UHN Pregame Thread (RIT and Denver too)

Why is Scrivens throwing a temper tantrum? It was a goal dummy! Check the replay!

I've been saying this since I began following Cornell hockey in 2001: Schafer's system works in the ECAC, but it doesn't work in the national tournament when you're facing talented offensive teams. There's just too little margin for error in these games.

They will never make it back to the Frozen 4 playing this style of, in my opinion, garbage system hockey...the NHL did away with system hockey through rules changes and college should do the same. The popularity of the sport is waning because of system hockey like Cornell.

Other fans may disagree with me, but we've been watching it for 15 years and nothing has changed. What has the program produced? Drafted goalies that have been busts in the NHL (LeNeveu, McKee, Underhill), one Frozen Four in 8 tries, 3 losses to UNH?

My God, do you know how to express anything but wild-swinging extremes? Keep your ragefit until the game's over, please.

It's not a ragefit, I'm making some observations about this system and what it's done for the hockey program.

N/M

YankeeLobo
I've been saying this since I began following Cornell hockey in 2001: Schafer's system works in the ECAC, but it doesn't work in the national tournament when you're facing talented offensive teams. There's just too little margin for error in these games.

They will never make it back to the Frozen 4 playing this style of, in my opinion, garbage system hockey...the NHL did away with system hockey through rules changes and college should do the same. The popularity of the sport is waning because of system hockey like Cornell.

Other fans may disagree with me, but we've been watching it for 15 years and nothing has changed.

I do disagree with you. Cornell's only been upset once so far in the regional - last year to BSU. UNH is about to become upset #2, but that's not so horrible.

WoW. UNH...thorn in Cornell's side.

The announcers are still talking about this game like it's still in question. Clearly they've never watched Cornell play. 3 goals in 12 minutes is Schafer's wet dream.

goodnight...hope i wake up and UNH didn't just beat us for the 3rd straight time in the tournament.

Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Jordan 04
Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

How can one team be so bad at playing hockey? 5-1!!

Jordan 04
Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Hey Jordan, if you're such a hockey expert, read what I wrote here and tell me this isn't true. Results speak for themselves. 8 TOURNAMENTS, 1 FROZEN FOUR, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. That garbage system won't cut it in the NCAAs and I wish, for the sake of hockey fans, they would change the rules so Cornell can't get away with it and the fans actually have some exciting college hockey to watch. Otherwise it won't be long before college hockey can't even make the cut on ESPN-U.



"I've been saying this since I began following Cornell hockey in 2001: Schafer's system works in the ECAC, but it doesn't work in the national tournament when you're facing talented offensive teams. There's just too little margin for error in these games.

They will never make it back to the Frozen 4 playing this style of, in my opinion, garbage system hockey...the NHL did away with system hockey through rules changes and college should do the same. The popularity of the sport is waning because of system hockey like Cornell.

Other fans may disagree with me, but we've been watching it for 15 years and nothing has changed. What has the program produced? Drafted goalies that have been busts in the NHL (LeNeveu, McKee, Underhill), one Frozen Four in 8 tries, 3 losses to UNH?"

YankeeLobo is a troll most of the time, but I agree with him here.

It's not like I just discovered this - I've been watching this Schafer system for a long time. It doesn't work! If you measure success by NCAA appearances then Cornell has been a success but this isn't Cornell basketball, it's Cornell hockey. There's actual tradition, fan following, great venue, close to Canada. They should be expected to compete for national championships. Schafer has a team that is just good enough to game the system and win enough games every year that Schafer's job isn't in jeopardy.

I am afraid that Yankeelobo is right and mirrors my and others comments about the Schafer system. We saw its weakness tonight.

Thank you to the Seniors for a solid season and kicking Sucks butt! Good luck.

