Quinnipiac signs 23 year-old transfer

John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH. Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

CAS
John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH. Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

This is a great illustration of why I'm a bad fan. When his or her team sucks, a fan blames everything—the refs, the rules, other teams' cheating, the phase of the moon—everything, that is, *except* for his or her own team's inadequacies.

I'm already a fan of one team with a whiny fanbase contingent incapable of correctly locating blame for perpetual mediocrity (the Jets). Can we maybe avoid that here? Q's 23 year old sophomores are not the reason why Cornell can't put together a winning system.

Only whining I see is yours Kyle.

Kyle's right in this case. QU has clearly put their money where their mouth is, devoted $$ resources to their hockey program, and far surpassed Cornell the past 5 years, and now our fanbase is whining about overage transfer students?

Seriously, who was whining?

Beeeej
Seriously, who was whining?

This isn't a news story if someone isn't butthurt over their team being disadvantaged by it. You can read between the lines as well as I can.

(I knew it was the geriatrics! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.)

Undergraduate college education is mostly about 18- to 22-year-olds but not exclusively. It is hard to write rules that can discriminate in favor of those ages for sports competition without getting caught up in exclusions and loopholes. Is this really a huge problem?

Waiting a couple years to go to college means you may be able to drink legally and you'll be popular with your circle of friends.

Kyle Rose

Beeeej
Seriously, who was whining?

This isn't a news story if someone isn't butthurt over their team being disadvantaged by it. You can read between the lines as well as I can.

(I knew it was the geriatrics! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.)

I didn't read this as whining. I thought is was just grist for the "Is the B1G whining justified?" discussion.

So that's what I'm not discussing. I'm not spending more of my carbon footprint worrying about whether B1G will reintroduce this (rule change proposal) in the future.

Kyle Rose

CAS
John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH. Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

This is a great illustration of why I'm a bad fan. When his or her team sucks, a fan blames everything—the refs, the rules, other teams' cheating, the phase of the moon—everything, that is, *except* for his or her own team's inadequacies.

I'm already a fan of one team with a whiny fanbase contingent incapable of correctly locating blame for perpetual mediocrity (the Jets). Can we maybe avoid that here? Q's 23 year old sophomores are not the reason why Cornell can't put together a winning system.

Hockey is a zero-sum game, so the better your opponents are, the worse you are. Us sucking and Q exploiting NCAA loopholes are not mutually exclusive. This is pretty elementary stuff.

Kyle Rose

Beeeej
Seriously, who was whining?

This isn't a news story if someone isn't butthurt over their team being disadvantaged by it. You can read between the lines as well as I can.

(I knew it was the geriatrics! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.)

I can infer and assume as well as you can, sure.

Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

BearLover

Kyle Rose

CAS
John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH. Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

This is a great illustration of why I'm a bad fan. When his or her team sucks, a fan blames everything—the refs, the rules, other teams' cheating, the phase of the moon—everything, that is, *except* for his or her own team's inadequacies.

I'm already a fan of one team with a whiny fanbase contingent incapable of correctly locating blame for perpetual mediocrity (the Jets). Can we maybe avoid that here? Q's 23 year old sophomores are not the reason why Cornell can't put together a winning system.

Hockey is a zero-sum game, so the better your opponents are, the worse you are. Us sucking and Q exploiting NCAA loopholes are not mutually exclusive. This is pretty elementary stuff.

If we fixed the suckage, I guarantee the age of Q players would not be an issue. There's more than enough room for improvement on Cornell's part.

I'll also say that I'm skeptical that this is in any way unfair. Why would a dominant 23yo be less likely than an equally skilled 19yo to be in the pros rather than in the NCAA? That seems counterintuitive. If it's just that Q is pulling from a pool of players traditionally less deeply recruited, how is complaining about that any more legit than historical complaints about Cornell being full of Canadians from nowhere near central NY?

