Clearly, the problem this year has been me not starting threads. The Times regrets the error.
Let's Go Red!
Quote from: TrotskyClearly, the problem this year has been me not starting threads. The Times regrets the error.
Let's Go Red!
Let's Go Red!!! Will probably watch on ESPN - I think the team itself is cursed, not me watching away games...
Shake off last night and put it to Clarkson!
From College Hockey News:
Mike Schafer apparently back behind the bench tonight for Cornell at Clarkson after serving a suspension last night. ... Kyle Penney and Ondrej Psenicka remain out, along with four other injured forwards -- three others who sat last night are back in.
On the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.
The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.
Handy list of teams we wish ill on:
Drt 26 Prn
Cgt 26 @ SLU
Clk 24 Cor
Hvd 22 pulling the maid
Uni 23 Brn
We have 19 points.
Quote from: fastforwardFrom College Hockey News:
Mike Schafer apparently back behind the bench tonight for Cornell at Clarkson after serving a suspension last night. ... Kyle Penney and Ondrej Psenicka remain out, along with four other injured forwards -- three others who sat last night are back in.
DeSantis, O'Leary, and...Stanley?
Quote from: BearLoverOn the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.
The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.
Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: fastforwardFrom College Hockey News:
Mike Schafer apparently back behind the bench tonight for Cornell at Clarkson after serving a suspension last night. ... Kyle Penney and Ondrej Psenicka remain out, along with four other injured forwards -- three others who sat last night are back in.
DeSantis, O'Leary, and...Stanley?
Here's Hoping!
Quote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverOn the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.
The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.
Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
Perhaps, but they managed to hire away from the AHL a seemingly very good coach who is evidently recruiting well with his connections in Quebec/major juniors.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
Thanks.
Per Schafer: Psenicka, Penney and Donaldson could be back next week; with Major back the following week.
Still no sign of Devin. Perhaps it is time to think about him petitioning the Ivies for another year.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverOn the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.
The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.
Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
Perhaps, but they managed to hire away from the AHL a seemingly very good coach who is evidently recruiting well with his connections in Quebec/major juniors.
Because he's an alum. And Casey has a long history of being one of the top recruiters around. But really, I don't know why I'm engaging with you, since you will always twist everything imaginable to fit your gloom and doom narrartive. Someone take away my keyboard.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverOn the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.
The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.
Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
Perhaps, but they managed to hire away from the AHL a seemingly very good coach who is evidently recruiting well with his connections in Quebec/major juniors.
Because he's an alum. And Casey has a long history of being one of the top recruiters around. But really, I don't know why I'm engaging with you, since you will always twist everything imaginable to fit your gloom and doom narrartive. Someone take away my keyboard.
I don't think my comment was particularly adversarial tbh.
Cornell at Clarkson is my second-favorite favorite RS game every year. I love the history and tradition of the ECAC and I hope it will outlive me. I mean FFS low bar.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
You didn't listen closely I guess, because the reason for not committing to opting in, yet, is because of the potential roster cap, and general uncertainty, not because of lack of resources. Even if they don't opt-in, nothing prevents them from doling out revenue in some way -- which they will -- at least as much as Michigan does, which is all that matters. If you don't think they have revenue to "throw around," then, yet again, you know not of what you speak. Again, they'll have at least as much as the B10 schools have -- and again, that's all that matters in this context.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/
That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/
That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.
Well, the article says that were they to opt in (something their AD sounded very uncertain about), they'd have a budget of only $3m to spread among all of their athletes, including women (the DoE recently ruled male and female athletes would need to receive the same amount under revenue sharing) and their basketball team, which is competing within a world of NIL and trying to make the NCAA tournament and will demand much more money than the other sports.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/
That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.
Well, the article says that were they to opt in (something their AD sounded very uncertain about), they'd have a budget of only $3m to spread among all of their athletes, including women (the DoE recently ruled male and female athletes would need to receive the same amount under revenue sharing) and their basketball team, which is competing within a world of NIL and trying to make the NCAA tournament and will demand much more money than the other sports.
If Denver is required to give equal value to women's players, then everyone else they're competing with in hockey will be in the same boat. The bottom line remains, schools like North Dakota and Denver have nothing to worry about vis-a-vis "the big schools" when it comes to hockey. Clarkson is in a disastrous spot. Cornell remains to be seen -- though I am leaning on the side that Cornell will not be as negatively affected as some would think. They'll recruit the same players as always. The problem is moreso the consolidation of power elsewhere, making it harder to compete against the elite teams, moreso than Cornell backsliding - though the effect may look the same. It remains to be seen. All of college athletics is a mess right now - and it may be my cue to retire. Some may like that.
ESPN+ link not working for me. Sadness.
Edit: Fixed by going through the site search. Happiness.
Stanley???
Welcome back Hoyt Stanley.
Stanley 1-0
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.
Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/
That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.
Well, the article says that were they to opt in (something their AD sounded very uncertain about), they'd have a budget of only $3m to spread among all of their athletes, including women (the DoE recently ruled male and female athletes would need to receive the same amount under revenue sharing) and their basketball team, which is competing within a world of NIL and trying to make the NCAA tournament and will demand much more money than the other sports.
If Denver is required to give equal value to women's players, then everyone else they're competing with in hockey will be in the same boat. The bottom line remains, schools like North Dakota and Denver have nothing to worry about vis-a-vis "the big schools" when it comes to hockey. Clarkson is in a disastrous spot. Cornell remains to be seen -- though I am leaning on the side that Cornell will not be as negatively affected as some would think. They'll recruit the same players as always. The problem is moreso the consolidation of power elsewhere, making it harder to compete against the elite teams, moreso than Cornell backsliding - though the effect may look the same. It remains to be seen. All of college athletics is a mess right now - and it may be my cue to retire. Some may like that.
I personally think revenue sharing doesn't seem likely to be a big factor in hockey. Michigan won't pay hockey players much because almost all the money will go to football, Denver/NoDak won't because their schools don't have much revenue to spend. Clarkson may be doomed, but for other reasons.
489-58 when Schafer's Big Red scores first. Hot damn.
Under Schafer, when Cornell scores first we are 489-56.
