Underhill

Does anyone have any info on Underhill's injury, and what his status is?

Not a lot of info, but this is what the USCHO rescap (http://uscho.com/recaps/20012002/m/03/01/cor-rpi.php) says:

"The game did not start on a good note for the Big Red. Matt Underhill, who was scheduled to start in net, took a shot in the warmup and did not return."

They also quote Schafer as saying "It was a rough way to start, to lose your goaltender on a shot in warmup and then to face a 5-on-3. It was a tough way to start a road trip against a good hockey team and then we got back in it on the power play. We moved it around."

So, not a ton of information, and certainly no status yet, but that's the news so far.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

Considering that the playoffs are one week away, expect detailed information about Matt's status to be kept close to the vest.

The only thing I can think of is the shot that caught LeNeveu near the throat last weekend vs. St. Lawrence. Thankfully, David was OK and finished the game after a tense delay. Let's just hope that Underhill will recover as fast and was replaced tonight just as a precaution. As coach said, it speaks well of David that he was indeed ready to go on Friday when called upon.

It'll be telling to see if Underhill starts at Union and if he doesn't, if he's at least dressed.

It seems like an injury in warmups is more likely to be something where a puck hits you in a bad spot, maybe causing a bruise or another short-term injury. But then again, I really am no authority on such matters. Let's hope for the best.

Ok, maybe I'm the only one who missed it so far, but I just heard "shot off the leg." And if you're not listening to the game but can be (why you'd do that, I dunno), they'll be an interview with him later.

It troubles me that Matt was not even dressed & on the bench as an emergency back-up on Friday night. That makes the injury seem serious to me. If Todd Marr wasn't present, did CU really start a game with just one goalie? Who was dressed as backup on the bench for Saturday's game?

Grady gave a long dissertation about how if you were on the road and had a goalie injured you could play with only one goalie dressed and not be penalized. So I'm guessing only LeNeveu was dressed.

undy was standing and watching the game in the little walkway between the locker room and the ice tonight so at least he can walk

I recall Grady saying he was really favoring the injured leg.

Sounds like they didn't dress Underhill so they could get an extra skater into the lineup. True?

Dunno. Kelly Hughes was at the game Friday night but was not dressed. I don't recall hearing his name tonight--or any other than the usual suspects.

I'm pretty sure you can't substitute a skater for a goalie. You are allowed 18 skaters and 3 goalies, not 21 players to divide as you will.

He was half dressed. I didn't count the team numbers but Matt was in the small runway leading to the visitor dressing room during the game. He had his pads and skates on.

What's with the script "Bruins" on his pads?

I saw the RPI warmup and it didn't look like Undy was hit with a shot. To me it looked like he went down awkwardly and might have pulled something. He couldn't even get off the ice under his own power - he was on his hands and knees trying to make it to the gate and then the RPI rink staff had to help him up the stairs. He came back out a few minutes later but could barely skate, let alone go up and down like a goalie needs to. Didn't see him at all during the Union game, not in warmup or on the bench or anything. Here's hoping he's okay.

Jayson Moy described it on a USCHO thread as "Underhill went down hard" in warmups.

Actually, the script says "Brian's", a manufacturer of goalie equipment.

Thanks

test

Well, I seem to be missing some posts. The category is reading as "new" and the time indicates that I am not the only poster today, but I don't see any other posts. Is the problem on my end?

No, there was a post that was removed by the author, so I deleted it. The last post time is unaltered though.

Any updated info on Underhill?

The Sun today again referred to him taking a shot (off the leg, they said) during warmups.

But I think it's clear that if you saw Underhill on Friday night, that they're trying to hide something with his back. And that's probably why that post was deleted.

BTW, that brings up an interesting issue. If Schafer wants it out there that he just had a banged up leg, should this forum be used to state otherwise?

Also of note is how: ""He (Fulton) said it didn't make it over the line,'' said RPI co-captain Matt Murley, who found a silver lining in defeat. "Now Cornell knows we're gonna be able to beat them when we meet them in Lake Placid'' gets printed in the Albany Times-Union

while: "Cornell knows we are a better team," Murley said after the loss, "and we are going to beat them in Lake Placid" is the quote in the Daily Sun.

First SLU, now RPI. What is it with teams who finished a dozen points below us in the standings insisting that our guys know that those are better teams?!