Several people have voiced negative opinions about Q having low academic standards compared to the rest of the league. Other criticisms have pointed to Q having the oldest (in terms of average age) team in the league. I don't recall anyone calling out Q for redshirting, but that may be involved too. Of course, a version of redshirting that's legal even for the Ivies (cf. e.g., BR Wrestling) is to have players go to prep schools, juniors, or JC's for a few years beyond their high-school graduation, and then transfer in to finish their degrees.

I don't think having negative opinions of such practices is the same as whining. It's more about disapproval of sham academics and believing Q is out of place in a league where the other schools have much higher academic standards.

But everyone who participates in this forum is painfully aware of how poorly Cornell has done recently against the likes of Yale, Harvard, and even Dartmouth. If many people were attributing this to the unfair advantages such other schools have, then I would be more inclined to call this whining.

Instead, I interpret this thread to represent the strong feeling among some participants that Q belongs in a conference more like HE than the ECAC. People have said as much.

Of course, there's no intrinsic reason why an older transfer player should be any weaker academically than a kid fresh out of high school. So the point of this thread may be misplaced. But faulty logic and whining are still different things.

And Kyle, who are you to decide what an appropriate thread is?

CAS
And Kyle, who are you to decide what an appropriate thread is?

I have an opinion, and I'm willing to share it. You are free to ignore it.

Swampy
Instead, I interpret this thread to represent the strong feeling among some participants that Q belongs in a conference more like HE than the ECAC. People have said as much.

If we have aspirations of being contenders for the national championship then this line of reasoning is kind of pointless. We still have to best the less academically focused schools in order to have national success, whether they'r ein conference or not.

Kyle Rose
If it's just that Q is pulling from a pool of players traditionally less deeply recruited, ...

I feel like this is the crux of it. Q is looking for solid college players in a pool that isn't as heavily mined. These kids are probably less talented overall than those who enter college at 8 or 19 but make up for it in strength and maturity. We used to get a lot of guys in the 21 year old range (and you don't have to go back to harkness to find them). If we aren't now it's because we hve a different recruiting focus.

I'm all for insulting our rivals about their academic standards, whetherit's H or Q. But having lower standards isn't unfair. It just is.

Beeeej
Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

But he was our 28 year old, damn it!

Beeeej
Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

Dick Bertrand '70 was 29 by the time he was named coach that spring. He had to sit out the NCAAs because at that time the NCAA didn't allow older international players to compete (in the NCAAs) past a certain age. (Even-older alums can recall if Bertrand competed in the NCAAs before 1970. That was when we went to the final four every year.)

So Bertrand went from being the oldest player (or just about) in college hockey to the youngest coach of a major team, and more importantly a head coach who hadn't cut his teeth as an assistant coach. A lot of people think that if Bertrand had been an assistant for 3-5 years under Harkness before taking over, the dynasty might have run through the 1980s.

billhoward

Beeeej
Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

Dick Bertrand '70 was 29 by the time he was named coach that spring. He had to sit out the NCAAs because at that time the NCAA didn't allow older international players to compete (in the NCAAs) past a certain age. (Even-older alums can recall if Bertrand competed in the NCAAs before 1970. That was when we went to the final four every year.)

So Bertrand went from being the oldest player (or just about) in college hockey to the youngest coach of a major team, and more importantly a head coach who hadn't cut his teeth as an assistant coach. A lot of people think that if Bertrand had been an assistant for 3-5 years under Harkness before taking over, the dynasty might have run through the 1980s.

Of course, back in those days, there was no such thing as an assistant coach. At Cornell, the position of assistant coach didn't exist until '76-77.

You're right. The hockey office was Monica (?) the admin and Bertrand in an inner office. I'm trying to recall it visually but it was pretty simple, not meant to wow recruits. I am trying to recall and hoping I don't recall the red carpeting as being shag. Plush.

But then Richie Moran's entire lacrosse operation was a single-dorm size room just off the Barton Hall entrance to Teagle Hall. The one thing better was that the playing field was all of a couple dozen steps away on <sob> <it's gone> Lower Alumni Field that was circa 1975 desecrated with academic buildings.

billhoward

Beeeej
Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

Dick Bertrand '70 was 29 by the time he was named coach that spring. He had to sit out the NCAAs because at that time the NCAA didn't allow older international players to compete (in the NCAAs) past a certain age. (Even-older alums can recall if Bertrand competed in the NCAAs before 1970. That was when we went to the final four every year.)

