UNH with just four losses up to No. 1 and Clarkson up two spots into eighth. Rich S is probably dying to tell us how many weeks this decade Clarkson has ascended into single-digit rankings. Voters apparently not yet impressed with the Big Red's one game win streak. Not even one lousy all-received-votes point.
USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Jan. 29 men's poll
No. Team Points Record Last week Weeks in top 15
1 New Hampshire 507 (31) 19-4-1 2 16
2 Notre Dame 466 (3) 21-5-2 3 13
3 Minnesota 442 21-5-3 1 16
4 St. Cloud State 411 17-5-4 4 11
5 Denver 375 19-9-2 5 14
6 Boston University 287 13-5-7 6 16
7 Michigan State 265 16-8-1 8 16
8 Clarkson 264 16-6-4 10 10
9 Maine 222 16-7-2 7 16
10 Michigan 219 19-9-0 11 16
11 Miami (Ohio) 212 18-9-3 9 16
12 North Dakota 136 15-11-2 15 12
13 Boston College 112 14-9-1 14 16
14 Vermont 82 14-8-4 12 8
15 Niagara University 42 17-8-3 NR 1
Others receiving votes: Colorado College, 20; St. Lawrence University, 16; Sacred Heart University, 2.
... and the USCHO voters dropped Cornell two places.
USCHO.com/CSTV Division I Men's Poll
Rank Team 1sts Record Points Last Poll
1 New Hampshire -36 19-4-1 795 2
2 Notre Dame -1 21-5-2 734 3
3 Minnesota -3 21-5-3 731 1
4 St. Cloud State 17-5-4 684 4
5 Denver 19-9-2 631 5
6 Michigan State 16-8-1 515 9
7 Boston University 13-5-7 499 7
8 Clarkson 16-6-4 494 10
9 Maine 16-7-2 471 6
10 Miami 18-9-3 458 8
11 Michigan 19-9-0 428 12
12 North Dakota 15-11-2 374 15
13 Boston College 14-9-1 339 13
14 Vermont 14-8-4 308 11
15 Colorado College 14-10-2 222 14
16 Niagara 17-8-3 209 16
17 St. Lawrence 14-10-2 165 17
18 Quinnipiac 12-8-4 74 20
19 Massachusetts 12-8-4 69 NR
20 Cornell 10-8-3 56 18
Others Receiving Votes: Lake Superior 51, RIT 27, Wisconsin 20, Michigan Tech 19, Bemidji State 14, Nebraska-Omaha 5, Northeastern 3, Sacred Heart 3, Ohio State 2
We don't even get any votes in the USA Today poll. I wonder how long it has been since that happened.
[quote cth95]We don't even get any votes in the USA Today poll. I wonder how long it has been since that happened.[/quote]
From what I can tell, 2004.
http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2004/polls/2004_poll_history.html
Thanks for taking the time to look that up. I'm not surprised, but I still would have thought we stayed at least in the top 20 that year.
[quote cth95]Thanks for taking the time to look that up. I'm not surprised, but I still would have thought we stayed at least in the top 20 that year.[/quote]
January 2004 was a rather lean month for Cornell, with a record of 2-5-1. Granted, it wasn't as lean as January 2007, but I'd say that's enough to drop Cornell out of the top 20.
I forgot about that. I was thinking we stayed around .500.
Maybe it's better if I don't remember that season very well. ::whistle::
How could we have been in the top 20 in a season we never played? ::screwy::
[quote French Rage]How could we have been in the top 20 in a season we never played? ::screwy::[/quote]
Reputation from '03 Frozen Four.
Besides, don't we talk on here often about moving up and down without playing. ;-)
[quote billhoward]UNH with just four losses up to No. 1 and Clarkson up two spots into eighth. Rich S is probably dying to tell us how many weeks this decade Clarkson has ascended into single-digit rankings. [/quote]
Should be easy. One week this decade - March 5, 2001 (both polls).
[quote MikeR][quote billhoward]UNH with just four losses up to No. 1 and Clarkson up two spots into eighth. Rich S is probably dying to tell us how many weeks this decade Clarkson has ascended into single-digit rankings. [/quote]
Should be easy. One week this decade - March 5, 2001 (both polls).[/quote]
Right before facing that powerhouse Vermont in the ECAC first round. :-)
quote]
Right before facing that powerhouse Vermont in the ECAC first round. :-)[/quote]
Yep, just like the results when Cornell faced "that powerhouse" in their first action in the ECAC's in 2004.
Difference is that Clarkson fans admit that the 2001 series "happened." :-|
[quote billhoward]UNH with just four losses up to No. 1 and Clarkson up two spots into eighth. Rich S is probably dying to tell us how many weeks this decade Clarkson has ascended into single-digit rankings.
[/quote]
Actually not. I've never been a big poll watcher. They usually don't mean all that much.
I do recall one year ('93 or '94 perhaps) when Tech got as high as 2nd or 3rd late in the RS. Didn't do 'em a bit of good.
[quote Rich S]quote]
Right before facing that powerhouse Vermont in the ECAC first round. :-)[/quote]
Yep, just like the results when Cornell faced "that powerhouse" in their first action in the ECAC's in 2004.
Difference is that Clarkson fans admit that the 2001 series "happened." :-|[/quote]
I'm with you on the silliness of applying "it never happened" to that playoff series, but 9-beating-2 in a 12-team playoff wasn't quite as unprecedented as 10-beating-1 in a 10-team playoff. Especially when Tech had never lost a playoff game in Cheel, let alone a series.
I remember being in a lab at LSU and chatting online with Clarksy after he got back from Game Two--having tooted the train whistle for like two minutes after the GWG--and said he thought CCT would lose the next night. One of the most dramatic nights in the ECAC, but surpassed for me by the night in 2000 when Union came back from two goals down in the closing minutes to beat RPI, and then UVM cancelled their season. This is why free webcasts are/were so great, so you can do a quick around-the-league after your game ends.
