Who deserves 2023 D1 championship

Poll

Who should win the 2023 hockey championship

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
43 votes were received.

BU (excellent half-century BU-CU rivalry)	13		30%
Michigan (home of Cornell presidents past-present-future)	5		12%
Minnesota (defines hockey excellence)	16		37%
Quinnipiac (support your league; Pecknold deserves it)	9		21%

---

Who should we root for in 2023 in Tampa at the Frozen Four?

What, Satan isn't an option?

Either there is no "deserves," or the team that wins deserves it. Divine Mandate.

Fuck the B1G. Go East.

I don't like the Big10, but I think of Michigan and Minnesota as hockey schools independent of their conference. Especially Minnesota.

So go Minnesota. Lord knows that's a sad fanbase for professional sports. Let them have something.

These BU sweaters are a clown suit.

I’d love to cheer for an ECAC team; to bad there’s just 2 B10 schools, a HE, and an AHL franchise masquerading as a college.

Trotsky
Either there is no "deserves," or the team that wins deserves it. Divine Mandate.

This.

“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

RichH

Trotsky
Either there is no "deserves," or the team that wins deserves it. Divine Mandate.

This.

“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

I read it as "who do you want to win it". Of course, the only games that have gone the way I wanted this year were Denver-Cornell and BU-Western Michigan, so...

My hot take is having this malevolent glutton in our conference forces us to build a team that can compete with it, which accidentally will build a team that can win a national championship.

Go Q. Set a standard for the rest of us to ascend to. That would be ironic.

Trotsky
My hot take is having this malevolent glutton in our conference forces us to build a team that can compete with it, which accidentally will build a team that can win a national championship.

Go Q. Set a standard for the rest of us to ascend to. That would be ironic.

That’s fine, but I’m not on board. I don’t want the fucking teletubbies of the league to feel that joy. They literally rent fans. Fuck them.

RichH

Trotsky
My hot take is having this malevolent glutton in our conference forces us to build a team that can compete with it, which accidentally will build a team that can win a national championship.

Go Q. Set a standard for the rest of us to ascend to. That would be ironic.

That’s fine, but I’m not on board. I don’t want the fucking teletubbies of the league to feel that joy. They literally rent fans. Fuck them.

TBH, those fans are pretty cute though.

Trotsky
My hot take is having this malevolent glutton in our conference forces us to build a team that can compete with it, which accidentally will build a team that can win a national championship.

Go Q. Set a standard for the rest of us to ascend to. That would be ironic.

This take makes no sense. First of all, it assumes Cornell hasn’t been doing everything possible to win thus far. That’s untrue, and further, why would Yale and Union winning not have produced the same result? Both Yale and Union won the national championship after a period of extended dominance.

Second of all, it assumes there are different avenues we can pursue to compete with Q. Well, given Q’s team this year is largely fifth-year players and transfers, which Cornell is unable to do for several reasons, I don’t see any alternative avenues that would allow Cornell to match Q. As I say above, if those avenues did exist, Cornell would already be taking them.

BearLover
why would Yale and Union winning not have produced the same result? Both Yale and Union won the national championship after a period of extended dominance.

A very short period.

Q is going to keep doing this, year after year. They aren't going to stop. They have systemic advantages. They have changed the standard you have to play at to win the conference.

There have been other teams that rose to challenge Cornell -- RPI, Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Yale, Union -- but they all did it by having a few fluke great recruiting classes and then converting on them. Then they fell. There are only two schools that are simply reloading every year: Harvard (the name) and Q (zero admission standards).

Harvard has somehow continually failed < your comment on the decrepit character of the aristocracy here >.

Q has succeeded (except in Lake Placid) and there appears to be nothing to stop them from continuing to succeed, at least until Pecknold is removed in a tragic Zamboni auto-erotic asphyxiation accident.

So if Mike doesn't want to spend the rest of his coaching career fighting for second place, he will need to find us another gear. How? I dunno, but necessity is the mother of invention.

I have to figure that individual moments of success have a tiny tiny effect on recruiting. Especially in 2023 when everyone has internets and whatnot. It's not like you can establish secret pipelines to untapped regions of Canada anymore or whatever (looking your way Nanaimo).

