Opponents and Others, 2022-23

[billhoward]

for what its worth we have dug ourselves into the top 40 in Pairwise. Sacred Heart is ahead of  and Uconn is #3.

Being in the top 40 is pretty good when it's D1 basketball with 350 teams. Being in the top 40 in hockey puts you ahead of just 20 other teams. Cornell will improve for sure.

First with have to get through the UConn (currently #6, USCHO poll) and Harvard (#9) games. The top New York team is RIT at #20. Clarkson 3 voting points and Cornell 1 also-mentions, at this stage. Sacred Heart is also in the noise-level voting, 4 points. Poll: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/icehockey-men/d1/uschocom

[Trotsky]

A "tradition of excellence" sounds good, but how do these schools - many of them small and neither wealthy nor large, MAINTAIN this "tradition of excellence" in the face of other schools with many more students, much more money, and better facilities? Is there something unique about college hockey which enables teams from relatively small, relatively unknown colleges/universities to enjoy success in Division One men's ice hockey?

I think osorojo's implication is that Cornell is not one of "these schools," and everyone is answering osorojo in good faith without regard to the fact the whole question was intended as a slight against Cornell.

Agreed.  My father-in-law got very crotchety and disagreeable when he got old.  Fortunately, he didn't have the tech skills to be a pain in the ass online, so it was only a problem when we were together.

Social media: where every day is Thanksgiving.

[osorojo]

Can't answer a question? Call its author a "bot"- an insect? The question stands by itself: "What are the necessary preconditions for Cornell to create a championship D-1 men's college hockey team?" (Hint - name calling isn't one of them) The only time questions are "disagreeable" is when the respondent is ashamed of or wants to obscure the answer. My question was asked to solicit suggestions as to how Cornell can improve its men's varsity hockey program. If you have no suggestions other than insults STF up!

[BearLover]

Can't answer a question? Call its author a "bot"- an insect? The question stands by itself: "What are the necessary preconditions for Cornell to create a championship D-1 men's college hockey team?" (Hint - name calling isn't one of them) The only time questions are "disagreeable" is when the respondent is ashamed of or wants to obscure the answer. My question was asked to solicit suggestions as to how Cornell can improve its men's varsity hockey program. If you have no suggestions other than insults STF up!

Whatever the necessary preconditions, Cornell has satisfied them. Cornell was a 1-seed going into the NCAA tournament in both 2018 and 2020. They were a 3-seed in 2017 and 2019. Clearly, they have multiple times in the very recent past fielded a team capable of becoming a "championship D-1 men's college hockey team." Your question is nonsensical because it relies on the premise that one of the top college hockey programs over the past five years is not a top college hockey program.

[ugarte]

Can't answer a question? Call its author a "bot"- an insect? The question stands by itself: "What are the necessary preconditions for Cornell to create a championship D-1 men's college hockey team?" (Hint - name calling isn't one of them) The only time questions are "disagreeable" is when the respondent is ashamed of or wants to obscure the answer. My question was asked to solicit suggestions as to how Cornell can improve its men's varsity hockey program. If you have no suggestions other than insults STF up!

Whatever the necessary preconditions, Cornell has satisfied them. Cornell was a 1-seed going into the NCAA tournament in both 2018 and 2020. They were a 3-seed in 2017 and 2019. Clearly, they have multiple times in the very recent past fielded a team capable of becoming a "championship D-1 men's college hockey team." Your question is nonsensical because it relies on the premise that one of the top college hockey programs over the past five years is not a top college hockey program.

and that's why i'm losing my mind that it's treated as good faith. people around here get mad at you but your objections have always been specific and supported even if others disagree with the conclusions. oso is all bait.

[osorojo]

Discussions about the performance of the C.U. Men's Varsity Hockey team and questions about how it might improve are greeted here with name-calling and derision. I have been a C.U. hockey fan for 60 years, from a club team to national champions and beyond, from a sparsely attended Lynah Rink and opponents such as Susquehanna to yearly sellouts at Lynah, and back to a tepid interest in C.U. Hockey. Today C.U is ranked in 37th place in D-1 men's college ice hockey. Don't shoot the messenger - and my   "bot" reference was to a robot - not a carrion fly. Drink ink.

[Dunc]

C.U. Men's Varsity Hockey team

Lol idk why but I find this level of specificity on a forum about Cornell hockey hilarious - like you don't need to type this out every time we know what you are referring to

[BearLover]

Discussions about the performance of the C.U. Men's Varsity Hockey team and questions about how it might improve are greeted here with name-calling and derision. I have been a C.U. hockey fan for 60 years, from a club team to national champions and beyond, from a sparsely attended Lynah Rink and opponents such as Susquehanna to yearly sellouts at Lynah, and back to a tepid interest in C.U. Hockey. Today C.U is ranked in 37th place in D-1 men's college ice hockey. Don't shoot the messenger - and my   "bot" reference was to a robot - not a carrion fly. Drink ink.

Minnesota-Duluth is ranked #39. Scrub program.

[ugarte]

C.U. Men's Varsity Hockey team

Lol idk why but I find this level of specificity on a forum about Cornell hockey hilarious - like you don't need to type this out every time we know what you are referring to

it's fake, if that helps?

[blackwidow]

Can't answer a question? Call its author a "bot"- an insect? The question stands by itself: "What are the necessary preconditions for Cornell to create a championship D-1 men's college hockey team?" (Hint - name calling isn't one of them) The only time questions are "disagreeable" is when the respondent is ashamed of or wants to obscure the answer. My question was asked to solicit suggestions as to how Cornell can improve its men's varsity hockey program. If you have no suggestions other than insults STF up!

