Cornell @ Boston University, Jan. 14, 2023 - GAME TIME IS 4PM

In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

On a similar note - and I'll post this in the Other Sports forum as well - up until a couple of days ago, the Cornell Basketball schedule had the 1/16 game at Columbia set for 2pm but Columbia had it listed for noon. After I checked with our SID, it appears that the time was moved up to accomodate SNY and while the basketball programs talked to each other, the change never made it to Cornell's web team.

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Fine. Right in the middle of the Niners game. Be that way.

Yes, I did pick all the best teams when I was five. And the Mets.

Dafatone

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Fine. Right in the middle of the Niners game. Be that way.

Yes, I did pick all the best teams when I was five. And the Mets.

You were 5 in 1948?

Trotsky

Dafatone

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Fine. Right in the middle of the Niners game. Be that way.

Yes, I did pick all the best teams when I was five. And the Mets.

You were 5 in 1948?

Apparently the Niners didn't make the championship in 12-2. Thanks a lot, Browns.


Early 90s. Niners, Penguins, Bulls. I was completely insufferable.

And the Mets.

Dafatone

Trotsky

Dafatone

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Fine. Right in the middle of the Niners game. Be that way.

Yes, I did pick all the best teams when I was five. And the Mets.

You were 5 in 1948?

Apparently the Niners didn't make the championship in 12-2. Thanks a lot, Browns.


Early 90s. Niners, Penguins, Bulls. I was completely insufferable.


And the Mets.

was?

nshapiro

Dafatone

Trotsky

Dafatone

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Fine. Right in the middle of the Niners game. Be that way.

Yes, I did pick all the best teams when I was five. And the Mets.

You were 5 in 1948?

Apparently the Niners didn't make the championship in 12-2. Thanks a lot, Browns.


Early 90s. Niners, Penguins, Bulls. I was completely insufferable.


And the Mets.

was?

The Bulls have been pretty ass for 20+ years, and the Niners have had more than their fair share of bad years since Jerry Rice left. I've had to suffer some.

No redemption for Penguins fans, though. At least we no longer employ Matt Cooke.

Dafatone

nshapiro

Dafatone

Trotsky

Dafatone

Beeeej
In case you were looking forward to watching the BU game on ESPN+ Saturday evening, please note that since it's actually scheduled for 4pm EST, it will probably be over by 7pm. (In other words, I'm glad I thought to check this morning.)

Fine. Right in the middle of the Niners game. Be that way.

Yes, I did pick all the best teams when I was five. And the Mets.

You were 5 in 1948?

Apparently the Niners didn't make the championship in 12-2. Thanks a lot, Browns.


Early 90s. Niners, Penguins, Bulls. I was completely insufferable.


And the Mets.

was?

The Bulls have been pretty ass for 20+ years, and the Niners have had more than their fair share of bad years since Jerry Rice left. I've had to suffer some.

No redemption for Penguins fans, though. At least we no longer employ Matt Cooke.

I did the same thing in the early '70s: Reds, Chiefs, Lakers, Bruins.

It wasn't until I got to Ithaca before I started switching to the Philly teams.

God I love the BU announcers.

arugula
God I love the BU announcers.

But I’m not a fan of a color guy who grunts over the PBP guy

True. Just love the accents.

arugula
God I love the BU announcers.

They talk in a lot more technical terms about the systems the teams are using than most other announcers we hear.

Which I also like. Number 26 for Cornell-O-netz-kuh. Hadn’t heard that one before.

Being a Bruins fan I'm loving the accents too :D

One thing I gotta say though is they need to either turn their mics up or turn the commercial volume down haha


This was a really well played period. we were dominating possession and that wrap around feed from Malinski was beautiful

The rare college play-by-play guy who calls the play and can actually keep up with it.

BU controlled the 1st 10 minutes, largely because they won almost every faceoff and dominated possession. After we started winning a few at the dot, we had a bit of an edge the 2nd half.

arugula
True. Just love the accents.

Say "Jahk Pahkah Arener" 3 times fast

Dunc
Being a Bruins fan I'm loving the accents too :D

One thing I gotta say though is they need to either turn their mics up or turn the commercial volume down haha

Hit mute during the commercial and forgot to unmute. Didn't really miss the patter.

