to have brand recognition and have storied and continued success. Two impressive seasons does not meet those criteria.

Jim Hyla

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I dunno; If I were a blogger on a tiny niche sports site, I probably wouldn't slag the only reader who actually took the time to respond to my article, though.

I'm sure Brian is a fine and wonderful person, but he might stand reminding that "reporter for USCHO" is right up there with Second-runner-up for Miss Tacoma in the grand scheme of things.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I dunno; If I were a blogger on a tiny niche sports site, I probably wouldn't slag the only reader who actually took the time to respond to my article, though.

I'm sure Brian is a fine and wonderful person, but he might stand reminding that "reporter for USCHO" is right up there with Second-runner-up for Miss Tacoma in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here. Not to say it's not an enjoyable gig, but it's not the glamorous full-time jet-setting role that many fans seem to believe it to be. USCHO simply doesn't have the resources to be anyone's full-time job.

As far as "slagging" Mr. Scott there, I simply pointed out that he laid into USCHO for things we don't even do... "Teams of the Week" is a CHN feature, for example (I think). He wasn't wrong with most of what he said about Union, but I got the impression that the comment was a copy-paste job of something he originally intended for CHN, or something like that.

PS: I'm not a "reporter for USCHO"... I'm a correspondent, dammit.

Brian Sullivan
Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here.

The sad thing about journalism is, you may actually be drawing the same pay as a WaPo reporter now.

Trotsky

Brian Sullivan
Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here.

The sad thing about journalism is, you may actually be drawing the same pay as a WaPo reporter now.

...and that's why I'm currently enrolled in a masters program: to get the full-time job that will allow me to happily continue the part-time job (specifically for which I attended my undergraduate program).

css228

Aaron M. Griffin
I am not sure what I think of that. It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

I take issue with the use of hated to describe Colgate from the perspective of a Cornell fan.

How about four out of five Cornell fans prefer Crest ?

marty

css228

Aaron M. Griffin
I am not sure what I think of that. It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

I take issue with the use of hated to describe Colgate from the perspective of a Cornell fan.

How about four out of five Cornell fans prefer Crest ?

Does the fifth prefers aquafresh?

Aaron M. Griffin

Jim Hyla

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

Thanks. That provided certainly a lot of entertainment.

I enjoyed how Scott misspelled Keith Kinkaid's name. That's a dedicated fan. I know how to spell his name from when Cornell blanked Union in the 2010 ECAC Championship Final.

Scott Muirhead
Union’s...presence among the nation’s top program.

I think Scott needs a little perspective. One NCAA appearance does not a "nation's top program" make. I think for a program to be a top program in the nation that it needs to have brand recognition and have storied and continued success. Two impressive seasons does not meet those criteria.

Scott made reference to a Union College hockey game in 1975 or 1976 in which Union College defeated a highly ranked team from UNH. I got curious and started researching to see if it did occur. It did. The team was playing in Division III at that time and led by Ned Harkness unsurprisingly but Union managed an upset against UNH. It was in 1976. I stumbled upon a Sports Illustrated article that highlights the victory and Harkness' establishment of a winning college hockey program at Union.

Pat Putnam
Unable to get Clarkson at Achilles Arena, Union had to settle for the University of New Hampshire last Friday night. UNH had displaced Clarkson as No. 1 in the East and No. 2 in the nation, and had lost only two Division I games all year as it faced off against Harkness' squad. A standing-room-only crowd of 3,400 braved a blizzard and subzero temperatures to see the game, and it was never close. In one of the most-shocking upsets since RPI's win in the 1954 NCAA championship, Union stunned UNH 8-4 as Forward Don Marshall scored three goals.

Ken Schott's reporting Grosenick's ankle feeling fine.

Brian Sullivan

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I dunno; If I were a blogger on a tiny niche sports site, I probably wouldn't slag the only reader who actually took the time to respond to my article, though.

I'm sure Brian is a fine and wonderful person, but he might stand reminding that "reporter for USCHO" is right up there with Second-runner-up for Miss Tacoma in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here. Not to say it's not an enjoyable gig, but it's not the glamorous full-time jet-setting role that many fans seem to believe it to be. USCHO simply doesn't have the resources to be anyone's full-time job.

As far as "slagging" Mr. Scott there, I simply pointed out that he laid into USCHO for things we don't even do... "Teams of the Week" is a CHN feature, for example (I think). He wasn't wrong with most of what he said about Union, but I got the impression that the comment was a copy-paste job of something he originally intended for CHN, or something like that.

PS: I'm not a "reporter for USCHO"... I'm a correspondent, dammit.

As the one who posted this first, I have to say I agree with Brian on this. He was certainly jusified in responding the way he did. The comment to his column was weird at best.

Jim Hyla

Brian Sullivan

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Aaron M. Griffin
It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I dunno; If I were a blogger on a tiny niche sports site, I probably wouldn't slag the only reader who actually took the time to respond to my article, though.

I'm sure Brian is a fine and wonderful person, but he might stand reminding that "reporter for USCHO" is right up there with Second-runner-up for Miss Tacoma in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here. Not to say it's not an enjoyable gig, but it's not the glamorous full-time jet-setting role that many fans seem to believe it to be. USCHO simply doesn't have the resources to be anyone's full-time job.

As far as "slagging" Mr. Scott there, I simply pointed out that he laid into USCHO for things we don't even do... "Teams of the Week" is a CHN feature, for example (I think). He wasn't wrong with most of what he said about Union, but I got the impression that the comment was a copy-paste job of something he originally intended for CHN, or something like that.

PS: I'm not a "reporter for USCHO"... I'm a correspondent, dammit.

As the one who posted this first, I have to say I agree with Brian on this. He was certainly jusified in responding the way he did. The comment to his column was weird at best.

Me, too. Bizarre response - sure, tout your team. But just because you've finished first place once in the last, well, ever, does not mean that 50% of USCHO's ECAC coverage should be devoted to your team. Anything above 8% (1/12) is a bonus, and Union is clearly getting that. Putting the game last, as Brian points out, actually *is* a sign of respect. Sheesh.

KeithK
When your team has been a perennial bottom feeder throughout its D1 existence, I can see h finishing first will mean an awful lot. But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

Not only this, there was a time (about eight years ago) and a place (the Union president's office) when the Dutchmen going almost .500 was a source of tremendous pride and deemed sufficiently "competitive."