Jinx.
Quote from: TrotskyCornell at Clarkson is my second-favorite favorite RS game every year. I love the history and tradition of the ECAC and I hope it will outlive me. I mean FFS low bar.
As a first-year Cornell fan, any paarticular reaso- AHHHHH TWO GOALS TWO TWO IS THAT KRAFT
We sure came out with hop.
Quote from: TrotskyJinx.
Owe me a Coke ;)
Cheel Fan favorite Jack O'Leary with an assist.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyJinx.
Owe me a Coke ;)
That's unfortunate because you're getting a scotch.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyJinx.
Owe me a Coke ;)
That's unfortunate because you're getting a scotch.
I'll take it! PK. DeSantis, everyone's favorite criminal on ice.
The record mentioned was 400-89-56. I think it was all time, too, and not just under Schafer
Anyone have the lines for tonight? The announcers just said 10 dmen dressed...
2-1, fuck.
If we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Quote from: stereaxAnyone have the lines for tonight? The announcers just said 10 dmen dressed...
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/livebox.php?vc=cor&hc=clk
Quote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxAnyone have the lines for tonight? The announcers just said 10 dmen dressed...
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/livebox.php?vc=cor&hc=clk
Where's Rayhill?
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Numbnuts gurgling professional style for a median IQ of 70. Fuck em.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxAnyone have the lines for tonight? The announcers just said 10 dmen dressed...
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/livebox.php?vc=cor&hc=clk
Where's Rayhill?
I think they fucked up. He should be there. we have 10 D dressed.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxAnyone have the lines for tonight? The announcers just said 10 dmen dressed...
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/livebox.php?vc=cor&hc=clk
The CHN lines are not correct (nor were they last night at SLU). I'd check the Cornell live stats.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxAnyone have the lines for tonight? The announcers just said 10 dmen dressed...
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/livebox.php?vc=cor&hc=clk
Where's Rayhill?
He's on the scoresheet the team posted but I can't get it on here
Damn that was close.
Well, great movement anyway.
It's not the lines but it is the accurate lineup: https://cornellbigred.com/sidearmstats/mhockey/media;team=away
Quote from: IcebergThe record mentioned was 400-89-56. I think it was all time, too, and not just under Schafer
Was going to say the same about 400-89-56. But they did say that was during Schafer's tenure.
Penalties will kill us
I hate to say shit like this but with Union winning this is essentially a must-win for a bye because the Knights are the only team we're going to catch for the 4.
Line chart (https://x.com/JaneMcNally_/status/1885837048205942805/photo/1)
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Numbnuts gurgling professional style for a median IQ of 70. Fuck em.
LMAO fair. Was watching Union-Brown earlier and holy shit they said "the net came off its moorings" so often I'm convinced they don't actually have ice...
Faithful own this barn. Good work folks.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Numbnuts gurgling professional style for a median IQ of 70. Fuck em.
LMAO fair. Was watching Union-Brown earlier and holy shit they said "the net came off its moorings" so often I'm convinced they don't actually have ice...
The nets at Brown are essentially just resting in a shallow divot in the ice. A fan could breathe and dislodge them.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Numbnuts gurgling professional style for a median IQ of 70. Fuck em.
LMAO fair. Was watching Union-Brown earlier and holy shit they said "the net came off its moorings" so often I'm convinced they don't actually have ice...
I meant the public address announcer, not the game crew, who are fine.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Numbnuts gurgling professional style for a median IQ of 70. Fuck em.
LMAO fair. Was watching Union-Brown earlier and holy shit they said "the net came off its moorings" so often I'm convinced they don't actually have ice...
The nets at Brown are essentially just resting in a shallow divot in the ice. A fan could breathe and dislodge them.
Flashback to Starr in the 90s. Although oddly it was only ever the Colgate net moorings.
5 minutes without a clear.
Quote from: TrotskyFaithful own this barn. Good work folks.
Like most ECAC barns tbh... that's a LOTTA red.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIf we ever have a POS PA like this you'll see me on the news.
Eh? What's so bad about him?
Numbnuts gurgling professional style for a median IQ of 70. Fuck em.
LMAO fair. Was watching Union-Brown earlier and holy shit they said "the net came off its moorings" so often I'm convinced they don't actually have ice...
The nets at Brown are essentially just resting in a shallow divot in the ice. A fan could breathe and dislodge them.
LMAOOO that makes sense. They gave a Union kid a penalty for delay of game for pushing the net off its moorings, lol.
Castagna never does anything.
MACK GOAL, 3-1! And a likely Castagnassist. He heard y'all talking shit.
Quote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything.
Never.
O'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
Quote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
It is odd how often the puck finds Jimmy Rayhill in scoring territory.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
I was thinking of our celebrated defenseman who never scored, but it wasn't Belzile.
Quote from: TrotskyIt is odd how often the puck finds Jimmy Rayhill in scoring territory.
The missing piece...
The guy who the entire team tried to set up with an empty net in his final game, but he still didn't get one.
Quote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
Quote from: TrotskyThe guy who the entire team tried to set up with an empty net in his final game, but he still didn't get one.
Oh my god :')
How do you not pass at any point on a 2x0...
Oh hey time for a powerless play
Christian Felli (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Felli_Christian.pdf).
2nd time they let it leave the zone
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Quote from: TrotskyChristian Felli (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Felli_Christian.pdf).
LMAO. I see, thanks hahaha
Quote from: BearLoverHow do you not pass at any point on a 2x0...
The old give-n-keep
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Were the 60s and 70s Big Red just. scoring at will??
3-2. Same guy as last time. Sudovic?
No D in front of....grrrrr
Great. Just peachy.
Quote from: TrotskyThe guy who the entire team tried to set up with an empty net in his final game, but he still didn't get one.
Christian Felli
Nm
I don't always have a frustrating season. But when I do, I do it while we watching democracy shat on by Clownazis.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Were the 60s and 70s Big Red just. scoring at will??
Yes (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1977.pdf).
They were (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_O.html).
The following take is just plain wrong, but I'll say it anyway:
If you lose your stick, just go get another one. The team can survive without you for ten seconds.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Were the 60s and 70s Big Red just. scoring at will??