Beeeej

Jordan wrote:

BTW, that brings up an interesting issue. If Schafer wants it out there that he just had a banged up leg, should this forum be used to state otherwise?

Probably not.

Maybe you should consider revising your post.

Any (mis-) information, rumors or speculation about any unconfirmed injuries serve only to violate Matt's privacy, hurt the team, and possibly even hurt Matt's post collegiate career options. I would suggest we respect Matt and Mike's decision to keep whatever may be the situation private.

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

Any (mis-) information, rumors or speculation about any unconfirmed injuries serve only to violate Matt's privacy, hurt the team, and possibly even hurt Matt's post collegiate career options. I would suggest we respect Matt and Mike's decision to keep whatever may be the situation private.

Get outta town, John. I won't pretend that rumor-mongering is a good thing, but I don't think that we are revealing state secrets here. And even though I wish Matt Underhill the best in his post-Cornell career, is it your point that if he is injured he should be able to tell pro teams that he isn't? That a pro scout will say "Well, his physical says he is in good health and he is a hell of a goalie - but an anonymous poster on a Cornell-hockey-junkie website indicated that he has a back problem. We'd better pass." Your post is a bit of a mystery to me.

And I can't imagine a scenario in which our idle speculation can hurt the team. Any opponent looking for clues to Cornell weaknesses here is already in dire straits, and any opponent that would trust our speculation on the alleged injuries in the face of contrary information from the team is clearly in an even worse position. We want to know because we care - both about Undy and the success of the team. If anyone has information, they shouldn't be shy about sharing it.

At what point does our right to know exceed Matt's right to privacy? I guess I understated this point in my initial post.

If Matt or Mike choose to make public statements about his condition, then discussions are fair game, but until then I think unfounded speculation does no one any good. That was my point; I'm sorry if I came off in some sort of x-files, aluminum foil deflector beanie kind of way. No, I don't seriously think that Tim Taylor reads our forum, nor do I think that NHL scouts care what we think.

But I do think the (very tiny) potential for harm caused by speculation and/or partial information outweighs any positive probative value any such information would have for a bunch of obsessed Cornell hockey junkies. Given a tossup between personal privacy and the public's right to know, I think privacy is more important.

Of course, this is just one man's opinion and I could be wrong...

I wouldn't make too much of it. I think it' just the other team's guys trying to pump up their teammates for their next meeting with cornell. Hey, if it helps their confidence, good for them, and if it truly becomes bulletin board fodder for cornell, well, that's the chance the guy takes.

I've read a lot of this type of comments in previous years when Clarkson was leading in the RS...no one makes much of it.

I doubt the cornell players are worried about what they say.

Who knew we had such influence? Gee, I figured we were just a bunch of fans with nothing else to do. But it turns out we have an extremely important role to play.

Get over yourself and enjoy the damn games. Sheesh.

This is a discussion forum. Underhill got hurt on Friday. Various people may have seen what happened and it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with us discussing what we think may have happened or what the injury mey be. That's what fans do.

As far as privacy is concerned, Schafer and/or Underhill have decided not to disclose details of the injury with the public. That's their right, whether it be for reasons of privacy, strategy, whatever. But we can still discuss it. Now, if I had just spoken to Matt and he'd told me his condition but asked me to keep it quiet then I would be violating his privacy by blabbing on this forum (in an ethical sense at least). But aside from that I figure it's fair ground to discuss (and I have never spoken to him).

It might be a different thing if Underhill had been suspended for off-ice issues and we were speculating about why and/or passing rumors around. But the current situation is about an injury that happened on the ice in warmups in front of the crowd.

On a different note (though related to screcy I guess), would Yale's preparation vary significantly depending on whether they thought Underhill or LeNeveu would be playing?

On a different note (though related to screcy I guess), would Yale's preparation vary significantly depending on whether they thought Underhill or LeNeveu would be playing?

I wouldn't image a "significant" difference, but obviously, 2 goalies to prepare for is still more than 1.

Cheers to that! I'm as much into thinking about playoff possibilities, Underhill's possible injury, PWR rankings and the NCAA tournament as the next crazed member of the Lynah faithful, but there's nothing wrong with stepping back from all that and realizing this year's team is the best we've seen in a long long time. So here's to Undy, no matter what happens from here on out, for having one hell of a season in net and conducting himself with class every step of the way even though he might have bitched and moaned about having to split time with a Frosh as a Senior. And I just love seeing that countdown to the playoffs get closer and closer to "0" across the board!

