New Recruits

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]RichS Wrote:

Yeah sure we can have good exchanges...

It can be hard to believe you guys have any respect for the Clarkson program when one considers the long list of Clarkson people that you have trashed here...and in a most "rude and insulting" manner.

It's like a continuation of attending a game at Lynah...the insults never stop and it does become tiresome.[/q]
Here are just two of your recent postings on the Round Table, Mr. Pot:


"Yeah no kidding but our kids do pretty well and all the Ivies have had their share of underachievers in the classroom. They do a good job of "concealing" it. Anyone my age remembers Ed Marinaro's classroom exploits."


"Ask people who went to other Ivies and many will tell you that "SUNY-Ithaca" is "barely" an Ivy... Sometimes, they make it sound like all their hockey players are "Rhodes scholars" and ours are flunkies. That arrogance cracks me up."


Might those not be called "trashing," Rich?  Why do you call similar statements "rude and insulting" when they appear here yet you write them yourself regularly on the Round Table--and invariably directed at Cornell?  Are you going to tell us you intended to encourage "good exchanges" with these postings? If someone wrote something similar here about Clarkson you'd throw a hissy-fit on the spot, right?

Why do you hold us to a higher standard than you do yourself and your colleagues on the Round Table?  Why do you take issue with what you perceive to be shots taken at Clarkson here but consistently pander to those on the Round Table who take similar shots at Cornell?  Why is behavior like yours on the Round Table acceptable but ours here not?

[Trotsky]

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

-- Mark Twain

[ithacat]

::bang::

[Rich S]

Al,

I don't call those remarks "trashing" because they're in reference to or in response to comments demonstrating the looking-down-the-nose and hypocritical approach you and others take towards non-Ivy student athletes in the ECAC.    Call it defensive if you like.

You would do well to ask yourself those same questions you asked me.   And why don't you respond to Goldie directly, rather than rip her only in your diatribes at me...Mr. Black, is it?  Are you chicken...or afraid of her?

No, not all postings, as you of all people should know, generate good exchanges or are intended to.  What's your aim when you continue to take that snotty arrogant attitude towards me and other Clarkson people as you did ad nauseum on the old Roundtable and on USCHO?

I think we all should behave at a higher standard and I said so on the old Roundtable when it was active but apparently your selective nature prevents you from remembering.

[DeltaOne81]

As has been pointed out many times, we regularly have civil, sane, and mutually respectful conversations on this board with members from many other schools, Dartmouth, BU, and, yes, Clarkson! Drew and DareDevilCU are welcome back anytime. We've even had civil exchanges with Minnesota fans both here and on USCHO.

You are the sole and only person who comes here and consistently and regularly makes trouble. Even facetimer has a higher portion of useful, interesting, and non-insulting posts than you do on this board. You really have to turn the microscope a little on yourself, my friend. You claim that anyone that comes here with a contrasting opinion is attacked, but time and time again, that's not true. Yet time and time again you come here and start fights.

You assume that everything we say is with disdain and superiority to others... but I'm sure you know as well as I do, that things can be taken many ways on the internet, cause there's no tone of voice. So half the thing that demostrate our "looking-down-the-nose" approach, are only read that way because you're predisposed to find that anywhere you can. You look for it, you expect it, so you find it. Numerous fans of other teams come here and have good conversations, and its because they don't expect to find what doesn't exist.

Based on the fact that we have very good conversations with many fans of other teams, you really have to look inwards a bit here, pal.

[Dpperk29]

I second everything Delta just said!

richS just seems to cause trouble.

[gobigred24]

Anyone else have anything of interest to say about the new recruits??

[ninian '72]

Thanks!  Let's not feed the trolls anymore, please!

[abmarks]

enough with the RichS stuff already..I'm sure he understands everyones feelings and vice versa...let it go and talk about new recruits or start a We hate RichS thread....

[Al DeFlorio]

I'm not sure how this topic found its way into a "new recruits" thread in the first place, but it still seems to be au courant approaching the Frozen Four.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/du/article/0,1299,DRMN_16076_3670136,00.html

[ugarte]

[q]RichS Wrote:Yeah, it's Wednesday and I see the griping about the rink size costing cornell the game continues. I never thought I'd see them whine.[/q]

[Q]RichS Wrote:
On the surface (no pun intended) a larger ice surface appears to afford a faster team a huge advantage.

