Cleary Cup

USCHO's front page currently states that Dartmouth and Colgate "share the Cleary Cup". Is this right? I know Dartmouth wins the tie breaker for tournament seeding.

Yes. The tiebreaker is only for seeding for the tournament.

nyc94
USCHO's front page currently states that Dartmouth and Colgate "share the Cleary Cup". Is this right? I know Dartmouth wins the tie breaker for tournament seeding.

Yes this is correct. There is no tie-breaker for the Cleary Cup. It is possible for two teams to share it. It's been said elsewhere that this is the second time it's happened.

redhair34

nyc94
USCHO's front page currently states that Dartmouth and Colgate "share the Cleary Cup". Is this right? I know Dartmouth wins the tie breaker for tournament seeding.

Yes this is correct. There is no tie-breaker for the Cleary Cup. It is possible for two teams to share it. It's been said elsewhere that this is the second time it's happened.

All I saw was that this was the second time there was a tie at the top of the standings. I didn't interpret that as meaning the same thing as sharing the cup.

They get to spit into it on alternate days, I think.

Assistant captains Liam Huculak and Kyle Wilson along with senior captain Jon Smyth accepted the Cleary Cup on behalf of their teammates after Saturday's win at Rensselaer gave the Raiders a share of the ECACHL regular-season title.

(From www.gocolgateraiders.com)

So Dartmouth, who wins the tiebreaker, didn't get to hold the cup the night they won it. Hee hee. I guess it makes me a mean person to enjoy that just a little bit.

I think Dartmouth has Monday and Tuesday, Colgate has Thursday and Friday and they alternate Wednesdays and weekends.

mjc
I think Dartmouth has Monday and Tuesday, Colgate has Thursday and Friday and they alternate Wednesdays and weekends.

Not if it goes back to Colgate with bruises.

edit: added smiles...it's'mazing how many people are testy about a third place finish! We've got a good team with injured talent! Let's enjoy the bye and get ready for some playoff hockey!

Shared championships are stupid.

jmh30
Shared championships are stupid.

Any "regular-season" championship that is immediately followed by a "tournament" championship is stupid.

Al DeFlorio
They get to spit into it on alternate days, I think.

I've got a table saw with a metal cutting blade they can borrow.

Al DeFlorio

jmh30
Shared championships are stupid.

Any "regular-season" championship that is immediately followed by a "tournament" championship is stupid.

Al, that wins the Funniest Thing I Read Today Cup.Thanks. (It is pretty stupid when you think about it.)

Scott Kominkiewicz
Al, that wins the Funniest Thing I Read Today Cup.Thanks. (It is pretty stupid when you think about it.)

It wasn't back when both got autobids... but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle

krose
Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle

No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002. I'm pretty sure 2000 was the last year the RS "champ" got an autobid. I remember in Placid '01 they recognized (absent thanks to Vermont) Clarkson for winning the RS but they didn't make the tourney.

krose
It wasn't back when both got autobids... but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle

I don't recall exactly, but it seems to me the then unnamed Cleary Cup surreptitiously appeared sometime during the brief period when each of the four leagues were given two auto-bids (a result of the NCAA's so-called "Colorado rule". Then, with the emergence of the MAAC and whatever-the-other-one-was-called, the "big" four were taken back to one auto-bid to be given to the "champion" of their choice (and all chose the post-season tournament winner).

I would agree, Kyle, that finishing first in the regular season did mean something during that brief interval, but it still makes no sense to me to declare two conference "champions" over the course of one conference season. Now, to me, it's just absurd--but no one's gonna take away a trophy, especially if it's named after Cleary.

Chris '03
No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002.

I think the Cup showed up before that, but it wasn't yet named Cleary.

Al DeFlorio

Chris '03
No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002.

I think the Cup showed up before that, but it wasn't yet named Cleary.

Agreed. They gave Clarkson some kind of trophy in '01. I don't think it was named for anyone yet though.

The ECACHL story [www.ecachockeyleague.com] affirms the shared hardware. [q]Dartmouth and Colgate tied for the regular season title, claiming a share of the William J. Cleary Cup, ... [/q]

more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports. Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

Rich S
more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports. Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

Hardly sour grapes. Would I have liked for Cornell to have won it again this year? Absolutely but only because it means Cornell would have the best path to an ECAC Championship. I don't think anyone here considered Cornell's Cleary Cups in '02, '03, and '05 championships. You yourself admit that no one around here takes the Cleary Cup seriously. [elf.elynah.com]

Rich S
more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports. Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

Rich, this was not sour grapes. You've been around here long enough to know that most of us feel, recognize, worship, agree with, or whatever words you want to use, the tourney champ as the ECAC Champion. It's just the way we feel, not sour grapes at all.

