Cornell Women's Hockey

[Trotsky]

Cornell (8-8-2, 4-5-2) is playing a very good game this afternoon against RPI (11-8-3, 6-3-2) at Lynah, leading 3-1 midway through the 3rd.  Cathy White (#20) scored the third goal on a gorgeous end-to-end rush.

[Trotsky]

Cornell survives RPI's full court press down the stretch to win 3-2, for a 4-point weekend.  The win puts them at .500 in conference.  RPI was a team in the upper bracket, so maybe this indicates that Cornell is starting to make a move.

[Tom Lento]

RPI has only been D-I for a few years, and is probably the weakest of the teams ahead of Cornell in the standings. It's still a good win, but I would not be surprised to see Cornell finish ahead of RPI when all is said and done.

The North Country trip was more impressive to me. 3 points from Clarkson and SLU is a great outcome in women's hockey these days. Clarkson's fairly strong, and including the Cornell draw SLU is 11-1-1 at home this year.

Looking at the results, it seems like Cornell plays just about everyone close. The team's apparently quite young, and has a lot of talent in the freshman and sophomore classes, so they may well be hitting their stride after an inconsistent start to the season.

One additional note - there seems to be far more parity in women's hockey this year than there has been in quite some time. It used to be that you could pick the outcomes of 90% of the games before the season even started.

[Tom Tone]

The one anomaly to parity has to be the Union Women's team.

Over the past six seasons, they have amassed a total of 5 points ( 1 win and 3 ties). Their last league win was a 4-0 drubbing of us in Feb. of 2003.  I understand the importance of having an equal number of men's and women's sports but it's clear that they need to consider a move to a different conference or D-III.

However, it is nice to see both Cornell goalies win ECAC Goalie of the Week

[TimV]

I spent too much time on the RPI thread on USCHO so I gotta ask:

Are the women also a bunch of clutch-and-grab dive-taking boring no-respect-deserving whiners?::nut::;-):-}

[Trotsky]

[quote Tom Lento]RPI has only been D-I for a few years, and is probably the weakest of the teams ahead of Cornell in the standings. It's still a good win, but I would not be surprised to see Cornell finish ahead of RPI when all is said and done.[/quote]I was judging them by the Parcells-Biafra Standard: you are what your record says you are.

Another thing about watching the last game.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but a decade ago watching ECAC women's hockey in general and Cornell women's hockey in particular was about as exciting as watching people shovel a driveway.  Now the players are far faster, more skilled, and more creative.  It looks kind of like hockey (except for the tortured maneuvers the players have to go through to avoid, you know, checking).  It was fun.

[Lauren '06]

[quote Trotsky]Another thing about watching the last game.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but a decade ago watching ECAC women's hockey in general and Cornell women's hockey in particular was about as exciting as watching people shovel a driveway.  Now the players are far faster, more skilled, and more creative.  It looks kind of like hockey (except for the tortured maneuvers the players have to go through to avoid, you know, checking).  It was fun.[/quote]
What is the stated reason for keeping checking out of women's college hockey?  Does anyone know?

[TimV]

Because they prefer credit cards?**]

[KeithK]

[quote Section A Banshee][quote Trotsky]Another thing about watching the last game.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but a decade ago watching ECAC women's hockey in general and Cornell women's hockey in particular was about as exciting as watching people shovel a driveway.  Now the players are far faster, more skilled, and more creative.  It looks kind of like hockey (except for the tortured maneuvers the players have to go through to avoid, you know, checking).  It was fun.[/quote]
What is the stated reason for keeping checking out of women's college hockey?  Does anyone know?[/quote]
I would imagine the original rationale comes from an earlier time when people felt the "fairer" sex couldn't handle the physical game. Once the rules are set in place they have inertia and it takes effort to change them. For everyone who thinks that the lack of checking is silly ("tortured maneuvers" is right) there's probably someone who thinks hockey is better without the physical aspect. There isn't consensus to change so it stays.

But it does seem odd that in a time where any suggestion that men and women aren't completely equal is met with angry opposition form some quarters we still have different rules for sports.  Don't even get me started on softball vs. baseball.

[imafrshmn]

I've had a chance to ask a couple of the players on the women's team what they think of No Checking, and their response was that having grown up playing with boys, with physicality, they would like to have checking.

[redliner]

speaking of Cornell women's hockey and recruiting

If you aren't familiar with Brigette Lacquette, you should be.

Scouts are raving about this 16-year-old Manitoban.

Lacquette is astonishing them by thoroughly outplaying male opponents in the Western Manitoba AA Midget Hockey League. She is her league's top talent. She was the youngest player at the recent World Under-18 women's hockey championship in Germany and was chosen best defenceman.

"Several scouts have told me that, if Brigette continues in the direction she's going, she'll be the greatest female hockey player in Canadian history," said Scott Taylor, sports editor of Grass Roots News, Manitoba's Aboriginal newspaper. "She's one of the few players I've seen who can do everything all game with her head up. She's so fast that she flies by opponents. And she's a great playmaker."

Still, dozens of universities -- including Cornell, Providence, Minnesota and North Dakota -- have found Brigette and are bombarding her with expressions of interest.

http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/sports/article/171039

[Trotsky]

[quote KeithK]What is the stated reason for keeping checking out of women's college hockey?  Does anyone know?[/quote]

I found this on the internets, so... you know... but it seems plausible.

When international Women's hockey started there WAS body checking. They quickly changed the rules after the first Women's World Hockey Championship in 1990. There is a huge gap between Canada/US and the rest of the world. Canada just ran over and other teams. Even the Swedish and Finish teams lack the size and strength. No contact doesn't help that much, 9 world championships and Canada is 8 gold and 1 silver while the US is 1 gold and 8 silver. But it is something there to try increase world wide popularity of the sport.

The other thing that springs to mind is it makes insurance cheaper.  If men's hockey removed checking, attendance would drop to zero and the schools would take a revenue hit.  Women's hockey doesn't generate any revenue, so they may as well deliver it as cheaply as Title IX will allow.

[KeithK]

Sounds like a plausible explanation.  Even if the removal of checking wouldn't help the other women's teams compete with Canada it would have helped reduce the chances of injury.  Even if I knew how to take a check I don't think I'd want to play full contact hockey against a varsity level player. It would be painful.

[jkahn]

[quote Trotsky]

Tf men's hockey removed checking, attendance would drop to zero and the schools would take a revenue hit. [/quote]
In ancient times, i.e. my era, the rule in men's hockey was "no checking in the offensive zone."  We had no trouble filling the rink. Ned's teams forechecked relentlessly; they just couldn't use the body.

[mattj711]

Any word on how recruiting for 09-10 is going?  Cornell is the only women's team with no posted recruits on USCHO.com.