Recruits will want to go to Q because they're good. Whether they win or lose the national championship is gonna have a tiny impact. Or no impact. They're good either way.

If they implode and win six games next season (if only), that will change things. If they have a "down" year, finish 2nd in the conference and lose the conference finals and only win one game in the 2023-2024 NCAAs, that will not change things.

Trotsky
Go Q. Set a standard for the rest of us to ascend to. That would be ironic.

I was curious, so I took a look at Q’s website. I found “US News & World Report names Quinnipiac among the best national universities in the nation.” US News ranks them 166th! “The Princeton Review ranks Quinnipiac among the top 388 colleges in the country.” I didn’t check to see who’s 389.
.

I posted this a few days ago in the Opponents thread, but it didn't get any reaction, so I'll post it here, since it ties in to this thread.
This story from Forbes about Q's rise to a hockey powerhouse ends on this final note:

The Bobcats aren’t satisfied with the status quo, though. Quinnipiac is set to begin a renovation of the hockey locker room and lounges, and alumni and donors are planning to create a name, image and likeness program for hockey players, according to Amodio, who added that he has “ongoing conversations” with Pecknold about the program.

In other words, Q isn't going away. It's going to remain the team to beat in the ECAC for the foreseeable future.

Let's take this table of ECAC points per year per season per team (using the 2-point system) and call an "extended period of dominance" a 3-year streak of 30+ points. If there is an interruption in the streak, but the number of points below 30 for the missed year(s) is less than the number of years of the net streak, I'll count those years inclusive (e.g., Cor 04 and 06 included in our streak).

Here are the streaks since the Great Divorce:

Hvd 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Cgt 87 88 89 90
SLU 87 88 89 90 91 92
Clk 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
SLU 99 00 01
Cor 02 03 04 05 06
Cgt 04 05 06
Yal 09 10 11
Uni 10 11 12
Qpc 13 14 15 16 17
Cor 17 18 19 20 22 23
Clk 18 19 20 22
Qpc 19 20 22 23

I am red-bolding 35+ point seasons as exceptional.



By team:

Hvd 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Cgt 87 88 89 90
Cgt 04 05 06

SLU 87 88 89 90 91 92
SLU 99 00 01

Clk 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Clk 18 19 20 22

Cor 02 03 04 05 06
Cor 17 18 19 20 22 23

Yal 09 10 11

Uni 10 11 12

Qpc 13 14 15 16 17
Qpc 19 20 22 23

Q has now been a dominant program in the 10 full seasons since 2013 almost without a break, with 5 seasons 35+. Only Harvard in the late 80-early 90s (6 seasons 35+) and Clarkson in the 90s (only 1 season 35+) had that extended a period of control. Cornell's 2002-2012 stretch (3 seasons 35+) was roughly the same length but less accomplished.

Q is the first persistent threat we have had to face since the Harvard and Clarkson teams of 25-35 years ago. They are... a problem.

Trotsky
Let's take this table of ECAC points per year per season per team (using the 2-point system) and call an "extended period of dominance" a 3-year streak of 30+ points. If there is an interruption in the streak, but the number of points below 30 for the missed year(s) is less than the number of years of the net streak, I'll count those years inclusive (e.g., Cor 04 and 06 included in our streak).

Here are the streaks since the Great Divorce:

Hvd 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Cgt 87 88 89 90
SLU 87 88 89 90 91 92
Clk 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
SLU 99 00 01
Cor 02 03 04 05 06
Cgt 04 05 06
Yal 09 10 11
Uni 10 11 12
Qpc 13 14 15 16 17
Cor 17 18 19 20 22 23
Clk 18 19 20 22
Qpc 19 20 22 23

I am red-bolding 35+ point seasons as exceptional.



By team:

Hvd 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Cgt 87 88 89 90
Cgt 04 05 06

SLU 87 88 89 90 91 92
SLU 99 00 01

Clk 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Clk 18 19 20 22

Cor 02 03 04 05 06
Cor 17 18 19 20 22 23

Yal 09 10 11

Uni 10 11 12

Qpc 13 14 15 16 17
Qpc 19 20 22 23

Q has now been a dominant program in the 10 full seasons since 2013 almost without a break, with 5 seasons 35+. Only Harvard in the late 80-early 90s (6 seasons 35+) and Clarkson in the 90s (only 1 season 35+) had that extended a period of control. Cornell's 2002-2012 stretch (3 seasons 35+) was roughly the same length but less accomplished.