So Bertrand went from being the oldest player (or just about) in college hockey to the youngest coach of a major team, and more importantly a head coach who hadn't cut his teeth as an assistant coach. A lot of people think that if Bertrand had been an assistant for 3-5 years under Harkness before taking over, the dynasty might have run through the 1980s.

Bertand played in the '68 and '69 tournaments. It was only in '70 that someone came up with a rule that made him ineligible.

jkahn

billhoward

Beeeej
Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

Dick Bertrand '70 was 29 by the time he was named coach that spring. He had to sit out the NCAAs because at that time the NCAA didn't allow older international players to compete (in the NCAAs) past a certain age. (Even-older alums can recall if Bertrand competed in the NCAAs before 1970. That was when we went to the final four every year.)

So Bertrand went from being the oldest player (or just about) in college hockey to the youngest coach of a major team, and more importantly a head coach who hadn't cut his teeth as an assistant coach. A lot of people think that if Bertrand had been an assistant for 3-5 years under Harkness before taking over, the dynasty might have run through the 1980s.

Bertand played in the '68 and '69 tournaments. It was only in '70 that someone came up with a rule that made him ineligible.

You would think that he could almost literally have been grandfathered in.

I'll be here all week folks. Please tip your waiters.

jkahn

billhoward

Beeeej
Anybody remember how old Dick Bertrand was when he was tri-captain for the 1969-70 undefeated team? Pretty sure he was 28. Goose, gander, pot, kettle, whatever.

Dick Bertrand '70 was 29 by the time he was named coach that spring. He had to sit out the NCAAs because at that time the NCAA didn't allow older international players to compete (in the NCAAs) past a certain age. (Even-older alums can recall if Bertrand competed in the NCAAs before 1970. That was when we went to the final four every year.)

So Bertrand went from being the oldest player (or just about) in college hockey to the youngest coach of a major team, and more importantly a head coach who hadn't cut his teeth as an assistant coach. A lot of people think that if Bertrand had been an assistant for 3-5 years under Harkness before taking over, the dynasty might have run through the 1980s.

Bertand played in the '68 and '69 tournaments. It was only in '70 that someone came up with a rule that made him ineligible.

Those were the days, though. Great photo of Bertrand in civies and Lodboa, with Harkness on their shoulders.

Kyle Rose
I'll also say that I'm skeptical that this is in any way unfair. Why would a dominant 23yo be less likely than an equally skilled 19yo to be in the pros rather than in the NCAA? That seems counterintuitive.

Really? This is pretty intuitive scouting to me. Given a 19- or 23-year-old with roughly equivalent raw skills, a pro scout will prefer the teenager because he has more time to develop, and that's what the time horizon of a professional scout is. The equivalent 19-year old is pretty much per se better to a pro scout. Nobody really cares if minor league hockey teams win, as long as the players are developing (even though you'd expect there is some correlation).

A college coach who wants to win now might prefer an older, more experienced player since a college coach needs/wants to win now and doesn't care about "development" beyond improvement from frosh through senior year. A different college coach might want either higher-upside players that he feels he can coach up to their potential, or one-and-done superstars, or guys who are simply more like their college peers because it is a college hockey team.

I don't care if Quinny gets a bunch of guys on their second marriage, just like I don't care historically that it used to bother the rest of the schools when we did it. I'm still going to make old-man jokes though.

ugarte

Kyle Rose
I'll also say that I'm skeptical that this is in any way unfair. Why would a dominant 23yo be less likely than an equally skilled 19yo to be in the pros rather than in the NCAA? That seems counterintuitive.

Really? This is pretty intuitive scouting to me. Given a 19- or 23-year-old with roughly equivalent raw skills, a pro scout will prefer the teenager because he has more time to develop, and that's what the time horizon of a professional scout is. The equivalent 19-year old is pretty much per se better to a pro scout. Nobody really cares if minor league hockey teams win, as long as the players are developing (even though you'd expect there is some correlation).

