New Colgate Arena

In a weirdly written fund-raising announcement:

[www.gocolgateraiders.com]

In response to these realities, the Board of Trustees has approved an initiative to raise $37 million toward a new 97,000-square foot hockey arena, complete with locker, shower, and office space for men's and women's hockey, lacrosse, and soccer. The initiative will be funded completely by the support of Colgate community members...

As far as I'm concerned, they can't knock down Starr fast enough. I may even go to games in Hamilton again someday.

I wonder if they'll have a special "shoot a laser-pointer into the visiting goalie's face" perch, or a pizza-launching apparatus for the home fans.

Colgate's trustees approve initiative to raise $37M toward new 97,000 sq-ft rink to be used once a year. Seeking $18.5M from each fan.

— ELynah (@ELynah) August 16, 2012

RichH

Colgate's trustees approve initiative to raise $37M toward new 97,000 sq-ft rink to be used once a year. Seeking $18.5M from each fan.

— ELynah (@ELynah) August 16, 2012

Just out of curiosity, who runs the ELynah Twitter account?

jtn27

RichH

Colgate's trustees approve initiative to raise $37M toward new 97,000 sq-ft rink to be used once a year. Seeking $18.5M from each fan.

— ELynah (@ELynah) August 16, 2012

Just out of curiosity, who runs the ELynah Twitter account?

The spirit of Ned Harkness.

Aaron M. Griffin

jtn27
Just out of curiosity, who runs the ELynah Twitter account?

The spirit of Ned Harkness.

That was supposed to be a secret.

- It will be funded based on the support of Colgate hockey fans. So get ready for an awesome 17 seat rink.

- 97000 sq ft?! How much free pizza will it take to fill that rink?

French Rage
- It will be funded based on the support of Colgate hockey fans. So get ready for an awesome 17 seat rink.

- 97000 sq ft?! How much free pizza will it take to fill that rink?

Well, I'd use Sicilian pies since there'd be less need for overlap than with round Neapolitan pies. So assuming a 24" x 18" pie, you'd need 32.333 of them to create a roughly 1" thick monolayer on the whole surface.

Sorry, engineer humor.

French Rage
- It will be funded based on the support of Colgate hockey fans. So get ready for an awesome 17 seat rink.

- 97000 sq ft?! How much free pizza will it take to fill that rink?

Most of that 97,000 sq ft is the ice itself. Colgate is recruiting guys with tons of stamina in order to create the ultimate home ice advantage.

This is good for Cornell. We need an ECAC with worthier (still beatable) opponents and better facilities. Quinnipiac would be the role model.

This sentence had me wondering if Colgate is building an indoor field: "Help Colgate Athletics by carving your love in stone for the new home of Raider hockey, lacrosse and soccer in a state-of-the-art athletic facility that will feature locker rooms, office space and a new hockey rink." Is the home the field or the place where they shower? A 100-yard field and end zones (no stands, but then what fans?) takes up about 50,000 square feet. Probably not.

No mention of hockey arena seating capacity. Do they want something big enough for concerts and graduation if it rains?

A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal. The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

RatushnyFan
A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal. The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

Well, they have, just not since they joined the ECAC.

We beat them in 2002.

It doesn't count when you're outshot 35-14, your team name is the Braves, your conference is gone and you last made the NCAAs 10 years ago. Just being flippant of course, thank you for reminding me of this tune-up game!

Beeeej

RatushnyFan
A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal. The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

Well, they have, just not since they joined the ECAC.

We beat them in 2002.

But they do boast in their media ads for the upcoming season about being the only team in the league to have won a playoff series in each of the past 7 seasons, which is true.

RichH

Beeeej

RatushnyFan
A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal. The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

Well, they have, just not since they joined the ECAC.

We beat them in 2002.

But they do boast in their media ads for the upcoming season about being the only team in the league to have won a playoff series in each of the past 7 seasons, which is true.

, ,
Neglecting the fact that we tend to play fewer playoff series than they do, so they get more chances to win?

Jeff Hopkins '82

RichH

Beeeej

RatushnyFan
A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal. The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

Well, they have, just not since they joined the ECAC.

We beat them in 2002.

But they do boast in their media ads for the upcoming season about being the only team in the league to have won a playoff series in each of the past 7 seasons, which is true.

, ,
Neglecting the fact that we tend to play fewer playoff series than they do, so they get more chances to win?

Yes. That's neglecting a lot of things (which was in a sense my sarcastic point), like they've never finished the regular season with a bye, so they often face the dregs of the league in the first round, and they've only won a QF series once (*cough* we won't mention where that was *cough*) to advance to the championship weekend. Considering it took Union 18 seasons to win a single playoff round, advancing every year they've been a member is somewhat of an interesting quirk for Quinnipiac, I guess.