Q is the first persistent threat we have had to face since the Harvard and Clarkson teams of 25-35 years ago. They are... a problem.

I don’t know how you chose your above framing of dominance, but given this is a discussion over the effect of Q winning the national championship, shouldn’t your method capture things beyond regular season record? Your framing totally misses the extended success of Yale and Union around the time they won the national championship. For example, Union‘s national championship capped a four-year period during which they made the NCAAs all four years, won the ECAC three consecutive years, and made the Frozen Four twice (including the national championship year). Yale’s national championship fell in a span of 6 NCAA appearances in 8 years that also included two ECAC championships. More to the point of Schafer being forced to adjust, Yale’s record against Cornell between 2009 and 2013 (the year they won it all) was 10-2, including beating Cornell twice in the ECAC championship game by a combined score of 11-0.

So you’re essentially saying that Q winning the national championship and maintaining its dominance would force Schafer to adapt to a greater degree than Union winning three consecutive ECAC titles and a national championship, or Yale repeatedly crushing Cornell and winning a national championship? That’s total nonsense in my view.

Doubt Quinnipiac has any difficulty admitting hockey players. Quinnipiac’s 2021-2 Common Data Set reveals they admitted 89% of applicants (with an 11% yield). Btw the 11% yield is boosted by early decision & waitlist acceptances.

A reason to matriculate: Quinnipiac is a great place for dorky guys to meet cute girls. (A poster above noted video of the cheer squad at the FF in Tampa.) Women are two-thirds of the student body. If you can't meet somebody there, you aren't working the crowd.

I want Quinnipiac to win because this gives our conference three NCAA championships 2013-2023.

I also believe Rand Pecknold is a decent guy and he built this team from what seemed to be a club sport that eked into D3 and played in a high school-caliber rink; trying to recall if the glass was chain link fence or had been upgraded.

I also like Q because Rob Pannell decommitted from there to Cornell when his skills became clearer after HS. Smart man.

BearLover
I don’t know how you chose your above framing of dominance, but given this is a discussion over the effect of Q winning the national championship, shouldn’t your method capture things beyond regular season record? Your framing totally misses the extended success of Yale and Union around the time they won the national championship. For example, Union‘s national championship capped a four-year period during which they made the NCAAs all four years, won the ECAC three consecutive years, and made the Frozen Four twice (including the national championship year). Yale’s national championship fell in a span of 6 NCAA appearances in 8 years that also included two ECAC championships. More to the point of Schafer being forced to adjust, Yale’s record against Cornell between 2009 and 2013 (the year they won it all) was 10-2, including beating Cornell twice in the ECAC championship game by a combined score of 11-0.

So you’re essentially saying that Q winning the national championship and maintaining its dominance would force Schafer to adapt to a greater degree than Union winning three consecutive ECAC titles and a national championship, or Yale repeatedly crushing Cornell and winning a national championship? That’s total nonsense in my view.

It is one way of looking at things. Models are not reality. If you wish to show a different way, do it.

You are really starting to give the other guy a run for most unnecessarily obnoxious on this forum.

billhoward
A reason to matriculate: Quinnipiac is a great place for dorky guys to meet cute girls. (A poster above noted video of the cheer squad at the FF in Tampa.) Women are two-thirds of the student body. If you can't meet somebody there, you aren't working the crowd.

I want Quinnipiac to win because this gives our conference three NCAA championships 2013-2023.

I also believe Rand Pecknold is a decent guy and he built this team from what seemed to be a club sport that eked into D3 and played in a high school-caliber rink; trying to recall if the glass was chain link fence or had been upgraded.

I also like Q because Rob Pannell decommitted from there to Cornell when his skills became clearer after HS. Smart man.

And maybe a NC will make a move to Hockey East happen sooner?? (That’s wishful thinking anyway)

So, here's another way, using appearances in the NC$$.