[quote Rich S]I do recall one year ('93 or '94 perhaps) when Tech got as high as 2nd or 3rd late in the RS. Didn't do 'em a bit of good.[/quote]
As the fog rolls in to envelop what remains of my memory, I seem to recall this, too. Was this the same year Tech got utterly screwed and had to play Wisconsin (sweeping them) and then Lake State (upsetting them in a best-of-three) and then had to immediately pick up and get out to the semis where, exhausted, they lost to BU? That was '91.
In any case, Tech had some exciting, classy teams over that period. It was a pleasure to go up to the North Country in the early 90's, even though it usually meant certain death.
[quote Trotsky]
As the fog rolls in to envelop what remains of my memory, I seem to recall this, too. Was this the same year Tech got utterly screwed and had to play Wisconsin (sweeping them) and then Lake State (upsetting them in a best-of-three) and then had to immediately pick up and get out to the semis where, exhausted, they lost to BU? That was '91.
[/quote]
I doubt very much that Clarkson was highly ranked (e.g. top five) in the polls in '91, though they obviously had a very good team that year. As for the Knights being "utterly screwed" -- meaning they wound up seeded fourth out of six in the East and didn't get what would have been a first-round bye (12-team tourney) back then -- the only reason that could be given for them deserving a higher seed was that Clarkson won the regular-season and tournament championship that year. Unfortunately, that wasn't part of the selection criteria then, but it did become part of the criteria shortly after that. As I recall, this resulted a few years later in BU winning the HE regular-season championship (actually tying for it but being considered the champs due to tiebreakers) and their tournament and getting the coveted bye, despite an RPI rating and other selection criteria that ordinarily would have pegged them as the #11 or so team. Soon after that, the reward for winning the regular-season and tourney championships magically disappeared from the selection criteria.
[quote Give My Regards][quote Trotsky]
As the fog rolls in to envelop what remains of my memory, I seem to recall this, too. Was this the same year Tech got utterly screwed and had to play Wisconsin (sweeping them) and then Lake State (upsetting them in a best-of-three) and then had to immediately pick up and get out to the semis where, exhausted, they lost to BU? That was '91.
[/quote]
I doubt very much that Clarkson was highly ranked (e.g. top five) in the polls in '91, though they obviously had a very good team that year. As for the Knights being "utterly screwed" -- meaning they wound up seeded fourth out of six in the East and didn't get what would have been a first-round bye (12-team tourney) back then -- the only reason that could be given for them deserving a higher seed was that Clarkson won the regular-season and tournament championship that year. Unfortunately, that wasn't part of the selection criteria then, but it did become part of the criteria shortly after that. As I recall, this resulted a few years later in BU winning the HE regular-season championship (actually tying for it but being considered the champs due to tiebreakers) and their tournament and getting the coveted bye, despite an RPI rating and other selection criteria that ordinarily would have pegged them as the #11 or so team. Soon after that, the reward for winning the regular-season and tourney championships magically disappeared from the selection criteria.[/quote]
Actually, the "Clarkson Rule" was bandied about in 1995, when Clarkson won the RS, but didn't come up because they lost to Princeton in the semis, and was ultimately not in effect that year. It came into being for real in 1997 and got BU that bye you mention above. IIRC it only went away in 2002 (along with the "Colorado College rule" guanranteeing the regular season champ a bid) when the MAAC's auto-bid meant there were five relevant conferences and only four byes.
[quote jtwcornell91][quote Rich S]
QuoteRight before facing that powerhouse Vermont in the ECAC first round. :-)
Yep, just like the results when Cornell faced "that powerhouse" in their first action in the ECAC's in 2004.
Difference is that Clarkson fans admit that the 2001 series "happened." :-|[/quote]
I'm with you on the silliness of applying "it never happened" to that playoff series, but 9-beating-2 in a 12-team playoff wasn't quite as unprecedented as 10-beating-1 in a 10-team playoff. Especially when Tech had never lost a playoff
game in Cheel, let alone a series.
[/quote]
Just the points I was going to make. Also, the Clarkson we faced wasn't a season removed from having most of their season cancalled, and we didn't lose to them again at home a couple years later.
Nope, it wasn't 91 for sure.
But the Wisco series you referred to was memorable for other reasons. It was the last varsity hockey played in Clarkson/Walker Arena and capped an undefeated home season (one tie) for Tech.
It also enraged Coach Sauer so much that in the parking lot next to the Wisco bus, he uttered the notable words to the effect of 'This f'in place should be torched. They should not be allowed to play here, etc.'
His tirade lasted a bit longer before a media member informed him that a new arena was under construction for use the following season.
Seems he had no awareness about that, which is understandable. But it did make for a funny conclusion to his rant. I recall his being needled about that series years later on ESPN. Sauer was not amused.
[quote Rich S]Sauer was not amused.[/quote]
Sauer has always struck me as being kind of...well...sour. I recall one year during a holiday tournament when he was bitching that Wisconsin was going to play in the Rose Bowl and therefore the hockey team wasn't getting enough attention during the holidays.
[quote Rich S]
But the Wisco series you referred to was memorable for other reasons. It was the last varsity hockey played in Clarkson/Walker Arena and capped an undefeated home season (one tie) for Tech.
It also enraged Coach Sauer so much that in the parking lot next to the Wisco bus, he uttered the notable words to the effect of 'This f'in place should be torched. They should not be allowed to play here, etc.'
[/quote]
I've heard this before, but was never really clear on why he hated the building so much. Was it particularly quirky? Was it the fans? Were the locker rooms a disgrace? Or was it just that he'd lost and was ticked off?