@ RPI Fri 2/11/22

Cornell @ RPI Friday, Feb. 11, 7pm EST, game appears to be both on ESPN+ and RPI TV

Thoughts in advance of the start of the Feb. 11-12 road show in Albany: RPI's on a roll. New president coming in, Martin A. Schmidt, provost at MIT, RPI undergrad then MIT PhD; old president Shirley Ann Jackson, 1999-June 2022, stuck around after Hillary did not win in 2016 and Jackson did not get a cabinet post (so the story goes in claiming she was wearing out her welcome). Meanwhile in hockey, RPI has more cameras in good places than Lynah does, including over the goals and I believe one over the faceoff circle. Still, Cornell did, in happier times earlier in the season, wallop RPI 11-3 the day after topping travel partner Union 4-1.

Cornell is 5 points ahead of RPI and Union in the ECAC standings (also 5 behind Harvard), note that the lower 8 of the ECACs, the group that has to play one extra ECAC tournament weekend in order to play the top four in the quarterfinals March 11-13, has done well against the Big Red. Four of the bottom five have beaten Cornell.

ECAC Lower Echelon That Has Beaten Cornell At Least Once 2021-22
T5. [ ] Rensselaer  
T5. [ ] Union 
 7. [ ] St. Lawrence
 8. [X] Princeton
 9. [X] Colgate
10. [X] Brown 
11. [ ] Yale
12. [X] Dartmouth


Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2022 07:32PM by billhoward.

billhoward
RPI's on a roll. New president coming in, Martin A. Schmidt.

And Marty T celebrates. $250,000+ a year in projected saving on the 24/7 security that protects Shirley from the riff raff in Troy.

marty

billhoward
RPI's on a roll. New president coming in, Martin A. Schmidt.

And Marty T celebrates. $250,000+ a year in projected saving on the 24/7 security that protects Shirley from the riff raff in Troy.

On paper, Martin Schmidt seems as good a choice as RPI could hope for. He must be early 60s now (RPI '81), this would be a good final cruise.

marty

billhoward
RPI's on a roll. New president coming in, Martin A. Schmidt.

And Marty T celebrates. $250,000+ a year in projected saving on the 24/7 security that protects Shirley from the riff raff in Troy.

I still recall vividly standing by the dasher near the northwest corner of the rink about 10 years ago during the pregame skate and talking to the late Bob Tammany (Turk181 on USCHO) when out of nowhere Shirley and her entourage comes by and one of her guards shoved me almost knocking me over. Shirley was going to drop the ceremonial first puck for a reason I have forgotten.

RPI game program for this weekend's games [publogix.com].

RPITV YouTube link [www.youtube.com]

Andreev, Kovich, Berard, Haiskanen all back!

Ertel still out. Shane sick.

Interestingly, the goalies this evening were teammates for a short time in Coquitlam two years ago. [www.eliteprospects.com] The goalie who played the most is now at Dartmouth.

Our color actually looks correct with these cameras.

pp: Great passing, no open lane.

Andreev line looking good.

How’s Mke Schafer’s color? Where is our coach?

Welcome back, Max.

billhoward
How’s Mke Schafer’s color? Where is our coach?

Still recovering from surgery.

What was the major? Missed it

2-1 after 1, with 3 of our 6 points and both goals from returning players (Andreev 1-1, Berard 1-0).

CU2007
What was the major? Missed it

contact to the head

CU2007
What was the major? Missed it

No idea. There was a stoppage and a review, no call during play. Maybe the announcers could have used all their replay equipment to figure that out, rather than speculate about everything the stoppage could have been but a penalty. Someone on our team went skittering across the ice into the boards shortly before the review. Could have been that.

Announcers do the "get very quiet when the other team scores" thing, which bugs me. Shame, cause they're good otherwise.

Our energy and urgency return the second our pp ends.

This Linden, Lappanen, Lacka line is quick and scary.

Wow, soft call.

Trotsky
Wow, soft call.

You thought that was soft...

Trotsky

billhoward
How’s Mke Schafer’s color? Where is our coach?

Still recovering from surgery.

Not likely, unless he had more surgery than the stent. Those are outpatient procedures. Suspect long fatigue from combo of Covid and heart.