Steve Alford has been a Division 1 basketball head coach for more than 10 years at schools that offer scholarships, and yet has only advanced past the NCAA 2nd round once. That even includes this year when his top 10 ranked New Mexico Lobos team was trounced by a school that barely even made it into the tournament. He is a decorated man with Bobby Knight as a mentor, who should be able to produce consistent success. Oh well, I guess results speak for themselves.

gored
Steve Alford has been a Division 1 basketball head coach for more than 10 years at schools that offer scholarships, and yet has only advanced past the NCAA 2nd round once. That even includes this year when his top 10 ranked New Mexico Lobos team was trounced by a school that barely even made it into the tournament. He is a decorated man with Bobby Knight as a mentor, who should be able to produce consistent success. Oh well, I guess results speak for themselves.

Dude do you know how many times I've said I'm not a fan of Alford? Multiple times on this board. I don't like his guard oriented system and I think he gets outcoached a lot. BUT, he's an amazing recruiter and his teams overachieve, so he's doing something right (attracting talent to the school). He resurrected a dead program in less than 3 years and THE PIT is now a tough ticket as a result...Results do speak for themselves.

I forgot to mention that the Lobos lose one senior. practically the whole team, including Darington Hobson (hopefully), coming back. Regardless of Alford the team will be top 15 preseason next year because of his recruiting prowess.

But why are we talking about an up and coming college basketball program here? We should be talking about the stagnating Cornell hockey program.

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04
Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Hey Jordan, if you're such a hockey expert, read what I wrote here and tell me this isn't true. Results speak for themselves. 8 TOURNAMENTS, 1 FROZEN FOUR, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. That garbage system won't cut it in the NCAAs and I wish, for the sake of hockey fans, they would change the rules so Cornell can't get away with it and the fans actually have some exciting college hockey to watch. Otherwise it won't be long before college hockey can't even make the cut on ESPN-U.



"I've been saying this since I began following Cornell hockey in 2001: Schafer's system works in the ECAC, but it doesn't work in the national tournament when you're facing talented offensive teams. There's just too little margin for error in these games.

They will never make it back to the Frozen 4 playing this style of, in my opinion, garbage system hockey...the NHL did away with system hockey through rules changes and college should do the same. The popularity of the sport is waning because of system hockey like Cornell.

Other fans may disagree with me, but we've been watching it for 15 years and nothing has changed. What has the program produced? Drafted goalies that have been busts in the NHL (LeNeveu, McKee, Underhill), one Frozen Four in 8 tries, 3 losses to UNH?"

Let's put this in the context of the type of program Cornell has, shall we?

Since Schafer took over at Cornell in 1995:

Cornell NCAA tournament advances: 7
Cornell Frozen Four appearances: 1

Rest of ECAC NCAA tournament advances: 5*
Rest of ECAC Frozen Four appearances: 2*

* approximate, but I'm pretty sure about the FF (SLU and UVM)

Schafer's teams have 7 NCAA tournament advances in 8 appearances (including this year). That's 7-8. The rest of the ECAC in that time is something like 5-20 in the NCAA tournament (not including this year, since Yale hasn't played yet, but I'll be shocked if Yale gets out of the first round).

In the 20 years prior to Schafer's arrival, Cornell appeared in the NCAA tournament 6 times, and advanced twice. The fact that you're complaining about a lack of national titles is a true testament to his success as a hockey coach.

If you want to demand championships and Frozen Four appearances go watch Michigan or Minnesota in this year's tournament. Oh, wait. Well, you should go watch them starting next year - in general they'll have a much better shot at the Frozen Four than Cornell, and for the time being that has nothing to do with coaching. I think you'd be absolutely crazy to cut Schafer loose because of his "system" and try to bring in someone else, especially since that someone else will almost certainly be far less successful both in the league and on the national stage.

I think fans can make reasonable complaints about the way Schafer coaches - his teams have not moved the puck very well the past couple of years, and the breakout and power play have suffered as a result. The power play strategy has historically been pretty rigid and doesn't seem to vary with the talent on the team. On the other hand, the penalty kill and even-strength defensive play of the team is consistently excellent - I can only think of maybe 3 or 4 seasons in Schafer's 15 years where Cornell didn't play elite level defense. But I don't think fans can reasonably complain about the results or the overall quality of the team. Cornell has been very good by any measure for 10 of the last 15 years, and has had one or *maybe* two teams with a legitimate shot at a national title. If that's not good enough, I suggest you start watching BU. Next year, of course.

