Achievements

[Al DeFlorio]

There was a time when sarcasm was appreciated. You see, posters on this site disparaged Dryden and Cornell teams of his era because they supposedly played at a time when excellence in hockey was easier to achieve. My sarcastic question was meant to point out that excellence in the NHL at that time must also have been easier to achieve since Dryden blew away competition in his rookie-minus-one year in the NHL and was goaltender for the Stanley Cup winning team in six of the eight seasons he played in the NHL. Nonsense is nonsense, with or without insults.

Dryden's eligibility is used up.  Plus he's old.  After 48 years, it's time to get over it.

[marty]

There was a time when sarcasm was appreciated. You see, posters on this site disparaged Dryden and Cornell teams of his era because they supposedly played at a time when excellence in hockey was easier to achieve. My sarcastic question was meant to point out that excellence in the NHL at that time must also have been easier to achieve since Dryden blew away competition in his rookie-minus-one year in the NHL and was goaltender for the Stanley Cup winning team in six of the eight seasons he played in the NHL. Nonsense is nonsense, with or without insults.

Who has done this?

No one has done this but Hooking has come to the conclusion that if we point out the differences in player quality, parity and school commitment then we are disparaging what Harkness and his players accomplished.  His logic is faulty but I do not wish to argue with him. I'd rather watch tonight's game.

(Parenthetically, I believe Michigan fans have more to bitch about than we do this year.  Look at the money Notre Dame has thrown at this sport. No Irish luck in hockey.  Wisconsin under Eaves looked like a dynasty in the making but...)

If it's so damn easy to make the Frozen Four why don't all 60 D1 schools make it on a regular basis? Or if you really want to throw logic on its head why don't all 60 teams make it to the finals every year?

7 PM can't come quick enough for me.  Drop the puck.

[BearLover]

In the past 20 years Cornell won 3 ECAC men's ice hockey championships. In the previous 30 years Cornell won 9 ECAC men's ice hockey championships. If you are content with these numbers good for you, but please don't defend your satisfaction with references to league change, bad hops, and all that malarky, just enjoy the status quo.

I am not happy with participation ribbons in an inferior league. If we can't regularly compete against the top teams in the country then the sport doesn't interest me nearly as much.

But Cornell has competed against the top teams in the country when the ECAC has stunk.  Under Schafer, Cornell is ~.500 in the NCAA tournament, and for nearly all of that time the ECAC stunk.  As stated above, when we won national championships, our talent was leaps and bounds better than the competition.  The only noticeable difference from the ECAC improving in past years is that we win less often and make the NCAAs less often.

[slh10]

How long? Ever since I decided to stop making excuses and instead look for improvement. Blaming the refereeing, the ice condition, the travel, the crowd, the bad breaks - none of these ever improved a team.

If 14-6-2 isn't a good season to you you are clueless...as well as tiresome, boring, and annoying.  Change your handle to Whining.

+1

[RichH]

If 14-6-2 isn't a good season to you

I'll leave out the nastiness, but this is essentially my argument. We *COULD* have a knee-jerk coaching change, but the very-real risk is that we suffer a decade+ in-the-wilderness period like RPI has endured and is shackled to more than ever. The value of this era people often overlook is our "high-floor." Our worst years are most all still bubble years. We don't have imploded seasons like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Colorado College & other historically strong programs have had. The only other programs I can think of with a better "high floor" factor than us are BC, Denver, Michigan (until this year), Minnesota, & North Dakota. SLU is near our peer in this for ECAC teams, and they haven't had the hardware we've been able to claim.

[Trotsky]

If 14-6-2 isn't a good season to you

I'll leave out the nastiness, but this is essentially my argument. We *COULD* have a knee-jerk coaching change, but the very-real risk is that we suffer a decade+ in-the-wilderness period like RPI has endured and is shackled to more than ever. The value of this era people often overlook is our "high-floor." Our worst years are most all still bubble years. We don't have imploded seasons like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Colorado College & other historically strong programs have had. The only other programs I can think of with a better "high floor" factor than us are BC, Denver, Michigan (until this year), Minnesota, & North Dakota. SLU is near our peer in this for ECAC teams, and they haven't had the hardware we've been able to claim.

I agree with all this.

