2005-06 Schedule

[RatushnyFan]

[Q]JasonN95 Wrote:
And I disagree with  RatushnyFan's argument. I don't think one or two more tough opponents before Xmas break is going to have you more prepared for the NCAAs. Its the season as a whole that is important and is dominated, especially down the final stretch, by conference games and there's nothing Cornell can do to alter that scheduling.

It seems like Cornell's scheduling is working just fine: they are putting up staggering stats and W-L records that get them noticed and talked about in the media and qualifying for the NCAAs.  
[/q]
I will believe this until the day I die.  Having a new Union in the conference (QU) is going to exacerbate the schedule strength issue in my view.  I'm sure that Schafer wants to play the best and that logistics and economics get in the way.  I wish that he'd relax the reciprocity line to get a tougher schedule but I know that a lot of you will disagree.  I enjoyed watching Cornell play Michigan in '97 at Yost even though I don't think they got a home game the following year.  

[RatushnyFan]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
2)  I think Berenson could be a much more articulate member of the college hockey community.  I think, in general, he does what he has to do.  Maybe he wishes he could do something else?  Who knows.  The man is tight lipped.  At least he's come out very strongly against players leaving without finishing their educations.
[/q]
I'm not sure I agree.  I went to Michigan for grad school from '95-'97 and have closely followed them since.  Red tells it like it is.  He could probably be coaching in the NHL if he wanted to (already has) or be retired.  He simply has a passion for college hockey and Michigan.  He's good for a quote and he's honest about his players in the press.  Really cares about academics over hockey goals as you've said - witness his consistent comments about players leaving early, the value of an education, and benching players who aren't getting it done in the classroom (Bobby Hayes, Mike Legg, etc.).  I'm not sure where your view comes from ........... seems to me he is the epitome of what a college hockey coach should be.

Michigan/Ann Arbor will never be Cornell/Ithaca, but it certainly doesn't suck.  Yost is great, Red always has them playing well come tournament time (what happened against CC is unprecedented), and the atmosphere is the second best in the country in my view.  I've been to a lot of rinks in my day.  And there's nothing like winning a national championship.  Nothing.  Most of you wouldn't know unless you're old timers or have also gone to another school.  I can't get that excited about conference tournaments.  Can't wait for Cornell to break through and win one.  It will come.

Eric H. '92

[ninian '72]

As the third member of this list who went this route, let me jump in.  Michigan hockey wasn't always like this.  I was there in 72-78 and the fall I arrived was persuaded by a friend who'd gone to Brown to go halves on a season ticket.  I'd been warned not to expect much, but I had no idea...  This was hockey purgatory.  Games were played in a small, scuzzy, out-of-the way rink, play was uninspired, and the coaching staff seemed as if they were mailing it in.  They had a small, but loyal fan base.  Hockey was clearly an also-ran sport at U-M that no one knew much about except for people who loved the game.  Going from the last of the Harkness years to watching a team that won all of 6 games that year was a hard landing.

Things changed for the better next year.  Michigan hired a young, bright coach in Dan Farrell - who had spent time observing the Soviets and their training methods - and  they moved the program to Yost.  The first three of Farrell's teams had records of about .500, but this was such a huge improvement that it made Michigan hockey fans delirious and brought new fans into the building.  Michigan couldn't skate with the likes of Herb Brooks' Minnesota or Bob Johnson's Wisconsin teams, but Farrell adopted a style of play - aggressive defense and a simple dump and chase offense - that allowed them to compete.  They were almost always an underdog but were able to get it together often enough to pull off some impressive wins.  I went to a Wisconsin game in 74 that  they won 8-1 and that was regarded as a breakthrough game for the program.  The Wisconsin goalie reportedly broke down as he left the ice, and Yost rocked.  