RichH

Jeff Hopkins '82

RichH

Beeeej

RatushnyFan
A Q facility/Union program strength (over last 5 years) would be ideal. The Q still hasn't made the NCAAs yet.

Well, they have, just not since they joined the ECAC.

We beat them in 2002.

But they do boast in their media ads for the upcoming season about being the only team in the league to have won a playoff series in each of the past 7 seasons, which is true.

, ,
Neglecting the fact that we tend to play fewer playoff series than they do, so they get more chances to win?

Yes. That's neglecting a lot of things (which was in a sense my sarcastic point), like they've never finished the regular season with a bye, so they often face the dregs of the league in the first round, and they've only won a QF series once (*cough* we won't mention where that was *cough*) to advance to the championship weekend. Considering it took Union 18 seasons to win a single playoff round, advancing every year they've been a member is somewhat of an interesting quirk for Quinnipiac, I guess.

In their defense, they've been the team that's earned home ice against those dregs, rather than being the dregs themselves, for six years in a row now, which is more than a lot of teams can say. In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

Josh '99
In their defense, they've been the team that's earned home ice against those dregs, rather than being the dregs themselves, for six years in a row now, which is more than a lot of teams can say. In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

Even "perennial conference powerhouse" Union College?! But, that's unpossible!!

Josh '99
In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom seven at some point in the last thirteen years. Except Cornell.

Trotsky

Josh '99
In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom seven at some point in the last thirteen years. Except Cornell.

Got me looking... In 48 ECAC tournaments, Cornell has only skated off an opponent's ice after being eliminated 4 times:

--single game at Dartmouth, '65
--two games at Harvard, '94
--two games at Clarkson, '95
--two games at Princeton, '99

In that span, Cornell has won 6 series on the road:

--single game at Clarkson, '76
--single game at BC, '80
--win and tie at Clarkson, '89
--single game at Yale, '92
--2 and 1 at RPI, '98
--two games at Union, '08


The fact that we've only BEEN on the road for 10 series is remarkable enough, but to put up a 6-4 series record and a (8-8-1 overall) is pretty amazing.

So 1993 was rock bottom?

In so many ways... On the bright side, we didn't have to play a road series that year!

nyc94
So 1993 was rock bottom?

Early 80's could match it.

Jim Hyla

nyc94
So 1993 was rock bottom?

Early 80's could match it.

Nothing says you can't hit rock bottom more than once. But really? the '93 team had .250 WinPct, while the 80's squads never dropped below .429 and were no worse than 3rd in the Ivy division. Just basedon numbers the pit was deeper in '93 though maybe the distance fallen was similar.

Looking at the standings I am again reminded how greatful I am to be a Cornell hockey fan. '93 was a lousy season but we didn't stay at rock bottom very long, unlike some of the other teams in the league. May it stay that way!

Beeeej
Even "perennial conference powerhouse" Union College?! But, that's unpossible!!

U's involved in the two most heated East Coast college hockey rivalries: Harvard-Union and RPI-Union. It's on YouTube and USCHO threads, it must be true.

Robb

Trotsky

Josh '99
In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom four at some point in the last six years except Cornell and Quinnipiac.

In fact, every team in the ECAC has finished in the bottom seven at some point in the last thirteen years. Except Cornell.

Got me looking... In 48 ECAC tournaments, Cornell has only skated off an opponent's ice after being eliminated 4 times:

--single game at Dartmouth, '65
--two games at Harvard, '94
--two games at Clarkson, '95
--two games at Princeton, '99

In that span, Cornell has won 6 series on the road:

--single game at Clarkson, '76
--single game at BC, '80
--win and tie at Clarkson, '89
--single game at Yale, '92
--2 and 1 at RPI, '98
--two games at Union, '08


The fact that we've only BEEN on the road for 10 series is remarkable enough, but to put up a 6-4 series record and a (8-8-1 overall) is pretty amazing.

A couple corrections:

'65 L was at Brown
There was a single game series win at SLU in '95

So we are 7-4, 9-8-1 in road games in the ECAC Tournament.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

nyc94
So 1993 was rock bottom?

Early 80's could match it.

Nothing says you can't hit rock bottom more than once. But really? the '93 team had .250 WinPct, while the 80's squads never dropped below .429 and were no worse than 3rd in the Ivy division. Just basedon numbers the pit was deeper in '93 though maybe the distance fallen was similar.

Looking at the standings I am again reminded how greatful I am to be a Cornell hockey fan. '93 was a lousy season but we didn't stay at rock bottom very long, unlike some of the other teams in the league. May it stay that way!

The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

Jim Hyla
The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart. The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses. The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981). The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart. The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses. The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981). The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

But of course, comparing 3 bad years in the 90's with 5 years in the 80's is not quite fair. If you looked at the 2 years prior to 93, you would add a second place and fifth place finish to the mix. That more than makes up for the eighth and fourth place in 80 and 81. Throwing out those years for both the 80's and 90's gives you:

         82  83  84  93  94  95
Finished 10   9  12  11   8   9
Playoffs No  No  No  No  1/4 1/4

1/4 means we were in quarterfinals, having won a play-in, and lost.

