Friday, October 20th, 2017
Who is this season's most improved player?
Matt Buckles
Jeff Kubiak
Alex Rauter
Trevor Yates
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Jell-O Mold
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

NCAA tourney

Posted by wakester2468 
Page: Previous1 2 
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 27, 2017 02:23PM

underskill
that argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.

What on earth does funding have to do with it? The argument works if you think Cornell hasn't reaped the benefits - or been able to reap the benefits - of the theoretical boat elevation that's been cited, regardless of the reasons they haven't. Despite what we may feel in our hearts, there is still a difference between Cornell's caché and that of Harvard or Yale, and that alone could make the difference in whether recent success by other teams actually fosters improvement in our recruiting.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: toddlose (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 02:32PM

We need to have someone set up a poll on this site asking who they want to win the tourney based on who's left. Be interesting to see if people prefer the hardware to be in or out of our conference.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 02:44PM

Beeeej
billhoward
Beeeej
Dafatone
ugarte
Trotsky
jeff '84
billhoward
BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

How would we measure that? # of NHL picks seems pretty fair. We're losing one (Buckles), retaining four (Starrett, Angello, Fiegl, Tshantz) have two already picked coming in (Song, Cairns) and maybe one to be picked in June (Green). That's 6 or 7 picks on next year's team, which IINM rivals Schafer's best rosters.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 02:54PM

Beeeej
billhoward
Beeeej
Dafatone
ugarte
Trotsky
jeff '84
billhoward
BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

Personally I like it a lot more when I can see, and often cheer for 3, maybe 4, ECAC teams in the NCAAs.

I don't know why so many are so strongly anti-Harvard, but I'm rooting for them to win it all.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: underskill (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 03:00PM

Beeeej
underskill
that argument only works if you think Cornell is underfunding the hockey team, which seems dubious. Harvard has generally had more individual talent over the years, but never seemed to get their s--- together.

What on earth does funding have to do with it? The argument works if you think Cornell hasn't reaped the benefits - or been able to reap the benefits - of the theoretical boat elevation that's been cited, regardless of the reasons they haven't. Despite what we may feel in our hearts, there is still a difference between Cornell's caché and that of Harvard or Yale, and that alone could make the difference in whether recent success by other teams actually fosters improvement in our recruiting.

meaning if you argue that a stronger conference is good for Cornell, the only way that works is if the school tries to actually elevate its program, either through recruiting, facilities, etc. Otherwise, if we're just a middling program that maybe makes the tourney once every 3-5 years, I don't see how the stronger conference has done much for the program, esp. compared to where it was in the 2000's.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: ugarte (---.177.169.163.ipyx-102276-zyo.zip.zayo.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 03:33PM

look i hate the harvard sucks THREAD but that doesn't mean i have any warm feelings for harvard. long may they fail.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:07PM

underskill
the only way that works is if the school tries to actually elevate its program, either through recruiting, facilities, etc.

That will happen in fits and starts based on Andy's blood sugar, Admissions' casting of I Ching hexagrams, and whether one of our 1%er hockey-centered alums breaks his neck one morning falling off his pile of money.

We seem to be very healthy in the recruiting department -- we can't hold on to the best ones for the same systemic reasons that other programs lose theirs, too. The facility is the one factor our players consistently cite as our biggest positive discriminator compared to the other Ivies. And hopefully an NC$$ bid puts the RITUALLY DISEMBOWEL SCHAFER!!!1! types on the back burner for one summer.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 04:09PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:27PM

billhoward
Beeeej
Dafatone
ugarte
Trotsky
jeff '84
billhoward
BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.
God, not this argument again. There has been no evidence thus far that Yale or Union winning an NCAA championship has lifted our boat whatsoever.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:33PM

Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 04:34PM by BearLover.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-70-198-56.myvzw.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:35PM

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).

Not that that's the same as recruiting success. It's funny how many of our best players aren't drafted.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:37PM

Dafatone
BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:39PM

BearLover
God, not this argument again.

221 days until the first Friday in November.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:40PM

BearLover
Dafatone
BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks.
Here is the direct page.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-70-198-56.myvzw.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:46PM

Trotsky
BearLover
Dafatone
BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks.
Here is the direct page.

That's what I get for relying on my gut instinct.

Or. A lot of those earlier picks were 8th and 9th rounders, which no longer exist. Therefore I'm still right?