Let's call "dominance" a streak of seasons including any appearance in the F4. Here are the recent streaks:

Qpc 19 21 22 23
Hvd 15 16 17
Qpc 13 14 15 16
Yal 13
Uni 11 12 13 14
Cor 02 03
SLU 99 00 01
Ver 96 97
Hvd 93 94
Clk 90 91 92
Cgt 90
SLU 87 88 89
Hvd 85 86 87 88 89
RPI 84 85

By team:

Qpc 19 21 22 23
Qpc 13 14 15 16

Hvd 15 16 17
Hvd 93 94
Hvd 85 86 87 88 89

Yal 13

Uni 11 12 13 14

Cor 02 03

SLU 99 00 01
SLU 87 88 89

Ver 96 97

Clk 90 91 92

Cgt 90

RPI 84 85

toddlose
And maybe a NC will make a move to Hockey East happen sooner?? (That’s wishful thinking anyway)

I would think they would stay until pushed. Why not? With few exceptions it looks like they can be penciled in as a bye team every season, much as we were once. But the only ways I can see us pushing would be self-defeating (imposing Ivy-like restrictions on the rest of the conference).

OTOH an NC will probably increase the flight of underclass players this year. Maybe we can flush Perets. I assume Pecker is a Lifer, and good for him.

I think the only thing that stops Q is some godawful internal scandal like the Vermont Elephant Walk, the Harvard Cheating, or the BU Rape Culture. It does seem like the kind of place that would happen, and Q doesn't have the deep roots that allowed the latter two to survive.

Trotsky

toddlose
And maybe a NC will make a move to Hockey East happen sooner?? (That’s wishful thinking anyway)

I would think they would stay until pushed. Why not? With few exceptions it looks like they can be penciled in as a bye team every season, much as we were once. But the only ways I can see us pushing would be self-defeating (imposing Ivy-like restrictions on the rest of the conference).

OTOH an NC will probably increase the flight of underclass players this year. Maybe we can flush Perets. I assume Pecker is a Lifer, and good for him.

I think the only thing that stops Q is some godawful internal scandal like the Vermont Elephant Walk, the Harvard Cheating, or the BU Rape Culture. It does seem like the kind of place that would happen, and Q doesn't have the deep roots that allowed the latter two to survive.

U don’t think pecknold would jump if offered a blueboood/nhl gig?

toddlose
U don’t think pecknold would jump if offered a blueboood/nhl gig?

I would think given his success he has gotten offers before. I have no idea, of course, but he sure seems to me to be a guy who has settled comfortably into beloved Founder, rather than just another asshole on the hedonic treadmill.

BearLover

Trotsky
Let's take this table of ECAC points per year per season per team (using the 2-point system) and call an "extended period of dominance" a 3-year streak of 30+ points. If there is an interruption in the streak, but the number of points below 30 for the missed year(s) is less than the number of years of the net streak, I'll count those years inclusive (e.g., Cor 04 and 06 included in our streak).

Here are the streaks since the Great Divorce:

Hvd 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Cgt 87 88 89 90
SLU 87 88 89 90 91 92
Clk 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
SLU 99 00 01
Cor 02 03 04 05 06
Cgt 04 05 06
Yal 09 10 11
Uni 10 11 12
Qpc 13 14 15 16 17
Cor 17 18 19 20 22 23
Clk 18 19 20 22
Qpc 19 20 22 23

I am red-bolding 35+ point seasons as exceptional.



By team:

Hvd 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Cgt 87 88 89 90
Cgt 04 05 06

SLU 87 88 89 90 91 92
SLU 99 00 01

Clk 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Clk 18 19 20 22

Cor 02 03 04 05 06
Cor 17 18 19 20 22 23

Yal 09 10 11

Uni 10 11 12

Qpc 13 14 15 16 17
Qpc 19 20 22 23

Q has now been a dominant program in the 10 full seasons since 2013 almost without a break, with 5 seasons 35+. Only Harvard in the late 80-early 90s (6 seasons 35+) and Clarkson in the 90s (only 1 season 35+) had that extended a period of control. Cornell's 2002-2012 stretch (3 seasons 35+) was roughly the same length but less accomplished.

Q is the first persistent threat we have had to face since the Harvard and Clarkson teams of 25-35 years ago. They are... a problem.

