concerning the comments on Quinnipeac:
Admitting Quinnipeac served several purposes. It filled the gap left by the
departure of UVM
keeping the league at 12 teams (11 could have been a nightmare). They chose
a team who was always near the top of their league even if they did not
consistently win it. The ECACHL chose a school with a committment to
improving its hockey program but a school which appears to balance their
athletic program with their academics (much like the rest of the ECACHL
schools). Yes, you are correct that Quinnipeac will probably finish near the
bottom in the ECAC for several years until their players/coaches get used to
the ECAC style of play and until they can attract better recruits than
before (which will happen since better players should be attracted to an
ECAC school than to an Atlantic hockey school).
I believe that Quinnipeac will assimilate into the ECACHL a lot sooner than
UVM will assimilate into Hockey East. But I think that UVM will also make
out well in Hockey East eventually. As far as other alternatives to fill the
number 12 spot in the ECAC, Quinnipeac was second on my list. I had hoped
that RIT would be picked but I suppose that making the jump from Division 3
into the league as well as being further west geographically than the other
schools caused RIT to be passed over.

Here we are talking hockey again. I think that means that summer is
officially over ;-)

On 10/3/05, Billy G. Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Mark Lewin wrote:
>
> >Sorry for the delay in responding to this but I've been on the road a
> bit.
> >I want to point out what I see in this poll plus Steve's take on it.
> >
> >RPI is picked 9th and Steve thinks this is overly optimistic.
> >Princeton is picked 10th but Steve thinks they should be higher. Don't
> know
> >where this leaves Princeton but it drops RPI to 10th.
> >Yale is picked 11th. Steve would rate them higher. That drops RPI to
> 11th.
> >Quinnipeac is picked 12th but they're a complete unkown. They're a decent
> >team but it's unclear whether they were good because they played in the
> >Atlantic conference or whether they will transition well into the
> >(marginally) better brand of play in the ECACHL.
> >
> >That leaves RPI 11th or possibly 12th depending on Quinnipeac's
> transition.
> >As much as I would like to vehemently attack Steve's position, sadly, I
> find
> >nothing to argue with. Looks like RPI will once again benefit from the
> >ECACHL's format change allowing all teams into the playoffs.
> >
> >Also, Steve points out that RPI's leading scorer from last year my or may
> >not play because he is being treated for testicular cancer.
> >The last I heard about Kirk MacDonald was that he was responding well to
> >treatment. However, as of 2 weeks ago, he has not yet returned to school.
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/23/05, Steven Rockey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Here is my take on the Preseason Coaches Poll
> >>
> >>1. Cornell (11) 121
> >>A no brainer. Returns great goaltending and defense and Moulson. We need
> >>to improve offensive output even though we were 3rd highest scoring team
> >>in
> >>ECAC league play. This is possible with a large senior class now
> >>diminished by the loss of Hynes. There is a deep roster with a talented
> >>crew of incoming freshman that should contribute. This could be a very
> >>good
> >>year.
> >>
> >>2. Dartmouth (1) 94
> >>Sounds reasonable. They return a lot and they can score goals--tops in
> >>league play 74 goals compared to Cornell's 70. They graduated Stempniak
> >>(top scorer), the goalie, a starting defenseman, and two checking line
> >>wings. Plus Jessiman who would have been a senior turned pro. Looks to
> me
> >>like another very talented recruiting class. If the promising freshman
> >>goalie (league all star in juniors) or a returning goalie comes through
> >>they could be very good. They do need to significantly improve
> defensively
> >>with 49 goals allowed last year compared to Cornell's 26 and their coach
> >>has not shown the knack for defense like he has for offense. This team
> >>could be impressive if the defense and goaltending are adequate.
