ELynah Forum

End of first: Us 0 - Them 0.

So, have we set a NCAA playoff record for penalty minutes yet?
The announcers for ESPN suspect we're lulling them into a false sense of security.

::cry::

I haven't watched many CU games this year, but is this typical play for them? The keep playing the puck along the boards or behind the net in the Ferris zone. Pretty much no shots from the blueline or circles, despite what looked to be a few good lanes, especially on the PP. It's like they're afraid of letting the puck get to the middle of the ice on offense.

OK, I've defended the "cycle" power play as long as I can.  That major was the worst five minutes of hockey I've seen in my life.

Just a question for the more educated hockey fan:

When the Ferris player took the tripping penalty and then the 5 minute hitting from behind, why didn't the tripping penalty get served?  When a minor and major are called on the same player, is the minor ignored?

Quote from: Greenberg '97OK, I've defended the "cycle" power play as long as I can.  That major was the worst five minutes of hockey I've seen in my life.

Seriously. The point of cycling is to eventually get an opportunity in front of the net -- not to get an opportunity to put the puck into the corner.

Quote from: ansky629Just a question for the more educated hockey fan:

When the Ferris player took the tripping penalty and then the 5 minute hitting from behind, why didn't the tripping penalty get served?  When a minor and major are called on the same player, is the minor ignored?

I'll have to check the box score when it's over, but I thought a Cornell player was called for a roughing after the major, which would cause the two minors to offset.  I didn't see anyone else in the box, though.

Oh, well: great game. I thought Cornell outplayed Ferris St. for most of the game, but made several errors, at least one of which cost them a goal.

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: ansky629Just a question for the more educated hockey fan:

When the Ferris player took the tripping penalty and then the 5 minute hitting from behind, why didn't the tripping penalty get served?  When a minor and major are called on the same player, is the minor ignored?

I'll have to check the box score when it's over, but I thought a Cornell player was called for a roughing after the major, which would cause the two minors to offset.  I didn't see anyone else in the box, though.

That's your standard "well, two penalties would sway the game too much, so let's grab Bardreau for being pissed that a guy drove him into the boards."

Refs were okay otherwise.

Quote from: Kyle RoseOh, well: great game. I thought Cornell outplayed Ferris St. for most of the game, but made several errors, at least one of which cost them a goal.

Agree with this.

Not a bad "rebuilding" year.  :)

Young team.  They will act like they've been there next year.  I'm excited.

Good season. It hurts now, but I expect a Frozen Four in the next two years.

The announcers were really getting on my nerves tonight....   An extension of last night, I suppose.   The tone of their conversation was all about the CCHA team with a little mention of the opposition (Cornell).

It would have been interesting to hear what they had to say if one of the FF Semifinal games put Cornell against Union....I'm thinking the ESPN announcers would spend the whole game talking about the other semifinal.   After all, what's to say when there's two ECAC teams playing?   They obviously are too lazy to do their homework & learn about the ECAC teams....::moon::

I love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season.  Next year expectations are higher!  If we get an effective PP watch out.  Nice season, but missed opportunity.  Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching.  Many very good hockey players returning next year.  Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Good season, sad to see it end.  The Red definitely could have won this game, and while Michigan looked better then Cornell last night, the boys looked no worse than their opposition tonight.  Some bad luck and bad mistakes led to the Ferris State goals.  Iles was down too early for the second goal and may have overplayed the first, but he played well as a whole throughout both games.  The defense by both teams was stellar, especially the positioning of Cornell's.  The offense needed a few more playmakers; losing Ferlin hurt.  But if he plays, Craig probably doesn't, and who knows what happens then.  

Next year is the year.

Cornell played well, but there were too many moments, as there have been all season long, where it felt as if we were hanging on by our fingernails.  Going through a whole season like that is difficult; and, obviously, you can't expect to make it to the Frozen Four that way.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with this season, considering where I felt we were at the beginning.  Collins really poured it on over the last couple of months, and it was nice to see him end his career on an up note.  Iles has finally impressed me, so I'm bullish on two more years of him.  And our freshmen and sophomores (esp. Mowrey and Gotovets for the latter) really started to stand out as the season went on.

I look forward to watching Ryan, Ferlin, McCarron, and Lowry continue to develop next year, and I expect standout seasons from Esposito, Miller, and D'Agostino.  (Boy am I glad that John McCarron is our a**hole.  Ferlin may be electric, but McCarron makes me smile in that other, special way.)  My dark horse candidate for a breakout season--the likely recipient of the Mike Iggulden Difference Maker Award--is Mihalek, who impressed me in a Carefoot/Iggulden way this season.

Without Ferlin's injury or without Esposito's long absence, the season might have turned out differently.  As it is, the team gained a lot of experience, which is exactly what a young team needs.

I'll be in Pittsburgh next year, and I won't be shocked to be watching us there.

I'm curious whether we get D'Agostino back for next year.  I know it's way to early to be thinking about, but I think he is a real asset to this team.

Quote from: snert1288I'm curious whether we get D'Agostino back for next year.  I know it's way to early to be thinking about, but I think he is a real asset to this team.

I'd guess he'll be back.  He's in line to be captain and he hasn't been incredible (ready for the NHL) by any means...he had a pretty slow end to this season.

Just saw the game on DVR. Certainly disappointed in the result, as we had the opportunity in front of us. Coming up empty on the 5-minute major was obviously a downer, followed immediately by the Ferris winning goal.  Nonetheless we had a few decent chances to tie, especially Espo right in the slot.

Credit to Ferris for suffocating defense and great positional play.  Not nearly as much star power as Michigan, but a real "team" approach.  I think Union will take them in Tampa, however.  It's a shame we won't have a third go at it with the Dutchmen.

Tough loss. Amazing how quickly momentum can shift in a hockey game. After coming back with the tying goal rather quickly I thought we had all the momentum at that point.  Add to that a 5-min major and  I figured this game was ours for the taking (assuming we'd score). Guess not.  Seems like almost every hockey game I watch a goal is scored a 2-on-1 breakaway seconds after a guy comes out of the box.

