ELynah Forum

Not directly hockey related, but Rob Koll just left after spending 32 years building Cornell's wrestling program into a national power, leaving for Stanford.  Cannot help but think the Ivy League's inaction over the past year helped guide his decision.  Wonder if there will be others...

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: jtwcornell91

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: TrotskyJesus fuck.  Just have a wet t-shirt contest.  My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1).  The OT is 3-on-3; I went to one game which went to OT, and it was entertaining/exciting, but I still really don't see the point, although I guess I'd rather have it decided in an OT with weird rules than a shootout.  But the current (soon to be former) college system still seems best: full marks for winning under the standard rules in OT, and a tie if no one pulls it off.

I would also be more comfortable with giving a point for losing in OT if it didn't count the same as losing a shootout.  Like make the points 5-0 for regulation, 4-1 for OT, and 3-2 for a shootout.

I'd definitely prefer to leave it as it is. I totally agree that every game should have the same value.  I hate that in the NHL an overtime win and and overtime loss give a team more points than a regulation win and loss.  As a fan of the Blackhawks, Islanders and any team with a Cornellian, I watch a lot of games without those teams and root for the game not to go into overtime, so only 2 points are awarded.  With a 3-2-1-0 system, at least a 3 on 3 or shootout win would only be equivalent to 1 1/3 points out of 2 and the loss equivalent to 2/3 of a point out of 2.
Strangely, of the 12 members of the rules committee, which includes men's and women's hockey and D-1 through D-3, 3 of the members come from the ECAC (Dartmouth, Yale and Quinnipiac).
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES

I think they should give both teams two points.  After all, didn't participation trophies make things more fair?

Quote from: George64

Quote from: TrotskyGive them a chance to fuck it up.

Ya gotta believe.

Here's my post from yesterday on the Football thread:

Quote from: George64I watched the game on ESPN+ and it seemed that there were many commercial breaks. According to box scores, the SHU game ran for 3:10 and last week's Yale game ran 3:15. In contrast, the first two games on IDN last year, Colgate and Bucknell, ran for 2:41 and 2:36, respectively. Presumably, the many and lengthy commercials accounted for the extra 34 minutes per game. I hope that this trend doesn't continue into hockey season as annoying commercial timeouts affect the flow of the game and provide a break for less well conditioned teams, not to mention that fans will get home later.

Well we are getting the commercial breaks and it is extending the playing time of the games and it is breaking up the game flow.  I would like to think that Cornell and the other Ivy teams are at least getting a piece of the commercial dollars.  It has not improved the fan experience by any stretch of the imagination (just ask people that tried to watch Cornell-Penn B-Ball the other day).  Under the current system, the women's games come on during the National Anthem and shut down while the teams are shaking hands -- under the previous system, there was always a pre-game show.  Frankly, I am not impressed with ESPN+ and I think the people that made the decision to go with it owe the fans an explanation.

I would like to see a reciprocity system in place so that when a Cornell team plays away at a non-Ivy opponent, say in the CHA or WCHA, that we get to watch the game through our subscription service without having to pay a fee for the game, that when they play in our barn, their fans see the game as well without having to subscribe or pay a single-game fee.

Given the variables in the NCAA tournament selection process, every point means something at this stage of the season.

Gotta admire Guy Gadowsky's work -- in four years he's taken a relatively new program to the top spot as of this week.

Quote from: HookingThe 1967 National Championship came just 10 years after the sport of ice hockey came to Cornell (Lynah rink opened). After the '67 Championship Team Cornell appeared in six of the next seven frozen fours. My how times have changed.

Among other changes, more schools added the sport and more schools stepped up to Div. I, thus increasing the competition for the good players.  In addition, NHL expansion that began in 1967 raised the level of interest in hockey throughout the nationU.S. and greater efficiency meant more rinks, all of which added to the supply of good players.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: imafrshmn

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: imafrshmn

Quote from: scoop85I'm getting a sense that after a bit of a drop-off, the talent level of the women's team is picking up again.

It does feel that way. Of course, talent and coaching don't guarantee wins--Harvard's poor performance this year seems hard to explain. What is the recipe for success in this ever-evolving college sport?

$$$$$

Sadly.

In terms of roster size, scheduling, facilities, recruiting budget, or other things?

All of those, not to mention scholarship money.

Mostly scholarship money.  The oil boom in Canada lifted the value of the Canadian dollar so that, by the time Johnston, Campbell, Jenner, Fortino, Rougeau and the others were being recruited, the Canadian dollar was at a small premium to the US dollar.  Then the oil glut hit, coupled with opposition in the US to the Keystone pipeline and fracking, driving the loonie down to a 25% discount.  This and the general higher-than-inflation annual increases in tuition have made for an unacceptably high cost for kids north of the border to attend Ivy schools that do not offer athletic scholarships as such.  I know for a fact that this has derailed a couple of commitments to Cornell.

http://www.canadianforex.ca/forex-tools/my-fx-dashboard

Click on "All Time" to see the trend beginning in 1992.  Currently, there is a bit of a joke going around about changes being made to the Canadian $2 coin.

Time back, Cornell had a definite advantage over other Ivy League schools because of NY state support of the statutory colleges including the Ag school, that effectively amounted to a 50% scholarship-in-kind for out-of-state (and out-of-country) students.  However, some time ago NY cut back much of this aid and the University was forced to raise the tuition for these students to the same level as the endowed school.

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: andyw2100Early April? Do I hear April? Anyone for April?

I can't recall a player coming to Cornell so highly touted in any sport since ... Dryden? Marinaro? Dake? McEneaney or French? Ever?

In 1964, Gordon Lowe was drafted #15, in the third round, by the NY Rangers.  Ken Dryden was drafted by the Boston Bruins, the #14 pick. There were four rounds in the draft that year.  Lowe, of course, went on to play for Cornell, graduating in 1970.