Tyler Mugford of the Nanaimo Clippers was supposed to suit up for the Big Red for the 04-05 season, but has decided to stay another year in Nanaimo and play for the Big Red starting in the 05-06 season. Raymond Sawada will come to Cornell for the 04-05 season as planned.
Further conditioning? Maybe Schafer let him know he thought he wasn't ready?
[Q]Greg Wrote:
Maybe Schafer let him know he thought he wasn't ready?[/q]
Could be. Or maybe Mike feels he has enough manpower at forward next year, and doesn't want Tyler to have to sit on his hands for a year. Non-Ivy team might have redshirted him.
Is it just me, or does Tyler Mugford sound like the name of a 19th-century baseball player?
::nut::
Actually the real reason is that Tyler wants to play in Nanaimo another year and try and win another championship with the Clippers. It was not Schafers decision, Muggy was actually the one that asked if it was ok to play for Cornell starting the 05-06 season.
[Q]Erin Wrote:
Actually the real reason is that Tyler wants to play in Nanaimo another year and try and win another championship with the Clippers. It was not Schafers decision, Muggy was actually the one that asked if it was ok to play for Cornell starting the 05-06 season. [/q]
Thanks, Erin. Hope Tyler gets his championship.
Of Cornell's half-dozen recruits, it is Sawarda not Mugford who is more highly regarded?
will coach schafer find another recruit to replace tyler mugford?
[q]Thanks, Erin. Hope Tyler gets his championship. [/q]
Maybe he can bring along another hot prospect when he does come.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Of Cornell's half-dozen recruits, it is Sawarda not Mugford who is more highly regarded? [/q]
Yes..Sawada is the stud, ranked #33 among North American skaters for the upcoming draft.
Sawada finished the season (including playoffs) with 74 points and 115 PIM's in 79 games, and Mugford had 35 points and 215 PIM's in 85 games, and was the only one on the team that didnt miss a single game. It's obvious Sawada is the point-getter and Mugford is the in-your-face kinda guy(ACtually, the line that Mugford is on is known as "the black line" here in Nanaimo).. Mugford is like Hornby, except Mugford is a faster skater than Hornby was when he was here in Nanaimo.
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
[Q2]Erin Wrote:
Actually the real reason is that Tyler wants to play in Nanaimo another year and try and win another championship with the Clippers. It was not Schafers decision, Muggy was actually the one that asked if it was ok to play for Cornell starting the 05-06 season. [/Q]
Thanks, Erin. Hope Tyler gets his championship.[/q]
Well we're all hoping that we can get another one here in Nanaimo this upcoming season..it was supposed to be a "rebuilding" year for the club this past season as there were only 4 returning players, yet the Clippers won the league championship and also was one of 5 teams to make it to the Canadian National Royal Bank Cup.. so with 16 returning players this season, everyone is expecting Nanaimo to be a powerhouse.
[Q]Erin Wrote:
Mugford is like Hornby, except Mugford is a faster skater than Hornby was when he was here in Nanaimo.
[/q]
I like the sound of that!
[Q]min Wrote:
will coach schafer find another recruit to replace tyler mugford?[/q]
(From afar) Between 6 recruits (7 less Mugford) and 20 or 21 returning players, there's more than enough for a full team. Remember that one Cornell player, Jan Pajeerski, retired after his junior year (2003-2004) but will stay at Cornell; that was probably recognition of the caliber and quantity of the 2004-2005 team. We don't know if Tyler Mugford would have been Cornell's 10th best player in which case it hurts Cornell his not being in Ithaca for the coming season, or if he would be the 20th best player and dressing for most every game but not contributing the way say a Byron Bitz did as a freshman.
Regardless, at the end of May, most everyone who's committed to going to college is already going to college. It's not as if Schafer can ask Yale's No. 1 recruit who was Cornell's hoped for No. 4 recruit to switch affiliations. The case of David McKee was unusual, his having finished high school and planning to play in the juniors for a year before attending Cornell. Obviously, it's different when you're the No. 1 goalie prospect and Cornell's then-current goalie turns pro over the summer. On the other hand, imagine how much more impressive McKee would be if he'd played juniors for a year last year and he came in this year as a freshman.
[q]imagine how much more impressive McKee would be if he'd played juniors for a year last year and he came in this year as a freshman.[/q]
Hard to get more impressive than .920 1.84 / .939 1.37 in conference, as a freshman.
