@ RPI Fri 2/11/22

[ice]

I don't feel anger towards the Ivy League. I think it was the right call. It's unfortunate for the athletes. But the idea of a special status for athletics while everyone else is hunkered down is not appropriate for an environment where the primary goal is education.

Agreed.

[ursusminor]

Replay to determine who was on the ice, so they can rest.  SMDH.

Stupidest review I've ever heard of in my life, if true.

It was for that reason, and I agree that it was stupid.

In case anyone is interested, this is a highlight video.

[ursusminor]

There are now just 6 points between 4th and 10th places in the ECAC. That would be 4 points before point inflation started.

[Al DeFlorio]

I don't feel anger towards the Ivy League. I think it was the right call. It's unfortunate for the athletes. But the idea of a special status for athletics while everyone else is hunkered down is not appropriate for an environment where the primary goal is education.

Agreed.

+1

[osorojo]

No big mystery to a team which consistently plays poorly - they suck! This Cornell hockey team selectively plays poorly - against weaker teams. Something besides the bench is causing the wild fluctuations in this team's skating, passing, shooting, and hitting.

[Trotsky]

Maybe it's just in their heads, like a slumping player.  Break through, get a win tonight, stop gripping the sticks tight.

Better now than in March.

[CU2007]

Unfair to put any of this funk on Ben Syer, and that is not to detract from Schaefer's importance. To me, it's a combination of some bad luck (happens to every team over the course of a long season), injuries, and some suspect goaltending.

Like someone else said, we are outplaying teams in a lot of these losses. This too shall pass.

[George64]

I don't get it.  Back in December, Clarkson pulled their goalie and scored three goals in the final three minutes to tie Cornell, 4-4.  One shot in their open net almost certainly would have sealed the win for Cornell.  Last night, Cornell had a man advantage for virtually the final five minutes of the game.  When we pulled our goalie to give us a 6-4 skater advantage, RPI put two in our empty net sealing their win.

Probably, having to revamp our lineup so much to cover for sick and injured players has much to do with this slump.  Good to see Andreev back in action and score.  I'm optimistic that we'll pull out of this slide and get to Placid. Wishing Mike well and hope that he'll be back behind the bench again soon.  LGR!
.

[osorojo]

When the cat's away the mice will play - but not well.

[BearLover]

Lots of IMO baseless takes in this thread. This is not a "different team" from what we saw earlier this season. Cornell was in basically the same position in the PWR (somewhere in the 20s) for almost the entire first half. They tricked a lot of poll voters and forum posters by barely beating, or tying and then beating in OT, crap teams. And it certainly isn't true that the team "doesn't care"—they've played extremely hard the whole season. The effort level is no lower than that of any Cornell team I've watched in the past.

If you want to get angry at someone for not caring, I'd suggest you direct your anger at the Ivy League. They're the ones who decided to cancel last season while 51 other schools played because they thought obliterating all of their athletic teams was worth making it appear like they were doing something about COVID. And then the Ivy League waited until most of the upperclassmen transferred or went pro before announcing an extra year of eligibility. Meanwhile, all other schools granted a fifth year of eligibility anyway, despite playing last season. The result is that Cornell is regularly sending out lineups where nearly every player has one or two years of college hockey experience against teams filled with fourth and fifth year players. Obviously Cornell is going to be severely disadvantaged given those circumstances. And while some of Cornell's ECAC opponents are in a similar boat with respect to not playing last season, these opponents (especially those non-Ivies that allow for grad transfers) are still regularly putting out considerably older lineups than Cornell's.

I don't feel anger towards the Ivy League. I think it was the right call. It's unfortunate for the athletes. But the idea of a special status for athletics while everyone else is hunkered down is not appropriate for an environment where the primary goal is education.

But that's the thing—it was just for appearances, right? It didn't actually protect anybody. My issue is that the Ivy League decided that re-emphasizing its priorities—education over athletics—was more important than supporting its athletes. But just like the no grad transfer rule or the late start for hockey, canceling last season didn't accomplish anything positive whatsoever. It was just virtue signaling. At the cost of obliterating its athletic programs.

[CU2007]

Lots of IMO baseless takes in this thread. This is not a "different team" from what we saw earlier this season. Cornell was in basically the same position in the PWR (somewhere in the 20s) for almost the entire first half. They tricked a lot of poll voters and forum posters by barely beating, or tying and then beating in OT, crap teams. And it certainly isn't true that the team "doesn't care"—they've played extremely hard the whole season. The effort level is no lower than that of any Cornell team I've watched in the past.

If you want to get angry at someone for not caring, I'd suggest you direct your anger at the Ivy League. They're the ones who decided to cancel last season while 51 other schools played because they thought obliterating all of their athletic teams was worth making it appear like they were doing something about COVID. And then the Ivy League waited until most of the upperclassmen transferred or went pro before announcing an extra year of eligibility. Meanwhile, all other schools granted a fifth year of eligibility anyway, despite playing last season. The result is that Cornell is regularly sending out lineups where nearly every player has one or two years of college hockey experience against teams filled with fourth and fifth year players. Obviously Cornell is going to be severely disadvantaged given those circumstances. And while some of Cornell's ECAC opponents are in a similar boat with respect to not playing last season, these opponents (especially those non-Ivies that allow for grad transfers) are still regularly putting out considerably older lineups than Cornell's.