KeithK '93 wrote:

As far as privacy is concerned, Schafer and/or Underhill have decided not to disclose details of the injury with the public. That's their right, whether it be for reasons of privacy, strategy, whatever. But we can still discuss it. Now, if I had just spoken to Matt and he'd told me his condition but asked me to keep it quiet then I would be violating his privacy by blabbing on this forum (in an ethical sense at least). But aside from that I figure it's fair ground to discuss (and I have never spoken to him).

But that is exactly what happened. Or at least the ethical equivalent. A well meaning post was made detailing information that was priviledged information between Matt and his healthcare provider. The post was then removed by the original author.

Jordan then asked if we should be discussing this information given that it conflicted with Coach's party line. In trying to respond, I made a poorly worded post that read like a kooky alt.black-helicopters post when all I meant to do was reaffirm Matt's right to privacy.

KeithK '93 wrote:

On a different note (though related to screcy I guess), would Yale's preparation vary significantly depending on whether they thought Underhill or LeNeveu would be playing?

As Jordan mentioned, prepping for 2 goalies in harder than 1. Of course, given the similarities in styles between Matt and David, who knows if this would have any meaningful effect. But still, why make it easier?


Greg Berge wrote:

Who knew we had such influence? Gee, I figured we were just a bunch of fans with nothing else to do. But it turns out we have an extremely important role to play.

Get over yourself and enjoy the damn games. Sheesh.

Although I don't think Greg was actually agreeing with me, this was exactly my point. Our knowing more about Matt's injury does absolutely nothing for us. Nada. Nothing. Zip. We are fans, nothing more. Given that, isn't Matt's right to privacy and Coach's tactical decision not to release any information more important that our right to know?


<&lt;>soapbox<&gt;>
I don't mean to be all preachy about this this but the balance between privacy and security and the need for public disclosure is a touchy issue for me. With my only sister, her husband and a very close friend on active duty in the military, I was incensed when the Syracuse newspaper reported that the 10th Mtn Div. was shipping out of Ft. Drum for Central Asia. Does Osama read the Post Standard? Not fricking likely, but still, why does the press in this country insist that we have a god given right to every little juicy detail, regardless of the potential cost.

When you couple this with the emphasis we have here at work with regard to NIH guidelines on confidentiality, I get really pissy really quickly whenever these sort of privacy issues are raised.
<&lt;>/soapbox<&gt;>

Am I saying Cornell hockey is as important as the war in central asia? Of course not. I just wish that, as a country, we would learn to take the 15 seconds to stop and ask ourselves "Do I really need to know?" or "Should this information really be publicized?"

Just some food for thought.

Obviously if someone posted something here that they were told in confidence or had no right to know in the first place, that was a mistake. If Matt and Schafer are trying to keep the details of an injury concealed for strategic reasons, that is their prerogative. But I would have to disagree with some previous posters who seem to imply that Matt's injury is not a valid topic of conversation. While most of us don't have our medical histories aired in public, athletes are in a different category. Go to ESPN.com, and you will find pages and pages about what pro athletes are having what surgeries on what dates, etc. Injuries are a part of sports, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for fans to discuss injuries that may affect their team.

OK, I'd forgotten about the healthcare provider post. I agree that that isn't a very cool thing to do. However, imagine that the Ithaca Journal printed an article describing some details of a player's condition that the coach didn't want to officially publicize. Would it be innappropriate for us to discuss it and our opinions about the duration/impact/whatever? I don't think so. The ethical issue is primarily for the one dispensing the information in the first place and for one who would spread unconfirmed rumor. Thus I am glad the original poster deleted his post. But ni the hypothetical newspaper case discussion would not be unwarranted.

John, I agree with you that we in this country sometimes go overboard in regards to wantnig to know every little detail. The press sees it as a right, but much of it is attributable to the public's desire for this information (though there are certainly those in the press who would seek full disclosure on idealogical grounds regardless of public interest). In the case of the military I fully support the idea of secrecy when necessary. I'm not sure your example is a great one. I mean, if bin Laden's crew wanted to know which Army divisions were being sent out it wouldn't be that hard to find out. There really aren't that many candidates and it's hard to hide the deployment of an army division - too many people involved outside of the military. Yes, the newspaper may save them a little legwork but...