Nah.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:48PM

Trotsky
BearLover
Dafatone
BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks.
Here is the direct page.
Oh, whoops--meant to link to that.

I believe five draft picks, the number on this year's team, was the lowest in some time for a Schafer team.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 04:58PM

BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 05:01PM

marty
BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament. I'd say '05/'06 was the last time we were clearly the best in the ECAC.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Roy 82 (128.18.14.---)
Date: March 27, 2017 05:08PM

BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

I simply want to support a team that is in a very good conference. Don't you want to watch a team playing against the best competition? I don't like the old days of the EZAC and SOS near the bottom.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.cws.sco.cisco.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 05:29PM

Beeeej
billhoward
Beeeej
Dafatone
ugarte
Trotsky
jeff '84
billhoward
BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

Another NAY for Sucks winning the tourney.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nyc.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 05:32PM

Trotsky
Beeeej
billhoward
Beeeej
Dafatone
ugarte
Trotsky
jeff '84
billhoward
BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.
DItto
Motion passes by acclamation.
NAY
I gotta say nay here. There are some teams I'd root for them over (nodak, Dartmouth, Q), but generally nay.
I'm also a nay. Let Harvard get to the finals, but I badly want us to have our next national title before they get another. I'd even have been okay with another Union title this year, but not Harvard, no matter how deserving.

Rising tide lifts all boats. In the Ivy League, a rising tide lifts all yachts. If an Ivy or ECAC team wins the title, recruits for the other teams in the league see increased competition within the league, which is what they want. Before Yale, Union and Q made it to the finals in the past five years with 2 titles, we were the EZAC.

I am less and less convinced by this argument as the time goes by and Cornell's recruiting doesn't significantly improve. But if Q getting to the finals helped, great, let Harvard get to the finals and stop there.

How would we measure that? # of NHL picks seems pretty fair. We're losing one (Buckles), retaining four (Starrett, Angello, Fiegl, Tshantz) have two already picked coming in (Song, Cairns) and maybe one to be picked in June (Green). That's 6 or 7 picks on next year's team, which IINM rivals Schafer's best rosters.

Despite his age, I don't think Song is coming until 2018
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 05:46PM

Roy 82
BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

I simply want to support a team that is in a very good conference. Don't you want to watch a team playing against the best competition? I don't like the old days of the EZAC and SOS near the bottom.
I'd lump that in with other subjective rooting interests. For me, a big part of my not wanting other teams to win a championship is that Cornell has been so good for so long that I feel we are far more due than a team like Yale or Union or Q. In the abstract, I do want to play in a competitive conference. I may even want the aforementioned opponents to make the Frozen Four. But I do no want them to win it all before we do. Now that that has happened, I no longer get the same feeling of Big Red Exceptionalism. And I don't think recruits seeking a strong academic school do either.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: RichH (134.223.116.---)
Date: March 27, 2017 05:51PM

billhoward
BearLover
Luckily for us (read: Harvard losing), Denver looks unbeatable
I'm in favor of any Ivy school (any) winning the tournament.

Nope. Can't do it. I can get myself on board to root on any other ECAC/Ivy team, in a "hey, good luck, pal of mine" kind of way, but not this one. I gave myself a day to reevaluate, but the heart wants what it wants, and mine continues to come back to this one sentiment:

[youtu.be]

With the old WCHA superiority complex mostly dissolved, I'm easily pulling for a Denver-Duluth Final.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 05:56PM by RichH.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 27, 2017 06:59PM

Dafatone
Trotsky
BearLover
Dafatone
BearLover
Since the ECAC got tougher almost a decade ago, Cornell has won the ECAC less, made the NCAAs less, and won less once getting to the NCAAs. You're welcome to root for whomever you'd like based on wanting to see the Ivies succeed and whatnot (I personally disagree), and I won't bother to call you out on these subjective rooting interests, but objectively there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now that we haven't been the best team in the ECAC since 2006. No marked improvement in recruiting, marked downturn in fan support, slight downturn in overall success.

This horse is waaaaaay past beaten to death, but haven't we had more NHL draft picks come through in the past decade or so than the five years before (per year, I mean).
I do not believe we have: draft picks.
Here is the direct page.

That's what I get for relying on my gut instinct.

Or. A lot of those earlier picks were 8th and 9th rounders, which no longer exist. Therefore I'm still right?

Nah.

Actually I think you're right. Eliminate those 8th & 9thers, and starting with current team draftees, I think you get 19 for last 10 years (2005-14) and 11 for prior 10 years (1995-2004). That seems like a significant increase.