I don't feel anger towards the Ivy League. I think it was the right call. It's unfortunate for the athletes. But the idea of a special status for athletics while everyone else is hunkered down is not appropriate for an environment where the primary goal is education.

But that's the thing—it was just for appearances, right? It didn't actually protect anybody. My issue is that the Ivy League decided that re-emphasizing its priorities—education over athletics—was more important than supporting its athletes. But just like the no grad transfer rule or the late start for hockey, canceling last season didn't accomplish anything positive whatsoever. It was just virtue signaling. At the cost of obliterating its athletic programs.

Spot on. But then again, most of how the Ivy League approaches sports is virtue signaling.

[Dafatone]

Lots of IMO baseless takes in this thread. This is not a "different team" from what we saw earlier this season. Cornell was in basically the same position in the PWR (somewhere in the 20s) for almost the entire first half. They tricked a lot of poll voters and forum posters by barely beating, or tying and then beating in OT, crap teams. And it certainly isn't true that the team "doesn't care"—they've played extremely hard the whole season. The effort level is no lower than that of any Cornell team I've watched in the past.

If you want to get angry at someone for not caring, I'd suggest you direct your anger at the Ivy League. They're the ones who decided to cancel last season while 51 other schools played because they thought obliterating all of their athletic teams was worth making it appear like they were doing something about COVID. And then the Ivy League waited until most of the upperclassmen transferred or went pro before announcing an extra year of eligibility. Meanwhile, all other schools granted a fifth year of eligibility anyway, despite playing last season. The result is that Cornell is regularly sending out lineups where nearly every player has one or two years of college hockey experience against teams filled with fourth and fifth year players. Obviously Cornell is going to be severely disadvantaged given those circumstances. And while some of Cornell's ECAC opponents are in a similar boat with respect to not playing last season, these opponents (especially those non-Ivies that allow for grad transfers) are still regularly putting out considerably older lineups than Cornell's.

I don't feel anger towards the Ivy League. I think it was the right call. It's unfortunate for the athletes. But the idea of a special status for athletics while everyone else is hunkered down is not appropriate for an environment where the primary goal is education.

But that's the thing—it was just for appearances, right? It didn't actually protect anybody. My issue is that the Ivy League decided that re-emphasizing its priorities—education over athletics—was more important than supporting its athletes. But just like the no grad transfer rule or the late start for hockey, canceling last season didn't accomplish anything positive whatsoever. It was just virtue signaling. At the cost of obliterating its athletic programs.

I think it's particularly tough to tell whether canceling sports accomplished anything. Sure, people were on campus, but traveling is an increased risk compared to the controllable environment of a campus. For all we know, player X, coach Y, or rink staff member Z avoided a very bad outcome that would have occurred had Brown visited for a game in like January 2021.

I fully agree that the Ivy League deserves lots of blame for not extending eligibility until it was too late.

[Al DeFlorio]

Lots of IMO baseless takes in this thread. This is not a "different team" from what we saw earlier this season. Cornell was in basically the same position in the PWR (somewhere in the 20s) for almost the entire first half. They tricked a lot of poll voters and forum posters by barely beating, or tying and then beating in OT, crap teams. And it certainly isn't true that the team "doesn't care"—they've played extremely hard the whole season. The effort level is no lower than that of any Cornell team I've watched in the past.

If you want to get angry at someone for not caring, I'd suggest you direct your anger at the Ivy League. They're the ones who decided to cancel last season while 51 other schools played because they thought obliterating all of their athletic teams was worth making it appear like they were doing something about COVID. And then the Ivy League waited until most of the upperclassmen transferred or went pro before announcing an extra year of eligibility. Meanwhile, all other schools granted a fifth year of eligibility anyway, despite playing last season. The result is that Cornell is regularly sending out lineups where nearly every player has one or two years of college hockey experience against teams filled with fourth and fifth year players. Obviously Cornell is going to be severely disadvantaged given those circumstances. And while some of Cornell's ECAC opponents are in a similar boat with respect to not playing last season, these opponents (especially those non-Ivies that allow for grad transfers) are still regularly putting out considerably older lineups than Cornell's.

I don't feel anger towards the Ivy League. I think it was the right call. It's unfortunate for the athletes. But the idea of a special status for athletics while everyone else is hunkered down is not appropriate for an environment where the primary goal is education.

But that's the thing—it was just for appearances, right? It didn't actually protect anybody. My issue is that the Ivy League decided that re-emphasizing its priorities—education over athletics—was more important than supporting its athletes. But just like the no grad transfer rule or the late start for hockey, canceling last season didn't accomplish anything positive whatsoever. It was just virtue signaling. At the cost of obliterating its athletic programs.

It wasn't "virtue signaling."  It was treating all students the same.  Rightly so.

[Trotsky]

The terms "virtue signaling" and "SJW" mean you no longer need to take that person seriously.

[BearLover]

The terms "virtue signaling" and "SJW" mean you no longer need to take that person seriously.

Alternatively: you can engage with a person on the basis of their argument rather than dismissing what they have to say based on one term you think is vaguely problematic. Just because "virtue signaling" has become a buzzword for silly Ben Shapiro-types doesn't mean the term has no legitimate meaning. I think the term is applied correctly here.