Tom Lento

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04
Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Hey Jordan, if you're such a hockey expert, read what I wrote here and tell me this isn't true. Results speak for themselves. 8 TOURNAMENTS, 1 FROZEN FOUR, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. That garbage system won't cut it in the NCAAs and I wish, for the sake of hockey fans, they would change the rules so Cornell can't get away with it and the fans actually have some exciting college hockey to watch. Otherwise it won't be long before college hockey can't even make the cut on ESPN-U.



"I've been saying this since I began following Cornell hockey in 2001: Schafer's system works in the ECAC, but it doesn't work in the national tournament when you're facing talented offensive teams. There's just too little margin for error in these games.

They will never make it back to the Frozen 4 playing this style of, in my opinion, garbage system hockey...the NHL did away with system hockey through rules changes and college should do the same. The popularity of the sport is waning because of system hockey like Cornell.

Other fans may disagree with me, but we've been watching it for 15 years and nothing has changed. What has the program produced? Drafted goalies that have been busts in the NHL (LeNeveu, McKee, Underhill), one Frozen Four in 8 tries, 3 losses to UNH?"

Let's put this in the context of the type of program Cornell has, shall we?

Since Schafer took over at Cornell in 1995:

Cornell NCAA tournament advances: 7
Cornell Frozen Four appearances: 1

Rest of ECAC NCAA tournament advances: 5*
Rest of ECAC Frozen Four appearances: 2*

* approximate, but I'm pretty sure about the FF (SLU and UVM)

Schafer's teams have 7 NCAA tournament advances in 8 appearances (including this year). That's 7-8. The rest of the ECAC in that time is something like 5-20 in the NCAA tournament (not including this year, since Yale hasn't played yet, but I'll be shocked if Yale gets out of the first round).

In the 20 years prior to Schafer's arrival, Cornell appeared in the NCAA tournament 6 times, and advanced twice. The fact that you're complaining about a lack of national titles is a true testament to his success as a hockey coach.

If you want to demand championships and Frozen Four appearances go watch Michigan or Minnesota in this year's tournament. Oh, wait. Well, you should go watch them starting next year - in general they'll have a much better shot at the Frozen Four than Cornell, and for the time being that has nothing to do with coaching. I think you'd be absolutely crazy to cut Schafer loose because of his "system" and try to bring in someone else, especially since that someone else will almost certainly be far less successful both in the league and on the national stage.

I think fans can make reasonable complaints about the way Schafer coaches - his teams have not moved the puck very well the past couple of years, and the breakout and power play have suffered as a result. The power play strategy has historically been pretty rigid and doesn't seem to vary with the talent on the team. On the other hand, the penalty kill and even-strength defensive play of the team is consistently excellent - I can only think of maybe 1 or 2 seasons in Schafer's 15 years where Cornell didn't play elite level defense. But I don't think fans can reasonably complain about the results or the overall quality of the team. Cornell has been very good by any measure for 10 of the last 15 years, and has had one or *maybe* two teams with a legitimate shot at a national title. If that's not good enough, I suggest you start watching BU. Next year, of course.

Point taken, good response.

YankeeLobo

Tom Lento

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04
Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Hey Jordan, if you're such a hockey expert, read what I wrote here and tell me this isn't true. Results speak for themselves. 8 TOURNAMENTS, 1 FROZEN FOUR, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. That garbage system won't cut it in the NCAAs and I wish, for the sake of hockey fans, they would change the rules so Cornell can't get away with it and the fans actually have some exciting college hockey to watch. Otherwise it won't be long before college hockey can't even make the cut on ESPN-U.