One of our big problems was a great recruiting class, on paper, that never panned out. We can't hope to have great classes every year and when you get duds, your program suffers. I think we're over that now, and hope I'm right. If so, we may be in a period of extended NCAA appearances.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: cth95 (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 27, 2017 10:38PM

I'm not sure if I would have felt the same when I was younger, but I would rather see us swim towards the top of a big pond with decent results than have to practically go undefeated to earn a high ranking as the only big fish in a little pond.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: upprdeck (---.fs.cornell.edu)
Date: March 28, 2017 09:25AM

cornell is vastly underfunded.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Give My Regards (98.159.210.---)
Date: March 28, 2017 11:35AM

BearLover
marty
BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.

Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.

By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).

 
___________________________
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 28, 2017 01:02PM

Talent alone does not produce winners. Attitude, coaching, strategy, teamwork and even fan support play large roles in determining a team's success. And the latter qualities, like recruiting, are variables which may be influenced by deliberate change.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: underskill (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 28, 2017 01:25PM

Give My Regards
BearLover
marty
BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.

Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.

By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).

I don't think he's necessarily devaluing it, but it's a pretty fair point that Yale was the dominant team
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 28, 2017 04:45PM

Give My Regards
BearLover
marty
BearLover
...there's still nothing to suggest Cornell is any better off now than we've been at any point since '05/'06, the last time we were on top of the ECAC....

There's a Whitelaw from 2010 that you can check out in the trophy case when you next visit Mike and the gang.
Oh, I'm aware. But we dodged Yale, who we could never ever beat back then, because they got upset in an early round of the ECAC Tournament.

Oh, J F'in C, this again? It's beyond ridiculous to devalue the 2010 championship just because Cornell didn't beat Yale to win it. See, the way a single-elimination tournament works is, you advance by beating the team you're playing. Cornell did that in 2010 in the quarterfinal round, semis, and championship game. Yale did not. Regular-season-champ Yale lost in the quarterfinal round to Brown, who finished eleventh that year. Big bad Yale couldn't get past the ELEVENTH SEED in a best-of-3 on their own ice. Again, Cornell held up their end, and Yale failed to.

By the same token, I guess, we should ignore the 1996 championship, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Vermont to get it. Similarly, the 1986 championshio isn't legitimate, since Cornell didn't beat #1 Harvard to win that one. How about that, I thought the Big Red had had a ten-year period without an ECAC championship (1986-1996) -- turns out it was 23 years (1980-2003).
Yeah, I'm not devaluing anything. Cornell absolutely earned and deserved that trophy. But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: RichH (134.223.116.---)
Date: March 28, 2017 07:17PM

BearLover
But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."

Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).

I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-70-198-50.myvzw.com)
Date: March 28, 2017 07:28PM

RichH
BearLover
But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."

Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).

I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.

Most of the other best teams of the last fifteen or so years have had really bad stretches. I have to figure that we've had the best worst years (as in, our worst years were better than everyone else's worst years) in the conference over the period we're talking about. Maybe we'd prefer more hardware and a couple real clunkers, but it's debatable.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 28, 2017 07:45PM

RichH
BearLover
But this conversation is about when Cornell was a dominant force in the ECAC, which we weren't that year because we got shellacked by Yale every time we faced them.

2010, Cornell was 21-9-4 overall and 14-5-3 (31 pts) in league play while finishing 2nd to Yale, who was 21-10-3 overall and 15-5-2 (32 pts) in the ECAC. Kind of ridiculous that you pick only one of these teams to be a "dominant force in the ECAC."

Head-to-head, Yale did sweep Cornell by the "shellacking" scores of 4-2 and 2-1 (OT).

I'd like to put to bed this whole "Yale has surpassed us as a program" narrative. Yes, they had an impressive 5-year run of talent from 2008-2013, and a team with a worse record than we had this year caught lightning in a bottle to cash in a NC. Most programs have rises and falls. Princeton in the late-90s, for example. QU wasn't close to what they've been. Yale went 13-15-5, which is close to our "disasterous" 2015 record.
I'm talking beyond simply 2010: between 2009 and 2011, our games vs. Yale were:
L 3-4
L 2-4
L 0-5 (ECAC Championship Game)
L 2-4
L 1-2 (OT) (I was at that game, and it was nowhere near as close as the score; SOG were 56-21)
L 2-4
L 1-4
L 0-6 (ECAC Championship Game)


And whether they've surpassed us as a program or not, Yale's NC didn't come out of nowhere--they'd had sustained success since 2008--and that success didn't end in 2013--they also made the NCAAs in 2015 and 2016.