One of the better two-way BU teams I've seen. They have skill and speed but are now a bit more aggressive on the puck carrier than some of the teams in previous years. Not surprising considering who their current head coach is and the kind of NHL player he was.

That said, Cornell is keeping good possession around the BU net and it led to the first goal. Bancroft would've made it 2-0 shortly after if not for a last ditch effort by Commesso.

Also, there were some pretty audible "Let's go red" chants at a few points. Nice to hear

We should have at least 3

While I’m pretty pleased with how we’re playing, I’m frustrated that both BU goals were rather preventable. The 1st one came after we iced the puck, and I believe Malinski had the puck behind the net. We were a bit gassed, but he elected to ring the puck around the side of the rink opposite our bench, so we couldn’t get a change. The second one was even more frustrating, as we had done a great job killing the long 5 on 3 and had a chance to chip it out of the zone with just seconds left in the period but failed to do so.

Hopefully we shake that off and keep cycling the puck in the offensive zone; BU is susceptible to our heavy game down low.

Is there a slack channel? The link in the menu does not seem to work.

And the accents are pretty funny. I live in Boston and these accents are pretty strong.

arugula
God I love the BU announcers.

The longer I hear them, the less I like them. All the color guy can say is “transition” and both guys think Cornell commits a penalty on pretty much every sequence.

Yes they’ve grown more homer-ish over the game.

Malinski continues to own BU

I'm listening to the radio rather than the tv guys. Are they the same?

Sperris
I'm listening to the radio rather than the tv guys. Are they the same?

I'm pretty sure the BU guys simulcast. I think Corbett is the name of the PBP guy

Wow that's a tough way to end a well fought game

Wow why do I bother?

Woof.

Lovely game in person until the last minute. Oof.

Literally 20 seconds before that happened I said to the wife, here it comes.

Too many mistakes and penalties but credit to BU for not folding. There was no reason BU should've even had possession in the last 30 seconds after the puck was in their end for that time

arugula
Literally 20 seconds before that happened I said to the wife, here it comes.

We had a nice chance right before that and Malone (who did not have his best game) fumbled the puck around the net and BU took it the other way. Such a “what could’ve been” game, as we had every opportunity to take that one.

unbelievable. team completed 3 passes scored 3 goals but spent every other second cocking up every clean opportunity like they were trying to pass over cobblestones.

Down to 13 in the pwr. If they get to ot and lose maybe they drop 1 spot. A goal with 9 seconds left in the second and 4 left in the third. Can’t happen. Gut wrenching.

ugarte
unbelievable. team completed 3 passes scored 3 goals but spent every other second cocking up every clean opportunity like they were trying to pass over cobblestones.

Yep, we had plenty of chances to make plays and largely spit the bit. That said in most other respects we played a solid game, as our breakouts were especially good. But too many penalties and a few brain farts (especially at the end of the 2nd period) that proved costly.

arugula
Yes they’ve grown more homer-ish over the game.

I continue to appreciate that across Cornell sports our announcing teams play it far more down the middle, albeit with a tinge of red. A program the stature of BU should be embarrassed to use such homers.

When they showed highlights of the game, it consisted of the three BU goals

I don’t care about the announcers. At least the BU play by play guy actually follows the play and doesn’t go off on random tangents. That was a terrible ending. Cornell could have held for the last shot, but they blew it. They managed to skate with BU the whole game, but they got the same result as if they lost 8-0. Given the tenuous position in the pairwise, this was crushing.

I just will never understand PWR. You lose on the road to the number 6 team in that fashion and drop 5 spots. I had the crazy thought that we’d drop maybe one spot. Just nuts.

arugula
I just will never understand PWR. You lose on the road to the number 6 team in that fashion and drop 5 spots. I had the crazy thought that we’d drop maybe one spot. Just nuts.

It's pretty much just RPI. The key is to separate who you play and the results. Beat BU, lose to [insert meh team] is the same for RPI as lose to BU, beat [insert meh team].

So playing a tough team helps, but that's kind of just a static plus, then there's the loss portion.

