Keenan on Cornell

Don't know if anyone saw it, but in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated (Doug Murray/Stephen Bâby cover ...OK, actually it was a Kentucky basketball player), there was a Pro/Con article about the red line in NHL games. Jeremy Roenick was in favor of getting rid of the red line in NHL games and Mike Keenan was in favor of keeping it.

Where does Cornell fit in? Well, part of Keenan's article included this passage:

"Without the red line, the game also isn't as entertaining and the skill level isn't as high. In the late 1960s and early '70s I played Division I hockey at St. Lawrence, and for one season the ECAC eliminated the red line. Cornell was the top team in the country that year, and every time its players got the puck they'd skate to their blue line and dump it into the zone. There was no skill, just dump and chase on every possession. It was hard to watch."

Bad memories/sour grapes from Keenan due to frequent losses to the Harkness squads, or some valid constructive criticism? Al? Jim? Others?

Well, hockeydb.com has statistics only for Keenan's 1971-72 season at SLU, so I don't know how many nor which years he was there. That SLU team didn't make the ECAC tournament. Neither did the 1970-71 SLU team. And the 1969-70 SLU team was seeded eighth and beaten 6-1 by Cornell's national championship team in the ECAC quarterfinals, after losing to Cornell 7-0 at Appleton and 7-2 in Madison Square Garden during the season. I guess it was "hard to watch"--if you were playing for SLU.

If there was "no skill" on the part of Cornell, what does that say of his SLU teams?

It sounds from Keenan's excerpt like he doesn't really understand the college rules. No red line means no two-line offsides, not no icing.

I'm not sure that's quite the way it happened. Certainly Cornell under Harkness played the dump and chase, but as I remember it, the rule was that you could dump from over the blue line when Ned came, and that was changed c. 1968 so you had to dump fron over the red line, which had virtually no impact at all on Cornell's style of play or success. It was not very pretty, but it sure worked.

It's not quite clear why Keenan seems to think that legalizing two line passeswould mean allwoing teams to dump it from behind the red line. I doubt it would make a great deal of difference -- there really aren't a great many two line passes in most college games.

[Q]It's not quite clear why Keenan seems to think that legalizing two line passeswould mean allwoing teams to dump it from behind the red line. I doubt it would make a great deal of difference -- there really aren't a great many two line passes in most college games.[/Q]
I think it's because of the unfortunate phrasing "eliminate the red line," which always leaves me wondering if they mean it literally. Is it just a bad rephrasing of the concept of eliminating two-line passes, or are there actually people out there who want to eliminate the red line all together, and redefine icing as your defensive blue line. I'm totally in favor of the former after watching the college game, and think the latter is as stupid an idea as the "good win" criteria.

That passage makes no sense. And someone needs to tell Sports Illustrated so.

"For one year the ECAC eliminated the red line" ? Well, there is no red line now. That phrase is not meant literally. It means no two-line pass. Icing still exists.

Now, perhaps for one year the ECAC did eliminate icing. I don't know. But either way, that's not the sense that the debate revolves around today. The issue is eliminating the two-line pass -- as is the current college rule -- not icing.

That both Keenan and Sports Illustrated don't know that, is hard to believe.

Not only did Cornell average about 7 goals per game against St. Lawrence during that period -- they averaged about 7 goals per game against *everybody*: [www.spiritone.com]

Definitely the sign of a "no skill" offense.

What a maroon.

Al, he graduated in 72. Assuming he played the 4 prior years, CU outscored them 42-11 in 8 games over those 4 years. Ave 5.25-1.38. It sure was alot more fun on our side.

I love his quotes "There was no skill,..." and "It was hard to watch."

I'm going to try and look up more in my archives, as I'm writing a letter to SI. So if anyone comes up with anything please let me know.

Jim Hyla '67 wrote:

> Al, he graduated in 72. Assuming he played the 4 prior years,

Wouldn't he have played only three years? I believe freshmen were ineligible back then.

True, so stats are:28-7 Goals, Ave. 5.6-1.4 for 5 games. I guess that makes it harder to watch.

Sorry, I posted twice.



Post Edited (03-08-03 01:45)

I was at both the 7-0 and 7-2 games in '69-'70. They definitely were a lot of fun to watch. Cornell's style at the time could be better described as "head-manning the puck," i.e. trying to get the puck to the offense player who was furthest up the ice. In the spring of '70, in a conversation with Ned, I heard him lament the fact that with the exception of Montreal, NHL teams played too much dump and chase.

I wonder if Keenan was attacking Cornell or if he was attacking Harkness. It seems extremely contradictory to describe Cornell as being both the top team in the country and as being a team that displayed no skill. The debate often comes up in soccer when a team other than a South American country wins the World Cup: Does your team play the beautiful game? Or does your team just lob in crosses (a la Beckham) and hope your target man gets a head on the ball? A win is a win is a win and a championship is a...well, you get the idea. I don't doubt that Keenan would have enjoyed a taste of the '70 championship.

Keenan was probably just being a loudmouth (what he's famous for).

Adam Brown '03 wrote:
> I don't doubt that
> Keenan would have enjoyed a taste of the '70 championship.
Or even a whiff of it.

He finally got both in '94....thanks to guys like Leetch, Messier, and Richter...