EDIT: missed the 2009 ECAC Championship Game result. Cornell lost two ECAC tournament finals to Yale by a combined 11-0.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2017 08:07PM by BearLover.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: KGR11 (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2017 07:11PM

I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).

This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).

Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 30, 2017 12:31PM

Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: nshapiro (192.148.195.---)
Date: March 30, 2017 12:38PM

KGR11
I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).

This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).

Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.

Couldn't this be interpreted as saying that Cornell's performance is a constant, and when the ECAC is improved, Cornell looks relatively worse?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: DisplacedCornellian (---.coxfiber.net)
Date: March 30, 2017 12:46PM

nshapiro
KGR11
I did some data analysis based on what BearLover's saying. I found the ECAC'S OOC winning % for each year for Schafer's tenure (Source: CHN) and plotted it against the number of Cornell NCAA Tournament games (TBRW). There is a negative correlation: A 10% increase in ECAC OOC% means a 0.33 decrease in the number of NCAA tournament games Cornell plays (Rsquared value=0.04).

This comparison leaves a lot to be desired since there's only 4 discreet values for the number of NCAA tournament games. To make up for this, I also plotted OOC vs. Cornell's RPI rank as reported in TBRW (only available for years 2017,2014,2013,2003-2010). There was still a negative correlation: for a 10% increase in ECAC OOC%, our RPI ranking dropped 6.6 spots (Rsquared value=0.22).

Rsquared values aren't necessarily great and I'm not fully capturing Bearlover's argument (I didn't take into account a lag between ECAC OOC performance and Cornell's results), but there is a correlation during Schafer's time that a weak ECAC OOC is good for Cornell.

Couldn't this be interpreted as saying that Cornell's performance is a constant, and when the ECAC is improved, Cornell looks relatively worse?

Wouldn't that be the same as saying the rising tide doesn't lift all ships/yachts, since Cornell's, um, schooner, didn't uhh...elevate?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 30, 2017 12:47PM

Hooking
Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?
The calls and the rules have been evolving to discourage "impedance" (interference, hooking, holding, tripping) and to lower the threshold of hits being considered roughing. IMO the college game has opened up over the last decade -- noticeably, although of course we are nowhere near the 8-7 firewagon hockey of the late 70s and early 80s. I watch maybe 2 NHL games a year so I have no idea whether the pros have been affected.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2017 12:48PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 30, 2017 12:51PM

Trotsky
Hooking
Have rules changes/interpretation in the last decade or so influenced what style of play in college hockey is more successful? For example, is the defensive "trap" strategy less or more successful? Has the relative success of speed versus strength changed? Have recruiting priorities changed, and if so how?
The calls and the rules have been evolving to discourage "impedance" (interference, hooking, holding, tripping) and to lower the threshold of hits being considered roughing. IMO the college game has opened up over the last decade -- noticeably, although of course we are nowhere near the 8-7 firewagon hockey of the late 70s and early 80s. I watch maybe 2 NHL games a year so I have no idea whether the pros have been affected.

For sure..... I don't think the 02-03 Cornell team would be nearly as successful now as it was then... They would be spending a LOT more time in the penalty box, especially one Mr. Murray!!! God, how I used to love watching him hit people...
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jordan 04 (165.2.72.---)
Date: March 31, 2017 08:55AM

The annual "Other ECAC teams winning national titles is great for.... Cornell!" argument. Completes my eLynah Bingo card.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (104.129.194.---)
Date: April 04, 2017 10:30AM

email received


Additional Frozen Four Tickets Available!

TICKETS

HOSPITALITY

EXCHANGE

BRACKET

ADDITIONAL TICKET OPTIONS AVAILABLE!
LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS NOW AVAILABLE FOLLOWING TEAM TICKET ALLOTMENT RETURNS

The fans of which team returned those tickets?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: April 04, 2017 10:52AM

marty
email received


Additional Frozen Four Tickets Available!

TICKETS

HOSPITALITY

EXCHANGE

BRACKET

ADDITIONAL TICKET OPTIONS AVAILABLE!
LIMITED NUMBER OF TICKETS NOW AVAILABLE FOLLOWING TEAM TICKET ALLOTMENT RETURNS

The fans of which team returned those tickets?

Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 04, 2017 01:42PM

jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: April 06, 2017 08:11AM

Trotsky
jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date: April 06, 2017 10:34AM

jtwcornell91
Trotsky
jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date: April 06, 2017 10:36AM

marty
jtwcornell91
Trotsky
jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....

...so that they can wear the appropriate letter.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 06, 2017 10:39AM

marty
marty
jtwcornell91
Trotsky
jtwcornell91
Having attended the DU-CC semifinal in Columbus, I'm not prepared to rule out Denver as the answer to that question.
For that matter, OP alluded to "fans." Can't see how that relates to Harvard.

All six of their jerk fans graduated summa cum laude in 2003, right?

I heard that to honor their players today that the entire team will be designated as Alternate Captains....

...so that they can wear the appropriate letter.
http://i.imgur.com/utzTCyo.png
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: April 06, 2017 10:45AM

I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.cws.sco.cisco.com)
Date: April 06, 2017 03:45PM

Hooking
I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.

I believe that would be Ohio State.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 06, 2017 04:54PM

Jeff Hopkins '82
Hooking
I believe that would be a Scarlet Letter.

I believe that would be Ohio State.
This is also officially "scarlet."
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 06, 2017 08:49PM

Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 06, 2017 08:59PM

Trotsky
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

And hitting two posts after the goal :-O
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: RichH (107.77.87.---)
Date: April 06, 2017 09:13PM

scoop85
Trotsky
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

And hitting two posts after the goal :-O

Good.

I wanted them to either feel embarrassment or pain (like a mask save, for example). This did nicely.

See ya.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 06, 2017 10:25PM

Denver up 2-0 late in the 1st, and completely dominant
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 07, 2017 12:02AM

scoop85
Denver up 2-0 late in the 1st, and completely dominant
Now 5-0 so you had a pretty good read on how it was going to go.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-221-5.myvzw.com)
Date: April 07, 2017 12:04AM

First penalty of the game. Too many men.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: wakester2468 (---.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
Date: April 07, 2017 09:23AM

Still haven't seen any sites announced for 2018 NCAA regionals. Unless I missed something, one certainly could deduce that home sites of top 8 seeds might be used which
frankly I support. Anyone have any new or additional information?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 07, 2017 09:27AM

wakester2468
Still haven't seen any sites announced for 2018 NCAA regionals. Unless I missed something, one certainly could deduce that home sites of top 8 seeds might be used which
frankly I support. Anyone have any new or additional information?
No promises, but today is traditionally a day the NC$$ likes to do announcements (e.g., Hobey).

Consider that the official NC$$ site does not yet have the 2017 regionals listed. Those will come any day now...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2017 09:29AM by Trotsky.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Iceberg (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: April 07, 2017 10:24AM

I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: April 07, 2017 12:21PM

Iceberg
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.
One of a very few schools that could do a double, in both hockey and lacrosse.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.cws.sco.cisco.com)
Date: April 07, 2017 12:48PM

RichH
scoop85
Trotsky
Fuckin' Harvard... 26.6 seconds

And hitting two posts after the goal :-O

Good.

I wanted them to either feel embarrassment or pain (like a mask save, for example). This did nicely.

See ya.

+1
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-221-6.myvzw.com)
Date: April 07, 2017 06:23PM

Iceberg
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.

I'm leaning toward Denver because I've been partying today my friend is Jannsen's cousin. I'm rooting for a 3-2 final decided in the third or the first OT.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Iceberg (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: April 07, 2017 07:41PM

Speaking of Denver, Will Butcher gets the Hobey Baker; the first defender to win it since 2009.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: April 08, 2017 12:41AM

Pretty silly that the Hobey, like the Hart Trophy, almost never goes to a D-man/goalie. Forwards see the least ice time of all the positions! (Bad argument, but still.)
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 08, 2017 07:17AM

BearLover
Pretty silly that the Hobey, like the Hart Trophy, almost never goes to a D-man/goalie. Forwards see the least ice time of all the positions! (Bad argument, but still.)
"Offense sells tickets; defense wins championships."
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 08, 2017 08:08PM

Iceberg
Speaking of Denver, Will Butcher gets the Hobey Baker
Based on the photo on ESPN he looks like a 37-year old junior account executive for a Boulder real estate firm.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 08, 2017 09:20PM

Everybody stop what you're doing and just go watch Denver's second goal.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-221-9.myvzw.com)
Date: April 08, 2017 09:41PM

First natural since Lodboa?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-221-9.myvzw.com)
Date: April 08, 2017 09:43PM

marty
First natural since Lodboa?