> >>
> >>3. Harvard 93
> >>Hard to say but may be overrated here. Lost a lot but returns much of
> the
> >>scoring although the graduation of Cavanagh may be hard to replace. Like
> >>Cornell they also need to score more goals. Still has a solid core of 4
> >>excellent defenders but the #5 & #6 players will be a question mark--the
> >>returning players with almost no game experience and recruits do not
> look
> >>as good as what Cornell will have in the 5-8 slots. With the graduation
> of
> >>Grumet-Morris and the failure to recruit a new goalie, goaltending will
> be
> >>weaker relying on returning players with little game experience but who
> >>were good recruits when they came in. I think the talent level of the
> team
> >>has been declining for 3 recruiting cycles. The recruits they are
> getting
> >>are obviously much better that what Union is getting but not as good as
> >>they used to get or what Dartmouth is getting. I do not think they will
> be
> >>as good as last year.
> >>
> >>4. St. Lawrence 89
> >>Seems high to me. Last years team finished 7th in the league with a sub
> >>.500 record and was not a young team only 5 Fr. or So. getting
> significant
> >>ice time. In contrast to a very young Brown team I wonder about how much
> >>they will improve. Goaltending is a big question mark with a graduation
> >>loss of the goalie who played almost every minute. With no recruit and
> >>they will rely on two not very highly heralded sophomores with little
> game
> >>experience. Return most of the team and have several recruits that look
> >>like solid starters. Offense was respectable with 70 goals scored in
> >>league play. Need to improve significantly on defense where 3 starters
> and
> >>a NHL draft pick goalie are gone. They allowed 73 goals against in
> league
> >>play. They have 4 freshman defenders coming in -- a lot rides on them
> >>being better than the departed seniors. Then again with 73 goals allowed
> >>it could very well be team defense not the play of the defensemen.
> >>
> >>5. Colgate 86
> >>I guess I expect them in the top 5. Goaltending will be weaker due to
> >>graduation. They loose 3 starters from defense. Large senior class is
> gone
> >>but much of the scoring returns. They need to significantly increase
> their
> >>scoring only 55 goals in league play compared to Cornell's 70. Recruits
> >>look good to me and they are bringing in 5 frosh defenders. Could be ok
> if
> >>defense is good enough and returning goalie (they did not get a recruit)
> >>with little game experience is adequate. The loss of so many seniors and
> >>the goalie could easily put them lower.
> >>
> >>6. Brown 80
> >>I think this is too low -- they should be in the top 5. They were a very
> >>young team with 7 of the top 9 scorers Fr. or So. They need to
> >>significantly increase their goal scoring since they scored 54 goals one
> >>less than Colgate. They have very good goaltending with a very high save
> %
> >>but they allowed 60 goals in league play. They clearly need to improve
> >>their defensive play and their coach has a history of producing good
> >>defensive teams. They have a couple recruits that seem very
> >>promising. Unlike Harvard they have been increasing the talent level of
> >>the team for the last 3 recruiting cycles. They should be better than
> last
> >>year. Maybe a lot better.
> >>
> >>7. Clarkson 64
> >>Who knows. Lost 3 off the top 4 scorers but most of the defense
> >>returns. They need to significantly improve offensively and defensively
> >>(44 scored and 66 allowed in league play). This will be a young team
> with
> >>only 3 seniors. Starting goaltender thrown off the team and they do not
> >>have a goalie coming in--the returning goalies may be ok but will not
> >>carry
> >>the team. Clarkson has some serious talent on the roster but does not
> play
> >>well or consistently as a team. They have another very good recruiting
> >>class with 3 NHL draft picks to bring the total to 9 NHL draft picks on
> >>the
> >>roster. Hard to say if they will be better or worse based on last years
> >>bad play and the goaltending question. Perhaps the departure of the
> >>seniors and the goalie (they were left over from the old coach) might
> >>actually help the team chemistry.
> >>
> >>8. Union 51
> >>They were 8th last year and could finish the same. They did not loose
> >>much. They return good goaltending (top returner .912 save %). However,
> >>they allowed 72 goals in league play so the defensive play is
> >>lacking. Need a significant offensive improvement having scored only
> >>43. Recruits do not look like they will score a lot right away so they
> >>need the returning players to increase their output. I think the new
> coach
> >>has been incrementally increasing the talent level of the team for a
> >>couple
> >>of cycles. Should be slightly improved but I am not sure this will
> >>translate into a higher finish.