Regardnig my other question, what I really mean is do teams run practices and prepare themselves differently based on the opposing goalie. Yes, different guys have different styles but is it more than just telling the team the day bfore the game "this guy tends to drop down" or "has a slow glove hand"? John and Jordan say that two goalies is harder to prepare for than one. Sounds reasonable but I'm looking for more details on how much so and why.

John and Jordan say that two goalies is harder to prepare for than one. Sounds reasonable but I'm looking for more details on how much so and why.

To be fair to myself, I didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement for the troubles of preparing for 2 goalies.

Just stated the obvious that preparing for 2 is more than 1

> Although I don't think Greg was actually agreeing with me, this was exactly my point.

Well, no, I was not agreeing with you. I was making light of you, no worse or better than I hope I'd make light of myself if I voiced the same silly, alarmist sentiment.

I hope nothing said here makes any difference to anybody who does this for a living -- if it does, I fear for their job.

About 1% of everything I've ever read on hockey fora over the years is anything more than absurdity created from abject boredom. Especially when people who honestly think they know what they are talking about opine in what they feel is an objective and intelligent manner, the odds are overwhelming that they are really talking complete crap, at best just to hear themselves yammer.

On an unrelated note, I hear Murray's right cross is weak, so in the post-season, I urge all Cornell opponents to approach him from the stick side, cross over, and easily drive him to the boards. Works every time.

> I hope nothing said here makes any difference to anybody who does this for a living -- if it does, I fear for their job.

Huh?! You mean I coulda been getting PAID for all my posts?! Dammit, why didn't you say so sooner?! (And where can I get an application?)

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

But that is exactly what happened. Or at least the ethical equivalent. A well meaning post was made detailing information that was priviledged information between Matt and his healthcare provider. The post was then removed by the original author.

"Ethical equivalent"? It is only equivalent if the person got the information FROM the healthcare provider. Since the post is gone (and if it is the one I think it is, I don't remember any "I heard this from Matt's doctor . . ." I can't tell if the source of the information was improper. If it was, I am glad it is gone. I even think if someone realized that they were breaching a confidence and removed the information, that is reasonable.

As a general matter, however, if the information came from Underhill, or someone who got it from Underhill, it isn't the ethical equivalent of anything. It is only as confidential as you make it, and if you are injudicious in who you share your medical information with it isn't a breach of anything when the person who gets the information third-hand (us) starts talking about it. Again, there are reliability issues, but not privacy issues.

As Jordan mentioned, prepping for 2 goalies in harder than 1. Of course, given the similarities in styles between Matt and David, who knows if this would have any meaningful effect. But still, why make it easier?

How? They are goalies! They stand in front of the net and block shots. They both have sub-2 GAA. I don't get this at all.

Greg Berge wrote:

Our knowing more about Matt's injury does absolutely nothing for us. Nada. Nothing. Zip. We are fans, nothing more.

Nothing more? We are fans, and that is everything. We care about the bumps and bruises. We care about the microscopic effects a slightly overcooked egg for breakfast will have on a players mood throughout gameday. We care. If Schafer and Underhill want to keep the information from me, so be it. But if I find it out (through legitimate means) I am damn well going to share it and discuss it. Right to privacy? He is, in a limited sense, a public figure. And the public part is "things that will effect how he and/or the team will play".

I was incensed when the Syracuse newspaper reported that the 10th Mtn Div. was shipping out of Ft. Drum for Central Asia. Does Osama read the Post Standard?

"Oh crap," said Osama bin Laden upon hearing the news, "not Ft. Drum! I was hoping for a less gung ho group of soldiers!"

Again, I am mystified. The President and numerous staff members went on television and announced that we were sending troops to Asia. What, exactly, did the Post Standard do wrong? It is legitimate news, and if the most specific the article got was "central Asia" I am fairly certain that no vital information was disclosed.

I think your prickliness regarding "privacy" issues is a bit exaggerated and really tightens the "need to know" standard in a way that restricts discourse and hamstrings the press. I'd get off of my soapbox, but it was grafted to my feet during my childhood - I'm here all the time now.

Sorry about the tags (and other errors in excerpting) on the previous post. I can't seem to edit it. (If, by the time you read this Age has been able to fix my mistake, thanks Age.)

big red apple wrote:

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

But that is exactly what happened. Or at least the ethical equivalent. A well meaning post was made detailing information that was priviledged information between Matt and his healthcare provider. The post was then removed by the original author.