A college coach who wants to win now might prefer an older, more experienced player since a college coach needs/wants to win now and doesn't care about "development" beyond improvement from frosh through senior year. A different college coach might want either higher-upside players that he feels he can coach up to their potential, or one-and-done superstars, or guys who are simply more like their college peers because it is a college hockey team.

I don't care if Quinny gets a bunch of guys on their second marriage, just like I don't care historically that it used to bother the rest of the schools when we did it. I'm still going to make old-man jokes though.

This is the important part. We have to do our duty to make fun of his hairline/mortgage/what have you.

Heck, wasn't Roy Kerling like 38 his senior season??

Johnny 5
Heck, wasn't Roy Kerling like 38 his senior season??

Not even close, born 10/17/58 - freshman year was '77-'78, so he just turned 19 at the start of his first season.
[www.hockeydraftcentral.com]

jkahn

Johnny 5
Heck, wasn't Roy Kerling like 38 his senior season??

Not even close, born 10/17/58 - freshman year was '77-'78, so he just turned 19 at the start of his first season.
[www.hockeydraftcentral.com]

Kidding.

Maybe he just looked 38??

ugarte
Really? This is pretty intuitive scouting to me. Given a 19- or 23-year-old with roughly equivalent raw skills, a pro scout will prefer the teenager because he has more time to develop, and that's what the time horizon of a professional scout is.

Does that make him more likely to be in the pros? Or just more likely to eventually be in the pros? There aren't a lot of 19yos in pro hockey: they need time to mature and develop, which is why juniors and college are part of the farm system for the pros.

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

Kyle Rose

ugarte
Really? This is pretty intuitive scouting to me. Given a 19- or 23-year-old with roughly equivalent raw skills, a pro scout will prefer the teenager because he has more time to develop, and that's what the time horizon of a professional scout is.

Does that make him more likely to be in the pros? Or just more likely to eventually be in the pros? There aren't a lot of 19yos in pro hockey: they need time to mature and develop, which is why juniors and college are part of the farm system for the pros.

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim. He's using hockey to finance a degree because when he graduates that's probably it for hockey. A similarly skilled 19 year old is more likely to be choosing where best to develop, with education a factor in the mix.

CAS
John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH. Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

I don't think enough is being made of this typo in the original post because it is hilarious even though it makes my eyes hurt.

My argument about him no longer being a pro prospect applies even more here - he went to college at 21, spent two years on campus... then transferred to another campus. (How does he have 4 years of eligibility left, CAS?)

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ugarte
Really? This is pretty intuitive scouting to me. Given a 19- or 23-year-old with roughly equivalent raw skills, a pro scout will prefer the teenager because he has more time to develop, and that's what the time horizon of a professional scout is.

Does that make him more likely to be in the pros? Or just more likely to eventually be in the pros? There aren't a lot of 19yos in pro hockey: they need time to mature and develop, which is why juniors and college are part of the farm system for the pros.

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim. He's using hockey to finance a degree because when he graduates that's probably it for hockey. A similarly skilled 19 year old is more likely to be choosing where best to develop, with education a factor in the mix.

CAS
John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH. Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

I don't think enough is being made of this typo in the original post because it is hilarious even though it makes my eyes hurt.

My argument about him no longer being a pro prospect applies even more here - he went to college at 21, spent two years on campus... then transferred to another campus. (How does he have 4 years of eligibility left, CAS?)

I assume he has two years after sitting all next year meaning he won't graduate until 2019, which would make him 26 if he's 23 now.

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Kyle Rose

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

BearLover

Kyle Rose

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

Kyle Rose

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

23yos would probably stay in college, meaning you wouldn't have to reload every year, as Kentucky does.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

I think they're doing something right, and I would suspect that targeting players that have been undervalued by the rest of the conference/league is part of that.

This is the sort of thing that's really tricky to prove, obviously.

Dafatone
I think they're doing something right, and I would suspect that targeting players that have been undervalued by the rest of the conference/league is part of that.