Cornell does so well in the first round of the NCAAs (forget 2010) but can't seem to get over the hump in the quarters.  I think we're 1-5 in our last 6 appearances in the quarters or something like that.  After beating Michigan it seemed like we had a great opportunity to make a run to the finals having to face only Ferris State and Union (rather than a NoDak, Minny, BC, etc) to get there.  But having said that, if somebody were to have asked me at the beginning of the season would I be happy if we just got to the quarters I would have said "hell yes".

Hopefully we can make it back to the tourney next year.

I agree that this season ended a bit slow for him.  And he may have actually been better last year.  Just with his size and good puck handling I always got the feeling that the AHL (not quite NHL ready) might pull him away.

Tough ending. Had the feeling that we were just a little tight. Looking for the perfect play instead of just going with the play. PP was really tough to watch. I'm usually the last one to be screaming shoot the puck but what would Doug Murray have done! He would have unloaded the bomb!

From the beginning, not really sure what we were getting most of the year. Feeling was, good to hang with the best but not quite there. Here's to hopin next year Coach Schafer is willing to let these guys attack a little more and we can take a big step forward.

Just couldn't get much open ice tonight.  Get to credit Ferris St. for good performances against both Denver and us.  Let's not forget that they were the regular seaon CCHA champs - we lost to a really good team.
Thank you seniors.
And for the underclassmen, we're all looking forward to next year.

Great Season Cornell. We were hoping two ECAC teams would make it to Tampa. ECAC 3-1 so far in the tournament. Not bad. Hope to improve on that on April 5.

This was the opposite of last night. I feel like the better team is going home because they couldn't cash in on the multiple powerplay opportunities that were handed to them. I agree with Greenberg that the cycle was embarrassing. It looked like we were trying to run out the clock. I also lost count of the number of times we passed it out of the offensive zone ourselves with minimal Ferris pressure.

On the other hand, Ferris commits completely to filling the lanes. They don't really pressure the points as much as you'd expect, choosing instead to become extra goaltenders. They made it really hard to find a lane but that's hardly an excuse for five minutes of soccer on ice when you're up a man.

The win over Michigan made this season, so I can't be too disappointed about this loss. Though I am disappointed - Union would have been our ideal semifinal matchup even if I suspect that we are the AAA side of the bracket. The QF on the other half is insane: BC, Minnesota, Duluth and North Dakota. Jeebus.

Quote from: DutchmanGreat Season Cornell. We were hoping two ECAC teams would make it to Tampa. ECAC 3-1 so far in the tournament. Not bad. Hope to improve on that on April 5.

Thanks, Good luck in the FF and way to represent the ECAC.

Thanks...didn't realize Bardreau got a penalty on the play as well.  That explains it.  I'm not a hockey neophyte, but I thought I missed a rule somewhere in my hockey education.

Quote from: flyersgolfI love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season.  Next year expectations are higher!  If we get an effective PP watch out.  Nice season, but missed opportunity.  Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching.  Many very good hockey players returning next year.  Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Yes, I still feel that, given their youth this was a very successful season.
Preseason I never expected a NCAA appearance. And, I think their overall play will do nothing but help recruiting.

Regarding Pannell....I know this is a hockey forum. But, if anyone has a head's up regarding his foot status, or if he's eligible to red-shirt next year I'd love to know. We have a great lax team, but I really miss watching one of the best ever play the game.

GO RED!!

::cheer::

Quote from: Johnny 5

Quote from: flyersgolfI love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season.  Next year expectations are higher!  If we get an effective PP watch out.  Nice season, but missed opportunity.  Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching.  Many very good hockey players returning next year.  Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Yes, I still feel that, given their youth this was a very successful season.
Preseason I never expected a NCAA appearance. And, I think their overall play will do nothing but help recruiting.

Regarding Pannell....I know this is a hockey forum. But, if anyone has a head's up regarding his foot status, or if he's eligible to red-shirt next year I'd love to know. We have a great lax team, but I really miss watching one of the best ever play the game.

GO RED!!

::cheer::

Pannell was at the game yesterday at Penn.  He had a boot on his lower leg and was riding on a scooter.  Clearly he was trying to not put weight on his foot yet.  I'm not an orthopaedist, but unfortunately, that makes me wonder whether he'll be able to rehab it and get back for the rest of the season.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: Johnny 5

Quote from: flyersgolfI love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season.  Next year expectations are higher!  If we get an effective PP watch out.  Nice season, but missed opportunity.  Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching.  Many very good hockey players returning next year.  Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Yes, I still feel that, given their youth this was a very successful season.
Preseason I never expected a NCAA appearance. And, I think their overall play will do nothing but help recruiting.

Regarding Pannell....I know this is a hockey forum. But, if anyone has a head's up regarding his foot status, or if he's eligible to red-shirt next year I'd love to know. We have a great lax team, but I really miss watching one of the best ever play the game.

GO RED!!

::cheer::

Pannell was at the game yesterday at Penn.  He had a boot on his lower leg and was riding on a scooter.  Clearly he was trying to not put weight on his foot yet.  I'm not an orthopaedist, but unfortunately, that makes me wonder whether he'll be able to rehab it and get back for the rest of the season.

I was afraid of that. Same as the VA game.
Oh, well......
Thanks!

::worry::

I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

I agree that a player in front of the net to clean up the "garbage" was missing this year.  Just need to look at Devin last year or Greening 2 years ago to see how many opportunities this presents for us.  I felt like those guys were always knocking in rebounds and it shows in their stats.

During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

Quote from: Todd RDuring the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

::stupid::

Quote from: Johnny 5

Quote from: Todd RDuring the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

::stupid::

Meh. I thought the call on the second goal was right. The guy barely touched Iles, if he touched him at all.