Not necessarily so.  The opposition can try to utilize strategies and style to lessen the faster team's advantage on the larger ice.  If I recall correctly, as I stated before, this issue was raised a few years ago when a slower cornell team faced Harvard at Lake Placid.   Schafer said he did not think the larger ice surface put his team at a disadvantage, probably because h ewas confident that his team could play to their strengths and negate the effect of the larger surface.   I believe that is what happened that year and following that, there was talk to the effect of "so much for the advantage of larger ice".

Sounds like Minny was an even faster team than that Harvard squad and that cornell did a pretty decent job of containing their offense depsite a sizeable edge in SOG for the Gophers.  Probably golatending had a lot to do with that.  Was the GWG the result of greater speed?  

In any event, Lucia noted that the ice surface gave his team an edge.  Did it make the game a cakewalk for his team?  Obviously not.  Did it reduce the effectiveness of cornell's grinding style?  Some here have said yes.  In any game each team has their own advantages to some extent, this being just one of them.  The winner is often the one who maximizes their advantages and minimizes th edamage caused by the other guys'.

Sorry to be lengthy about this but I'm demonstrating that I'm not at all denying th epresence of an advantage and also saying it may not necessarily have been the deciding factor.

I've had experience coaching against faster teams.  If you want an explanation from someone more qualified, why not call or email Coach Schafer?   Seriously.

[/q]If you want to know why so many people invite you to leave all the time, Rich, these two posts in combination provide as good an explanation as anything I could have written.

First, I note once again that the rolleyes smiley on your keyboard is probably fading from being pressed too often. Second, your second post, if written by anyone from Cornell, is what meets the definition of "whining" in your first post.

To my eyes, there is plenty of evidence that the big sheet is a disadvantage for Cornell. It is why we have had trouble with less talented Harvard squads, struggled to find our form against Ohio State and went to overtime with an otherwise overmatched BC squad in 2003. Even Mankato scared the hell out of me until they flat ran out of gas. The big ice hurts Cornell because, as you noted, we have to do things that mitigate the advantage that a combination of speed and space gives to our faster opponents. In other words, we have to change our game and adjust.  

Yes, Schafer tries to find (and usually does find) ways to compensate for our lack of speed, but it is a disadvantage and that disadvantage is exacerbated by the large ice surface. In addition, if you believe that there is any truth to the phrase "home-ice advantage," Maine and Cornell got screwed by the policy this year. Someone else will get screwed next year. Everyone who doesn't attend a school that can host a regional hates the idea of having to play a road game in the playoffs, even the ones (like me) who see it as a necessary evil until college hockey can support sellouts strictly on the strength of the popularity of the sport. (I'm not holding my breath.)

None of this means that the outcome would have been any different if we played the game at Lynah, but the texture of the game certainly would have been. Recognizing these things and writing about them doesn't make us whiners: it makes us observant hockey fans.

So please, RichS, take your ::rolleyes:: and shove it.

[Josh '99]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
To my eyes, there is plenty of evidence that the big sheet is a disadvantage for Cornell. It is why we have had trouble with less talented Harvard squads, struggled to find our form against Ohio State and went to overtime with an otherwise overmatched BC squad in 2003. Even Mankato scared the hell out of me until they flat ran out of gas. The big ice hurts Cornell because, as you noted, we have to do things that mitigate the advantage that a combination of speed and space gives to our faster opponents. In other words, we have to change our game and adjust.  [/q]I'm pretty sure the ice in Providence is 200x85 since an AHL team plays there (although I could be wrong), but I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

[Steve M]

And yet another coach feels ice size will be important:

http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/9NCAA/2005/semiscout_0330.htm

See the end of the article.

[KeithK]

At this point I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that the wide ice is something of a disadvantage for a team unaccustomed to it.  It's just a matter how long we should gripe about it after a loss.

[Steve M]

I'm not griping, rather simply pointing out to those who doubt it matters that many players and coaches think it does.