Yes (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1977.pdf).
They were (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_O.html).
SEVEN GOALS PER GAME???
The Big Red needs to show a lot of character in the 3rd period. Forgot about the missing guys. Win this game.
Quote from: DafatoneThe following take is just plain wrong, but I'll say it anyway:
If you lose your stick, just go get another one. The team can survive without you for ten seconds.
I've always felt this way but I don't know anything. it's only 5 second, because your replacement can jump the boards when you get close to the bench.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Were the 60s and 70s Big Red just. scoring at will??
Yes (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1977.pdf).
They were (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_O.html).
SEVEN GOALS PER GAME???
Easy when you don't play defense. (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_D.html)
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Were the 60s and 70s Big Red just. scoring at will??
You forget that in that era, goalies were all 4'9" and weren't allowed to wear anything padded.
Yes (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1977.pdf).
They were (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_O.html).
SEVEN GOALS PER GAME???
Easy when you don't play defense. (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_D.html)
Quote from: stereaxSEVEN GOALS PER GAME???
Yup (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1978.pdf).
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyO'Leary with the Etienne Belzile Hat trick.
The what now?
3 assists
The guy who got 10 assists over 4 years??
If you want a guy with a lot of assists (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Nethery_Lance.pdf)...
Were the 60s and 70s Big Red just. scoring at will??
Yes (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1977.pdf).
They were (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_O.html).
SEVEN GOALS PER GAME???
Easy when you don't play defense. (http://www.tbrw.info/?/cornell_History/cornell_Bargraph_ECAC_D.html)
Christ almighty...
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxSEVEN GOALS PER GAME???
Yup (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_1978.pdf).
Wow...
Quote from: stereaxChrist almighty...
Now show her the PIM...
Ping
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxChrist almighty...
Now show her the PIM...
Haha no I know a lot of games were goonfests at that time...
Novel concept-PP with shots on net
Quote from: fastforwardNovel concept-PP with shots on net
We can do that?
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardNovel concept-PP with shots on net
We can do that?
Not enough
PP has been good tonight, just no love.
Quote from: fastforwardQuote from: stereaxQuote from: fastforwardNovel concept-PP with shots on net
We can do that?
Not enough
I think we should get the women's team to drill the men about the powerplay until they get it through their head that they're allowed to have a decent one. Just a suggestion...
Pretty moves by Mack.
Sloppy passing
Both teams with some heedless but fun end to end. Somebody is going to make a dumb mistake.
Quote from: TrotskyBoth teams with some heedless but fun end to end. Somebody is going to make a dumb mistake.
What we call a "track meet". Away from my screen rn, are we still tied?
Yes, still 3-3.
Sweet, okay. Sounded like a goal from where I was.
Grrrrrrrrr
Crap call considering what's gone uncalled prior.
Now would be a really nice time for a slapshot from the point, blocked, turned to a breakaway and a shorty.
J.F. is... not svelte.
Wow, where do I get a Richardson? That was great.
Hope Walsh is ok.
Quote from: TrotskyWow, where do I get a Richardson? That was great.
PC Richard and Sons?
Quote from: TrotskyHope Walsh is ok.
Shit, shit, shit
Did we just have three D out there on that face off?
FFS
Quote from: TrotskyFFS
The discipline
Dumb retaliation by Bancroft but somehow avoids getting penalized.
Let's take the cheese.
I thought they could onlly give 5 on a review?
And now they're going to review for...a major on Bancroft? It was idiotic but seemed like a minor roughing call at best.
Quote from: sah67Did we just have three D out there on that face off?
We are playing 10 D tonight, so...
That's gotta be a major. :-(
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: sah67Did we just have three D out there on that face off?
We are playing 10 D tonight, so...
Rego just trying to pad his faceoff stats.
OK, fucking win it.
Quote from: sah67Quote from: stereaxQuote from: sah67Did we just have three D out there on that face off?
We are playing 10 D tonight, so...
Rego just trying to pad his faceoff stats.
Insert the guy tapping on his head and smirking gif here.
Castagna never does anything. Only 2 offensive zone faceoff wins in the last 30 seconds.
Quote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything. Only 2 offensive zone faceoff wins in the last 30 seconds.
Scrub. Demote him to the practice squad. Rayhill clears.
DJ was just waiting for his chance! Gotta spin some metal!
It's deranged. Two bands in the house.
The 3 D taking a faceoff in OT had to have been a mistake, that's why Stanley was arguing.
Suda's shootout streak ends on a poke check.
2 point weekend. I'll take it.
"Cornell thinks they won it." Clarkson announcer guy really paying attention.
Announcer:
Cornell thinks they won
We think, therefore we did...
Quote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
2 is fine given the everything going on. Not ideal, but it is what it is. Get healthy, get unsuspended, and get back to it.
Not that 3x3 OT is ever my cup of tea, but that one was particularly putrid.
Quote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
Not a good result for getting the bye particularly because Clarkson also got a point.
It's promising that Shane has started to play well.
I guess we're never getting Devlin and Wallace back?
Touching interview at the very end with the Clarkson captain who showed a ton of class and spoke really well. Even after he taunted the Cornell bench after scoring in the shootout.
In a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
Not a good result for getting the bye particularly because Clarkson also got a point.
Bud, at this point I think we're all kinda in the understanding that we're probably not getting a bye and it is what it is. If we do, swell, but it's not terribly likely.
Quote from: TrotskyIn a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
GOOD. Fuck em. Are they also running frankenlines like we are?
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIn a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
GOOD. Fuck em. Are they also running frankenlines like we are?
It adds perspective that, down their suspensions, Dartmouth was swept, at home.
Quote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
Back when all wins were 2 points and Houle was a player, 2 points in the North Country was a reason for celebration.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
Not a good result for getting the bye particularly because Clarkson also got a point.
Bud, at this point I think we're all kinda in the understanding that we're probably not getting a bye and it is what it is. If we do, swell, but it's not terribly likely.
The bye is the only material thing we're playing for at this point in the regular season (I guess other than the Ivy title). So that's the focus. It's also not a terribly unrealistic goal given the teams ahead of us have tough remaining schedules. We basically need to pass two of Clarkson, Dartmouth, Union, Colgate.