No.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 08, 2017 11:02PM

marty
First natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 08, 2017 11:03PM

Game got better after the injury (creepily). The right team won.

Hey, Mike. Offense wins championships too. :-) ;)
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: April 09, 2017 10:28AM

GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 09, 2017 11:10AM

Trotsky
marty
First natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
Date: April 09, 2017 12:49PM

Hooking
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.

 
___________________________
class of '09
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Iceberg (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: April 09, 2017 02:50PM

imafrshmn
Hooking
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. That Duluth team would be the ideal model for the modern Cornell teams. Obviously that style of play still works even if Duluth didn't manage to win the final game.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 09, 2017 10:58PM

Jim Hyla
Trotsky
marty
First natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 09, 2017 10:59PM

Iceberg
imafrshmn
Hooking
GREAT game! Speed, heavy checking, great goaltending, and no trapping.

Agreed. One of the most exciting college hockey games I've ever seen. Denver's 2nd goal in particular was an incredible display of practically pro-level skills. The contrasting styles of play made for an interesting matchup. UMD looked like the Cornell team of my wildest dreams.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. That Duluth team would be the ideal model for the modern Cornell teams. Obviously that style of play still works even if Duluth didn't manage to win the final game.
I wouldn't say no to that Denver team either. :-)
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-198-12.myvzw.com)
Date: April 09, 2017 11:14PM

Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Trotsky
marty
First natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.

Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-198-12.myvzw.com)
Date: April 09, 2017 11:22PM

marty
Iceberg
I'll be surprised if Denver doesn't win on Saturday. That was an incredibly dominating performance. Notre Dame had pretty much nothing the whole night.

I'm leaning toward Denver because I've been partying today my friend is Jannsen's cousin. I'm rooting for a 3-2 final decided in the third or the first OT.

I didn't get my wish but did notice that yesterday's 3-2 win was the sixth, all since 1996, but the first that was not decided in OT.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 10, 2017 12:22AM

marty
Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Trotsky
marty
First natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.

Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?
He's saying Lukosevicius didn't have a natural because of the Iafallo goal.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff

 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 10, 2017 09:40AM

ugarte
marty
Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Trotsky
marty
First natural since Lodboa?
First since Montgomery in 93 for Maine. He is the Denver coach.

No, natural means no one else scores during your hat trick.
Wasn't that the case? I thought Montgomery had a third period natural like Lodboa.

Montgomery did. They posted it in the rink right after I posted here.

Is Jim saying that Lodboa's wasn't a natural?
He's saying Lukosevicius didn't have a natural because of the Iafallo goal.

You got it. I didn't think it was that hard.twak

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: April 12, 2017 05:41PM

I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: April 12, 2017 06:17PM

Hooking
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?

I'm sure you do.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: April 12, 2017 07:10PM

Hooking
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
Actually, no--recruits go in completely blind as to their chosen school's style of play. In fact, a sizable number pick their college out of a hat containing every Division I school, while some pick out of a hat containing only schools that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as their own first name. It is widely known that Colin Greening thought he was entering a program that played firewagon hockey and was shocked--almost to the point of transferring to St. Cloud State--when Schafer told him he'd have to play two ways.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2017 07:11PM by BearLover.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.scansafe.net)
Date: April 13, 2017 11:38PM

BearLover
Hooking
I wonder if prospective recruits are aware of the style of hockey - "system", if you will, they would have to adapt to in order to play for colleges which attempt to recruit them?
Actually, no--recruits go in completely blind as to their chosen school's style of play. In fact, a sizable number pick their college out of a hat containing every Division I school, while some pick out of a hat containing only schools that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as their own first name. It is widely known that Colin Greening thought he was entering a program that played firewagon hockey and was shocked--almost to the point of transferring to St. Cloud State--when Schafer told him he'd have to play two ways.

Edit: Deleted.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2017 11:39PM by Jeff Hopkins '82.
 
Re: NCAA tourney
Posted by: Cop at Lynah (---.cupolice.cornell.edu)
Date: April 14, 2017 01:48PM

Does anybody have any idea what the payout is, if any, to the ECAC or the individual schools that make the NCAA hockey tournament ?
 
Page: Previous1 2 
Current Page: 2 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login