Yes I get what the theory is but it doesn’t make sense. That kind of loss on the road should not hurt that much. I thought quality losses were often better than weak wins.

arugula
Yes I get what the theory is but it doesn’t make sense. That kind of loss on the road should not hurt that much. I thought quality losses were often better than weak wins.

Prior to today’s loss, very small differences in RPI separated Cornell and the teams just below Cornell.

Well glass half full is that they didn’t look overwhelmed from a talent standpoint so you can chalk it up to an inexperienced team learning how to win.

ACM
The rare college play-by-play guy who calls the play and can actually keep up with it.

Like Roy Ives did for CU, once upon a time.

Okay, well, I'm not starting any more game threads...

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

scoop85

arugula
Yes they’ve grown more homer-ish over the game.

I continue to appreciate that across Cornell sports our announcing teams play it far more down the middle, albeit with a tinge of red. A program the stature of BU should be embarrassed to use such homers.

Why? It's a home broadcast. Amy team NOT having some significant degree of homerism is doing it wrong.

abmarks

scoop85

arugula
Yes they’ve grown more homer-ish over the game.

I continue to appreciate that across Cornell sports our announcing teams play it far more down the middle, albeit with a tinge of red. A program the stature of BU should be embarrassed to use such homers.

Why? It's a home broadcast. Amy team NOT having some significant degree of homerism is doing it wrong.

Nonsense

BearLover
I don’t care about the announcers. At least the BU play by play guy actually follows the play and doesn’t go off on random tangents. That was a terrible ending. Cornell could have held for the last shot, but they blew it. They managed to skate with BU the whole game, but they got the same result as if they lost 8-0. Given the tenuous position in the pairwise, this was crushing.

Agreed. This loss is really bumming me out. CU was dictating the style of the game for most of it. Controlled possession for critical chunks despite the broadcasters saying that BU just needs to home run pass it over and over and over and it never working. Our speed negating theirs.

This game should have been 5-2 after 2. I had turned it off with 4 minutes left (due to other events) and it wasn’t shocking to see the L by that point. It was a crushing result.

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Eh, I was refering to the offensive success he's had in games against them (reminiscent of the days of Ferlin against Yale). But yeah, he had his moments this game with the puck. Bad loss but there are two other games against top 10 PWR teams coming up and the others this season have all been within 1 goal. One of them has to go Cornell's way (hopefully)

RichH

BearLover
I don’t care about the announcers. At least the BU play by play guy actually follows the play and doesn’t go off on random tangents. That was a terrible ending. Cornell could have held for the last shot, but they blew it. They managed to skate with BU the whole game, but they got the same result as if they lost 8-0. Given the tenuous position in the pairwise, this was crushing.

Agreed. This loss is really bumming me out. CU was dictating the style of the game for most of it. Controlled possession for critical chunks despite the broadcasters saying that BU just needs to home run pass it over and over and over and it never working. Our speed negating theirs.

This game should have been 5-2 after 2. I had turned it off with 4 minutes left (due to other events) and it wasn’t shocking to see the L by that point. It was a crushing result.

Yes. Just a gut punch. Even losing in ot would’ve been better at least big picture wise.

Pwr insanity: women lose 6-1 at home to Q and do not drop even one spot. Men lose like that, on the road, and drops four spots. Ok sure.

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

arugula
Pwr insanity: women lose 6-1 at home to Q and do not drop even one spot. Men lose like that, on the road, and drops four spots. Ok sure.

The math is the life, Mr. Renfield.

TimV

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

Sometimes I forgot that next year is going to be a 2021-22 redux where all our best players transfer to other teams, and then I’m reminded that we still have two more seasons of this crap before the fifth year eligibility rule goes away.

TimV

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

They likely remember he had a filthy goal last year against them at MSG

underskill
Well glass half full is that they didn’t look overwhelmed from a talent standpoint so you can chalk it up to an inexperienced team learning how to win.

But 15 of 28 players on the roster are juniors and seniors, with 20 of 30 letter winners returning. COVID year notwithstanding.