Quote from: BearLoverI guess we're never getting Devlin and Wallace back?
Schafer has been bearish on them returning since their injuries. I think it is probably best to assume they are gone for the season. Even if they are ready for the playoffs they will have missed an entire year of training and development. Even if fit they won't be the best options.
Injuries suck.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverI guess we're never getting Devlin and Wallace back?
Schafer has been bearish on them returning since their injuries. I think it is probably best to assume they are gone for the season. Even if the were ready for the playoffs they would have missed an entire year of development.
Injuries suck.
For awhile Schafer had been saying the hope or maybe even expectation was that everyone would be back in January.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverI guess we're never getting Devlin and Wallace back?
Schafer has been bearish on them returning since their injuries. I think it is probably best to assume they are gone for the season. Even if the were ready for the playoffs they would have missed an entire year of development.
Injuries suck.
For awhile Schafer had been saying the hope or maybe even expectation was that everyone would be back in January.
I don't believe so. The assumptions for some players did slide, from before Christmas to after Christmas to early February. But I swear he has always thrown cold water on Devlin. Wallace I can't say, but I don't remember any encouraging noises.
Quote from: TrotskyIn a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
It looks like Dartmouth is 5-2 in Ivy play with games remaining against H,Y,B. Cornell is 4-2-2 with games against Y,B. We basically need H to beat Dartmouth and then we and Dartmouth would be virtually tied.
Quote from: TrotskyIn a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
The one game where Thompson doesn't feel like an empty wind tunnel
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
Not a good result for getting the bye particularly because Clarkson also got a point.
Bud, at this point I think we're all kinda in the understanding that we're probably not getting a bye and it is what it is. If we do, swell, but it's not terribly likely.
I wouldn't say that. (I am an optimist.)
The teams tied for third ahead of us are ahead of us by five points. We have eight games left to play...24 possible points. One of those two teams is Union, and we play them twice. The other team tied for third is Dartmouth, and they've played one more game than we have.
I say it's at least 50-50 (remember...optimist here) that we earn the bye.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: stereaxQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Trotsky2 point weekend. I'll take it.
Not a good result for getting the bye particularly because Clarkson also got a point.
Bud, at this point I think we're all kinda in the understanding that we're probably not getting a bye and it is what it is. If we do, swell, but it's not terribly likely.
I wouldn't say that. (I am an optimist.)
The teams tied for third ahead of us are ahead of us by five points. We have eight games left to play...24 possible points. One of those two teams is Union, and we play them twice. The other team tied for third is Dartmouth, and they've played one more game than we have.
I say it's at least 50-50 (remember...optimist here) that we earn the bye.
It's under 50-50, particularly given how badly we've played, but the odds aren't horrible. Union and Clarkson have difficult remaining schedules and Dartmouth has played an extra game. Most of the teams ahead of us have to play each other (and us) several times.
o fer the weekend on the PP and the breakaways. the difference between 6 and 2 pts
Quote from: sah67"Cornell thinks they won it." Clarkson announcer guy really paying attention.
Um, maybe he's been been blinded by the light of his color guy's jacket.
This pattern harks back to the tartan slacks (more red black brown than green, tho) worn with leather jackets by NHL players in the '70s and in Slapshot.
Mom is no longer helping him dress. I hope to God this is not a Clarkson reunion year blazer. It would be okay as the lining.
Quote from: upprdecko fer the weekend on the PP and the breakaways. the difference between 6 and 2 pts
Cornell PP (10.9%) is third worst in the country.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIn a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
GOOD. Fuck em. Are they also running frankenlines like we are?
It adds perspective that, down their suspensions, Dartmouth was swept, at home.
HAH. Again. Fuck em, I say :)
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyIn a game I am sure very few of you care about, Dartmouth loses to Princeton and Cornell stays in the Ivy title race.
GOOD. Fuck em. Are they also running frankenlines like we are?
It adds perspective that, down their suspensions, Dartmouth was swept, at home.
HAH. Again. Fuck em, I say :)
That's the spirit!
Quote from: ACMLine chart (https://x.com/JaneMcNally_/status/1885837048205942805/photo/1)
Was Murray injured against at. Lawrence?
Quote from: TrotskyI thought they could onlly give 5 on a review?
I just looked for this again. The rule changed before the season started. I thought they could call a minor on video review if not called on the ice but what this says is that the refs can wipe out a major penalty or downgrade a major to a minor. I don't read this as stating that a minor can be called on video review if no penalty was called on the ice - but that is what I thought some articles had said in September. It also seems that the officials can wipe out a major but not a minor.::screwy::
Quote from: NCAAWhen using video replay, officials will have the ability to review a major penalty and downgrade it to a minor penalty or no penalty. Officials can add to a major penalty during the review (game misconduct or disqualification).
The off season changes. (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/6/6/media-center-panel-approves-tweaking-rules-on-checking-from-behind-contact-to-head-in-ice-hockey)
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything.
Never.
I really upset you guys. Sorry.
Quote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything. Only 2 offensive zone faceoff wins in the last 30 seconds.
I'm apparently living rent free in your head. I'll remember to never criticize any Cornell player ever again. JC has two non empty goals this year. Nominate him for the hobey baker.
Please also note, I said at the beginning that JC is good on face offs.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: sah67"Cornell thinks they won it." Clarkson announcer guy really paying attention.
Um, maybe he's been been blinded by the light of his color guy's jacket.
This pattern harks back to the tartan slacks (more red black brown than green, tho) worn with leather jackets by NHL players in the '70s and in Slapshot.
Mom is no longer helping him dress. I hope to God this is not a Clarkson reunion year blazer. It would be okay as the lining.
Every Canadian who makes it to the booth thinks they're Don Cherry.
Quote from: arugulaQuote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything. Only 2 offensive zone faceoff wins in the last 30 seconds.
I'm apparently living rent free in your head.
You said a dumb thing one would expect on reddit. This is not, or at least was not, the place for that kind of lofo effort.
Be better.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: billhowardQuote from: sah67"Cornell thinks they won it." Clarkson announcer guy really paying attention.