Although we can accept it as fact, we can still think it's stupid to have champions for both. There are alot of things in life that I recognize as fact, but still think it is stupid. I don't really feel strongly either way about this topic, but didn't want this to get into another pissing contest.

Rich S
more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports. Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

Cleary is nice and all, but in the long run (defined as the NCAAs) it's nothing more than a pride thing as long as there is no autobid. I mean, who would you rather be: Cornell, 3rd in the RS and 8th in the PWR, or Dartmouth, 1st in the RS but 16th (I think) in the PWR.

Chris '03

Rich S
more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports. Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

Hardly sour grapes. Would I have liked for Cornell to have won it again this year? Absolutely but only because it means Cornell would have the best path to an ECAC Championship. I don't think anyone here considered Cornell's Cleary Cups in '02, '03, and '05 championships. You yourself admit that no one around here takes the Cleary Cup seriously. [elf.elynah.com]

No that wasn't at all my point. Sure,some of you like to put it down as meaningless, especially since it's named after a former Harvard coach. For a supposedly meaningless achievement, there sure was a lot of gnashing of teeth here recently when cornell lost their grip on first place and the chance to clinch the RS title.

As for the comment in '05, I was simply musing that you'd ascribe more value to it if it bore Schaefer's name rather than that of a coach you love to hate.

Brown should expect to receive the Mazzoleni Cup via bulk rate shortly.

Rich S
No that wasn't at all my point. Sure,some of you like to put it down as meaningless, especially since it's named after a former Harvard coach. For a supposedly meaningless achievement, there sure was a lot of gnashing of teeth here recently when cornell lost their grip on first place and the chance to clinch the RS title.

Sure, no one likes to lose. First place means something. To of the conference means something. But that doesn't make it a "championship". In my eyes anyway.

Rich S
As for the comment in '05, I was simply musing that you'd ascribe more value to it if it bore Schaefer's name rather than that of a coach you love to hate.

Fair enough - P.S. Check the spelling guide on the left

Chris '03

Rich S
more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports. Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

Hardly sour grapes. Would I have liked for Cornell to have won it again this year? Absolutely but only because it means Cornell would have the best path to an ECAC Championship.

I also like it when Cornell wins the C***** Cup because it prevents a team from winning it that might treat it with respect or reverence.

jmh30
Shared championships are stupid.

You mean like all three of our Ivy Football titles?

Chris '03

krose
Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle

No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002. I'm pretty sure 2000 was the last year the RS "champ" got an autobid. I remember in Placid '01 they recognized (absent thanks to Vermont) Clarkson for winning the RS but they didn't make the tourney.

Yes, I remember Clarkson winning the RS the one year it meant absolutely nothing. That was funny.

billhoward
Brown should expect to receive the Mazzoleni Cup via bulk rate shortly.

You have just inspired the next TBRW table.

It will be called the Roger Hull Expectations Trophy for College Hockey. Each year, a lifesize lead replica of the Elephant Walk scene will be presented to the last place team in the ECAC.

Here are the RHETCH winners since the 12-team format:

85 Army
86 Army
87 Dartmouth
88 Brown
89 Brown
90 Army
91 Dartmouth
92 Union
93 Union
94 Dartmouth
95 Yale
96 Yale
97 Brown
98 Union
99 Union
00 Vermont (by universal acclaim)
01 Brown
02 Vermont
03 Princeton
04 Princeton
05 Yale
06 Brown

And the number of RHETCHes over that period, by school:

5 - Brown (88, 89, 97, 01, 06)
4 - Union (92, 93, 98, 99)
3 - Army (85, 86, 90)
3 - Dartmouth (87, 91, 94)
3 - Yale (95, 96, 05)
2 - Princeton (03, 04)
2 - Vermont (00, 02)

Trotsky

93 Union

*Whew*

jtwcornell91

jmh30
Shared championships are stupid.

You mean like all three of our Ivy Football titles?

Well... yes. Ivy football would have an especially easy time applying head-to-head as a tiebreaker rather than awarding a shared championship, what with one matchup between each pairing of teams per season (though I suppose there'd need to have been a second-tier tiebreaker for the period when there were ties in college football).

Unfortunately, if ties were broken this way, we'd lose the two Ivy titles we shared with Dartmouth (in 1971 and 1990) by virtue of having lost to the Green those two years. We'd still have the one we shared with Penn in 1988, since we beat them that year.

jmh30
Unfortunately, if ties were broken this way, we'd lose the two Ivy titles we shared with Dartmouth (in 1971 and 1990) by virtue of having lost to the Green those two years. We'd still have the one we shared with Penn in 1988, since we beat them that year.

So the question is, would you rather have 3 (or 1.5) shared titles, or 1 Unabashed Championship.