Even though Cornell lost, I think the season ended on a relatively positive note. The team won a great game against Michigan, one of the best I've ever seen. The Ferris State game was a pretty good game too. Cornell didn't get embarrassed like against Harvard or give up a 3rd period lead like in numerous other games this season. It was a hard fought game between two very good teams, and unfortunately Cornell lost. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Quote from: jtn27Even though Cornell lost, I think the season ended on a relatively positive note. The team won a great game against Michigan, one of the best I've ever seen. The Ferris State game was a pretty good game too. Cornell didn't get embarrassed like against Harvard or give up a 3rd period lead like in numerous other games this season. It was a hard fought game between two very good teams, and unfortunately Cornell lost. Nothing to be ashamed of.

At the same time we're 1-6 in regional finals in the Schafer era. Eventually some of the bounces have to start going our way right? I'd feel better about this if Union weren't in the Frozen Four

Quote from: TimVI certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

I don't agree.  I am very happy for Union.  They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents.  They deserved to make the FF.  I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly.  They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

Quote from: snert1288I don't agree.  I am very happy for Union.  They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents.  They deserved to make the FF.  I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly.  They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

But I don't want them there without us. I know its selfish, but I wanted us to be the team to break the drought. I personally liked the whole above the rest status we had. I'm gonna miss it somewhat. Of course, the best way to do that is to win a title. All in all, unless its a rival, I usually root for the team that knocked me out. I like to lose only to the best.

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: TimVI certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.
...

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year. ...

In those years the theme of the discussion here was often that Cornell relied too much on its power play, not generating enough scoring chances even strength, but it's been up and down.  

http://www.cornellbigred.com/sports/2007/8/1/mih_archived_statistics.aspx?path=mhockey

'03-'04 28/174 0.161
'04-'05 43/176 0.244
'05-'06 35/221 0.158
'06-'07 33/238 0.139
'07-'08 39/181 0.215
'08-'09 27/188 0.144
'09-'10 32/152 0.211
'10-'11 22/135 0.163


Statistical fluctuations, anyone?

Quote from: css228

Quote from: snert1288I don't agree.  I am very happy for Union.  They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents.  They deserved to make the FF.  I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly.  They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

But I don't want them there without us. I know its selfish, but I wanted us to be the team to break the drought. I personally liked the whole above the rest status we had. I'm gonna miss it somewhat. Of course, the best way to do that is to win a title. All in all, unless its a rival, I usually root for the team that knocked me out. I like to lose only to the best.

I'll take this a step further: I was rooting against Union on Friday, Saturday, and I'll be rooting against them in two weeks. Plagues on all the houses but Lynah.

I am hopeful that any ECAC team's success in the tourney demystifies it for the rest.

I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...). I'm pulling for Ferris State. They earned my respect on Saturday. I still think we're a better team than Union, and would have beat them if we made it to the Frozen Four. We went 1-0-1 against them this year and would have gone 2-0-0 if we could have held onto a 3rd period lead. I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups. I know this comes off as bitter, but that's not really my intention.

Quote from: jtn27I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups.

It wasn't really luck.  They were a 1 seed and we were a 4 seed.  Their first-round matchup was supposed to be easier.

Interesting quote from INCH's article on the regional. (http://insidecollegehockey.com/inch/2012/03/25/midwest2_1025/)

QuoteCornell is a young team that is built for future NCAA Tournament runs. Disappointment will linger from the loss, but the experience gained may prove very valuable over the next two seasons.

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: TimVI certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Johnny 5

Quote from: Todd RDuring the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game.  I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff.  He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter.  Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

::stupid::

Meh. I thought the call on the second goal was right. The guy barely touched Iles, if he touched him at all.

OK. you got me. Just sour grapes.
Time for me to move on.

::deadhorse::

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: jtn27I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups.

It wasn't really luck.  They were a 1 seed and we were a 4 seed.  Their first-round matchup was supposed to be easier.

I expected them to beat Michigan State, but they got lucky that UMass-Lowell beat Miami. I don't think they could have beat Miami. I'm also unsure they could have advanced to the Frozen Four if they were in the place of one of the other 1 seeds. Could they have beaten Air Force and Minnesota-Duluth like BC did? Air Force yes, UMD, I don't think so. And North Dakota and Michigan, both teams that I think are better than Union, couldn't get out of their regions. I think Union would have lost to Minnesota and they weren't able to beat us this year. BU, Maine, and Ferris State might be better than Union too. So I do think they got lucky by drawing a weak region.

Quote from: scoop85It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

I agree. One of the things that I notice about better teams' power plays is that players never sit there with the puck: it's passed or shot *immediately* when a player receives a pass, giving the defense much less time to adjust.

I can't agree with the statement that we were as good as (or better than) Union this year.  While our head-to-head record is good, their GF-GA (both in conference and out of conference) blows ours out of the water.  I saw both Union games in person this year, and I think they just oozed talent.  Fast, agile skaters, good defense - they deserve their success.  Sure, I would've happily taken a matchup (and a win!) against them on April 5th, but I'm happy to root for them now.  

Still, I know the bitterman feeling.  I still find it hard to root for Harvard or Clarkson under any circumstances, and I'm sure recent graduates feel the same way about Yale given our recent record against them (this year excepted).

Regarding Union:  completely agree.  They also oozed team unity.  I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them.  Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

All we did while I was in school was frustrate their championship ambitions.  They should hate us.  If you want to hate someone, hate Princeton (always easy) and hate the league for having that stupid play-in game in the first place.

Oh, and hate Harvard.  Always hate Harvard.

Quote from: Scersk '97Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

Quote from: Lowell '99I can't agree with the statement that we were as good as (or better than) Union this year.  While our head-to-head record is good, their GF-GA (both in conference and out of conference) blows ours out of the water.  I saw both Union games in person this year, and I think they just oozed talent.  Fast, agile skaters, good defense - they deserve their success.  Sure, I would've happily taken a matchup (and a win!) against them on April 5th, but I'm happy to root for them now.  

Still, I know the bitterman feeling.  I still find it hard to root for Harvard or Clarkson under any circumstances, and I'm sure recent graduates feel the same way about Yale given our recent record against them (this year excepted).

