Hey gang,
what was Schafer's jersey number during his playing days? For the life of me, I cannot find if on the net. I even challenged the university library reference staff to track it down, and they struck out as well.
Anyone know?
Many thanks,
AS '97
http://www.tbrw.info/cornellHistory/unis.html
Schafer was #12 in the 1982-83 season, and #3 for the rest of his years.
Sounds like a FAQ! ;-)
Where is McKee and Lenny? Weren't they 31?
Look between ##12 and 14.
There is no 13 in Cornell history, so I put 31 there.
[quote Trotsky]There is no 13 in Cornell history, so I put 31 there.[/quote]
Once you're at that level, shouldn't you be above thinking numbers are cursed?
[quote French Rage][quote Trotsky]There is no 13 in Cornell history, so I put 31 there.[/quote]
Once you're at that level, shouldn't you be above thinking numbers are cursed?[/quote]
Yeah, if you believe in superstitious things, surely you'd be an outcast in the world of sports :-P
Thanks!
[quote DeltaOne81][quote French Rage][quote Trotsky]There is no 13 in Cornell history, so I put 31 there.[/quote]
Once you're at that level, shouldn't you be above thinking numbers are cursed?[/quote]
Yeah, if you believe in superstitious things, surely you'd be an outcast in the world of sports :-P[/quote]
It's a tradition, and without traditions, our lives would be as shaky as ... as a fiddler on the roof!
Oy gevalt.
[quote Will]http://www.tbrw.info/cornellHistory/unis.html
Schafer was #12 in the 1982-83 season, and #3 for the rest of his years.[/quote]
I had never seen this chart before. Very interesting to see the 'life of a number' over the years. I do laugh as I think of Kyle Knopp wearing 6 one year, and then Doug Murray squeezing into it the next.
why the exasperation?
Picture from 65-66 season, Brown at Lynah. 1966 Cornellian p277. I think It's Jim Wallace.
You forget that to Greg, "Cornell history" means '82 and later. ;-)
If I had rosters from 1957-81, I would extend the table.
[quote Rich S]why the exasperation?[/quote]
Greg doesn't know how to reply to post, but he's responding to my Fiddler reference.
[quote jtwcornell91][quote Rich S]why the exasperation?[/quote]
Greg doesn't know how to reply to post, but he's responding to my Fiddler reference.[/quote]
I know how to reply. I'm just mounting a one-person protest against the ickiness of threaded view.
[quote Trotsky]I'm just mounting a one-person protest against the ickiness of threaded view.[/quote]
See the Dartmouth motto.
[quote Trotsky][quote jtwcornell91][quote Rich S]why the exasperation?[/quote]
Greg doesn't know how to reply to post, but he's responding to my Fiddler reference.[/quote]
I know how to reply. I'm just mounting a one-person protest against the ickiness of threaded view.[/quote]
And how's that working out for you so far?
[quote Beeeej]And how's that working out for you so far?[/quote]
For me? Pretty well, actually. ;-)
[quote Al DeFlorio]See the Dartmouth motto.[/quote]
"Heterosexual women drink free after 4"?
I'm with Trotsky on this one. Why would anyone want to click click click through a thread when you can see it all unfold before your eyes in a flat view. It is almost like real people having a discussion.
Now, if I only knew who the heck Greg was.:)
There are plenty of us who prefer the flat view, but choose not to protest or undermine others' preferences by actually learning how to click the proper "reply" and/or "Quote" links.
[quote Roy 82]It is almost like real people having a discussion.
[/quote]
Precisely the point of threaded view. So you can see which post is being responded to by the one you're reading.
[quote RichH]There are plenty of us who prefer the flat view, but choose not to protest or undermine others' preferences by actually learning how to click the proper "reply" and/or "Quote" links.[/quote]
I guess that makes you a better person than I. Or maybe I was joking. You'll have to mull that over.
The uniform numbers are now updated back to 1958. Thanks to Arthur for the data.