Smart recruiting, then. Still not clear that old age is the primary target here.

This is the sort of thing that's really tricky to prove, obviously.

No meddling kids (they're too old), so they're currently getting away with it.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

Yes, in part. Same thing with the Union team that won the title. More mature, filled out, experienced. Maybe less raw skill than the younger players but overall better, especially collectively.

Let me be clear, as I said before, I don't think this is an unfair advantage, but it may well be an advantage - or at least a good alternative strategy if you can't pull the five-star teenagers like the traditional powers.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

ugarte

Kyle Rose
If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

Absolutely! Older players are stronger and more experienced.

While a 5-star 19 y/o NHL prospect might be better, it's not like college teams are filling out their rosters with those types of players anyway. Even ND had (I believe) only 12 draft picks on their roster. If you fill the rest of the roster with hulking 23-year-olds then you're going to dominate. It's not an either-or type of thing: immensely skilled normal-aged college freshmen are great, and overly developed college freshmen are great too. Unable to get much of the former, Q has focused on the latter, and become a dominant team because of it.

Kyle Rose
Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level.

This. When this thread first started, I went and looked at the guy's stats, since I don't follow UHN at all.

3 career goals in 73 games. 1-12-13 in 37 GP this season. OK, so d-men aren't always offensive, but the -13 +/- (I know a lot of people hate +/- as a stat, but that's what I have to go on, and if you're a d-man not scoring...) isn't outstanding. He's not a huge guy and the 28 PIM suggest he isn't a physical presence or a bruiser. The one thing on the stat sheet that does jump out is that he plays a lot. He's no Gostisbehere, but is probably a reliable body to rack up ice time.

Why is there all this hand-wringing?

BearLover
Absolutely! Older players are stronger and more experienced.

Yes, but you balance that against the presumably lower skill level.

It's definitely true that this approach can work. ut it can also lead you to a bunch of low skill players on your roster who don't play well, regardless of the fact that they have experience and physical maturity. Having a bunch of older players definitely doesn't guarantee dominance.

RichH
Why is there all this hand-wringing?

It's the typical response to someone having success by following a different strategy. There's a tendency to either copycat that strategy or complain that it's not fair.

Learning lessons from someone else's success is a smart thing to do. Maybe older players are an under-recruited resource at the moment. But lets not rad too much into Q's success.

Just my 2 unrelated cents.

In '72 the ILR school let this 26 year old Army vet transfer in to complete my BS. Yes I had the JC creds to qualify.
Maybe the guy feels like he is moving up in the world academically.

Insert smiley face of your choice here.

Tom in Vero

Q also just signed 14-year old Dominick Fensore, who was born 4 days before 9/11. He is expected to join them for the 2020-21 season.

Trotsky
Q also just signed 14-year old Dominick Fensore, who was born 4 days before 9/11. He is expected to join them for the 2020-21 season.

I get signing early to go to BU, or BC, or Michigan, etc. But Q? My instinct says that commitment is not honored.

FYI,John Furgele has a full head of hair.

He had 52 points during his last season of Juniors. Sometimes a player just needs the right fit.

css228

Trotsky
Q also just signed 14-year old Dominick Fensore, who was born 4 days before 9/11. He is expected to join them for the 2020-21 season.

I get signing early to go to BU, or BC, or Michigan, etc. But Q? My instinct says that commitment is not honored.

Have you been paying attention to Quinnipiac? I don't think kids care as much about what happened in the 70's as you seem to.

ugarte

css228

Trotsky
Q also just signed 14-year old Dominick Fensore, who was born 4 days before 9/11. He is expected to join them for the 2020-21 season.

I get signing early to go to BU, or BC, or Michigan, etc. But Q? My instinct says that commitment is not honored.

Have you been paying attention to Quinnipiac? I don't think kids care as much about what happened in the 70's as you seem to.

As we never quite understood our elders' raccoon coats and hip flasks in the stadium. Actually, we did get the hip flasks part. More than Bartles & Jaymes or Annie Green Springs after the first bottle.