BearLover

TimV

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

Sometimes I forgot that next year is going to be a 2021-22 redux where all our best players transfer to other teams, and then I’m reminded that we still have two more seasons of this crap before the fifth year eligibility rule goes away.

Is that what is causing it or is it forever?

Trotsky

BearLover

TimV

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

Sometimes I forgot that next year is going to be a 2021-22 redux where all our best players transfer to other teams, and then I’m reminded that we still have two more seasons of this crap before the fifth year eligibility rule goes away.

Is that what is causing it or is it forever?

All players who were in college at the time of the 2020-21 season were granted a fifth year of athletic eligibility.

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

TimV

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

Sometimes I forgot that next year is going to be a 2021-22 redux where all our best players transfer to other teams, and then I’m reminded that we still have two more seasons of this crap before the fifth year eligibility rule goes away.

Is that what is causing it or is it forever?

All players who were in college at the time of the 2020-21 season were granted a fifth year of athletic eligibility.

Right, but (1) I thought the Ivies were reviewing case by case and granting the fifth year in some cases (Andreev) and (2) even with four years, those who graduate early run into the cynical no grad student Ivy Performative Concern bullshit.

So like I said: isn't this forever? Or do we go back to players having to sit out a year if they transfer after 2025? Because that will kill it.

Note: it is way better for the players if this is the new normal, it just sucks for the Ivies but then again... self-inflicted due to their loathsome branding posturing, which they can relax any time they want.

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

TimV

abmarks

Iceberg
Malinski continues to own BU

Malinski's the one who misplayed the puck just inside the BU blue line with about 35 seconds left, leading directly to the final goal.

See what happens when you anger the woofing gods?

Posters on the USCHO BU thread were impressed and want him in the portal if/when his Ivy eligibility is used up.

Sometimes I forgot that next year is going to be a 2021-22 redux where all our best players transfer to other teams, and then I’m reminded that we still have two more seasons of this crap before the fifth year eligibility rule goes away.

Is that what is causing it or is it forever?

All players who were in college at the time of the 2020-21 season were granted a fifth year of athletic eligibility.

Right, but (1) I thought the Ivies were reviewing case by case and granting the fifth year in some cases (Andreev) and (2) even with four years, those who graduate early run into the cynical no grad student Ivy Performative Concern bullshit.

So like I said: isn't this forever? Or do we go back to players having to sit out a year if they transfer after 2025? Because that will kill it.

Note: it is way better for the players if this is the new normal, it just sucks for the Ivies but then again... self-inflicted due to their loathsome branding posturing, which they can relax any time they want.

The rule was that 2020-21 did not count towards anyone’s four years of eligibility. Ivy athletes, who did not play that year, still have four total years of eligibility. The limiting factor for Ivy athletes isn’t athletic eligibility, but rather the rule forbidding grad student athletes. So Malinski and others have a year of eligibility left, which they could spend at Cornell IF they do not graduate this year. Andreev was able to take a ”fifth” (actually fourth) year at Cornell because he did not graduate last year.

In two years, there will be no players remaining who participated in the 2020-21 season, and thus there will be no players remaining with a fifth year of eligibility. Transferring without having to sit out a year will remain the rule going forward, but that doesn’t have much to do with the foregoing.

That’s my understanding, at least.

arugula
Pwr insanity: women lose 6-1 at home to Q and do not drop even one spot. Men lose like that, on the road, and drops four spots. Ok sure.

It's.not that we lost one game. It's the results of ALL games played yesterday.

I don't think any of the pwr calculators let you customize the calculations to pretend that a given game had not yet been played; that's be the only way to know the impact exactly.

According to chn, we are 15th in the pairwise with 45 comparison wins, but uscho has us at 14, with 47 wins. It looks like uscho is adjusting rpi for the quality win bonus, while chn is not.

Adam, what's the story?

BearLover
In two years, there will be no players remaining who participated in the 2020-21 season, and thus there will be no players remaining with a fifth year of eligibility. Transferring without having to sit out a year will remain the rule going forward, but that doesn’t have much to do with the foregoing.

That’s my understanding, at least.

Thus the 5 year Ivies eff themeselves rule will die. But trading for a future Mike Richter or Babe Ruth will be with us in perpetuity.

