Cleary Cup

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote krose]It wasn't back when both got autobids... but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle[/quote]
I don't recall exactly, but it seems to me the then unnamed Cleary Cup surreptitiously appeared sometime during the brief period when each of the four leagues were given two auto-bids (a result of the NCAA's so-called "Colorado rule").  Then, with the emergence of the MAAC and whatever-the-other-one-was-called, the "big" four were taken back to one auto-bid to be given to the "champion" of their choice (and all chose the post-season tournament winner).

I would agree, Kyle, that finishing first in the regular season did mean something during that brief interval, but it still makes no sense to me to declare two conference "champions" over the course of one conference season.  Now, to me, it's just absurd--but no one's gonna take away a trophy, especially if it's named after Cleary.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Chris '03]
No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002.[/quote]
I think the Cup showed up before that, but it wasn't yet named Cleary.

[Chris \'03]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Chris '03]
No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002.[/quote]
I think the Cup showed up before that, but it wasn't yet named Cleary.[/quote]

Agreed. They gave Clarkson some kind of trophy in '01. I don't think it was named for anyone yet though.

[David Harding]

The ECACHL story http://www.ecachockeyleague.com/news/men/playoffs06_m affirms the shared hardware. [q]Dartmouth and Colgate tied for the regular season title, claiming a share of the William J. Cleary Cup, ... [/q]

[Rich S]

more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports.  Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.

[Chris \'03]

[quote Rich S]more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports.  Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.[/quote]

Hardly sour grapes. Would I have liked for Cornell to have won it again this year? Absolutely but only because it means Cornell would have the best path to an ECAC Championship. I don't think anyone here considered Cornell's Cleary Cups in '02, '03, and '05 championships. You yourself admit that no one around here takes the Cleary Cup seriously. http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,56165,56507#msg-56507

[Jim Hyla]

[quote Rich S]more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports.  Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.[/quote]Rich, this was not sour grapes. You've been around here long enough to know that most of us feel, recognize, worship, agree with, or whatever words you want to use, the tourney champ as the ECAC Champion. It's just the way we feel, not sour grapes at all.

Although we can accept it as fact, we can still think it's stupid to have champions for both. There are alot of things in life that I recognize as fact, but still think it is stupid. I don't really feel strongly either way about this topic, but didn't want this to get into another pissing contest.:-)

[French Rage]

[quote Rich S]more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports.  Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.[/quote]

Cleary is nice and all, but in the long run (defined as the NCAAs) it's nothing more than a pride thing as long as there is no autobid.  I mean, who would you rather be: Cornell, 3rd in the RS and 8th in the PWR, or Dartmouth, 1st in the RS but 16th (I think) in the PWR.

[Rich S]

[quote Chris '03][quote Rich S]more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports.  Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.[/quote]

Hardly sour grapes. Would I have liked for Cornell to have won it again this year? Absolutely but only because it means Cornell would have the best path to an ECAC Championship. I don't think anyone here considered Cornell's Cleary Cups in '02, '03, and '05 championships. You yourself admit that no one around here takes the Cleary Cup seriously. http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,56165,56507#msg-56507[/quote]

No that wasn't at all my point.  Sure,some of you like to put it down as meaningless, especially since it's named after a former Harvard coach. For a supposedly meaningless achievement, there sure was a lot of gnashing of teeth here recently when cornell lost their grip on first place and the chance to clinch the RS title.

As for the comment in '05, I was simply musing that you'd ascribe more value to it if it bore Schaefer's name rather than that of a coach you love to hate.  :-}

[billhoward]

Brown should expect to receive the Mazzoleni Cup via bulk rate shortly.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Rich S]No that wasn't at all my point.  Sure,some of you like to put it down as meaningless, especially since it's named after a former Harvard coach. For a supposedly meaningless achievement, there sure was a lot of gnashing of teeth here recently when cornell lost their grip on first place and the chance to clinch the RS title.[/quote]

Sure, no one likes to lose. First place means something. To of the conference means something. But that doesn't make it a "championship". In my eyes anyway.


[quote Rich S]As for the comment in '05, I was simply musing that you'd ascribe more value to it if it bore Schaefer's name rather than that of a coach you love to hate.  :-}[/quote]

Fair enough - P.S. Check the spelling guide on the left :-P

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Chris '03][quote Rich S]more sour grapes.

Like it or not, conference tournaments and crowning both the RS and playoff winners as "champions" is prevalent throughout HS and college sports.  Might be a money-maker but whatever, just accept it as fact.[/quote]

Hardly sour grapes. Would I have liked for Cornell to have won it again this year? Absolutely but only because it means Cornell would have the best path to an ECAC Championship.[/quote]

I also like it when Cornell wins the C***** Cup because it prevents a team from winning it that might treat it with respect or reverence.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote jmh30]Shared championships are stupid.[/quote]

You mean like all three of our Ivy Football titles?  ::uhoh::

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Chris '03][quote krose]
Actually, I'm too lazy to look it up: does the existence of the Cleary Cup even overlap with autobids for the regular season winner?

Kyle[/quote]

No. The Cleary Cup showed up in 2002. I'm pretty sure 2000 was the last year the RS "champ" got an autobid. I remember in Placid '01 they recognized (absent thanks to Vermont) Clarkson for winning the RS but they didn't make the tourney.[/quote]

Yes, I remember Clarkson winning the RS the one year it meant absolutely nothing.  That was funny. :-D

[Trotsky]

[quote billhoward]Brown should expect to receive the Mazzoleni Cup via bulk rate shortly.[/quote]

You have just inspired the next TBRW table.

It will be called the Roger Hull Expectations Trophy for College Hockey.  Each year, a lifesize lead replica of the Elephant Walk scene will be presented to the last place team in the ECAC.

Here are the RHETCH winners since the 12-team format:

85 Army
86 Army
87 Dartmouth
88 Brown
89 Brown
90 Army
91 Dartmouth
92 Union
93 Union
94 Dartmouth
95 Yale
96 Yale
97 Brown
98 Union
99 Union
00 Vermont (by universal acclaim)
01 Brown
02 Vermont
03 Princeton
04 Princeton
05 Yale
06 Brown

And the number of RHETCHes over that period, by school:

5 - Brown (88, 89, 97, 01, 06)
4 - Union (92, 93, 98, 99)
3 - Army (85, 86, 90)
3 - Dartmouth (87, 91, 94)
3 - Yale (95, 96, 05)
2 - Princeton (03, 04)
2 - Vermont (00, 02)