You can argue forever, really?, but neither were good. I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart. The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses. The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981). The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

But of course, comparing 3 bad years in the 90's with 5 years in the 80's is not quite fair. If you looked at the 2 years prior to 93, you would add a second place and fifth place finish to the mix. That more than makes up for the eighth and fourth place in 80 and 81. Throwing out those years for both the 80's and 90's gives you:

         82  83  84  93  94  95
Finished 10   9  12  11   8   9
Playoffs No  No  No  No  1/4 1/4

1/4 means we were in quarterfinals, having won a play-in, and lost.

You can argue forever, really?, but neither were good. I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

But in the 80s, there were 17 teams. Scaling those up to 12 teams means that the finishes were equivalent to:

         82  83  84   93  94  95
Finished 7.1 6.4 8.5  11   8   9

The only thing the 90s stretch had going for it was that the ECAC decided to let more teams into the playoffs - that doesn't change the fact that the 90s teams were (proportionately) worse.

Robb

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
The 90s were worse because we were so bad in the smaller ECAC. But it was shorter in span, and if what you want is to get to the playoffs, traditionally where we do well, we didn't make them in 82,83,and 84. We got out of the doldrums in 85, but that was partly because HE was formed, so fewer good teams. So pick your poison, but neither were good times

This was actually one of the reasons for the creation of this chart. The feeling during a season is not simply how it ends but how it progresses. The 80-84 period was punctuated by bright spots (including the shock ECAC title from #8 in 1980 and the near repeat from #7 in 1981). The 93-95 period was an unalloyed disaster.

But of course, comparing 3 bad years in the 90's with 5 years in the 80's is not quite fair. If you looked at the 2 years prior to 93, you would add a second place and fifth place finish to the mix. That more than makes up for the eighth and fourth place in 80 and 81. Throwing out those years for both the 80's and 90's gives you:

         82  83  84  93  94  95
Finished 10   9  12  11   8   9
Playoffs No  No  No  No  1/4 1/4

1/4 means we were in quarterfinals, having won a play-in, and lost.

You can argue forever, really?, but neither were good. I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

But in the 80s, there were 17 teams. Scaling those up to 12 teams means that the finishes were equivalent to:

         82  83  84   93  94  95
Finished 7.1 6.4 8.5  11   8   9

The only thing the 90s stretch had going for it was that the ECAC decided to let more teams into the playoffs - that doesn't change the fact that the 90s teams were (proportionately) worse.

Like I said you can argue it forever. As most probably know, I like to argue, but enough on this for me, let's start doing it over student season ticket sales.

Jim Hyla
I personally value the season by getting to the playoffs. As 80 showed, get there and you can have a lot of fun.

Great! We'll never have a bad year again!!!

Obviously no one is old enough to remember the 1959-60 season, in which the Big Red won the first game and the last game... and lost the 19 in-between. Even the 1992-93 horror show pales in comparison to that.

Although, just to relate this to the thread topic, Cornell did beat Colgate that year...

Give My Regards
Obviously no one is old enough to remember the 1959-60 season, in which the Big Red won the first game and the last game... and lost the 19 in-between. Even the 1992-93 horror show pales in comparison to that.

Although, just to relate this to the thread topic, Cornell did beat Colgate that year...

Back then, Colgate gave its students free "Italian cheese and sauce disks", the term pizza not have been coined until 1968.

Give My Regards
Obviously no one is old enough to remember the 1959-60 season, in which the Big Red won the first game and the last game... and lost the 19 in-between. Even the 1992-93 horror show pales in comparison to that.

Although, just to relate this to the thread topic, Cornell did beat Colgate that year...

I do remember that season. I had started attending games sporadically two years earlier and listened to games on the radio. The difference is, of course, that Cornell had never had a seriously good season before, so there were no expectations of grandeur. Usually the phrase is "hit rock bottom", which implies that you were once higher. You can argue that 2-19-0 is worse than the 4-16-0 and 3-7-1 that preceded it, but I would claim that '59-'60 was a small statistical fluctuation.

To pull this back to Colgate, does anyone know where this arena will be placed?

Trustees Approve Design Phase for New Athletic Facility according to an October 2013 Colgate release. The approval was to get going on a design, not of a design that's already been done. (They've done an artist sketch.) Over the summer Colgate said it had $24 million in hand of the $37 million needed. The replacement hockey rink will have a similar capacity to Starr Rink, 2200 souls for a school with a student population of 3,000. A year for the design and a year to build, with no complications, they might be ready to be in their new digs in 2016-2017. Bet they will install a new compressor, not used.

That's what I gleaned from news stories and Colgate releases.