I think that we just matched up well with Union, not that we were better. Both games I  saw against them, I thought we imposed our game and tempo on Union and dominated the run of play against them both times. Quite frankly I think they were lucky they weren't swept. But overall they were more consistent, didn't blow leads. They were probably a better team that just didn't match up well against us.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Scersk '97Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

Same. On the other hand, the brackets feel insanely misweighted. If Union wins it will be a STUNNING upset, even though they are a 1 seed.

The QF on the other side of the bracket appears to be far, far better than the East/Midwest. Some of that is due to upsets but most is that Union was the weakest 1 seed and Ferris looked like a pretty weak 2. I expect the Minnesota - BC winner to run over whoever wins the Union - Ferris game and I'd have thought the same if we had been in Ferris's place.

The main reason I root for 10 ECAC teams (once we are eliminated) in the tourney is that we need a new answer to the question: Which was the last ECAC team to win the NCAAs.

Oh...Hahvahd sucks.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: TimVI certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good.  I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Quote from: Scersk '97Regarding Union:  completely agree.  They also oozed team unity.  I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them.  Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

We won it all on our first trip in '67. Dues are overrated.

From what I saw last weekend Union should be a clear favorite against Ferris State -- I think we outplayed Ferris and I think over the course of the season Union outplayed us.  If it weren't for the recent history of the conference, which appears to mean absolutely nothing to them (good), I would say I'd be shocked if Ferris beats them.

OTOH, if they get to the final I think they will need a combination of their best game of the year, a lot of puck luck, and a couple miracles to get by BC.  If Minny happens to have all that stuff happen to them in their semi, then I think it's a crap shoot.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Scersk '97Regarding Union:  completely agree.  They also oozed team unity.  I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them.  Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

We won it all on our first trip in '67. Dues are overrated.

From what I saw last weekend Union should be a clear favorite against Ferris State -- I think we outplayed Ferris and I think over the course of the season Union outplayed us.  If it weren't for the recent history of the conference, which appears to mean absolutely nothing to them (good), I would say I'd be shocked if Ferris beats them.

OTOH, if they get to the final I think they will need a combination of their best game of the year, a lot of puck luck, and a couple miracles to get by BC.  If Minny happens to have all that stuff happen to them in their semi, then I think it's a crap shoot.

Not I. Ferris is a good, solid defensive team, much like we used to be. If Union can get 3 or more goals, I don't expect Ferris to catch up. But Ferris winning 2-1, 3-2, I could easily see that.

Quote from: Scersk '97But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: scoop85It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

I agree. One of the things that I notice about better teams' power plays is that players never sit there with the puck: it's passed or shot *immediately* when a player receives a pass, giving the defense much less time to adjust.

I think I spent like 4 paragraphs saying basically the same thing. In the two games I saw most of the delays seemed to happen at the top of the umbrella, rather than coming up or across from the wing, but maybe that wasn't the case over the course of the season. That might not be the fault of the guy at the top, but that's where it was happening.

This is a simple problem, but it's actually really hard to get that kind of nuance down without becoming robotic. It also cascades - the whole unit falls out of sync when the puck movement becomes erratic. What you want is puck movement that's predictable for the offense, so guys can be in the right place, but quick enough that the defense doesn't have time to catch up. Cornell didn't have that balance last weekend.

If you want a real contrast, jump from the Cornell/Ferris St. to a halfway decent NHL power play. The puck never sits. Even if the player doesn't shoot or pass immediately he moves with the puck and constantly changes the angle of attack.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: TimVI certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good.  I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Yes, but we were 9th in the ECAC in PP!

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Scersk '97Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Scersk '97But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate.  (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

My biggest frustration with this game wasn't the Power Play.  As somebody said, FSU has an outstanding PK unit, and our PP wasn't suddenly going to reinvent itself at this point in the season.  My biggest frustration was pretty much the entire first period on Saturday.  It looked like we were allergic to the puck.  We talked about the passing game vs. Michigan, but out of the gates on Saturday, there were at least a half-dozen *unpressured* passes that were just flubbed either by the passer or the receiver.  We didn't have a shot in the first 12 minutes (and were outshot 12-0) because we kept making unforced turnovers.  I'm OK staying calm and playing a measured style early, but they looked comatose.  Andy saved our bacon there.

Now fast-forward to the final 13 minutes (once the 2-1 dagger was fired in).  We. were. FLYING.  We had speed, pressure, energy, and opportunities.  I like to think that had we been more assertive in the first, and had potted one early...well, I don't know what would have happened.  Maybe scaling back the energy early on was the coaching staff's antidote for our 3rd period bonks.  Or we really did have a big Friday vs. Saturday issue this year.  And that's fine, but man...complete the easy passes, especially when you're not being pressured by the D.

The pressure to get the late equalizer redeemed them, and that late Esposito shot was a pea.  Nelson had to make a skilled snap save, and did.

Quote from: Jordan 04

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: TimVI certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play.  I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years?  Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat.  The puck doesn't move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in.  Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play?  God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting.  A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don't put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close.  Part of the problem is we often don't have anybody in front of the net.  When we do, he's too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach.  I'd really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender.  Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too.  Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net.  Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good.  I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Yes, but we were 9th in the ECAC in PP!

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jordan 04(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jordan 04(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

1st is embarrassing, 2nd just useless.

Quote from: Tom LentoIf you want a real contrast, jump from the Cornell/Ferris St. to a halfway decent NHL power play. The puck never sits. Even if the player doesn't shoot or pass immediately he moves with the puck and constantly changes the angle of attack.

This is one of the biggest contrasts of the NHL to college hockey.  Of course, in the NHL with the exception of a handful of cement heads everybody on the roster can stickhandle like a Hobey Baker candidate.

To make that work you need both perfect passing and perfect receiving.  Movement on the power-play is only as strong as its worst stick man.

