Greg Berge wonders > Cornell breaks into the top ten of a major poll this week (#10 in the > 11/18 USCHO Poll -- formerly the Troy Record poll). > Personally, I do not recall the Big Red being ranked among the top ten in > any national poll (sorry, I'm not counting hockey-l :-) *before March*, > in my time (since '81). Maybe they broke through briefly during the '91 > season, but to paraphrase <insert name of politician of your choice > here>, "I have no clear recollection of that incident, Senator." My memory is that in preseason polls, and thus for a week or so beyond that, Cornell was rated very close to the top in one of the Manderville/Ratushny years. Since '92 was an Olympic year in which both played, '91 sounds about right. Of course, the team quickly disproved its ranking. (Or was this just a ranking in The Hockey News season preview?) While I'd like to think we might be a top-10 team, the early season statistical rankings are obviously distorted at this point because of too few games played (as their developers recognize). The predictions from KRACH, for example, look like they need a little trimming, with Cornell shown as having 93% and 98% likelihoods of winning versus Princeton and Yale. Larry Weintraub asks about the penalty on Tim Thomas for delay of game in the Vermont game. He cleared the puck into the stands. The waived off goal certainly looked good from my excellent vantage point, and others with me thought it was in. The puck covered by the Vermont player was a clear penalty, but that's a call that never seems to be made in recent years. I agree with Larry's assessment of bad defense by the St. Louis/ Perrin line, and their lack of discipline (especially Perrin). It's great to see Cornell's nominal checking line put up the points. Of course, Papp has the biggest shot on the team, Bergin has always had scoring potential to go along with his ability to control the puck, and freshman Kovac looks like he has scoring potential too. So what is the early-season assessment of the Cornell team? It looks like a somewhat unheralded freshman class is going to do a fine job of replacing the heavy graduations losses at forward. It will be hard to replace Chartrand, and to a lesser extent Drouin, but otherwise a seamless transition seems to be taking place. There may be somewhat less depth than last year, and if a player like Auger goes down it will be felt heavily. Can his back last the whole year? The team has plenty of strength and quickness, and a higher proportion of skill players than might have been thought. All of the freshman look like they can play. Moynihan looks like he could be a major star. Rutter appears to be a sniper, but it's not clear yet whether he can play at the same level against strong checking teams as he can against weaker ones. Kovac is a quick and capable 2-way player. Stienstra may have the same potential. And Clegg has looked good enough in limited play. Adler and Sacchetti are solid additions on defense. And UIC transfer Tymchyshyn is a key addition. Add continued development by players like Jason Dailey, who's had some of the prettiest plays in the young season, and the potential is there. -- Chuck Henderson <[log in to unmask]> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.