Man, it's still 5 more months...
[Q]Greg Wrote:
[Q2]imagine how much more impressive McKee would be if he'd played juniors for a year last year and he came in this year as a freshman.[/Q]
Hard to get more impressive than .920 1.84 / .939 1.37 in conference, as a freshman.
Man, it's still 5 more months...[/q]
Yeah, but 5 more is better than 6 more.
If schafer really wanted to replace him, I'm sure he could find somebody, even if it was just a guy off of the club team who would never play. He's probably wary of having too few players, especially after the game in Colgate where there was barely enough people to play. Couldn't hurt to have extra guys, is there an NCAA limit to how many players you can have on the roster?
That's a good question. I'm not sure whether a "roster" has any official existence in terms of NCAA rules. You can only dress 18 skaters and 3 goalies, and you can only play who you skate in the warm-up. But beyond that, for all I know every undergraduate male (and perhaps female) in good standing at Cornell is game-eligible.
Didn't Pegoraro skate in place of Vesce when Ryan couldn't go, even though Dan didn't skate in warm-ups this yer? =]
You probably need to clear it with the ref, but it's not hard-and-fast.
I think the coach has to provide a list of eligible players to the ref before the game. This is separate from the starting lineup, which must be presented by the visiting team by a certain time so the home team has a chance to match lines. I suspect if a player is on this list, he would be eligible to play even if he doesn't actually skate in the warmups. I could go look up the rule for the exact wording, but I'm way too lazy for that.
There's also a limit to the number of players you can list as eligible. Again, too lazy to look it up, but I believe it's around 25. 21 for the game plus a few alternates in case someone gets injured in the warmups, which is what happened with Pegoraro and Vesce.
I'm pretty sure you can have as many people as you want actually skate with the team in practice in hopes of playing. There's a limit on NCAA scholarships but that's not an issue for an Ivy team. And there's the limit of how many can be in the lineup for the game, the 18 + 3 (goalies) cap.
OTOH, it's not good PR for the school to have, say, 35 reasonable candidates, because 14 of them are going to be disappointed, and some of them will go back home and tell their younger friends the school isn't realistic about your chances of playing. So it sounds as if Cornell's approximately 26-27 returnees plus incoming players is just about right.
IIRC there is a limit to how many players you can travel with on any given roadtrip, but that's different from a roster limit.
Every undergraduate student in good standing who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements (age, 5 year clock, etc.) should be eligible to play. The NC$$ is all about the student-athlete after all...
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can have as many people as you want actually skate with the team in practice in hopes of playing. There's a limit on NCAA scholarships but that's not an issue for an Ivy team. And there's the limit of how many can be in the lineup for the game, the 18 + 3 (goalies) cap. [/q] Besides for the limit of 18 scholarships, there is also a limit as to how many players can receive scholarships -- something in the 30's. That is, one can't give 1/10 of a scholarship to each of 180 players. However, as you said, these limits aren't an issue for the Ivies.
[q]Besides for the limit of 18 scholarships, there is also a limit as to how many players can receive scholarships[/q]Aside tfrom that uncertain limit, can a team break up scholarships anyway it wants? That is, give 1/10 scholarships, or 1/5 or whatever? I've certainly heard of half scholarships, but not so much of smaller fractions (which proves nothing really).
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]Besides for the limit of 18 scholarships, there is also a limit as to how many players can receive scholarships[/Q]
Aside tfrom that uncertain limit, can a team break up scholarships anyway it wants? That is, give 1/10 scholarships, or 1/5 or whatever? I've certainly heard of half scholarships, but not so much of smaller fractions (which proves nothing really).[/q]
That's my understanding -- they can be broken up into any fraction, subject to the other restrictions.
[q]That's my understanding -- they can be broken up into any fraction, subject to the other restrictions.[/q]
"Here kid. Here's $20 bucks, go buy yourself some pitchers. Don't worry, it's not a violation. It's just a 0.2% scholarship..."
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]Besides for the limit of 18 scholarships, there is also a limit as to how many players can receive scholarships[/Q]
Aside tfrom that uncertain limit, can a team break up scholarships anyway it wants? That is, give 1/10 scholarships, or 1/5 or whatever? I've certainly heard of half scholarships, but not so much of smaller fractions (which proves nothing really).[/q]
I have nothing to back this up, but I thought some MAAC teams had given 1/4 scholarships as part of their cost containment strategy.