Cornell-BU

[Trotsky]

Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO?  I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one?  I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.

As far as I know there has never been one.

[djk26]

Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO?  I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one?  I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.

As far as I know there has never been one.

That seems weird.  ELynah is better anyway :-)  but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)

[Trotsky]

Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO?  I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one?  I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.

As far as I know there has never been one.

That seems weird.  ELynah is better anyway :-)  but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)

I'd be the most likely person to start one there, and it seems pointless to me since we have eLynah.  There is a poster who does Cornell game threads and some of us follow them, but that's about it.

It makes for the amusement that periodically some Yale or Union newbie numb nut will mouth off about Cornell not having enough fan support to even support a team thread.  One of the RPI or Clarkson elders then politely posts the link to eLynah without comment.  Similar things happen with the Clarkson Roundtable.

But if you like, start one.  A lot of ECAC fans are on USCHO and some of them have a lot to say.  :-)

[French Rage]

Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO?  I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one?  I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.

As far as I know there has never been one.

That seems weird.  ELynah is better anyway :-)  but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)

Nowadays it'd just be RPI, Colgate, and Union fans whining about Schafer and/or our band.

[Trotsky]

Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO?  I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one?  I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.

As far as I know there has never been one.

That seems weird.  ELynah is better anyway :-)  but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)

Nowadays it'd just be RPI, Colgate, and Union fans whining about Schafer and/or our band.

Not RPI, they're a good contingent.

The ECAC whiners on USCHO are Yale, Colgate, and SLU.  The contributors are RPI, Cornell, Clarkson.  Nobody else makes any impression except for one particularly vapid fuckwit each from Union and Harvard.

[scoop85]

Looks like we've been demoted ::doh::

[Beeeej]

Looks like we've been demoted ::doh::

"Cloud State"? "North Dame"? I'd say the numerical error is the least of their problems. ::worry::

[Beeeej]

Looks like we've been demoted ::doh::

"Cloud State"? "North Dame"? I'd say the numerical error is the least of their problems. ::worry::

Looks like they fixed all the issues. I couldn't help myself, so I emailed the press contact.

[ursusminor]

Anyone know what happened to Cornell's season thread on USCHO?  I don't go there often, so maybe they never had one?  I figure that would be a good place to see what fans of other teams are saying about Cornell/BU.

As far as I know there has never been one.

That seems weird.  ELynah is better anyway :-)  but I used to enjoy the Cornell thread on USCHO becaause it involved a mix of fans from other teams (as does ELynah--I just like reading fans' analysis, especially during NCAA time.)

Nowadays it'd just be RPI, Colgate, and Union fans whining about Schafer and/or our band.

Not RPI, they're a good contingent.

The ECAC whiners on USCHO are Yale, Colgate, and SLU.  The contributors are RPI, Cornell, Clarkson.  Nobody else makes any impression except for one particularly vapid fuckwit each from Union and Harvard.

I'll have to admit that there are a few RPI fans on USCHO whom I could easily live without.

When Tom Reale was starting up his Without-a-Peer blog, he considered starting a forum there, and I wrote to him that I preferred having input from other fan bases. This, however, was before two events, one being Tom having a child which apparently takes up a lot of his time ;-), and two being an influx of Union fans who think that there was no college hockey before about ten years ago. Then again a couple of down years in Schenectady and they will all jump into the Mohawk River. (Please!)

BTW, Tom just posted his first WaP entry since last summer, an interesting and thought provoking post from the RPI viewpoint.

[Beeeej]

BTW, Tom just posted his first WaP entry since last summer, an interesting and thought provoking post from the RPI viewpoint.

Fantastic piece, and I really hadn't known about most of those numbers. I know my perspective is skewed, but I still keenly remember (and even feel) Ross Lemon failing to pot a penalty shot in a loss to RPI in the 1990 ECAC semifinals on his birthday. I still remember Cornell as the #8 winning a three-game series at #3 RPI in 1998, during the idiotic years of the 10-team ECAC playoffs (and we wouldn't have needed the third game if every single ref hadn't completely missed a puck actually going in, hitting the back of the goal, and springing right back out right in front of us visiting fans). But those are a long time ago by any reasonable measure, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.