In 76-77, when the team had four of Farrell's recruiting classes on board, they went 28-17 and made it to the NCAA finals, where they lost to Wisconsin in OT.  The Frozen Four was in Detroit that year, and I went to the semis to see U-M - again an underdog - beat a BU team with Davie Silk and Jim Craig in goal 6-4.  If I couldn't see Cornell do this, watching Michigan do it was the next best thing.  However, at the beginning of the game, I had some bad flashbacks.  I hadn't seen a Cornell game in five years, and watching a fast eastern team in red and white competing against Michigan's blue-collar game reminded me of how much I missed eastern hockey.  I had to remember  that this was BU on the ice, and that I really did want to see them lose.

So, Scersk, this was a very different experience from yours.  It was hugely fun and different from the Berenson years.  I've continued to follow the Michigan program and enjoy their successes, remembering where they had started,  but was confronted with my ultimate nightmare two years ago when both Michigan and Cornell got to the Frozen Four.  What if...  It didn't take long to decide what color I bleed, and I've never been able to muster quite as much enthusiasm for Michigan hockey since then.  I'm even looking forward to the day when Schafer is able to corner Berenson.

[Chris 02]

1 day until the Hobey announcement.

191 days until the Red-White game
198 days until the CU-Nat game
204 days until the Michigan State game

It's a LOOONG summer.

http://www.twissbrooks.org/countdown.htm

[Josh '99]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Cornell hockey is on a crusade.  Look at squeakball: other than Duke, a basketball program with striking similarities (except for those pesky scholarships) to what Schafer is trying to do at Cornell, you have to go back to Villanova in '85 to find a non-city/state school.  Now look at hockey:  LSSU in 1994 and then only BC and Denver since.  Harvard was the last non-scholarship win in 1989.  If we win a few national championships, it will be incredibly good for the sport, reminding all the smaller schools out there that they still have a chance vs. the tendrils of "corporatism" in college athletics.  The Clarksons, CCs, RPIs, and Mercyhursts of the world will be buoyed by our success.  Talk of the Big Ten Hockey Conference will cease.  There will be peace in the Middle East.  Famine will be eradicated.  Etc.[/q]I agree with what you said, Scott, but I'm confused by the part I underlined.  Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?

[KeithK]

[q]Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?[/q]They are both private.  JSo is the University of Pennsylvannia if you were wondering.

[Scersk '97]

Well, in order to clear things up, I'll just go through the last few champs and say who I think is a "good guy" and who I think is part of the problem:

2004  Denver             Good
2003  Minnesota          Bad
2002  Minnesota          Bad
2001  Boston College     Bad?
2000  North Dakota       Bad
1999  Maine              Bad
1998  Michigan           Bad
1997  North Dakota       Bad 
1996  Michigan           Bad  
1995  Boston University  Good?
1994  Lake Superior      Good
1993  Maine              Bad
1992  Lake Superior      Good
1991  Northern Michigan  Good
1990  Wisconsin          Bad
1989  Harvard            Good (crap!)

In general, I think that I tend to harbor ill feelings towards large public universities that dominate their respective states.  (Gee...  I wonder why...)  (Obviously, I have fewer ill feelings for public/privates, but I digress.)  The financial advantages these schools build up through, often, their football and basketball teams allow their hockey programs to operate in relative autonomy from financial worries.  Coupled with the almost robotic allegiances held by many of the states' citizens, this advantage creates an extremely favorable recruiting environment that makes it very hard for smaller, less-fortuitously located schools (LSSU, Cornell, Clarkson, etc.) to compete for recruits.

I don't like the attitude that says, "Well, I'm a gifted Minnesota hockey player, so, obviously, I'll go play for the Gophers, since they're abso-bleepin'-wonderful!  You betcha!  Plus they pay well."  Similarly, I don't like the attitude that says, "I'm athletically gifted and pretty far from brain dead, obviously I'll go to Harvard because it's the best!  Go Cantabs!"  Neither do I like the attitude that says, "I'm catholic and smart, so I'll go to BC."  I feel there's a lot of brainwashing going on in academia these days that a large, research-oriented university setting is what's right for everyone.  If you're not going to Harvard, Michigan, or State U (or Cornell, for that matter) you're dropping out of society.  Suffice it to say, that, having been on the inside of two of that type of institution, I have seen some of the disadvantages.