This is hard to watch.

Trotsky
This is hard to watch.

2 full minutes of O-zone tie on the PP and so many chances to cash in went by the wayside.

Very frustrating. We have great control but our movement is so reactive. Both teams playing so cautious.

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

Trotsky
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.

TIL Dan Fridgen does a damn good Popeye.

League really needs to figure out the review stuff over the off-season. Can’t review every little play - it’s ridiculous

i am losing my mind that this team just can't shoot the puck

ugarte
i am losing my mind that this team just can't shoot the puck

We spend a lot of time with our puck carrier's back to the goal.

Welp. No excuses left.

Teams just pile their defense in front of the net and we can't get anything going.

84
87
93
00
13
16
22

Dafatone
Teams just pile their defense in front of the net and we can't get anything going.

it's like a marvel of physics that every defense is simultaneously packed in the crease and harassing the carrier and ... yes, Trotsky, nobody ever seems to be facing the goal when someone passes to them.

Damn, Max down again

And now Andreev looks dead.

I remember when this was supposed to be fun.

andreev was on the ice not moving for an uncomfortably long time. glad to see him up.

No joy or energy all night. We have looked like a beaten dog.

Some bad luck this game with the posts and whiffed shots, but this is a much different team than the one that played in the fall.

ugarte

Dafatone
Teams just pile their defense in front of the net and we can't get anything going.

it's like a marvel of physics that every defense is simultaneously packed in the crease and harassing the carrier and ... yes, Trotsky, nobody ever seems to be facing the goal when someone passes to them.

We aren't establishing a net front presence / working the puck down low / other cliches. So the puck moves around the outside while our players near the goal aren't involved. Makes things easier on the defense.

Also, we haven't had a legit odd man rush since 2021.

I've seen us suck plenty of times. But other than 93 I've never seen us not care.

If Ben Syer is hoping to be a head coach anywhere, he’ll want to burn the tapes from the past month.

Time for a break.

scoop85
If Ben Syer is hoping to be a head coach anywhere, he’ll want to burn the tapes from the past month.

lol i came here to type "I never comment on coaches because I don't feel qualified but if there's one thing I know, it is that I don't want Ben Syer to replace Mike Schafer."

really though you out shoot someone by 30+ shots you shouldnt lose by 4.. we controlled play for 80% of the game had tons of open looks.. hit the pipe at least 4 times gave up a bad angle 1 handed back hand.. on top of that probably missed 4-5 open nets .

the level of play was fine. we cycled all game had multiple chances from great spots and just cant seem to get a 3rd goal.

Reminds me of Pete Gaudet replacing Coach K in 1994. Yuck.

Trotsky
No joy or energy all night. We have looked like a beaten dog.


I've seen us suck plenty of times. But other than 93 I've never seen us not care.

Give me a break. We out shot them 41-19 and 2 of their 19 were the empty net goals.

We certainly looked like a beaten dog when we out shot them 21-5 in the third period, again with 2 EN shots.

I'm terribly disappointed, but working that hard in the third and you can say they don't care. Wow!

I think we're getting into a bit of a yips situation where a lot of players look a little tentative with the puck in the offensive zone and, as the game starts to slip away for the nth game in a row, everyone's gripping the stick a little too tight.

But we're certainly controlling play. Young team, lack of leadership, coach has been out for a long time. Just need to get Schafer back and right the ship.

Also. Fuck North Dakota. North Dakota sucks.

Dafatone
I think we're getting into a bit of a yips situation where a lot of players look a little tentative with the puck in the offensive zone and, as the game starts to slip away for the nth game in a row, everyone's gripping the stick a little too tight.

And every shot is a shot meant to drive the puck through the net and the glass behind it. The overwrought, useless slappahs this season!

Trotsky
I've seen us suck plenty of times. But other than 93 I've never seen us not care.

Lmao, you must be watching a different sport if you think this team doesn’t care.

BearLover

Trotsky
I've seen us suck plenty of times. But other than 93 I've never seen us not care.

Lmao, you must be watching a different sport if you think this team doesn’t care.