I don’t know how you chose your above framing of dominance, but given this is a discussion over the effect of Q winning the national championship, shouldn’t your method capture things beyond regular season record? Your framing totally misses the extended success of Yale and Union around the time they won the national championship. For example, Union‘s national championship capped a four-year period during which they made the NCAAs all four years, won the ECAC three consecutive years, and made the Frozen Four twice (including the national championship year). Yale’s national championship fell in a span of 6 NCAA appearances in 8 years that also included two ECAC championships. More to the point of Schafer being forced to adjust, Yale’s record against Cornell between 2009 and 2013 (the year they won it all) was 10-2, including beating Cornell twice in the ECAC championship game by a combined score of 11-0.

So you’re essentially saying that Q winning the national championship and maintaining its dominance would force Schafer to adapt to a greater degree than Union winning three consecutive ECAC titles and a national championship, or Yale repeatedly crushing Cornell and winning a national championship? That’s total nonsense in my view.

Why so much focus on Q?

True, it won the NC & has HUGE recruiting advantages compared to the Ivies & other members of the ECAC. I get it. But Q did not stop us from advancing to the FF.

We lost to Q on 11/5 & beat Q on 1/20. But our 1-0 loss to Harvard on Mar. 17 kept us from playing for the ECAC Championship, which Colgate won by beating Harvard. And our 2-1 loss to BU on Mar. 25 kept us from advancing to the FF.

It seems obvious that we need more elite offensive players to have at least one "scoring line" to compete at the championship level, but Q has not been our nemesis so far.

Considering the variety of schools to whom we have lost big games over the last decade or two, I suspect we are our own nemesis.

Swampy
But Q did not stop us from advancing to the FF.

< Yale has entered the chat >

arugula
Considering the variety of schools to whom we have lost big games over the last decade or two, I suspect we are our own nemesis.

Yeah, throughout all the discussion I wanted to say that Schafer (and his staff) has largely done the best he can given the internal and external challenges that Cornell faces, but if you're going to knock him for one thing, it's his record in the regional final games. 2003 was the only victory and that required overtime. I'm sure others who actually watched that game can speak more about whether Cornell was controlling play and just wasn't able to convert more against BC, but given the number of opportunities, only one Frozen Four appearance is jarring.

Iceberg

arugula
Considering the variety of schools to whom we have lost big games over the last decade or two, I suspect we are our own nemesis.

Yeah, throughout all the discussion I wanted to say that Schafer (and his staff) has largely done the best he can given the internal and external challenges that Cornell faces, but if you're going to knock him for one thing, it's his record in the regional final games. 2003 was the only victory and that required overtime. I'm sure others who actually watched that game can speak more about whether Cornell was controlling play and just wasn't able to convert more against BC, but given the number of opportunities, only one Frozen Four appearance is jarring.

it's simultaneously jarring that we have so few FFs but to be fair, we mostly weren't even supposed to be in the second round and we sure have played a lot of road games! Taking the list of appearances from tbrw where we advanced, this is what has happened in the second round:

1997: Upset over Miami before losing to North Dakota, as seeded
2002: W over Quinnipiac before losing to New Hampshire, as seeded
2003: W over Mankato, W over BC as the 1 seed. Don't want to talk about it any more.
2005: W over Ohio State, as seeded, before losing to Minnesota (in Minneapolis) in OT, as seeded
2006: W over Colorado College, as seeded, before losing to Wisconsin (in Green Bay) in 3OT, as seeded
2009: Upset over Northeastern before crushing blowout upset loss to Bemidji that I still think about too much.
2012: Upset over Michigan before losing to Ferris State, as seeded
2019: Upset over Northeastern before losing in an upset to Providence (in Providence)
2023: Upset over Denver before losing to BU, as seeded

2009 and 2019 are the only years where we were "supposed" to win the second round match and didn't and 2019 was a road game. If losing in the second round is a problem, it's a problem created by simply winning in the first round too much. Not sure I have a problem with that; the problem actually stems from not being a top 4 team very often.

Iceberg

arugula
Considering the variety of schools to whom we have lost big games over the last decade or two, I suspect we are our own nemesis.