Um, maybe he's been been blinded by the light of his color guy's jacket.
This pattern harks back to the tartan slacks (more red black brown than green, tho) worn with leather jackets by NHL players in the '70s and in Slapshot.
Mom is no longer helping him dress. I hope to God this is not a Clarkson reunion year blazer. It would be okay as the lining.
Every Canadian who makes it to the booth thinks they're Don Cherry.
I was thinking Lindsey Nelson (https://torchbearer.utk.edu/2020/02/the-man-in-plaid/).
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: arugulaQuote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything. Only 2 offensive zone faceoff wins in the last 30 seconds.
I'm apparently living rent free in your head.
You said a dumb thing one would expect on reddit. This is not, or at least was not, the place for that kind of lofo effort.
Be better.
He said a totally reasonable thing, and moreover it was his own opinion on an internet hockey forum. Who cares?
Quote from: BearLoverWho cares?
Yes, arguing with a fool is not worth further keystr
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWho cares?
Yes, arguing with a fool is not worth further keystr
Weren't you the guy in the other chat lecturing people to behave themselves?
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: arugulaQuote from: TrotskyCastagna never does anything. Only 2 offensive zone faceoff wins in the last 30 seconds.
I'm apparently living rent free in your head.
You said a dumb thing one would expect on reddit. This is not, or at least was not, the place for that kind of lofo effort.
Be better.
What are you my mother? Be better? I offered an opinion about a seemingly underperforming hockey player which seems to have really bothered you.
Last time you slandered me because I deigned to defend urban living. Next time I suspect you'll argue with me when I suggest that the sky is blue.
JC has two goals. Never mind. All Cornell players are all-stars.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverWho cares?
Yes, arguing with a fool is not worth further keystr
A poster on a hockey forum called the most talented and highest drafted player on the team a disappointment because that player has scored two goals the whole season and is averaging under half a point per game and now you're calling the poster names lol
Castagna has outstanding hockey sense and he is only 19. There are things that don't show up as stats.
Quote from: iceCastagna has outstanding hockey sense and he is only 19. There are things that don't show up as stats.
For sure. Lots of upside. But I'm not sure why saying that a scorer not scoring is disappointing struck a nerve or is controversial. A team full of guys with outstanding hockey sense who never score won't cut it.
I'm pretty sure if you asked Castagna himself, he'd tell you this has been a really tough year and that he isn't happy with his own play. He'd probably agree with arugula that his season has been a colossal disappointment. The extreme visceral reaction on this forum whenever anybody says something negative about the team is getting weird at this point. arugula's post was obviously premised on Castagna being supremely talented and capable of much more. Which is true, and which is why his lack of production has been shocking.
Quote from: BearLoverI'm pretty sure if you asked Castagna himself, he'd tell you this has been a really tough year and that he isn't happy with his own play. He'd probably agree with arugula that his season has been a colossal disappointment. The extreme visceral reaction on this forum whenever anybody says something negative about the team is getting weird at this point. arugula's post was obviously premised on Castagna being supremely talented and capable of much more. Which is true, and which is why his lack of production has been shocking.
I think part of the counterargument, though, is that Castagna, as one of the players expected to be the best on the team, gets matched to much harder competition than others on the team. At this point, though, I'm mostly just considering the entire regular season a bit of a wash and hoping we get hot down the stretch and into the playoffs. Everyone's injured, sick, suspended, or some combination of the three, and it's difficult to accurately judge a team when so much is going on behind the scenes that we're not even aware about. Hopefully Castagna kicks it up a notch for the playoffs.
Curious to know what people in this forum think about the 2 Friday night suspended guys being responsible for 4 of the 7 points in total on Saturday - Stanley with the 1st goal and O'Leary with an assist on all 3 goals.
Should strategic suspensions be a part of Cornell's game plans??!?
Quote from: SnowballCurious to know what people in this forum think about the 2 Friday night suspended guys being responsible for 4 of the 7 points in total on Saturday - Stanley with the 1st goal and O'Leary with an assist on all 3 goals.
Should strategic suspensions be a part of Cornell's game plans??!?
Haha-a definite no for me
Perhaps the extra days rest and/or the wrath of Schaf spurred them
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverOn the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.
The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.
Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
News of this post has made its way over to the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable...
Quote from: SnowballCurious to know what people in this forum think about the 2 Friday night suspended guys being responsible for 4 of the 7 points in total on Saturday - Stanley with the 1st goal and O'Leary with an assist on all 3 goals.
I think we could have used them Friday.
Well definitely we could have used them Friday.
I was thinking more in terms of motivation. Remember when Schaf took Ben Berard out of the line-up for a Friday game and then Berard scored a hat trick the next night:
https://cornellbigred.com/news/2020/2/29/mens-ice-hockey-berards-hat-trick-paces-1-mens-hockey-to-5-2-win-over-7-clarkson.aspx
Quote from: SnowballWell definitely we could have used them Friday.
I was thinking more in terms of motivation. Remember when Schaf took Ben Berard out of the line-up for a Friday game and then Berard scored a hat trick the next night:
https://cornellbigred.com/news/2020/2/29/mens-ice-hockey-berards-hat-trick-paces-1-mens-hockey-to-5-2-win-over-7-clarkson.aspx
For sure. I think the cocktail of fight + suspension + getting kicked in the nuts by SLU will do that.
No. Not the brawl, not losing to StL, not anything, is going to inspire this team to turn its season around. There have been countless impetuses to do that already, and it has never happened. Clearly it's not lack of inspiration or desire to win that explains the lack of results. It's talent, coaching, and execution that is going to determine whether this team can turn things around. The brawl did nothing for this team other than cost them at least one game this past weekend.
Ouch
Quote from: SnowballOuch
Sorry, that was overly harsh. I just don't see it happening. If losing the last game of first semester to Colgate or losing 4-0 to ASU or losing to Sacred Heart didn't light a fire, nothing is going to. I also don't buy the premise that a fire needs to be lit in the first place.
No worries. Though it's usually only my father-on-law who can be so pessimistic:
Father-in-law: Don't you think we are leaving a terrible, horrible world for your kids?