"I've been saying this since I began following Cornell hockey in 2001: Schafer's system works in the ECAC, but it doesn't work in the national tournament when you're facing talented offensive teams. There's just too little margin for error in these games.

They will never make it back to the Frozen 4 playing this style of, in my opinion, garbage system hockey...the NHL did away with system hockey through rules changes and college should do the same. The popularity of the sport is waning because of system hockey like Cornell.

Other fans may disagree with me, but we've been watching it for 15 years and nothing has changed. What has the program produced? Drafted goalies that have been busts in the NHL (LeNeveu, McKee, Underhill), one Frozen Four in 8 tries, 3 losses to UNH?"

Let's put this in the context of the type of program Cornell has, shall we?

Since Schafer took over at Cornell in 1995:

Cornell NCAA tournament advances: 7
Cornell Frozen Four appearances: 1

Rest of ECAC NCAA tournament advances: 5*
Rest of ECAC Frozen Four appearances: 2*

* approximate, but I'm pretty sure about the FF (SLU and UVM)

Schafer's teams have 7 NCAA tournament advances in 8 appearances (including this year). That's 7-8. The rest of the ECAC in that time is something like 5-20 in the NCAA tournament (not including this year, since Yale hasn't played yet, but I'll be shocked if Yale gets out of the first round).

In the 20 years prior to Schafer's arrival, Cornell appeared in the NCAA tournament 6 times, and advanced twice. The fact that you're complaining about a lack of national titles is a true testament to his success as a hockey coach.

If you want to demand championships and Frozen Four appearances go watch Michigan or Minnesota in this year's tournament. Oh, wait. Well, you should go watch them starting next year - in general they'll have a much better shot at the Frozen Four than Cornell, and for the time being that has nothing to do with coaching. I think you'd be absolutely crazy to cut Schafer loose because of his "system" and try to bring in someone else, especially since that someone else will almost certainly be far less successful both in the league and on the national stage.

I think fans can make reasonable complaints about the way Schafer coaches - his teams have not moved the puck very well the past couple of years, and the breakout and power play have suffered as a result. The power play strategy has historically been pretty rigid and doesn't seem to vary with the talent on the team. On the other hand, the penalty kill and even-strength defensive play of the team is consistently excellent - I can only think of maybe 1 or 2 seasons in Schafer's 15 years where Cornell didn't play elite level defense. But I don't think fans can reasonably complain about the results or the overall quality of the team. Cornell has been very good by any measure for 10 of the last 15 years, and has had one or *maybe* two teams with a legitimate shot at a national title. If that's not good enough, I suggest you start watching BU. Next year, of course.

Point taken, good response.

Wow, that was quick. I edited b/c there were actually 3 or 4 seasons with mediocre defense.

You make some good points Tom, you really do. I just feel like Schafer has discovered a way to GAME the system, i.e. the system that college hockey rules allow, to recruit a bunch of big, slow bodies, that can shut down most ECAC teams, but in the long run really don't have a chance of winning a national championship. Aside from 2003, there hasn't been a single Cornell team that I really thought looked like a team that could compete for the championship. It's almost like he's gotten so comfortable with his system that there's no other way to build a team and year after year, we get the same boring style that competes in ECAC competition, but gets knocked out in the tournament when we run into a team that has superior offensive players. You need offense too, and I don't think Schafer's style will ever attract the types of players you need to win it all. Maybe I'm just greedy and want more than is possible for an ivy league hockey program, but I'm not willing to accept first and 2nd round exits every year.

I guess the point here is that Schafer may not have won an NCAA title, but it is very hard to so that. Even Michigan hasn't won in more than a decade. I have watching Cornell hockey for well over 20 years. I realize we have a proud tradition and that our system isn't perfect, but the results under Schafer are WAY better than the previous two regimes. We are at least good on a consistent basis. Today's performance was dismal, but I have faith that we will be strong for years to come.

YankeeLobo

Jordan 04
Seriously. How can one person be so bad at posting.