Hopefully this will not mean Quinnpetuity such that Q becomes the Bronx Bombers of off season trading.

BearLover
Transferring without having to sit out a year will remain the rule going forward, but that doesn’t have much to do with the foregoing.

It may not be dependent on the COVID-5 rule, but it is critical. If the Ivies hold on to their no grad nonsense, and players can transfer with no year off (as they should), then we are, to use the technical term, fucked harder than a Brown coed at a URI frat party.

Either the Ivies come up with different transparently self-serving brand bullshit, or they cut their own nuts.

Trotsky

BearLover
Transferring without having to sit out a year will remain the rule going forward, but that doesn’t have much to do with the foregoing.

It may not be dependent on the COVID-5 rule, but it is critical. If the Ivies hold on to their no grad nonsense, and players can transfer with no year off (as they should), then we are, to use the technical term, fucked harder than a Brown coed at a URI frat party.

Either the Ivies come up with different transparently self-serving brand bullshit, or they cut their own nuts.

I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

Dafatone

arugula
I just will never understand PWR. You lose on the road to the number 6 team in that fashion and drop 5 spots. I had the crazy thought that we’d drop maybe one spot. Just nuts.

It's pretty much just RPI. The key is to separate who you play and the results. Beat BU, lose to [insert meh team] is the same for RPI as lose to BU, beat [insert meh team].

So playing a tough team helps, but that's kind of just a static plus, then there's the loss portion.

I admit to being ignorant of how it factors in, but shouldn't something called a Quality Win Bonus make this untrue?

Trotsky

BearLover
Transferring without having to sit out a year will remain the rule going forward, but that doesn’t have much to do with the foregoing.

It may not be dependent on the COVID-5 rule, but it is critical. If the Ivies hold on to their no grad nonsense, and players can transfer with no year off (as they should), then we are, to use the technical term, fucked harder than a Brown coed at a URI frat party.

Either the Ivies come up with different transparently self-serving brand bullshit, or they cut their own nuts.

No. Players will not desire to transfer from the Ivies in the first place if there is no fifth year of eligibility. They will use up their four years at the Ivy, graduate, and then move on from college hockey.

abmarks

arugula
Pwr insanity: women lose 6-1 at home to Q and do not drop even one spot. Men lose like that, on the road, and drops four spots. Ok sure.

It's.not that we lost one game. It's the results of ALL games played yesterday.

I don't think any of the pwr calculators let you customize the calculations to pretend that a given game had not yet been played; that's be the only way to know the impact exactly.

I used to have one that let you just edit the results file, but I gave it up when (1) they started weighting home and away results and (2) I had kids and it became harder to find the time to tinker with these things. (I completely gave up trying to update my Perl(!) script that did the selection criteria when they added the shootouts, plus COVID.)

[elynah.com]

arugula
Yes I get what the theory is but it doesn’t make sense. That kind of loss on the road should not hurt that much. I thought quality losses were often better than weak wins.

You do understand that PWR is not a poll, right? It doesn't matter how close the game was, just who won (and these days, whether it was in regulation, OT, or shootout). The fact that it was on the road does mean it counts less, but that would also be true if the game was a blowout.

abmarks
I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

My (likely mis-) understanding is that the rule previously was you could transfer and sit out a year. So, if you graduated in three years and you wanted to play your fourth year of eligibility, you could go to grad school at say Clarkson, sit out year 4, and play as a grad student in year 5.

If the rule used to be the Ivy no grad student rule meant you could play as a grad student immediately someplace else, since you were not "costing" the Ivy team anything, then yes there is no effect. But I did not think that was the case.

I could be getting COVID fouled up with the Ivies' grad student idiocy.

nshapiro

Dafatone

arugula
I just will never understand PWR. You lose on the road to the number 6 team in that fashion and drop 5 spots. I had the crazy thought that we’d drop maybe one spot. Just nuts.

It's pretty much just RPI. The key is to separate who you play and the results. Beat BU, lose to [insert meh team] is the same for RPI as lose to BU, beat [insert meh team].