All the connected passes near the net that we made earlier in the season are missing, timing is off by a stick length or less and we're always a step away from rebounds. Then there are the shots off the iron. This is a very sad stretch. Who knows when it ends. It will end.

When Cornell plays less skilled teams, the transitions are slow. The offense is cautious and deliberate with an emphasis on puck control. By the time they get set up in the offensive zone, the shooting lanes are clogged up.

Hopefully, now that a lot of players are healthier, the team will gel again and move things around more quickly.

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.

For what it’s worth, I think the program will be fine in a few years. We’re generally outplaying teams even during the losing streak. I think the single worst thing about this team is the goaltenders’ tendency to give up rebounds and their failure to control opposing players in close. This particularly affects the PK, where there is always going to be an open player on the other team to pounce on the rebound or punch in a loose puck in the crease. The old mantra that you you need your goalie to be your best penalty killer is certainly true with this team. Our goalies’ bad rebound control and inability to pokecheck/fight off guys in the crease is killing us. That’s not to absolve the rest of the PK unit or the coaching, which seems content to cede possession to the other team for the entire PK. They don’t go after loose pucks or lay out for clears—instead, they pack the area in front of the goal and give the other team all day to set up. I don’t get it, honestly. It seems to have worked in past years, but maybe this structure hinged on having a goalie who could control rebounds and stand his ground at the top of the crease.

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.

We have all had our Linus in the pumpkin patch moment. Mea culpa.

Roy 82

BearLover

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.

So maybe they were correct in canceling sports, but they should have made an early decision about eligibility.

No, they carry a lot of blame

BearLover
For what it’s worth, I think the program will be fine in a few years.

Certainly.

BearLover
We’re generally outplaying teams even during the losing streak. I think the single worst thing about this team is the goaltenders’ tendency to give up rebounds and their failure to control opposing players in close. This particularly affects the PK, where there is always going to be an open player on the other team to pounce on the rebound or punch in a loose puck in the crease. The old mantra that you you need your goalie to be your best penalty killer is certainly true with this team. Our goalies’ bad rebound control and inability to pokecheck/fight off guys in the crease is killing us.

Agreed. And TBH that could mean we are just one guy away. I don't know if that is Remington Keoppel or whether for that matter Shane and/or Howe develops into a stellar goaltender.

Roy 82
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.

BearLover

Trotsky
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.

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

ice

Roy 82
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

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.

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.

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.

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!
.

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

Roy 82

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.

BearLover

Roy 82

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.

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

BearLover

Roy 82

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.

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.

BearLover

Roy 82

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.

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

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

Trotsky
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.

BearLover

Trotsky
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.

What it means, even correctly, it itself idiotic.

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

Roy 82

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.

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

Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year? More importantly, why does it matter? It’s no skin off a non-athlete’s back if the athletes get to play. I don’t recall non-athletes at any college in America protesting their schools holding sports seasons. The only ones directly affected, the players and coaches, all wanted to play. I take Dafatone’s point that there could be an indirect spread of COVID by, say, a hockey player contracting COVID in Providence and giving it to someone in Ithaca. But given the strict testing and distancing requirements in place last year, the likelihood of that feels kind of tenuous.

Anyway, it is what it is at this point.

the best you can say is that, in retrospect, things were so bad anyway that ivy league sports wouldn't have made anything materially worse. i don't think that was as easy a call prospectively. it certainly wasn't virtue signaling, it was a risk assessment you disagree with. virtue signaling implies a lack of sincerity.

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Just gonna say, watching crowds in our games be largely masked makes me jealous. If crowds did that here (South Dakota), I'd be in more crowds.

Dafatone
Just gonna say, watching crowds in our games be largely masked makes me jealous. If crowds did that here (South Dakota), I'd be in more crowds.

Serious question, not trying to be insulting or anything, what would make you comfortable being maskless in an arena again? Is it a certain (low) number of local cases? The CDC saying you don’t need a mask in an arena?

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

see if you can piece together the clues, detective

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

Well we could have had a full year of virtual hockey if we wanted.