Me: No, cancer will be cured in their lifetime
Bearlover, you be you, I'll continue to be Pollyanna:
- get more players back,
- get the powerplay going,
- Shane continues excellent play...
Ergo: ECAC tournament, Great end of season.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: SnowballCurious to know what people in this forum think about the 2 Friday night suspended guys being responsible for 4 of the 7 points in total on Saturday - Stanley with the 1st goal and O'Leary with an assist on all 3 goals.
I think we could have used them Friday.
I added the AI enhancer and it suggested: Make no changes to the Trotsky typeface. Sarcasm Font came through as DataClass|Implied.
Quote from: SnowballNo worries. Though it's usually only my father-on-law who can be so pessimistic:
Father-in-law: Don't you think we are leaving a terrible, horrible world for your kids?
Me: No, cancer will be cured in their lifetime
Bearlover, you be you, I'll continue to be Pollyanna:
- get more players back,
- get the powerplay going,
- Shane continues excellent play...
Ergo: ECAC tournament, Great end of season.
Oh, I don't really disagree that we may well improve and go on a run, but I don't think it will be because a brawl or loss lit a fire under the team.
Got it.
Let's Go Red!
Quote from: SnowballI was thinking more in terms of motivation. Remember when Schaf took Ben Berard out of the line-up for a Friday game and then Berard scored a hat trick the next night:
I have seen this go the other way though too. In 2012-13 (our most recent disappointing regular season?) after a Friday OT loss to top ten ranked Yale, Schafer benched leading scorer Greg Miller and they went out and played a lifeless 3-0 game in a home loss against Brown. It was one time where I was furious at a Schafer decision.
Quote from: VIEWfromKQuote from: SnowballI was thinking more in terms of motivation. Remember when Schaf took Ben Berard out of the line-up for a Friday game and then Berard scored a hat trick the next night:
I have seen this go the other way though too. In 2012-13 (our most recent disappointing regular season?) after a Friday OT loss to top ten ranked Yale, Schafer benched leading scorer Greg Miller and they went out and played a lifeless 3-0 game in a home loss against Brown. It was one time where I was furious at a Schafer decision.
I've forgotten a lot about that season for good reason. That was the start of some mediocre years that didn't really end until some better players emerged (Angello, Vanderlaan, Kaldis, etc.) along with the shift in playing style.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
Given that NoDak has opted out of the NCAA settlement, I think it's pretty safe to assume that any upsides of the settlement for non-power 5 schools will barely, or not at all, offset the downsides. We'll see what schools like BU and Denver do but, again, the issue remains that they don't have the "revenue" to throw around in general, let alone at hockey. I continue to have a hard time believing NIL and this NCAA settlement will have a significant effect on college hockey. CHL eligibility seems like a far more important factor.
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/und-opts-house-settlement-1-013200571.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKvVrAAfqGbUmpHFeB86SHekkWtnU3PDhuGZ65bbjhNxjc_J7aGdW_-_-Px-78mGafUzUtfevrMtsoVlAk80N_0ue-kbF7c3n6se-7mlCansh7rP_mxjcOC8ulCHNtnCj5SCAkPehSHCqDmJa-0ir2KgUMJx5M3dTAZ2eXfAL3gR
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
Given that NoDak has opted out of the NCAA settlement, I think it's pretty safe to assume that any upsides of the settlement for non-power 5 schools will barely, or not at all, offset the downsides. We'll see what schools like BU and Denver do but, again, the issue remains that they don't have the "revenue" to throw around in general, let alone at hockey. I continue to have a hard time believing NIL and this NCAA settlement will have a significant effect on college hockey. CHL eligibility seems like a far more important factor.
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/und-opts-house-settlement-1-013200571.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKvVrAAfqGbUmpHFeB86SHekkWtnU3PDhuGZ65bbjhNxjc_J7aGdW_-_-Px-78mGafUzUtfevrMtsoVlAk80N_0ue-kbF7c3n6se-7mlCansh7rP_mxjcOC8ulCHNtnCj5SCAkPehSHCqDmJa-0ir2KgUMJx5M3dTAZ2eXfAL3gR
Opting out of the settlement or not has nothing to do with the amount of money any school has to spend. Schools like North Dakota are not obligated to spend money if they opt in ... And they are restricted from spending money if they opt out.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
Given that NoDak has opted out of the NCAA settlement, I think it's pretty safe to assume that any upsides of the settlement for non-power 5 schools will barely, or not at all, offset the downsides. We'll see what schools like BU and Denver do but, again, the issue remains that they don't have the "revenue" to throw around in general, let alone at hockey. I continue to have a hard time believing NIL and this NCAA settlement will have a significant effect on college hockey. CHL eligibility seems like a far more important factor.
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/und-opts-house-settlement-1-013200571.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKvVrAAfqGbUmpHFeB86SHekkWtnU3PDhuGZ65bbjhNxjc_J7aGdW_-_-Px-78mGafUzUtfevrMtsoVlAk80N_0ue-kbF7c3n6se-7mlCansh7rP_mxjcOC8ulCHNtnCj5SCAkPehSHCqDmJa-0ir2KgUMJx5M3dTAZ2eXfAL3gR
Opting out of the settlement or not has nothing to do with the amount of money any school has to spend. Schools like North Dakota are not obligated to spend money if they opt in ... And they are restricted from spending money if they opt out.
Are you suggesting that not opting into a revenue sharing arrangement has nothing to do with how much revenue exists to be shared?
I'd prefer to not start another flame war. I'm just making the point that if the House settlement were a positive for schools like NoDak, Denver, etc....then these schools would be opting into the settlement, not opting out of it. And it makes sense why these schools would opt out: they have little to no excess revenue to spend, and whatever amount they do have wouldn't offset costs like roster limits even if they were to spend it.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: adamwClarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.
I assume because D-3 in other sports? I sure hope not. Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.
Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board
But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."
They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe. Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive. They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it. Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.
Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players. Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey? More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.
Given that NoDak has opted out of the NCAA settlement, I think it's pretty safe to assume that any upsides of the settlement for non-power 5 schools will barely, or not at all, offset the downsides. We'll see what schools like BU and Denver do but, again, the issue remains that they don't have the "revenue" to throw around in general, let alone at hockey. I continue to have a hard time believing NIL and this NCAA settlement will have a significant effect on college hockey. CHL eligibility seems like a far more important factor.