We were at least trying to get the puck low to create the triple option of angle shot / low slot pass / quick pass back  to the point for the one-timer.  We needed Ferlin to twirl around in the corner a few times, shaking his man while the puck adhered magically to his stick until being released with a quick wrist.

D'Ags was so effective early in the year collapsing in and taking that hard shot, and then he stopped trying to make that play.  Maybe he telegraphs it and is just too great a risk for a block setting up the shorty break.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jordan 04(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

1st is embarrassing, 2nd just useless.

That's true, but I think they're both pretty embarrassing.

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Scersk '97Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

I was probably thinking something like this.  I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory.  That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end.  Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior.  So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded.  Now they're back.  Good for them.  Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all.  Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches.  But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.
 
Hence my comments about Clarkson or SLU upthread.  Even RPI, having won twice, can qualify as having a long-suffering fan base.  And, well, us.  We might not have really understood it in '67–'73 (or so), but we get now.  And if, in the end, we are rewarded (I hesitate to use the word "blessed" because of its religious connotations, but something closer to that) with another championship, I think the release of joy will be stupendous and stretch across a large percentage of hockey fandom.

So...  I'm tired of BC and the Goophers.  I'm wary of Union.   This is Union's first moment, and I don't think their fans, except for a very few, will truly appreciate it.
 
My sentiments, strangely enough, will probably line up behind Ferris State.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Scersk '97Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

I was probably thinking something like this.  I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory.  That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end.  Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior.  So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded.  Now they're back.  Good for them.  Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all.  Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches.  But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.
 
Hence my comments about Clarkson or SLU upthread.  Even RPI, having won twice, can qualify as having a long-suffering fan base.  And, well, us.  We might not have really understood it in '67–'73 (or so), but we get now.  And if, in the end, we are rewarded (I hesitate to use the word "blessed" because of its religious connotations, but something closer to that) with another championship, I think the release of joy will be stupendous and stretch across a large percentage of hockey fandom.

So...  I'm tired of BC and the Goophers.  I'm wary of Union.   This is Union's first moment, and I don't think their fans, except for a very few, will truly appreciate it.
 
My sentiments, strangely enough, will probably line up behind Ferris State.

I know that they haven't bee major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

Quote from: jtn27I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Took long enough. I thought someone would have corrected me by now. I was beginning to think 1991 was correct.

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Took long enough. I thought someone would have corrected me by now. I was beginning to think 1991 was correct.

Haha figured I would. It wasn't until my senior year that I got invested in learning the history of the ECAC beyond Cornell's role in its history. So, it's more of a sharing the wealth (of knowledge) opinion in my mind, not correcting you. Also, at AC, I was next to a family of Colgate alumni during the Colgate-Union game and one member of the group was wearing NCAA 1990 hat from when he was a student (I assume based on age) and Colgate made the appearance in the 1990 NCAA title game, so that sticks with me quite easily too.

Quote from: Scersk '97I was probably thinking something like this.  I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory.  That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end.  Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior.  So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Yeah, this. Whenever I'm watching the clutter of equipment strewn about in celebration after the NCAA Final, I often say "good for them." The "them" refers to both the players, coaches and the longtime fans.  It's silly, but I think championships also belong to the emotionally invested fans of each program.  And I like to see those fans understand about how difficult and rare it is to reach the mountaintop.  I want to see the winning fan section jumping on top of each other in ecstasy, not standing up and giving a "rah, team...good show" golf clap.

Example: My senior year was 1996.  My introduction to CU hockey was the ridiculously wretched 1992-93 season. I saw them miss the playoffs altogether (we won our last game!), and the following two years get waxed in the QF round by Clarkson and Harvard. So the '96 ECAC Championship was just a magical run to me.  The members of the Class of '99 I knew were Freshmen when I was a Senior. After the 1997 Championship, a few '99ers started half-joking "what's the big deal about winning the Whitelaw? We win every year.  What's the big deal about beating Harvard? Har har..."  

Winning without pain leads to entitlement.

There seems to be a sense here that Union fans haven't "earned" a championship because they haven't come close before and their fans would feel entitled. But before becoming good a few years ago, wasn't Union basically the doormat of the ECAC for a long time? If any fan base has suffered and earned a championship wouldn't it be Union's? Or is the concern that Union never had any fans until a few years ago anyway so there is no long suffering fan base?

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Scersk '97Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend.  That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union!  (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

As one who said that last weekend, I have to say that is one of my problems with them. Too many of their fans are jerks, and it's not that they have a lack of perspective, they have no perspective (I guess that's saying the same thing, it just seems stronger to me to say no.:-})

SLU fans have no band, are passive, but you put up with them because they aren't jerks and they seem to have a better appreciation of hockey. (That's not based upon any facts.)

Clarkson fans, especially students, can be jerks, but they have a good band, have been around a long time, really do seem to appreciate the game. So they are fun to play against.

Harvard has an OK band, when it shows up, fans that go from no one, to jerks, to as passive as SLU. But you enjoy them because of who they are, and that some of us may have been rejected, their team has had good years, and it's great to beat them. As an aside did you see that the first rivalry on the list shown during the game was CU-Harvard.

But put together all of the above bad attributes, no band, passive or jerk fans, no real appreciation of the game and its history, and you have Union fans. Tough to root for them. However, I'll try next week.::smashfreak::

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Scersk '97But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate.  (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

Are you trying to break it?

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Scersk '97But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate.  (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

Are you trying to break it?

Honestly, that would be awesome too: "And then Clarkson finally won the national championship, and the bell broke."

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Scersk '97But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson?  Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament.  (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate.  (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

Are you trying to break it?

Honestly, that would be awesome too: "And then Clarkson finally won the national championship, and the bell broke."

Can't we just skip to the last part? (That would include bypassing the 24 hours, too.)

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

I don't think Union is a unique subset of the ECAC in that respect.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded.  Now they're back.  Good for them.  Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all.  Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches.  But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.

I know that they haven't been major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

BU, to me, falls into the category of respected rival (like Clarkson) rather than hated rival (like Harvard), and I have little problem cheering along with (rather different than "rooting for" ) a respected rival.