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

Sp you wanted "virtual" hockey? Or "virtual" lacrosse? Your comparison is laughable.

ugarte

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

see if you can piece together the clues, detective

It’s petty simple: you take reasonable precautions to hold the sport/activity as best you can. For example, 51/59 schools completed their hockey seasons last year by playing without fans or with limited fans. Very easy to do, very low risk. Pretty much a no-brainer if you care about your athletes.

Oh for fuck's sake just have an Ignore already.

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

Sp you wanted "virtual" hockey? Or "virtual" lacrosse? Your comparison is laughable.

Hockey with no fans and regular testing like all other leagues did in a safe and successful manner.

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

Sp you wanted "virtual" hockey? Or "virtual" lacrosse? Your comparison is laughable.

Hockey with no fans and regular testing like all other leagues did in a safe and successful manner.

We really have no idea how safe much of anything, hockey included, was, other than that we can't definitively say that a whole team dropped dead of COVID or anything.

You could say that the amount of COVID spread by the Ivies playing college hockey would be relatively small compared to the country at large, but that's true for every single activity in avacuum, so following that logic, why cancel anything.

CU2007

Dafatone
Just gonna say, watching crowds in our games be largely masked makes me jealous. If crowds did that here (South Dakota), I'd be in more crowds.

Serious question, not trying to be insulting or anything, what would make you comfortable being maskless in an arena again? Is it a certain (low) number of local cases? The CDC saying you don’t need a mask in an arena?

In all seriousness, I don't know. I'm hoping things continue to improve, and I'll figure that out down the road. I figure when other parts of life require me to be in public spaces more often, I'll start doing more voluntary fun public space stuff, but we'll see.

Dafatone

CU2007

Dafatone
Just gonna say, watching crowds in our games be largely masked makes me jealous. If crowds did that here (South Dakota), I'd be in more crowds.

Serious question, not trying to be insulting or anything, what would make you comfortable being maskless in an arena again? Is it a certain (low) number of local cases? The CDC saying you don’t need a mask in an arena?

In all seriousness, I don't know. I'm hoping things continue to improve, and I'll figure that out down the road. I figure when other parts of life require me to be in public spaces more often, I'll start doing more voluntary fun public space stuff, but we'll see.

That’s fair. Appreciate the insight.

Dafatone

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

Sp you wanted "virtual" hockey? Or "virtual" lacrosse? Your comparison is laughable.

Hockey with no fans and regular testing like all other leagues did in a safe and successful manner.

We really have no idea how safe much of anything, hockey included, was, other than that we can't definitively say that a whole team dropped dead of COVID or anything.

You could say that the amount of COVID spread by the Ivies playing college hockey would be relatively small compared to the country at large, but that's true for every single activity in avacuum, so following that logic, why cancel anything.

I could be wrong, but I don’t recall seeing any stories about someone involved with college hockey dying or having a severe case last year. Nor in the professional sports that held seasons. Obviously COVID can be spread to those outside of sports, but at that point there are multiple degrees of separation from hockey as the proximate cause. Your points are reasonable, though.

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover
Couldn’t it just as easily be argued cancelling athletics amounted to treating athletes worse than members of other clubs that were allowed to hold events last year?

Cornell Glee Club? Year and a half of no live performances. Cornell Orchestra? The 10/3/21 concert was the first in over a year. Do your homework.

Well, those restrictions were questionable also. I was thinking of things like debate club, which had a full year of virtual competitions.

Sp you wanted "virtual" hockey? Or "virtual" lacrosse? Your comparison is laughable.

Hockey with no fans and regular testing like all other leagues did in a safe and successful manner.

We really have no idea how safe much of anything, hockey included, was, other than that we can't definitively say that a whole team dropped dead of COVID or anything.

You could say that the amount of COVID spread by the Ivies playing college hockey would be relatively small compared to the country at large, but that's true for every single activity in avacuum, so following that logic, why cancel anything.

I could be wrong, but I don’t recall seeing any stories about someone involved with college hockey dying or having a severe case last year. Nor in the professional sports that held seasons. Obviously COVID can be spread to those outside of sports, but at that point there are multiple degrees of separation from hockey as the proximate cause. Your points are reasonable, though.