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/und-opts-house-settlement-1-013200571.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKvVrAAfqGbUmpHFeB86SHekkWtnU3PDhuGZ65bbjhNxjc_J7aGdW_-_-Px-78mGafUzUtfevrMtsoVlAk80N_0ue-kbF7c3n6se-7mlCansh7rP_mxjcOC8ulCHNtnCj5SCAkPehSHCqDmJa-0ir2KgUMJx5M3dTAZ2eXfAL3gR
Opting out of the settlement or not has nothing to do with the amount of money any school has to spend. Schools like North Dakota are not obligated to spend money if they opt in ... And they are restricted from spending money if they opt out.
Are you suggesting that not opting into a revenue sharing arrangement has nothing to do with how much revenue exists to be shared?
I'd prefer to not start another flame war. I'm just making the point that if the House settlement were a positive for schools like NoDak, Denver, etc....then these schools would be opting into the settlement, not opting out of it. And it makes sense why these schools would opt out: they have little to no excess revenue to spend, and whatever amount they do have wouldn't offset costs like roster limits even if they were to spend it.
Yes - that is what I'm saying. The amount of revenue a school has to spend, has just about zero to do with this decision. Did you read the article you cited yourself?
Quote"The NCAA proclaims student-athletes will receive 'extra benefits' if a university 'opts in,'" Chaves said. "This may be the case for some, but in the aggregate and if you consider the roster limits for all sports, this settlement might actually harm sports and student-athlete participation at UND as well as other student-athletes around the country. Further, if one asks the right questions, you may actually discover that schools such as UND might be supporting student-athletes in a greater way financially than some 'opt-in' schools."
You can also read our new story on the topic.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2025/02/27_This-Week-in-College-Hockey.php
Do you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share? Schools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.
I'll avoid whatever war you want to avoid. But it's up to you whether you want to actually believe or understand the facts you are presented with.
Quote from: adamwDo you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share?
Umm, because you can't share revenue unless you opt in?? If a team had revenue to share, and wanted to share it, and it outweighed the costs (roster limits), then they would opt in.
Quote from: adamwSchools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.
Weren't you saying a week ago that schools like Denver without massive football programs have a lot to gain under revenue sharing because, unlike e.g. Michigan, they can allocate much of the revenue to hockey?
My point is: the House settlement is unlikely to play a significant role in college hockey. This is because (1) those schools earning substantial revenue are the power 4 schools who are going to spend it on football/basketball and (2) the other schools are earning so little revenue that there's almost nothing to be shared. It has been argued, including on CHN, that revenue sharing might help schools without big-time football programs, because the money can be allocated to hockey. It seems like now you are arguing the opposite: that there is no reason for such schools to opt into revenue sharing.
BTW, I'm not reading much into the reasons provided by the NoDak AD in this article or the Denver AD in your podcast. It was a good podcast, but ADs are only going to paint their own departments in the best light possible. So far, NoDak has opted out, and the Denver AD seemed very hesitant/noncommittal on the podcast. This suggests to me that, for these schools, the benefits of revenue sharing will barely, if at all, outweigh the downsides.
had we had the 26 rule this year we wouldnt have had a full team for some games
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwDo you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share?
Umm, because you can't share revenue unless you opt in?? If a team had revenue to share, and wanted to share it, and it outweighed the costs (roster limits), then they would opt in.
The point is that, the decision to not opt-in may be based on other factors besides signaling to the world that "we don't have enough revenue."
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwSchools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.
Weren't you saying a week ago that schools like Denver without massive football programs have a lot to gain under revenue sharing because, unlike e.g. Michigan, they can allocate much of the revenue to hockey?
My point is: the House settlement is unlikely to play a significant role in college hockey. This is because (1) those schools earning substantial revenue are the power 4 schools who are going to spend it on football/basketball and (2) the other schools are earning so little revenue that there's almost nothing to be shared. It has been argued, including on CHN, that revenue sharing might help schools without big-time football programs, because the money can be allocated to hockey. It seems like now you are arguing the opposite: that there is no reason for such schools to opt into revenue sharing.
BTW, I'm not reading much into the reasons provided by the NoDak AD in this article or the Denver AD in your podcast. It was a good podcast, but ADs are only going to paint their own departments in the best light possible. So far, NoDak has opted out, and the Denver AD seemed very hesitant/noncommittal on the podcast. This suggests to me that, for these schools, the benefits of revenue sharing will barely, if at all, outweigh the downsides.
Denver has decided to opt in, by the way.
I don't disagree that it will have minimal impact on hockey. But it will definitely have some. I am only countering your contention that North Dakota's decision means anything in that regard. The fact that it's temporary is further evidence of this. The article also says that North Dakota (and Vermont, among others) will eventually opt in once the rules are settled.
It's still true that, because Denver doesn't have a football team to support, it can opt in, and use whatever portion of revenue share they want towards other things. There's no obligation to spend the $22 million if you opt in. Our article lays out the pros and cons. So, if they decide to spend $500,000/year on hockey to pay players, that's still significant. And it allows them to keep up with the Michigans of the world, who will probably spend that much on hockey, and $21.5 million on football and basketball (roughtly).
North Dakota will eventually do the same, or something similar, with hockey, whether it be added scholarships or whatever.
Again, merely trying to point out that North Dakota has plenty of resources for hockey, and they'll use it. The opt-out decision is not an indicator that contradicts that.
I think a school like Cornell will be OK, since most of its recruits are going there for reasons beyond hockey. A school like Clarkson - and probably moreso St. Lawrence - is up a creek, IMO. I don't say that happily -- for the sake of all the Clarkson fans you're forwarding my messages to. We'll see.
Roster size and scholie management will be interesting going forward
They can still split scholies so everyone can get full or partial or none
Cornell had like 29 kids last this year. That will go down to 26.
Denver only has 24 so they could go up and offer more scholies.
No scholie and less depth will hurt IVY schools
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwDo you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share?