"Ethical equivalent"? It is only equivalent if the person got the information FROM the healthcare provider. Since the post is gone (and if it is the one I think it is, I don't remember any "I heard this from Matt's doctor . . ." I can't tell if the source of the information was improper. If it was, I am glad it is gone. I even think if someone realized that they were breaching a confidence and removed the information, that is reasonable.

The post in question stated "I heard from my friend that talked to Matt's nurse that ....." While this is 3rd hand information, it *did* in fact come from Matt's healthcare provider, not from Matt. I thought the post was well intentioned but that the author may not have fully considered the ethical issues so I emailed the person last night and said so. When I got up this morning, the original author had removed to the post. I guess you'll just need to trust me here that the info as posted didn't appear to come from Matt.

big red apple wrote:

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

As Jordan mentioned, prepping for 2 goalies in harder than 1. Of course, given the similarities in styles between Matt and David, who knows if this would have any meaningful effect. But still, why make it easier?

How? They are goalies! They stand in front of the net and block shots. They both have sub-2 GAA. I don't get this at all.

[/QUOTE]

Different players have different weakness. Given limited time in practice, not knowing which goalie you will face will force you split time prepping for both. Your comment however, completely ignores the fact that I conceded that this may not actually matter with Matt and David given their similar styles.

big red apple wrote:

Nothing more? We are fans, and that is everything. We care about the bumps and bruises. We care about the microscopic effects a slightly overcooked egg for breakfast will have on a players mood throughout gameday. We care. If Schafer and Underhill want to keep the information from me, so be it. But if I find it out (through legitimate means) I am damn well going to share it and discuss it. Right to privacy? He is, in a limited sense, a public figure. And the public part is "things that will effect how he and/or the team will play".

I absolutely agree 100% that injuries to athletes are fair game for discussion. However, the information in question wasn't obtained through what you term "legitimate means." Moreover, in my original post, I was simply answering Jordan's question, which was whether or not it was appropriate to use the forum to disseminate information that contradicts what Mike has said in the press. I said that I didn't think so. This is a decision that each person needs to make for themselves.

For me personally, if I had a piece of information that I knew Matt wanted kept quiet, I wouldn't feel right sharing it here, regardless of how I learned about it.

big red apple wrote:

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

I was incensed when the Syracuse newspaper reported that the 10th Mtn Div. was shipping out of Ft. Drum for Central Asia. Does Osama read the Post Standard?

"Oh crap," said Osama bin Laden upon hearing the news, "not Ft. Drum! I was hoping for a less gung ho group of soldiers!"

Knowing the type of forces deployed gives a great deal of insight as to the type of mission they will be undertaking. A Light Infantry Div. like the 10th is suited for different roles than something like the 2nd Armored Cav.

But anyway, this is besides the point. I was giving this example in an attempt to illustrate that we seem to have lost the ability to step back and ask the important question of whether or not the benefit of disclosing a piece of information outweigh the potential consquences of such a disclosure.


big red apple wrote:

I think your prickliness regarding "privacy" issues is a bit exaggerated and really tightens the "need to know" standard in a way that restricts discourse and hamstrings the press.

Perhaps. I guess in this area, I'm inclined to err on the side of discretion.

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

The post in question stated "I heard from my friend that talked to Matt's nurse that ....."

Matt's nurse really should shut the @#*& up (if, in fact, the nurse was the source of the information). S/he should be disciplined by the hospital/doctor that s/he works for her(his) indiscretion.

The rest of the post doesn't need any more response from me. I think each of us knows where the other stands. (Except to note that if the DOD didn't want the Syracuse paper to report that the infantry was going to Central Asia, they would have prevented it.)

I just wanted to answer the 2 vs. 1 goalie prep time from the standpoint of an actual hockey player. While there are certainly a ton of tapes out there from games this year, you will find that most teams spend little time on "goalie prep."

Figuring your way around a defense is more important than figuring your way around the goalie. If this were a shootout to determine who moved on, maybe, but the fact of the matter is most guys just try to put the puck where the goalie ain't. Yes, some guys go down quicker/slower, tend to be better/worse at playing the puck behind the boards or stray just a smidge too high/too low in the crease, but most of what you need to know about a goalie can be explained in a few short sentences.

I'm a goalie, so here's an example: "Go five hole on a break away." There you have it. That's all you need to know that makes me different from anyone else. Now just don't spread that.