Sadly, cornell doesnt belong in the group of desired destinations for top tier talents for various reasons. 1.Our logistical support is not on par with premier hockey programs (money issue) 2. The track record of how our guys have fared after graduation in the last decade hasnt been all that great. I do think some of the 3rd round picks we had in recent years should not have been drafted that early though. Regardless, prospects may look at it as a red flag. I have talked to a junior hockey coach and his view is that cornell isnt regarded that highly. Being in the ecac hurts cornell quite a bit in this regard, to be fair. 3. No scholarships 4. Comparative lack of academic prestige (killorn comes to mind + the fact that matty beniers, son of two cornell alums was set on going to harvard and never considered cornell until covid got him to flip his commitment to umich). Im sure there are more...

I think we missed out on the window of opportunity to add more ncaa titles in the 70's through late 2000's. It has gotten so much harder to win the national title, as there are more programs now and college hockey is being taken more seriously and looked at as a genuine pipeline to the NHL.

I questioned whether Schaefer's a good coach on this forum before. I thought it was a fair question because he's gone to the frozen four only once (03) and generally loses in the first round (plus, no ecac championship since 10). But my question was looked at as so ridiculous that people thought I was joking. After thinking more about it, my view has shifted somewhat more in favor of mike schafer. I think he is probably the best coach available to cornell. Hard to imagine a head coach in charge of a D1 program elsewhere wanting to take the helm at cornell. Seeing Justin Ertel (3rd round draft pick) leave after one year and guys like jeff malott and jacob macdonald argubaly having greater success in pro hockey than college days does make me wonder if the cornell system stymies player development to some degree on an individual level.

To attract higher calibre talents, I would probably focus on improving the logistics. I know schafer once brought up not having a team chef or having to ride a bus when other programs would fly their players out. Having a famed skating coach could help as well. (similar to how NHL teams are nowadays spending more on hockey operations for competitive advantage)

[Trotsky]

blackwidow, to be fair you wouldn't know this, but one reason your remarks have been regarded unseriously is they are almost verbatim what we have relitigated a thousand times among ourselves over the last 20 years, here and on the predecessor forums going all the way back to hockey-l.  And even in those bygone days the topics were cliche.

It isn't so much you are being ignored.  It's that you arrive on the scene with a half dozen or so points all of which have been ground to dust, and worse you arrive utterly sure of your insights when we have all taken both sides on each a hundred times and examined all the strengths and weaknesses of each.  There just isn't anything new in your criticisms, and there is certainly nothing dispositive in your claims -- all have been more or less accepted as points of view which are understandable but flawed, with many conditionals, and in some cases utterly beside the point as they are environmental and will never change.

Plus, you have been, and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn here, a dink about it.

I think as you age a bit on the forum you will recognize that while there's merit in some of your comments, they aren't very fertile ground for discussing the team.  They are more like the admissions criteria one has to pass through to enjoy and/or suffer along with Cornell hockey.  Ranting against the wind when you live in Kansas is, if not short sighted, at least unproductive.

[Scersk '97]

blackwidow, to be fair you wouldn't know this, but one reason your remarks have been regarded unseriously is they are almost verbatim what we have relitigated a thousand times among ourselves over the last 20 years, here and on the predecessor forums going all the way back to hockey-l.  And even in those bygone days the topics were cliche.

It isn't so much you are being ignored.  It's that you arrive on the scene with a half dozen or so points all of which have been ground to dust, and worse you arrive utterly sure of your insights when we have all taken both sides on each a hundred times and examined all the strengths and weaknesses of each.  There just isn't anything new in your criticisms, and there is certainly nothing dispositive in your claims -- all have been more or less accepted as points of view which are understandable but flawed, with many conditionals, and in some cases utterly beside the point as they are environmental and will never change.

Plus, you have been, and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn here, a dink about it.

I think as you age a bit on the forum you will recognize that while there's merit in some of your comments, they aren't very fertile ground for discussing the team.  They are more like the admissions criteria one has to pass through to enjoy and/or suffer along with Cornell hockey.  Ranting against the wind when you live in Kansas is, if not short sighted, at least unproductive.

Who are you and what have you done to [name redacted]?

[Trotsky]

blackwidow, to be fair you wouldn't know this, but one reason your remarks have been regarded unseriously is they are almost verbatim what we have relitigated a thousand times among ourselves over the last 20 years, here and on the predecessor forums going all the way back to hockey-l.  And even in those bygone days the topics were cliche.

It isn't so much you are being ignored.  It's that you arrive on the scene with a half dozen or so points all of which have been ground to dust, and worse you arrive utterly sure of your insights when we have all taken both sides on each a hundred times and examined all the strengths and weaknesses of each.  There just isn't anything new in your criticisms, and there is certainly nothing dispositive in your claims -- all have been more or less accepted as points of view which are understandable but flawed, with many conditionals, and in some cases utterly beside the point as they are environmental and will never change.

Plus, you have been, and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn here, a dink about it.

I think as you age a bit on the forum you will recognize that while there's merit in some of your comments, they aren't very fertile ground for discussing the team.  They are more like the admissions criteria one has to pass through to enjoy and/or suffer along with Cornell hockey.  Ranting against the wind when you live in Kansas is, if not short sighted, at least unproductive.

Who are you and what have you done to [name redacted]?

It takes a dink to know a dink.  I have the finest qualifications.

[ugarte]

among other things, we usually lose in the second round

[Trotsky]

among other things, we usually lose in the second round

LOL.  That's what irritated me the most, too.