It's all about what's best for Cornell, and that's why I'll be rooting hard for Union.  When the neighborhood improves, your property value goes up.

Union is afflicted with many jerky bandwagon fans, but the core fan base (all 300 of them) has been suffering for decades and is now getting a great payoff.  If that isn't paying dues, I'm not sure what is.  

Also, we should probably be careful when we use terms like "entitlement."  ;)

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Scersk '97Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded.  Now they're back.  Good for them.  Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all.  Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches.  But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.

I know that they haven't been major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

BU, to me, falls into the category of respected rival (like Clarkson) rather than hated rival (like Harvard), and I have little problem cheering along with (rather different than "rooting for") a respected rival.

We respect Clarkson?

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Quote from: TrotskyIt's all about what's best for Cornell, and that's why I'll be rooting hard for Union.  When the neighborhood improves, your property value goes up.

Exactly.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU.  I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

I sure as hell respect their current coach, that's for sure.

And for years, they held the highest all-time winning % in college hockey.  That title is probably gone, as it looks like BC has passed them, with Minnesota and BU very close.  There used to be fairly easy way to sort all-time program records on USCHO, but now all I can find on CHN, USCHO, and INCH are all-time coaching records.  Having to jump between program histories (on the USCHO site, since CHN doesn't compile the team totals), I have:

BC:                   0.640
Clarkson              0.628
Minnesota:            0.628
BU:                   0.626
Michigan:             0.607
Cornell:              0.604
A team that sucks:    0.602
Maine:                0.600

Quote from: French Rage

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU.  I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan.  He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

Quote from: RichHAnd for years, they held the highest all-time winning % in college hockey.

Moving from Walker Arena to Cheel changed all that.  Well, that and George Roll.  Boy was I wrong about him.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Oh I definitely respect Casey, and I consider them a rival, but I'm not sure its a respect thing. I definitely enjoy playing them, and think they have the second best fans/tradition in the ECAC, but I just don't like them. I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem, and every time we play them, I'm pumped for the game. I'm not sure its quite hatred, but its definitely more that's just respected rivals for me . It feels like a controversial hatefest can break out at any moment given the right incident against them, unlike Sucks, where we'll probably just create one as a reason to hate on Sucks. They lie for me somewhere on that line between respect and hate, though I'd be closer to hate if Casey weren't coaching there.

Quote from: TrotskyUnion is afflicted with many jerky bandwagon fans, but the core fan base (all 300 of them) has been suffering for decades and is now getting a great payoff.  If that isn't paying dues, I'm not sure what is.

Did they pay those dues with the pennies from the milk jugs they shake at games?  For years, they couldn't be bothered to yell or clap, but they would shake their loose change they carried around in garbage in your face like a baby's rattle.

OK, I'm done. :-P

Go Union, I guess.  Whee.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: TrotskyIt's all about what's best for Cornell, and that's why I'll be rooting hard for Union.  When the neighborhood improves, your property value goes up.

Exactly.

I should add that I've had very positive interactions with #UnionHockey fans in the Twitterverse.  We were rooting hard for each other's schools last weekend.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: French Rage

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU.  I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan.  He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

It's a good way to win multiple COTY awards.

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: French Rage

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU.  I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan.  He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

It's a good way to win multiple COTY awards.

But somehow Union's found a better way. Now that they are known to have a good program, do you think they can stop giving the award to them? I mean they have more COTY awards than any other school. And what do have to show for it. Another of my reasons why I find it hard to root for them.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: French Rage

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: css228We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_Column_Charts.htm), it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU.  I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan.  He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

It's a good way to win multiple COTY awards.

But somehow Union's found a better way. Now that they are known to have a good program, do you think they can stop giving the award to them? I mean they have more COTY awards than any other school. And what do have to show for it. Another of my reasons why I find it hard to root for them.

Never thought of that one. I will add it to my list.

So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2011-12/News/20122703_Bennett_Named_Finalist_Penrose_Award), otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

Quote from: Jim HylaSo now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2011-12/News/20122703_Bennett_Named_Finalist_Penrose_Award), otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Jim HylaSo now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2011-12/News/20122703_Bennett_Named_Finalist_Penrose_Award), otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.

I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress.  More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.:-P

Quote from: martyI'm intrigued that this game is still in progress.  More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.:-P

The Ferris State game never ended. Cornell did not give up the losing goal immediately after failing to score on a 5 minute power play. It's still 1-1 going into the 100th overtime.

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: martyI'm intrigued that this game is still in progress.  More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.:-P

The Ferris State game never ended. Cornell did not give up the losing goal immediately after failing to score on a 5 minute power play. It's still 1-1 going into the 100th overtime.

ESPNU must have frozen for you. It's about halfway through the 119th OT. Let's Go Red!!! Frozen Four-bound!!!

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: martyI'm intrigued that this game is still in progress.  More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.:-P

The Ferris State game never ended. Cornell did not give up the losing goal immediately after failing to score on a 5 minute power play. It's still 1-1 going into the 100th overtime.

Interesting idea because over the last decade I have decided that this is my definition of hell - being at a rink (not Lynah I'm sure) and watching the game go on for eternity - BU vs BC anyone.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSLHz3ROQL6vGTRvo2BcM_pVK0Q-IwbjMyjBpO4-Tf-s1jb9D9Ug)

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Jim HylaSo now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2011-12/News/20122703_Bennett_Named_Finalist_Penrose_Award), otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.

BTW, given how our season went and how this team developed, let's give kudos to Schafer and his new staff. They did a terrific job. ::cheer::

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Jim HylaSo now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2011-12/News/20122703_Bennett_Named_Finalist_Penrose_Award), otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.

The big question with any award of this type is what criteria do you use do decide who is deserving? I doubt it's spelled out with any specificity. Different people probably have different ideas and may change year to year.

I did just learn something new.  According to the AHCA website/press release, you have to win your conference's COTY award or make the Frozen Four to be nominated for the Penrose.  Makes sense I guess.