That said, I know Cornell has a relatively large amount of "hardware" in the past 48 years, but we're in that vanishingly small group with a longer national title drought than RPI's, and we have the second longest title drought (among those with any titles to begin with), period. I'd like to see us not be the last one in that group.

[RichH]

it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.

Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.

My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.

That said, I know Cornell has a relatively large amount of "hardware" in the past 48 years, but we're in that vanishingly small group with a longer national title drought than RPI's, and we have the second longest title drought (among those with any titles to begin with), period. I'd like to see us not be the last one in that group.

While I feel dirty doing it, once Cornell gets eliminated each year, I quietly hope Colorado College doesn't win it, so we won't be "on the clock."  After Maryland won lax last year, Cornell is now "on the clock" for that tournament.

[Beeeej]

it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.

Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.

My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.

If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.

[RichH]

it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.

Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.

My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.

If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.

Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that.  It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.

I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration.  And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.

[Beeeej]

it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.

Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.

My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.

If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.

Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that.  It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.

I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration.  And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.

That's a fair and reasonable analysis of Harvard's up and downswings. But even that also begs the question why a program like RPI's can't stumble on occasional good fortune as well. Their recruiting classes haven't sucked nearly as badly as their results, and the administration doesn't exactly ignore them. Anyway, I do hope they find some solutions soon.

[marty]

it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether RPI will someday have the ability to pull itself out of this hole.

Only three seasons ago, Clarkson had a 20-loss season and we were asking the same question of them. Harvard was the #11 ECAC team that same year and nobody was asking that question about them, because THEY BELONG IN THAT HOLE. Ahem, they obviously cheated their way to two ECAC titles since then and THEY SHOULD GO BACK IN THEIR HOLE.

My point is it's very possible these days to turn into an emergent power quickly, as long as you have the right recruiting magic and/or coaching. Remember, Schafer made a decision in 2015 to recruit older...or something? Even though we only kinda/sorta did? Anyway, we have a good team now.

If you haven't read the piece you really should - it provides some pretty solid context for looking at RPI differently than Clarkson, which has been good - and advanced in tournaments - much more recently and semi-reliably than RPI has in the last thirty years. As for Harvard, their genuine down years do seem to be an aberration, nothing lasting more than a couple of seasons. Yes, of course, any team can get better. The question is how long you should expect that to take, and why - and whether such a sustained record of failure can create a vicious cycle from which it may be much, much harder to emerge.

Oh, I did. WaP produces some of the best writing this league has seen. This article details wonderfully the breakdown of lengths of failure at the different tiers as a metric, but stops short of discussing any causes or possible remedies. For me, the major difference between RPI and Clarkson appears to lie in institutional support, but I'll let someone with more knowledge than my casual observance dive into that.  It doesn't really matter the duration of a period of futility, because collegiate team performance has a very short memory. If you fix/change the underlying cause of such futility, you CAN make a turnaround happen quite quickly.

I'm under the opinion that Ted Donato is a bad coach and simply got lucky with two generational talents, one of which happens to have his genes. He's 219-200-52 and racked up six losing seasons until Vesey stepped his skates into Allston. And his early title years were a result of excellent recruiting scraps leftover from Mazzolini. I argue that Donato's successful years are the aberration.  And to tie into my earlier comment, I think Harvard gives the hockey program(s) some of the strongest institutional support in the league, even if the Harvard community can't be bothered to do the same.

RPI might want to get rid of the requirement that everyone in the school take freshman calculus and inflate their grades to an A- average. If Coach Smith can get by these two obstacles he is a near genius.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/grade-inflation-colleges-with-the-easiest-and-hardest-grades/