I guess it won't matter until the Ivies negotiate to have their champion automatically advance to a BCS game.

Trotsky
So the question is, would you rather have 3 (or 1.5) shared titles, or 1 Unabashed Championship.

As it's applied to us, I'd rather have the 3 shared, but speaking conceptually, I just don't like shared titles.

Trotsky

jmh30
Unfortunately, if ties were broken this way, we'd lose the two Ivy titles we shared with Dartmouth (in 1971 and 1990) by virtue of having lost to the Green those two years. We'd still have the one we shared with Penn in 1988, since we beat them that year.

So the question is, would you rather have 3 (or 1.5) shared titles, or 1 Unabashed Championship.

I guess it won't matter until the Ivies negotiate to have their champion automatically advance to a BCS game.

I don't want to speak for 1971 (it would be a shame for Marinaro to lose that bit of hardware), but I was there in 1988 and 1990, and I would give up claim to the second title to make the first unabashed. (Especially since we beat Penn on the last day of the season to secure it.)

jtwcornell91

Chris '03

krose
Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle

No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002. I'm pretty sure 2000 was the last year the RS "champ" got an autobid. I remember in Placid '01 they recognized (absent thanks to Vermont) Clarkson for winning the RS but they didn't make the tourney.

Yes, I remember Clarkson winning the RS the one year it meant absolutely nothing. That was funny.

Jerk.

The stupid Ivy League should atleast send one team into the I-AA postseason instead of just ending the weekend after thanksgiving. And having tied teams play or divisional based playoffs for the championship would be nice too.

Ben Rocky 04
The stupid Ivy League should atleast send one team into the I-AA postseason instead of just ending the weekend after thanksgiving. And having tied teams play or divisional based playoffs for the championship would be nice too.

But that, like an Ivy hoops tournament, would make too much sense. Being arcane and self-defeating is a sign of superiority, you see.

Trotsky

Ben Rocky 04
The stupid Ivy League should atleast send one team into the I-AA postseason instead of just ending the weekend after thanksgiving. And having tied teams play or divisional based playoffs for the championship would be nice too.

But that, like an Ivy hoops tournament, would make too much sense. Being arcane and self-defeating is a sign of superiority, you see.

Heh. A three-round single-elimination tournament over a long weekend would clearly be too much for those guys to handle.

jtwcornell91

Trotsky

jmh30
Unfortunately, if ties were broken this way, we'd lose the two Ivy titles we shared with Dartmouth (in 1971 and 1990) by virtue of having lost to the Green those two years. We'd still have the one we shared with Penn in 1988, since we beat them that year.

So the question is, would you rather have 3 (or 1.5) shared titles, or 1 Unabashed Championship.

I guess it won't matter until the Ivies negotiate to have their champion automatically advance to a BCS game.

I don't want to speak for 1971 (it would be a shame for Marinaro to lose that bit of hardware), but I was there in 1988 and 1990, and I would give up claim to the second title to make the first unabashed. (Especially since we beat Penn on the last day of the season to secure it.)

Having been there in 1971, I'm on the same page as John. There was a lot of hype for the Dartmouth game, with both teams being undefeated until the week before that game. After the Cornell win over Brown that week, a lot of people stayed at Schoellkopf to wait for the final score of the Dartmouth-Columbia game. There was a lot of celebrating when the score came in, but we should have known better. Dartmouth seemed to have taken advantage of the loss to get fired up. They seriously manhandled Cornell, which was especially tough, given that ABC broadcast the game regionally. If there were a tie-breaker, the championship should have gone to them.

Anyone else catch the photos in the USCHO ECAC column featuring Dartmouth and Colgate each celebrating with their own Cleary Cup? Guess that answers that question...

Chris '03
Anyone else catch the photos in the USCHO ECAC column featuring Dartmouth and Colgate each celebrating with their own Cleary Cup? Guess that answers that question...

Notice the Colgate players have suits on, which suggests they didn't just get out of the game.

Kyle

actually, all it implies is that they showered and changed before the picture was taken

Dpperk29
actually, all it implies is that they showered and changed before the picture was taken

Seems silly to use that picture and not the dogpile, had (a copy of) the cup been there at the time. But this is all speculation, until someone demonstrates with facts that they know how many of those trophies existed on Saturday night.

Kyle

krose

Dpperk29
actually, all it implies is that they showered and changed before the picture was taken

Seems silly to use that picture and not the dogpile, had (a copy of) the cup been there at the time. But this is all speculation, until someone demonstrates with facts that they know how many of those trophies existed on Saturday night.

Kyle

It's also possible they (colgate) were awarded the cup after the game off the ice because it was a road game. The picture looks awfully like a team getting on the bus after a road game. If it was awarded later, why are is the team on a bus?