Yeah, throughout all the discussion I wanted to say that Schafer (and his staff) has largely done the best he can given the internal and external challenges that Cornell faces, but if you're going to knock him for one thing, it's his record in the regional final games. 2003 was the only victory and that required overtime. I'm sure others who actually watched that game can speak more about whether Cornell was controlling play and just wasn't able to convert more against BC, but given the number of opportunities, only one Frozen Four appearance is jarring.

Partly it's bad luck.

Adding the 1986 instance in which he was a player, of the 9 times Schafer has failed to advance:

1986 was a one-goal loss in a two-game total goals series
2002 was a one goal loss
2005 was an overtime loss
2006 was a triple-overtime loss
2012 was a one-goal loss
2023 was a one-goal loss

However, SOG have not favored us:

1986 51-71 (net)
2002 18-24
2005 18-39
2006 40-60
2012 23-21
2023 14-21

FWIW, SOG in the BC win were 36-27.

What exacerbates this all is Yale and Union winning (and Providence). The luck/underdog factor. Yes, we usually shouldn't have won, but can't we get lucky once?

Trotsky

Iceberg

arugula
Considering the variety of schools to whom we have lost big games over the last decade or two, I suspect we are our own nemesis.

Yeah, throughout all the discussion I wanted to say that Schafer (and his staff) has largely done the best he can given the internal and external challenges that Cornell faces, but if you're going to knock him for one thing, it's his record in the regional final games. 2003 was the only victory and that required overtime. I'm sure others who actually watched that game can speak more about whether Cornell was controlling play and just wasn't able to convert more against BC, but given the number of opportunities, only one Frozen Four appearance is jarring.

Partly it's bad luck.

Adding the 1986 instance in which he was a player, of the 9 times Schafer has failed to advance:

1986 was a one-goal loss in a two-game total goals series
2002 was a one goal loss
2005 was an overtime loss
2006 was a triple-overtime loss
2012 was a one-goal loss
2023 was a one-goal loss

However, SOG have not favored us:

1986 51-71 (net)
2002 18-24
2005 18-39
2006 40-60
2012 23-21
2023 14-21

FWIW, SOG in the BC win were 36-27.

I think while some bad luck has been involved, the other key factor is just not having quite the offensive firepower needed to win in these games against other strong programs that are sound defensively but have been stronger offensively. 2020 was the outlier IMO, but of course we'll never know what would've transpired.

Special delivery for Bearlover

For inquiring minds, the history of the NCAA tournament demonstrates that having high NHL draft picks--or even many draft picks period--does not translate into NCAA hockey championships.

scoop85
Special delivery for Bearlover

For inquiring minds, the history of the NCAA tournament demonstrates that having high NHL draft picks--or even many draft picks period--does not translate into NCAA hockey championships.

If you’re stacking your team with enough overagers that should be in the AHL. I think ideally one or two game breaking draft picks would be beneficial though.

arugula
What exacerbates this all is Yale and Union winning (and Providence). The luck/underdog factor. Yes, we usually shouldn't have won, but can't we get lucky once?

of course, but most of life is an annoying parade of other people getting luckier than you. that's why humanity is so collectively miserable. it isn't really a hockey thing.

scoop85
Special delivery for Bearlover

For inquiring minds, the history of the NCAA tournament demonstrates that having high NHL draft picks--or even many draft picks period--does not translate into NCAA hockey championships.

As I’ve said many times, one way to win other than blue-chip talent is stacking your roster with fifth-years and transfers. I actually find the latter more, not less, discouraging with respect to Cornell’s chances. At least we can in theory compete on the axis of recruiting the best players. We absolutely cannot, however, compete on the axis of fifth-years and transfers.

underskill

scoop85
Special delivery for Bearlover

For inquiring minds, the history of the NCAA tournament demonstrates that having high NHL draft picks--or even many draft picks period--does not translate into NCAA hockey championships.

If you’re stacking your team with enough overagers that should be in the AHL. I think ideally one or two game breaking draft picks would be beneficial though.