So playing a tough team helps, but that's kind of just a static plus, then there's the loss portion.

I admit to being ignorant of how it factors in, but shouldn't something called a Quality Win Bonus make this untrue?

That's a good point.

Trotsky

abmarks
I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

My (likely mis-) understanding is that the rule previously was you could transfer and sit out a year. So, if you graduated in three years and you wanted to play your fourth year of eligibility, you could go to grad school at say Clarkson, sit out year 4, and play as a grad student in year 5.

If the rule used to be the Ivy no grad student rule meant you could play as a grad student immediately someplace else, since you were not "costing" the Ivy team anything, then yes there is no effect. But I did not think that was the case.

I could be getting COVID fouled up with the Ivies' grad student idiocy.

Once the five-year COVID eligibility rule goes away in two years, whether a player can transfer without sitting out a year won’t matter anymore (for purposes of this discussion). A Cornell hockey player will spend four years at Cornell, and then move on from college hockey. The player will not transfer to BU or somewhere else, because their eligibility is up. We won’t have to worry about our seniors spending a fifth year somewhere else, and we won’t have to worry about going up against teams with fifth year players. Fifth year players will not exist. The number of years transfers must sit out has nothing to do with it.

BearLover

Trotsky

abmarks
I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

My (likely mis-) understanding is that the rule previously was you could transfer and sit out a year. So, if you graduated in three years and you wanted to play your fourth year of eligibility, you could go to grad school at say Clarkson, sit out year 4, and play as a grad student in year 5.

If the rule used to be the Ivy no grad student rule meant you could play as a grad student immediately someplace else, since you were not "costing" the Ivy team anything, then yes there is no effect. But I did not think that was the case.

I could be getting COVID fouled up with the Ivies' grad student idiocy.

Once the five-year COVID eligibility rule goes away in two years, whether a player can transfer without sitting out a year won’t matter anymore (for purposes of this discussion). A Cornell hockey player will spend four years at Cornell, and then move on from college hockey. The player will not transfer to BU or somewhere else, because their eligibility is up. We won’t have to worry about our seniors spending a fifth year somewhere else, and we won’t have to worry about going up against teams with fifth year players. Fifth year players will not exist. The number of years transfers must sit out has nothing to do with it.

With one exception. If you lose a year (or enough of a year) due to injury, then you'll only have used up 3 years of eligibility when you graduate. At pretty much any non-ivy, you could remain at that same school and play the 4th year of eligibility by enrolling in a graduate degree program there.

Ivy players that meet the medical criteria will likely transfer/enroll elsewhere as a grad student to play another year after graduation if they can't figure out a way not to graduate in 4.

BearLover

Trotsky

abmarks
I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

My (likely mis-) understanding is that the rule previously was you could transfer and sit out a year. So, if you graduated in three years and you wanted to play your fourth year of eligibility, you could go to grad school at say Clarkson, sit out year 4, and play as a grad student in year 5.

If the rule used to be the Ivy no grad student rule meant you could play as a grad student immediately someplace else, since you were not "costing" the Ivy team anything, then yes there is no effect. But I did not think that was the case.

I could be getting COVID fouled up with the Ivies' grad student idiocy.

Once the five-year COVID eligibility rule goes away in two years, whether a player can transfer without sitting out a year won’t matter anymore (for purposes of this discussion). A Cornell hockey player will spend four years at Cornell, and then move on from college hockey. The player will not transfer to BU or somewhere else, because their eligibility is up. We won’t have to worry about our seniors spending a fifth year somewhere else, and we won’t have to worry about going up against teams with fifth year players. Fifth year players will not exist. The number of years transfers must sit out has nothing to do with it.

After 2025, can players who graduate from an Ivy in 3 years go immediately to grad school at a non-Ivy?

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky

abmarks
I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

My (likely mis-) understanding is that the rule previously was you could transfer and sit out a year. So, if you graduated in three years and you wanted to play your fourth year of eligibility, you could go to grad school at say Clarkson, sit out year 4, and play as a grad student in year 5.

If the rule used to be the Ivy no grad student rule meant you could play as a grad student immediately someplace else, since you were not "costing" the Ivy team anything, then yes there is no effect. But I did not think that was the case.