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Quote from: KeithKI did just learn something new.  According to the AHCA website/press release, you have to win your conference's COTY award or make the Frozen Four to be nominated for the Penrose.  Makes sense I guess.

Presumably this was not always the case.  Dartmouth's Edward Jeremiah won the award twice.  Now, Jeremiah was apparently a well-respected coach; he had a team in the early '40s that went 21-2, and his Dartmouth sqaud did make the first two NCAA championship games in 1948 and 1949.  I believe he is the first-ever college hockey coach to win 300 games, or perhaps to win 300 at one school.  Also, the Division III Coach of the Year award is named for him.  Nevertheless, Jeremiah won the award in 1951 (the first year the award was given) when his Dartmouth squad went 9-10-1.

All right, fine, maybe that was carry-over from the '48 and '49 squads.  Jeremiah won the award again in 1967, the year he retired (he died a couple months later).  That year should sound familiar; it's the year that Cornell, under Ned Harkness, went 27-1-1 and took their first-ever NCAA championship, also the first won by an Eastern squad in 13 years.  And how did Jeremiah's Dartmouth team do that year?  Oh, not as well... 4-16.

(Harkness would go on to win the award in 1968)

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

Quote from: css228I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?  ::drunk::

Quote from: martyI'm intrigued that this game is still in progress.  More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.:-P

I'd go update the title of the "HARVARD SUCKS" thread, but I'm pretty sure it's still accurate.

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: css228I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?  ::drunk::

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

And at the time that they would have been invited to join, they probably objected on the grounds that the Ivies took sports too seriously.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

We all know any one of those schools would jump at the chance to join the Ivy League (especially Rutgers, Colgate, and Union).

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Johnny 5A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

We all know any one of those schools would jump at the chance to join the Ivy League (especially Rutgers, Colgate, and Union).

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest." )

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest.")

But they were chartered by the King... and as a result own about half of New Hampshire.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

Yeah, I was just making the point that random additions (RPI (yes, I've heard that one among my peers in the Southern Tier of Upstate New York), Colgate, and Union) have no historical connection with the League. There are historical connections between the eight universities that became the Ivy League. So, it makes sense that were there to be any additions, the new members would align with that trend. The College of William and Mary is perhaps one of few schools that would continue that trend even though no such invitation ever occurred.

I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: css228I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?  ::drunk::

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

I'm still not sure which we're talking about or why it's a bad thing.  :-}

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest.")

I studied a year at the College of William & Mary. They don't refer to themselves or their institution as a member of the Ancient Eight. The president of the College referred to the College as "ancient by all standards on our side of the Atlantic" when Queen Elizabeth II visited in 2007 (during the celebration of the quadricentennial of Jamestown), but other than that W&M students are preoccupied with the intellectual rivalry with UVa ("Mr. Jefferson's Alma Mater" vs. "Mr. Jefferson's University" ). They do not associate with the Ivy League.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest.")

But they were chartered by the King... and as a result own about half of New Hampshire.

...and New York and Virginia extend to the Pacific. ;-)

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: css228I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?  ::drunk::

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

I'm still not sure which we're talking about or why it's a bad thing.  :-}

Drinking group with a music problem refers to Clarkson. Nothing wrong with their drinking, plenty wrong with their being allowed to touch musical instruments.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

Thank you.

I think that should put to rest a lot of the fallacious myths from the other institutions. I know that they will continue saying it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.::bolt::

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BeeeejThere is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.::bolt::

They wouldn't listen to me because I was wearing gray with red lettering instead of red and white.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: BeeeejThere is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.::bolt::

They wouldn't listen to me because I was wearing gray with red lettering instead of red and white.

Well good for them then. They were a smarter group than I would have imagined.

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

Thank you.

I think that should put to rest a lot of the fallacious myths from the other institutions. I know that they will continue saying it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There is another roadblock preventing most Division I members from even considering membership in the Ivy League - NC$$ regulations. Bylaw 20.9.1 of the Division I Manual (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D1_2012_01.pdf) details minimum financial aid requirements for membership in the division. It also contains the following clause (20.9.1.2.7): "Member institutions that did not award any athletically related financial aid in any sport as of January 11, 1991, shall be exempted from the minimum requirements." Thus, it seems that no Division I member outside the Ivy League (except the three service academies?) could adopt the League's prohibition on athletic scholarships without jeopardizing its Division I status.

EDIT: The clause I quoted makes no mention of schools who did not award scholarships in 1991 but have subsequently changed that policy (i.e. most members of the Patriot League).

Quote from: kingpin248There is another roadblock preventing most Division I members from even considering membership in the Ivy League - NC$$ regulations. Bylaw 20.9.1 of the Division I Manual (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D1_2012_01.pdf) details minimum financial aid requirements for membership in the division. It also contains the following clause (20.9.1.2.7): "Member institutions that did not award any athletically related financial aid in any sport as of January 11, 1991, shall be exempted from the minimum requirements." Thus, it seems that no Division I member outside the Ivy League (except the three service academies?) could adopt the League's prohibition on athletic scholarships without jeopardizing its Division I status.

That's just mind boggling. I understand why you wouldn't allow scholarships in D3 because that provides an unfair advantage.  but if a school wanted to play up why in the world would you stop them?

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinThe best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

And of course, at one time Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth were partly "public" in the sense that they were designated as land-grant institutions. Harvard was public in that tolls on the bridge between Cambridge and Boston went to support Harvard. In fact, most of the older "private" institutions had some form of public subsidy.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: kingpin248There is another roadblock preventing most Division I members from even considering membership in the Ivy League - NC$$ regulations. Bylaw 20.9.1 of the Division I Manual (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D1_2012_01.pdf) details minimum financial aid requirements for membership in the division. It also contains the following clause (20.9.1.2.7): "Member institutions that did not award any athletically related financial aid in any sport as of January 11, 1991, shall be exempted from the minimum requirements." Thus, it seems that no Division I member outside the Ivy League (except the three service academies?) could adopt the League's prohibition on athletic scholarships without jeopardizing its Division I status.