BTW... that said, I defend the press but don't want private medical info (i.e. not speculation, but someone actually knowing something) posted anywhere. As far as the army movement, i don't think it really matters that we say they're leaving, and most in Syracuse would be happy to have heard that it happened (from a knowledge standpoint). Now if we posted exact movements while in Afghanistan, that's a different story.

Here's to hoping Undy's ok.

And at what point did a bunch of college kids become pro athletes? It's not like they're being paid millions of dollars to justify having their private lives publicly divulged. You all need to get over yourselves.
I know several of you make it a point to never get to know any of the players as you prefer they remain faceless entities on the ice that you can speculate on, criticize, and elevate guilt-free. Try and respect the facts that a) they are still just college students at last check, b) not only are they not professionals, but they probably turned down significant scholarships from other schools to come here, and c) if the team doesn't want medical information released, it's not to frustrate you holier-than-though-right-to-know-above-all-else freaks, but for an actual reason.

Sorry, Age, but - blah blah blah.

I don't think the pro/amateur distinction is as significant as you do, and I think the scholarship/non-scholarship distinction is irrelevant. They do somthing public. They know that because they play hockey, strangers care about their lives. Did I steal his medical chart? No. If someone else has information that has come from a legitimate source, is it fair game for discussion? Yes. If I don't know where the information came from, is it off-limits until it has been sourced properly? Of course not. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is damn hard to stuff it back.

And "holier-than-thou"? Judge not, etc. Yours is as self-righteous a post as anything I've put together. It isn't about a "right to know" but about what is reasonable public discourse when the facts are out or reasonable speculation when they are unconfirmed. If the coach and the player want it kept a secret, they should keep it secret. Once it is in the open I don't see why blinders are in order.

I really have to stay away from this thread.

Whether they are professional athletes or not is irrelevant to whether we are entitled to discuss or speculate about injuries that might affect their ability to play at 100% or at all.

The information to which this thread relates is now available to the general public, possibly thanks to someone's breach of medical ethics, but nevertheless, it is available. We the fans have no signed any sort of confidentiality agreement in which we agree not to discuss information if we knew that it had been disclosed in violation of someone's right to doctor-patient confidentiality. We are free to speculate and discuss based on any information we have (or, as is often the case, no information at all).

There is a strong argument that by playing on the hockey team, these students have become public figures and so are no entitled to any expectation of privacy, but regardless of how one feels on that point, I don't see how anyone could reasonably believe it is not acceptable to discuss an injury or possible injury that might affect on-ice performance.

I think that people who feel "close" to the players (justifiably or not) probably have their judgment impaired on this point. I know that a few years after I graduated, when one of the players sublet my apartment in Boston during one summer, I was very defensive when anyone criticized him (fortunately that didn't happen often as he had a great season the following year before turning pro). My judgment was skewed because I had more of a relationship with him than just another fan or hockey booster.

But what you have to recognize is that the mere fact that they play for free, without scholarships, doesn't mean they are no subject to public discussion of injuries, play on the ice or even more personal things. Yes, you might feel differently because your judgment is skewed due to some sort of "personal" relationship, but trust me, it's no different for friends and family of professional athletes. No one likes it, but it's part of the deal, whethe you play for pay or not.

I never said it was right for scholarship athletes either! Just moreso for these guys. And no, there's no confidentiality agreement. But aparently there isn't even a modicum of decency in this group either. The right to discuss and debate the injury is not in question here. It never was. Was was being questioned is the source of the information from the deleted post, which I don't think should have been public information. But of course, you lot turned it into a friggin holy war as usual.

ok. this is just my thought on the issue. i have no facts to back me up but am gussing that part of the reason so many players are recruited from canada is because they can more or less get HUGE financial help without "scholarship". getting a lot of money from cornell for tuition is more or less a given for most canadians (its how i got through cornell)because of the exchange rate. a middle class canadian family, after the exchange, hovers just slightly above the poverty line. thus lots of $ could be awarded in terms of financial aid.

Can't we all just get along?

At this point, I can't resist given the flame war this issue has caused.

Frankly, I just think it's wonderful that the team has done so well this year that our most urgent priorities seem to be pissing each other off, being right, and having the last word.

Beeeej

That would be fine if anyone disagreed that the nurse shouldn't have talked. Nobody disagrees with that.