The scary thing is the ECAC "high floor" teams were, for decades after the Great Divorce, Cornell, Harvard and Clarkson.  Now they're Cornell, Union, and Yale.  So you can fall out of constant contention.

[Hooking]

". . . only a few teams were competitive during that period" - cited twice above. When you have an excellent team this statement is absolutely true because you have an excellent team, but tautologies prove nothing. Cornell faces an abundance of competitive teams now, especially Dartmouth in Lynah. On the bright side the Red has recently pulled it together against some competitive teams (as indicated by their ranking). If they can maintain their focus this could be a fun post-season.

[Al DeFlorio]

". . . only a few teams were competitive during that period" - cited twice above.

As so often seems to happen, you missed the point of Marty's comment.  

The point is that with so many more teams competitive today, a 29-0 or 27-1-1 season is just not going to happen now.  You appear to be obsessed with the fact that today's Cornell teams don't put together 110-5-1 records over a four-season span like Ned's last four teams did.  Fact is...no one is going to.  Why not?  "...only a few teams were competitive during that [magical four-year] period," and that's no longer the case.

No one disparaged those great teams.  Maybe they could have beaten BU, BC, Clarkson, Denver, and North Dakota 105 games in a row. But the fact is:  They didn't have to, so we'll never know.  Most games were walk-overs, as Marty pointed out.  Times have changed.  Merrimack just swept BU in a home-and-home series.  There was no Merrimack in 1967-1970.

[Hooking]

The March 1967 NCAA semi-final game between Cornell and North Dakota was one of the finest hockey games I have ever seen and matched two teams of unquestioned excellence. Belittling past excellence in any enterprise because it happened long ago is silly.  If time passed negates excellence then L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" is a more excellent dramatic presentation than Shakespeare's "King Lear"!?

[Beeeej]

The March 1967 NCAA semi-final game between Cornell and North Dakota was one of the finest hockey games I have ever seen and matched two teams of unquestioned excellence. Belittling past excellence in any enterprise because it happened long ago is silly.  If time passed negates excellence then L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" is a more excellent dramatic presentation than Shakespeare's "King Lear"!?

You are still literally the only person in this conversation making any such suggestion. If you believe otherwise, you have serious reading comprehension issues.

[Al DeFlorio]

The March 1967 NCAA semi-final game between Cornell and North Dakota was one of the finest hockey games I have ever seen and matched two teams of unquestioned excellence. Belittling past excellence in any enterprise because it happened long ago is silly.  If time passed negates excellence then L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" is a more excellent dramatic presentation than Shakespeare's "King Lear"!?

I'll try one more time but something tells me you either don't know how to read or you just don't want to understand what people are writing.  No one is "belittling" anything or anyone.  We are pointing out that no team today is going to do what the Cornell teams did in 1967-1970 because the Division I college hockey world has changed.

If you look back at the records of Cornell's and BU's 1966-67 teams you will see that against eastern teams not named BU Cornell was 20-1 (loss to Yale with Dave Quarrie in net) and against eastern teams not named Cornell BU was 21-0.  There are too many competitive teams in the east today for any team--let alone two teams--to dominate like that.  So your upset that Cornell today can't match the record of the 1967-70 teams is simply unrealistic and unreasonable.

Having watched Cornell hockey since 1961 and having enjoyed all of those great teams, I would never "belittle" or "disparage" them.  But I have zero expectation that any Cornell hockey team from this point on is going to replicate what they did.

[Scersk '97]

We don't have imploded seasons like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Colorado College & other historically strong programs have had.

I think 2015 counts as our only implosion, which even then wasn't an implosion on the order to which you are referring.

2015 should've been so good, but man did they suck!

[Hooking]

Your point is well taken. My perception of Cornell hockey is also more influenced by year-old memories than half-century old memories. The cause of this recent collapse (and all failures) interests me more than attempts to rationalize it.

[marty]

Your point is well taken. My perception of Cornell hockey is also more influenced by year-old memories than half-century old memories. The cause of this recent collapse (and all failures) interests me more than attempts to rationalize it.

Regarding your memory collapse, perhaps see your MD?

[Hooking]

Marty: If you would rather dis me rather than the enjoyment and success of Cornell Hockey and the reasons for its successes (vs. excuses for its failures) you could establish a new website.