Anyway, that was all a bit beside the point.  To address my list again:  Denver is "good" because they are an old power returned, but not yet returned to being the biggest show in Colorado quite obviously (UofC and CSU), or even in Denver; BC and BU are toughies--BC athletics is the big show in the Boston collegiate scene, hands down, while BU is a question mark since, even though they are a traditional power, titles haven't exactly been dropping in Jackie-boy's lap; UND tips to the bad because they exert similar power over North Dakota circles as a Minnesota or Michigan, and I have an eastern bias; and LSSU and Northern Michigan, though state schools, are not the dominant state schools in Michigan by a pretty long stretch.  However much it pains me to say it, and however much I would root against them at any juncture, I have to admit that another Harvard national championship would be one for the "good" guys.  It's the non-scholarship thing.  In fact, I think that I would actually root for Harvard against one of the "bad" guys.

So, that was a long way around to cover my feelings about rooting for Harvard.  And, oh, by the way, one has to cheer for CC in the frozen four this year--longest drought without a championship of all the teams and a small private to boot!

But, now that I see they're going to lose today, I think you have a very tough choice between UND and Denver.  I like the idea of a Denver win only because we all know what happened the last time Denver won two in a row...

(Hmmm...  that would make this analogy--'67:'03::'69:'05::'70:'06.  You see, in a more closely competitive collegiate hockey environment, one could well translate the '67 team's only slightly less than dominant championship performance into a 30-5-1 season and a semifinal loss.  Similarly, the '69 team's crushing finals loss in hostile territory could translate into a crushing quarterfinal loss in hostile territory.  How does one translate an undefeated team, though?  I leave that up to the imagination.)

[Josh '99]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?[/Q]
They are both private.  So is the University of Pennsylvannia if you were wondering.[/q]Heh, yes, I knew Penn was private.  I never can really say for sure about some schools though.  Aren't BU and Michigan also private?  (And LSSU not, given that they're a "State University"?)

[KeithK]

[q]Heh, yes, I knew Penn was private. I never can really say for sure about some schools though. Aren't BU and Michigan also private? (And LSSU not, given that they're a "State University"?)[/q]I forgot to put the :-P  after Penn.  BU is private.  Michigan is most certainly not.

[Josh '99]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I forgot to put the   after Penn.  BU is private.  Michigan is most certainly not.[/q]I'm confused, then.  I thought that usually "University of X" was private and "X State University" was public.

[ursusminor]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]Are BC and Denver not city/state schools?[/Q]
They are both private.  So is the University of Pennsylvannia if you were wondering.[/Q]
Heh, yes, I knew Penn was private.  I never can really say for sure about some schools though.  Aren't BU and Michigan also private?  (And LSSU not, given that they're a "State University"?)[/q]
BU is private. Michigan is a state school.


Edit: I guess I was a bit late.

[Scersk '97]

In most cases, both University of X and X State will be public.  Penn is very much the exception.  Can anyone think of another?

[Beeeej]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
I'm confused, then.  I thought that usually "University of X" was private and "X State University" was public.[/q]

There is no such artificial distinction.

Beeeej

[ursusminor]

NYU and Penn are the only ones I think.

[Scersk '97]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
Look at squeakball: other than Duke, a basketball program with striking similarities (except for those pesky scholarships) to what Schafer is trying to do at Cornell, you have to go back to Villanova in '85 to find a non-city/state school.
[/Q]
To clear this up, I probably should have written "city-state" in the classic sense.  So, DU and BC would be "city-state" schools and UofM and MSU would be "state" schools.

That would make us a "non-city-state, half-state" school.  Sounds like I'm ordering coffee.