I concede (and I think those on my side also concede) that you were CORRECT to delete the post after the poster realized the nature of her indiscretion. I also want to note that it has been dozens of posts since anyone has discussed the nature of the alleged injury. All we are discussing is the nature of privacy.

If it seems like a holy war, it is only because you feel as strongly about your position as I do about mine. We both have that old-time religion. I have nothing to apologize for. All I have done is disagree (strongly) - and I haven't wasted time accusing my "opponents" of anything but being wrong.

(Dammit, I think we had been getting along for over a year!)

Point, and match - Hayes.

Well, I don't censor either (unless it's Hayes). I only removed the post AFTER the person who posted it erased its contents. If they had left it up, I don't feel it would have been my place to remove it. I would have bitched just as vehemently though.

Oh My God!! Everyone needs to RELAX! The first time I heard anything about Undy's injury was a quote from Schafer I read in an article. Something to the effect of, "It's not really anything very serious. It's just a precaution." So if that's what he says, that's what I think. There is no need to speculate. I don't think I read the post about the nurse or whatever but you people read into things way too much. It's all hearsay. As far as I'm concerned, I hope Undy is ok, but who really cares? It's not like our back-up goalie is anything to worry about. As for Yale, they are in 10th place. If they are going to beat us, it won't be because they have slightly altered practice because of our goalie situation. It will be because of a complete offensive and defensive breakdown on our part. Besides, their coaches are probably more knowledgeable of the situation than we are anyway. What we say or write about is nothing more than speculation on others' speculation, and a) no one is going to read this looking for legitimate info, and b)those who do read this are not going to take it anymore seriously than as speculation. My God! How can you people actually enjoy hockey when you get so emotional over such things?

Erica, you've kinda missed the point of the recent posts, which contain a more theoretical discussion of a non-scholarship student-athletes expectation of privacy and the fans' right to discuss said student-athlete. I don't think anyone here has any problem enjoying hockey, but we do have different views on when it is OK to disclose information that may have come from a source who violated a person's confidence and when it is appropriate to discuss such information once it is in the public domain.

But as to losing to Yale, sure, the Elis finished in 10th place and we finished in first, but I think it will take far less than a "complete offensive and defensive breakdown" for us to lose. Did you miss the fact that they tied us 1-1 at Lynah and we only beat them 3-2 at the Whale, with a winning goal coming with 16 seconds left in the third period? It seems to me that if forms holds, they will be close games, where a bounce of the puck could make the difference. Don't be overconfident; anything can happen, although as was mentioned in another thread, in a best-of-three series, the better team tends to win.

You've got your venues reversed. They tied us at the Whale (after we scored less than a minute in, they kept us scoreless for the remaining 59+ minutes) and we beat them at Lynah.

Beeeej

Thanks Beeej! Geez, I knew I was going to get lambasted. What I said was mostly tongue-in-cheek, as most of the people who actually know me would probably attest that I tend to joke about lots of things. I didn't forget about all that Yale stuff, CULater. Matter of fact, I was at the Whale.
I'm confident that they will win, overconfident, never. If they lose, they lose. It was a great season, and no one would be more disappointed than them. If they lose, it will probably be because they did not play their best, in addition to Yale being at the top of their game. I am not going to lose sleep over it.

The games Cornell has lost this year, barring a couple close ones, I have not felt too bad about, because when they don't come out to play, I don't feel bad when they lose. Also, anyone who knows me knows that I am one of the most realistic people around, so I take things as they come. It's too bad Underhill's hurt, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it, so I tend not to think about it too much. As for the issue of privacy, yes, maybe it was wrong, but ok, it happened. 'Nuff said. Whatever. I'm not going to defend myself here any longer. I just want to watch hockey!

There's a great signature on the board, one that i just am too tired to find right now

"cornell is not a university, rather independent fiefdoms UNITED by a hockey team"

privacy is a MAJOR issue, true. the bill of rights gives us free speech (and therefore speculation) true. but let us NEVER forget why we all come here, to the eLF, for our UNITY. in all ways and shapres we follor, care, and are concerned for our players, our friends. (whether we know them or not)

lets put all fo this behind us, it won't matter at all, and we can all laugh about it when we gather at MUDPUDDLES!

LGR!

*sniff*

That's beautiful, man.

Beeeej

thanks beeej, i knew i could make someone cry

Thanks Cornellian. That's exactly what I was looking for and kind of confirmed what I was thinking.