NCAA sports in general — and Ivy sports to a more extreme degree — still are based on the idea that a “typical” undergrad is in the 18-23 age range. The reality at most universities is far different, and a significant number of undergraduate students are 25 and older. Should the makeup of sports teams reflect sone outdated idea of who undergrads are or more accurately reflect the real demographics?

we can compete with 5yr kids they just cant be 5th yr grad students because of another dumb IVY rule.

Just curious. What rules on age, etc. were Cornell and the other Ivies living with when Dick Bertrand was a player? I recall that he was about as old as the QU grad student players when he arrived at Cornell.

ursusminor
Just curious. What rules on age, etc. were Cornell and the other Ivies living with when Dick Bertrand was a player? I recall that he was about as old as the QU grad student players when he arrived at Cornell.

If I recall correctly, one of the rules was about class year, not age - when Dick arrived at the age of 25, he wasn't allowed to play for varsity because he was a freshman. I don't know what the upper age limit at the time was, but he was still an undergraduate at 29 years old when he took over the head coaching position.

Also IIRC, he was a police officer before he was a college student, but my memory could be inventing that.

Dick Bertrand was a Toronto police officer before Cornell. (Insert "Harkness needed another enforcer" joke here.) He arrived at Cornell as a 25-year-old, when freshmen could not play varsity (all schools, not just Ivies). This in an era when Canadian players were uncommon at some schools. BC and its coach Snooks Kelley refused to recruit Canadians -- foreigners -- on the grounds that the U.S. should develop its own talent. Other schools preferred American players but not exclusively. (Fast forward five decades, US players have arrived, although less the BC role of excluding Canadians, more that Americans came to play as well as Canadians, and Europeans, by playing against them.)

The NCAA had a Screw the Canadians rule which -- I'm a mite hazy here -- you lost something like a year of eligibility for every year you were over 25, something like that, and could not play in the NCAA tournament. The other hazy part is, I believe, the rule applied to every nationality but really it was a No Older Canadians rule. There were age exemptions for veterans and missionaries, in case BYU was thinking of fielding a team. It worked out so that Bertrand competed on varsity sophomore through junior year then for senior year, as a 29-year-old captain, he played the RS and had to sit out the NCAAs. Good thing we won the NCAAs fine without him, that is we didn't lose based on Bertrand's line without Bertrand got caught on ice for the winning goal by Clarkson (final instead was 6-4 Cornell and 29-0 and all). If that happened, the telex version of eLynah would have been outraged.

Bertrand coached at Cornell for a decade but he had a mixed relationship with the players. In hindsight, he never had a chance to spend a couple years as an assistant and transition from player to coach to long-term successful head coach.

Boston College fun fact: From 1932 to 2022, BC had just four hockey coaches (excluding a pair of temp coaches during WW II.)

BearLover

scoop85
Special delivery for Bearlover

For inquiring minds, the history of the NCAA tournament demonstrates that having high NHL draft picks--or even many draft picks period--does not translate into NCAA hockey championships.

As I’ve said many times, one way to win other than blue-chip talent is stacking your roster with fifth-years and transfers. I actually find the latter more, not less, discouraging with respect to Cornell’s chances. At least we can in theory compete on the axis of recruiting the best players. We absolutely cannot, however, compete on the axis of fifth-years and transfers.

Agree on 5th years, but one or two transfers a year is doable I'd think. Seger transferred in and was our top scorer.

the thing that helps is hockey is not all full rides or even 4 yr deals.. There are a decent number of kids at some of these schools who are always looking for a better deal and some more time and already pay their own way.

the question is can we find them and do they want to go to an IVY

I would think we could use the portal to our advantage because kids and their parents will want the (warranted or not) cache of the designer label. If you do 99% of your credits at SUNY Plattsburg and graduate from Cornell you're Ivy for life.

Now lets get out there and steal some kids from Q.

Chase Yager transferred from Amherst lacrosse to Harvard lacrosse. Academically, transferring Amherst or Williams to Harvard is a lateral move.

Harvard bio: [gocrimson.com]
Interview: [laxallstars.com]

Looks like he had a walk-on in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Trotsky
My hot take is having this malevolent glutton in our conference forces us to build a team that can compete with it, which accidentally will build a team that can win a national championship.

Go Q. Set a standard for the rest of us to ascend to. That would be ironic.

Bump.
@RichH
@Trosky

That was irony.