I could be getting COVID fouled up with the Ivies' grad student idiocy.

Once the five-year COVID eligibility rule goes away in two years, whether a player can transfer without sitting out a year won’t matter anymore (for purposes of this discussion). A Cornell hockey player will spend four years at Cornell, and then move on from college hockey. The player will not transfer to BU or somewhere else, because their eligibility is up. We won’t have to worry about our seniors spending a fifth year somewhere else, and we won’t have to worry about going up against teams with fifth year players. Fifth year players will not exist. The number of years transfers must sit out has nothing to do with it.

After 2025, can players who graduate from an Ivy in 3 years go immediately to grad school at a non-Ivy?

They can now. And they'll still be able to in 2025. The sitout for a year thing is gone permanently.

the only difference is that now kids can transfer now without being a grad and not have to sit out. Some kids will get to play 5 yrs instead of 4 for a couple more yrs.

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky

abmarks
I'm confused. Once this covid 5 yr rule is some away with, players will be back to the standard 4 year eligibility. I don't see how being able to immediately transfer as a grad student helps anyone except players who had a medical issue, had a year not count for eligibility, and then finish their undergrad degree in 4 and having 1 year remaining of eligibility?

My (likely mis-) understanding is that the rule previously was you could transfer and sit out a year. So, if you graduated in three years and you wanted to play your fourth year of eligibility, you could go to grad school at say Clarkson, sit out year 4, and play as a grad student in year 5.

If the rule used to be the Ivy no grad student rule meant you could play as a grad student immediately someplace else, since you were not "costing" the Ivy team anything, then yes there is no effect. But I did not think that was the case.

I could be getting COVID fouled up with the Ivies' grad student idiocy.

Once the five-year COVID eligibility rule goes away in two years, whether a player can transfer without sitting out a year won’t matter anymore (for purposes of this discussion). A Cornell hockey player will spend four years at Cornell, and then move on from college hockey. The player will not transfer to BU or somewhere else, because their eligibility is up. We won’t have to worry about our seniors spending a fifth year somewhere else, and we won’t have to worry about going up against teams with fifth year players. Fifth year players will not exist. The number of years transfers must sit out has nothing to do with it.

After 2025, can players who graduate from an Ivy in 3 years go immediately to grad school at a non-Ivy?

I guess, but that doesn’t really change anything because (1) there are very few cases of hockey players graduating early and (2) such a player could just as easily transfer to another school as an undergrad (without having to graduate first). So the no-grad-transfer rule will continue to hurt Cornell, but probably not by much more than it already did.

abmarks
The sitout for a year thing is gone permanently.

Then it becomes a race to gain Segers at least as fast as losing them. Frankly, the traditional powers are likely better placed for that. Late developing player arrives at Brown unheralded, has amazing breakout season, and that summer has an epiphany that he'd love to study Hotel Management and just incidentally play on a line that allows him to double his point total.

Now repeat except Brown : Cornell :: Cornell : Minnesota.

Trotsky

abmarks
The sitout for a year thing is gone permanently.

Then it becomes a race to gain Segers at least as fast as losing them. Frankly, the traditional powers are likely better placed for that. Late developing player arrives at Brown unheralded, has amazing breakout season, and that summer has an epiphany that he'd love to study Hotel Management and just incidentally play on a line that allows him to double his point total.

Now repeat except Brown : Cornell :: Cornell : Minnesota.

I don’t think many players are going to be transferring out of Cornell, honestly. Not many players are going to be transferring into Cornell either, though, because they’d be forfeiting their athletic scholarship and because of Cornell’s more stringent academic requirements. I predict having to sit out a year is going to help the Minnesotas and Quinnipiacs, but not at the direct expense of Cornell (though it will indirectly hurt Cornell because it will have to beat these teams).

Trotsky

abmarks
The sitout for a year thing is gone permanently.

Then it becomes a race to gain Segers at least as fast as losing them. Frankly, the traditional powers are likely better placed for that. Late developing player arrives at Brown unheralded, has amazing breakout season, and that summer has an epiphany that he'd love to study Hotel Management and just incidentally play on a line that allows him to double his point total.