Umm, because you can't share revenue unless you opt in?? If a team had revenue to share, and wanted to share it, and it outweighed the costs (roster limits), then they would opt in.
The point is that, the decision to not opt-in may be based on other factors besides signaling to the world that "we don't have enough revenue."
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwSchools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.
Weren't you saying a week ago that schools like Denver without massive football programs have a lot to gain under revenue sharing because, unlike e.g. Michigan, they can allocate much of the revenue to hockey?
My point is: the House settlement is unlikely to play a significant role in college hockey. This is because (1) those schools earning substantial revenue are the power 4 schools who are going to spend it on football/basketball and (2) the other schools are earning so little revenue that there's almost nothing to be shared. It has been argued, including on CHN, that revenue sharing might help schools without big-time football programs, because the money can be allocated to hockey. It seems like now you are arguing the opposite: that there is no reason for such schools to opt into revenue sharing.
BTW, I'm not reading much into the reasons provided by the NoDak AD in this article or the Denver AD in your podcast. It was a good podcast, but ADs are only going to paint their own departments in the best light possible. So far, NoDak has opted out, and the Denver AD seemed very hesitant/noncommittal on the podcast. This suggests to me that, for these schools, the benefits of revenue sharing will barely, if at all, outweigh the downsides.
Denver has decided to opt in, by the way.
I don't disagree that it will have minimal impact on hockey. But it will definitely have some. I am only countering your contention that North Dakota's decision means anything in that regard. The fact that it's temporary is further evidence of this. The article also says that North Dakota (and Vermont, among others) will eventually opt in once the rules are settled.
It's still true that, because Denver doesn't have a football team to support, it can opt in, and use whatever portion of revenue share they want towards other things. There's no obligation to spend the $22 million if you opt in. Our article lays out the pros and cons. So, if they decide to spend $500,000/year on hockey to pay players, that's still significant. And it allows them to keep up with the Michigans of the world, who will probably spend that much on hockey, and $21.5 million on football and basketball (roughtly).
North Dakota will eventually do the same, or something similar, with hockey, whether it be added scholarships or whatever.
Again, merely trying to point out that North Dakota has plenty of resources for hockey, and they'll use it. The opt-out decision is not an indicator that contradicts that.
I think a school like Cornell will be OK, since most of its recruits are going there for reasons beyond hockey. A school like Clarkson - and probably moreso St. Lawrence - is up a creek, IMO. I don't say that happily -- for the sake of all the Clarkson fans you're forwarding my messages to. We'll see.
I ain't talkin' to no Clarkson fans. They're reading the posts on this forum themselves.
$500,000 to men's hockey per year would be a lot. It would move the needle. That's almost $20,000 per player on the roster. I'd be surprised if the number were that high (I'd guess closer to $0), but yeah, that would change things. Simply paying for 8 more scholarships would almost amount to $500,000, so maybe that's where this is headed: it won't be the sharing of revenue that creates the haves and have-nots, but rather the fact that the haves have 26 scholarships to give out and the have-nots have 18. (Remember though, scholarships are subject to Title IX, so any school that increases men's scholarships would have to commensurately increase women's scholarships as well. This gets very expensive very quickly.)
At the end of the day, as far as I can tell, things look fine at Clarkson. They have a very good new coach and the CHL rule change seems to benefit them more than almost any other team (close proximity to Canada, the coach speaks French, and they don't currently compete for blue-chippers so wider range of potential commits helps them). To the extent Clarkson is in danger, it seems to be the result of factors outside the hockey program—declining enrollment and slashing of funds in the university as a whole.
Quote from: upprdeckRoster size and scholie management will be interesting going forward
They can still split scholies so everyone can get full or partial or none
Cornell had like 29 kids last this year. That will go down to 26.
Denver only has 24 so they could go up and offer more scholies.
No scholie and less depth will hurt IVY schools
Cornell isn't opting in, so they can have as many players on the roster as they want. (I think.)
I thought so too.. But I have not found one story that says thats true.
Also likely few writers understand the issue to know to find out.
I see someone on the lAX forum saying no limit
I see some on Volleyball forum saying optin/out does not change the limits
Quote from: upprdeckI thought so too.. But I have not found one story that says thats true.
Also likely few writers understand the issue to know to find out.
I see someone on the lAX forum saying no limit
I see some on Volleyball forum saying optin/out does not change the limits
The CHN article adamw posted says no roster limits if you don't opt in
Quote from: upprdeckhad we had the 26 rule this year we wouldnt have had a full team for some games
The 26 rule worries me tbh. I get why they do it, so programs don't hoard kids, but a "full" roster of 12+6+2 is 20. That's only 6 extras, 1 of which is almost assuredly a third goalie, so you can carry maybe 3 extra forwards and 2 extra defensemen and you're at 26 already. The average NHL team, for reference, used 34.25 players last year - while some of this can be chalked up to trades, longer seasons, and the like, you simply need injury replacements, especially at the collegiate level where playing through an injury can jeopardize a future career and potentially the rest of one's pain-free life. Plus, even one or two players having season-ending injuries can be catastrophic - never mind players who aren't healthy to start a season and are expected out for the year, like Devlin and Wallace. Will teams be forced into a situation where they either have to carry "dead weight" or cut players from the team?
Looks like Clarkson upgraded at coach since last season. Up 1-0 on Quinnipiac and still alive for first place in the ECAC.
Quote from: BearLoverLooks like Clarkson upgraded at coach since last season. Up 1-0 on Quinnipiac and still alive for first place in the ECAC.
Re.clarkson and recruiting.
Clarkson's Houle is quoted:
QuoteWe've relied on players from the USHL, BCHL and CCHL but we're committed to finding the best players and we'll concentrate our recruiting on the QMJHL, OHL and WHL," said Jean-François Houle who left the Laval Rocket last summer to coach at his alma mater, Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y.
Read more at: https://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/article769265.html#storylink=cpy
Quote from: BearLoverLooks like Clarkson upgraded at coach since last season. Up 1-0 on Quinnipiac and still alive for first place in the ECAC.
It's amazing how with data from 1 (year) we can make sweeping statements.
By the way, now that Princeton beat Clarkson, taking away any chance, do we change positions?