Cornell-Ferris State In Progress

[KeithK]

So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.

The big question with any award of this type is what criteria do you use do decide who is deserving? I doubt it's spelled out with any specificity. Different people probably have different ideas and may change year to year.

I did just learn something new.  According to the AHCA website/press release, you have to win your conference's COTY award or make the Frozen Four to be nominated for the Penrose.  Makes sense I guess.

[Beeeej]

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

[Give My Regards]

I did just learn something new.  According to the AHCA website/press release, you have to win your conference's COTY award or make the Frozen Four to be nominated for the Penrose.  Makes sense I guess.

Presumably this was not always the case.  Dartmouth's Edward Jeremiah won the award twice.  Now, Jeremiah was apparently a well-respected coach; he had a team in the early '40s that went 21-2, and his Dartmouth sqaud did make the first two NCAA championship games in 1948 and 1949.  I believe he is the first-ever college hockey coach to win 300 games, or perhaps to win 300 at one school.  Also, the Division III Coach of the Year award is named for him.  Nevertheless, Jeremiah won the award in 1951 (the first year the award was given) when his Dartmouth squad went 9-10-1.

All right, fine, maybe that was carry-over from the '48 and '49 squads.  Jeremiah won the award again in 1967, the year he retired (he died a couple months later).  That year should sound familiar; it's the year that Cornell, under Ned Harkness, went 27-1-1 and took their first-ever NCAA championship, also the first won by an Eastern squad in 13 years.  And how did Jeremiah's Dartmouth team do that year?  Oh, not as well... 4-16.

(Harkness would go on to win the award in 1968)

[Beeeej]

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

[Josh '99]

I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?  ::drunk::

[Josh '99]

I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress.  More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.:-P

I'd go update the title of the "HARVARD SUCKS" thread, but I'm pretty sure it's still accurate.

[css228]

I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?  ::drunk::

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

[ugarte]

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

And at the time that they would have been invited to join, they probably objected on the grounds that the Ivies took sports too seriously.

[jtn27]

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

We all know any one of those schools would jump at the chance to join the Ivy League (especially Rutgers, Colgate, and Union).

[Aaron M. Griffin]

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

::flipc::

Oh, didn't you know?  Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup.  As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools.  Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

We all know any one of those schools would jump at the chance to join the Ivy League (especially Rutgers, Colgate, and Union).

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

[Beeeej]

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

[jtn27]

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest." )

[css228]

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest.")

But they were chartered by the King... and as a result own about half of New Hampshire.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends.  One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League.  Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

Yeah, I was just making the point that random additions (RPI (yes, I've heard that one among my peers in the Southern Tier of Upstate New York), Colgate, and Union) have no historical connection with the League. There are historical connections between the eight universities that became the Ivy League. So, it makes sense that were there to be any additions, the new members would align with that trend. The College of William and Mary is perhaps one of few schools that would continue that trend even though no such invitation ever occurred.

I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).