Now repeat except Brown : Cornell :: Cornell : Minnesota.

I feel our friend Rand Pecknold has made it clear that the door is always open to come and go as you please in Hamden. The number of transfers in and out are dizzying. They’ve basically established an ECHL team without the academic rigor.

I didnt think Hockey players had to sit out a transfer year anyway? Werent they always like Lax that you could transfer and play ? Only basket ball and football had the sit out a yr thing before.

upprdeck
I didnt think Hockey players had to sit out a transfer year anyway? Werent they always like Lax that you could transfer and play ? Only basket ball and football had the sit out a yr thing before.

“The ability for players to move to another program without having to sit a year — which only applied to men’s hockey, men’s and women’s basketball, football, and baseball before — is expected to open up a season of “free agency” each spring.”

[www.uscho.com]

Because I do stuff like this, I looked up transfers in a old version (2017) of the NCAA Div. I manual. Here's the start of the section on transferring:

"14.5 Transfer Regulations.
"14.5.1 Residence Requirement—General Principle. A student who transfers (see Bylaw 14.5.2) to a member institution from any collegiate institution is required to complete one full academic year of residence (see Bylaw 14.02.14) at the certifying institution before being eligible to compete for or to receive travel expenses from the member institution (see Bylaw 16.8.1), unless the student satisfies the applicable transfer requirements or qualifies for an exception as set forth in this bylaw."

It doesn't happen very often, but Cornell had a hockey player transfer in from another D-I school back in the 'aughts. Chris Fontas played the 2003-04 and 2004-05 seasons at UMass-Lowell, then had to sit out 2005-06 before playing for the Big Red in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

One of the "exceptions" mentioned above is if the school you are enrolled at decides to drop your sport. This is why Darren Tymchyshyn, who played at U-Illinois-Chicago in 1994-95 and 1995-96, did not have to sit out when he transferred to Cornell for 1996-97 and 1997-98. UIC announced they were dropping hockey after 1995-96.

Justin Milo also had to sit out a year before joining UVM.

Give My Regards

One of the "exceptions" mentioned above is if the school you are enrolled at decides to drop your sport. This is why Darren Tymchyshyn, who played at U-Illinois-Chicago in 1994-95 and 1995-96, did not have to sit out when he transferred to Cornell for 1996-97 and 1997-98. UIC announced they were dropping hockey after 1995-96.

Going back even further, Goeff Roeszler transferred to Cornell when Penn dropped D1 hockey after the 1977-78 season. If this name seems familiar, it’s because his son Tyler ‘11 also played for Cornell.
.

George64

Give My Regards

One of the "exceptions" mentioned above is if the school you are enrolled at decides to drop your sport. This is why Darren Tymchyshyn, who played at U-Illinois-Chicago in 1994-95 and 1995-96, did not have to sit out when he transferred to Cornell for 1996-97 and 1997-98. UIC announced they were dropping hockey after 1995-96.

Going back even further, Goeff Roeszler transferred to Cornell when Penn dropped D1 hockey after the 1977-78 season. If this name seems familiar, it’s because his son Tyler ‘11 also played for Cornell.
.

I was surprised in my research how many guys we got from that Penn team: Roeszler, Doug Berk, Steve Shandley, Tim Strawman, Tom Whitehead.

Sounds like coach wasnt too happy with the non overturn of the 2nd BU goal.. I would say watching games this yr that goal gets over turn 90% of the time with that contact and the player in the crease during a goal.

upprdeck
Sounds like coach wasnt too happy with the non overturn of the 2nd BU goal.. I would say watching games this yr that goal gets over turn 90% of the time with that contact and the player in the crease during a goal.

FWIW, it was a Hockey East officiating crew, so maybe some home cooking

scoop85

upprdeck
Sounds like coach wasnt too happy with the non overturn of the 2nd BU goal.. I would say watching games this yr that goal gets over turn 90% of the time with that contact and the player in the crease during a goal.

FWIW, it was a Hockey East officiating crew, so maybe some home cooking

Even the homer tv announcers were shocked it wasn't overturned.