Marco Rossi, who was the Wild’s 1st round draft choice in 2020, had a serious bout with COVID that essentially kept him out for a full season. He eventually recovered and is playing again.

you can say it worked out somewhat well.. but we also have a coach that is not coaching right now because of covid. many others in the other sports had issues as well. we also had no clue as to whether people would get way sicker than they did when the decision to play was made.

from a purely safety point of view the decision to not play was 100% the correct choice.. you limited exposure and travel.

sure it sucked as a player and as a fan.

The only real dumb decision was the lack of control at the top to fix the stupid rules on athletes that the Ivies enforce across the board anyway.. had they at least told the kids how it would be handled on the other end many kids may not have had to transfer and screw up the sports and the academics.

upprdeck
you can say it worked out somewhat well.. but we also have a coach that is not coaching right now because of covid. many others in the other sports had issues as well. we also had no clue as to whether people would get way sicker than they did when the decision to play was made.

from a purely safety point of view the decision to not play was 100% the correct choice.. you limited exposure and travel.

sure it sucked as a player and as a fan.

The only real dumb decision was the lack of control at the top to fix the stupid rules on athletes that the Ivies enforce across the board anyway.. had they at least told the kids how it would be handled on the other end many kids may not have had to transfer and screw up the sports and the academics.

+1. BC played 24 hockey games last season, including three postseason. A fourth postseason was not played with a Covid outbreak at Notre Dame. BC would play at least 50% more games in a normal season. You can't tell me Covid wasn't commonplace among college hockey programs last season.

upprdeck
The only real dumb decision was the lack of control at the top to fix the stupid rules on athletes that the Ivies enforce across the board anyway.. had they at least told the kids how it would be handled on the other end many kids may not have had to transfer and screw up the sports and the academics.

I will never forgive the Ivy League for what they did to League athletes with their dithering and lack of compassionate and timely decision making. For me, it was quite symbolic of the hidebound nature of this particular clique; indeed, I am beginning to be of the opinion that being part of the League is holding Cornell back as an institution in all facets.

With all due appreciation of the irony, I would like to see us make a bid to be the "Stanford of the East."

Scersk '97

upprdeck
The only real dumb decision was the lack of control at the top to fix the stupid rules on athletes that the Ivies enforce across the board anyway.. had they at least told the kids how it would be handled on the other end many kids may not have had to transfer and screw up the sports and the academics.

I will never forgive the Ivy League for what they did to League athletes with their dithering and lack of compassionate and timely decision making. For me, it was quite symbolic of the hidebound nature of this particular clique; indeed, I am beginning to be of the opinion that being part of the League is holding Cornell back as an institution in all facets.

With all due appreciation of the irony, I would like to see us make a bid to be the "Stanford of the East."

Not at all likely, or even possible. Consider geography. If we're Stanford, what other institutions would be Berkeley, UCLA, Washington? Or even USC or Oregon?

Once upon a time Brown and Yale were land grant colleges, and Dartmouth was sort of half a land grant. But now MIT is the only elite eastern land grant besides Cornell. And MIT don't do D1 sports. Compare this to the PAC-12, where the entire UC system, ASU, OSU, and WSU are land grants.

Do you really think Cornell would benefit academically by switching from its current, Ivy peer group to one with the likes of Syracuse, Rutgers, UMass, and Penn State? And I pose this with no intent of demeaning these schools. They all have some very excellent departments. But they are not excellent across the board, and their admission and academic standards are a big step down from Cornell's. Moreover, they didn't benefit from Andrew Dickson White's genius, which sought to make Cornell free of "religious, political, and commercial interests." (OK, in modern-day Cornell, two out of three is not terrible.) To accomplish this, White devised the model of a private university contracting with the state. In contrast, schools like Rutgers, UMass, and PSU, which are entirely public, state schools, are subject to more direct political meddling. Do you really want to see academic departments created, merged, or eliminated depending on which way political winds blow in Albany? Or, gods forbid, professors hired or fired at some politician's behest?

Cornell benefits from the Ivy label in a number of ways, some even not entirely loathsome.

And it is always funny to see HYPers' disgust.

Stanford is the "Cornell of the west". Leland modeled his university after Ezra's. You can look it up.