> >>
> >>9. Rensselaer 39
> >>Seems optimistic to me. It think RPI has sort of lost their way and is
> not
> >>recruiting the level of talent they used to get. They return a lot and
> >>that could make them better although their leading scorer is being
> treated
> >>for testicular cancer and may or may not be able to play. They return
> one
> >>goalie who is not as good as Princeton's--.888 versus .908-- and the
> >>recruit they added does not excite me. They have fundamental problems on
> >>offense and defense and I do not see them on a path to improve.
> >>
> >>10. Princeton 32
> >>I would pick them higher. The new coach turned the team around and they
> >>played much better hockey last year. They have minimal graduation losses
> >>but have major defensive problems having allowed 81 goals in league
> >>play. OK goaltending returns and they add a recruit. Offensively they
> >>produced 59 goals that is sort of respectable. They are bringing in 10
> >>players that will improve the skill level of the team and one player who
> >>scored 98 points in the AJHL last year that should have some offensive
> >>talents. They should be improved.
> >>
> >>11. Yale 28
> >>I would pick them higher. They were a very young team last year and have
> >>essentially zero graduation losses. I think they had a few very talented
> >>players on the roster last year. They have 2 NHL draft picks in their
> >>freshman class and 4 other freshmen who were Central Scouting Service
> >>rated. This is a hell of a freshman class--that would have been
> Harvard's
> >>freshman class in years past. Defense was appallingly bad with 89
> allowed
> >>and goaltending (which all returns) weak. They bring a prep school CSS
> >>rated goalie who should become the starter and improve on the
> >>goaltending. How did Harvard miss this kid to replace
> >>Grumet-Morris? A year older and more good players should make them
> >>better. Maybe a lot better.
> >>
> >>12. Quinnipiac 15
> >>Hard to say. They loose 3 of their top 5 scorers but strangely enough 4
> of
> >>their top 8 scorers were freshmen. Graduated a very good senior goalie
> but
> >>return a junior with .907 save % in 8 appearances. They are bringing in
> >>two freshmen goalies. Outside their league they played 5-7-1 and overall
> >>they were 21-13-3. It is hard to gauge their offensive or defensive
> >>potential because of the level of play in league games but the numbers
> >>look
> >>ok. They are bringing in 11 recruits even though they are only
> graduating
> >>7 starters. At least 3 of the recruits have offensive stats that look
> >>pretty impressive to me and they are descent sized. It looks to me like
> >>they got better recruits than RPI and Union. They may be building up a
> >>good talent base. My guess is that they will be hungry and competitive
> and
> >>not finish last.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> My two cents worth:
>
> 1. Based on recent performance, I could believe an eighth through
> eleventh place finish unless there is a big increase in scoring and/or a
> big improvement in goaltending. (I'll be there rooting for a better
> finish.)
> 2. Yale has the best incoming freshman class in the ECAC. Look for
> them to come around and finish higher than eleventh.
> 3. Union almost always falls on its face and I expect them to finish
> lower than eighth. They always lose in the playoffs anyway so they're
> irrelevant anyway.
> 4. Clarkson has yet to show it can turn itself around since their
> coach assaulted one of his players and was fired. Their heralded
> recruiting classes don't seem to make much difference; these players
> leave for the pros after a year and never seem to come together as a
> team. They could well finish below the predicted seventh.
> 5. Quinnipiac would have finished last in the ECAC last year barring a
> miracle on the order of the Red Sox winning the World (US and Canada)
> Series. There is a large gap between Atlantic Hockey and the ECAC; in
> the last three years, Q has not even been the best team in AH. They'll
> probably win a few games if opponents don't take them seriously. Why on
> earth did the ECAC admit this team? It's certainly not a good fit in
> this league. That's not to say that they won't become competitive on
> the ice some day.
>
> B. Taylor, '74
>