That's just mind boggling. I understand why you wouldn't allow scholarships in D3 because that provides an unfair advantage.  but if a school wanted to play up why in the world would you stop them?

Can you imagine what might happen if one of those schools started to win? Afterall it is all about money. Speaking of which, has anyone read Josh Luch's new book on college athletics and the NCAA, "Illegal Procedure"? I caught part of an inteview on Terry Gross's show "Fresh Air". It sounded interesting. His way of solving the pay players question, was to let agents legally loan them money. I guess if your destined for the pros that would help, but the other 99% would get nothing. About par for the course I guess.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/imagepenn/ivy1954.html

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.::bolt::

Thank you Beeeej for the link to the two documents.
I especially like the end of the original 1945 agreement:

QuoteIn all phases of this agreement, as well as in the work of the proposed Committees, no important and enduring results are likely to be obtained except as the relationship of the subscribing institutions is genuinely cooperative.  Rigid application of set rules is almost certain to doom the undertaking to failure.  On the other hand, wise and flexible administration in the setting of mutual respect and good faith among the subscribing institutions should produce results of great benefit to the game and well as to the institutions participating.  It is firmly believed that the undertaking as a whole has large promise and should be given every available support.

The more formally structured 1954 agreement has plenty of flexibility built in.  

QuoteIt is expected that the Committee on Eligibility will keep all matters coming within the purview of this agreement, including eligibility questions, under constant review and shall from time to time make recommendations to the Presidents' Policy Committee with respect to any changes in policy deemed to be advisable.

QuoteThe Presidents' Policy Committee ... shall have full and final responsibility for the determination of all agreed policies of the Group ...

QuoteThe Presidents' Policy Committee shall take decisions on all matters within its responsibility by the affirmative vote of six members of the Group.

QuoteA subscribing member may withdraw from the Group upon giving written notice of such intention two years in advance.  Amendments of the agreement pertaining to membership shall be made only with the approval of all the institutions acting through their respective governing boards."

Somebody's archives must have correspondence that would confirm or refute the claims of invitations.  
The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League) for Ivy League has a long discussion of the norigins and quotes Cornell's Rym Berry in 1936

QuoteI can say with certainty that in the last five years—and markedly in the last three months—there has been a strong drift among the eight or ten universities of the East which see a good deal of one another in sport toward a closer bond of confidence and cooperation and toward the formation of a common front against the threat of a breakdown in the ideals of amateur sport in the interests of supposed expediency. Please do not regard that statement as implying the organization of an Eastern conference or even a poetic "Ivy League". That sort of thing does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.

[Emphasis added.]

Quote from: Jim HylaHis way of solving the pay players question, was to let agents legally loan them money. I guess if your destined for the pros that would help, but the other 99% would get nothing. About par for the course I guess.

The agents then become a sort of athletics venture capitalist. I kind of like it.

Quote from: David HardingSomebody's archives must have correspondence that would confirm or refute the claims of invitations.  
The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League) for Ivy League has a long discussion of the norigins and quotes Cornell's Rym Berry in 1936

QuoteI can say with certainty that in the last five years—and markedly in the last three months—there has been a strong drift among the eight or ten universities of the East which see a good deal of one another in sport toward a closer bond of confidence and cooperation and toward the formation of a common front against the threat of a breakdown in the ideals of amateur sport in the interests of supposed expediency. Please do not regard that statement as implying the organization of an Eastern conference or even a poetic "Ivy League". That sort of thing does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.

[Emphasis added.]

The most common and sensible explanation for that comment that I've heard is that West Point and Annapolis regularly competed in football with the eight eventual Ivies on a regular basis, and were therefore included in early discussions of the league, but nothing came of their participation.

I love it. We need to keep this game going till next October. It never ends, we never lost.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: David HardingSomebody's archives must have correspondence that would confirm or refute the claims of invitations.  
The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League) for Ivy League has a long discussion of the norigins and quotes Cornell's Rym Berry in 1936

QuoteI can say with certainty that in the last five years—and markedly in the last three months—there has been a strong drift among the eight or ten universities of the East which see a good deal of one another in sport toward a closer bond of confidence and cooperation and toward the formation of a common front against the threat of a breakdown in the ideals of amateur sport in the interests of supposed expediency. Please do not regard that statement as implying the organization of an Eastern conference or even a poetic "Ivy League". That sort of thing does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.

[Emphasis added.]

The most common and sensible explanation for that comment that I've heard is that West Point and Annapolis regularly competed in football with the eight eventual Ivies on a regular basis, and were therefore included in early discussions of the league, but nothing came of their participation.

I have heard that too. I've also heard that Rutgers was included at one point because it had a well-established and heated rivalry in football with Princeton during that era. This explanation is often accompanied with the inclusion of Army and Navy, and the exclusion of Brown. That gets one to the total of ten. The late addition of Brown to the Ivy Group discussion lends credence to the notion that Brown might have been an afterthought at that time.

The famous quoted editorial that began the movement toward the current Ivy League states:

QuoteThe Ivy League exists already in the minds of a good many of those connected with football, and we fail to see why the seven schools concerned should be satisfied to let it exist as a purely nebulous entity where there are so many practical benefits which would be possible under definite organized association. The seven colleges involved fall naturally together by reason of their common interests and similar general standards and by dint of their established national reputation they are in a particularly advantageous position to assume leadership for the preservation of the ideals of intercollegiate athletics.

The editorial ran simultaneously in the Columbia Daily Spectator, The Cornell Daily Sun, The Dartmouth, The Harvard Crimson,The Daily Pennsylvanian, The Daily Princetonian, and the Yale Daily News in 1936. Note the exception of Brown at this earliest stage but the inclusion of all other current members.

Quote from: Jim HylaSo now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2011-12/News/20122703_Bennett_Named_Finalist_Penrose_Award), otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

He might have been nominated but he didn't win.

https://twitter.com/#!/slapschotts/status/187561497273188352