Hey Jordan, if you're such a hockey expert, read what I wrote here and tell me this isn't true.

Every point you made could be the truth. It still wouldn't change my (also true) point.

YankeeLobo
You make some good points Tom, you really do. I just feel like Schafer has discovered a way to GAME the system, i.e. the system that college hockey rules allow, to recruit a bunch of big, slow bodies, that can shut down most ECAC teams, but in the long run really don't have a chance of winning a national championship. Aside from 2003, there hasn't been a single Cornell team that I really thought looked like a team that could compete for the championship. It's almost like he's gotten so comfortable with his system that there's no other way to build a team and year after year, we get the same boring style that competes in ECAC competition, but gets knocked out in the tournament when we run into a team that has superior offensive players. You need offense too, and I don't think Schafer's style will ever attract the types of players you need to win it all. Maybe I'm just greedy and want more than is possible for an ivy league hockey program, but I'm not willing to accept first and 2nd round exits every year.

That's why I say you should watch BU, Michigan, or Minnesota. Apart from a couple of rare exceptions, those players you want don't play in the ECAC. It's not just Cornell, and it isn't the system. Schafer could try to be like Yale, or Clarkson, or Harvard, and go with their more offensively-minded approach to the game. Take a look at their post-season records since 1995, and be glad we've got a coach who understands how to compete. Getting the offensive stars who weren't quite good enough to be on the top 2 lines at the top programs is a recipe for consistent national failure - in fact it's the *definition* of building a team that can compete in the ECAC but not the NCAA. Getting the defensively oriented guys who are overlooked by the top programs and building a team that's consistently competitive in the league and making the NCAAs more often than not is a recipe for occasional national success, but the key word there is occasional. I'm glad Schafer goes with the latter plan - at least Cornell can compete for a title every now and again.

I also think everyone makes too much of Schafer's "system" - it's a left wing lock. It's been in hockey for a very long time. It's a basic plan for setting up a forecheck/backcheck and establishing defensive responsibility. The penalty kill is a standard set, and I don't think I need to tell you that the powerplay is dead simple. There's nothing particularly special about Schafer's system beyond the fact that it works for Cornell, and anyone who thinks another coach won't be playing some "system" has never played organized team sports at anything beyond the middle school level.

The grand irony is everyone talks about this defensive system that clogs up the lanes with big slow players in the neutral zone, but Cornell's success is actually predicated on *offensive* zone possession and, more generally, on beating the other team to the puck. It's as basic and fundamental as hockey gets. The reason the 2003 team was so good was not because they were big and stopped up the neutral zone - it's because they cycled the puck relentlessly and wore down the opposition, because they moved the puck better on the power play and breakout than any Cornell team I've ever seen, and because they may have been positionally better - especially when attacking the puck along the boards and in the corners - than any college hockey team I've ever seen. The reason this year's team was such a Jekyll/Hyde unit was because they didn't move the puck all that well, they had a hard time establishing that cycle, and they got caught out of position in the offensive zone a little too often. When they got that cycle going they were tough to beat for anybody, but they couldn't sustain it often enough against the better teams.

Schafer is successful in part because he teaches his players how to move their feet and position themselves effectively, and because he recruits the guys with the size, awareness, positioning, and - yes - speed to execute. The fact that it doesn't require as much speed as a system predicated on speed and creativity in open ice doesn't mean it's fundamentally broken, but it does mean Cornell can compete for a different set of recruits than the ones snapped up by the Minnesotas and BUs of the world. Over the last 10 years Schafer's teams have also blocked shots as well as any team I've seen, and they do it year in and year out. All of this tells me that his success is built on teaching his team to do the little things right and take care of the details (and the big athletic goaltenders don't hurt). That's one sign of a good coach, and given his record he's not a guy you kick to the curb in the vain hope of finding someone who can somehow convince kids getting full rides at North Dakota to come play in Ithaca.

Frankly I think we should be satisfied with what we've got right now and enjoy the ride, because we may never see this kind of success again. College hockey is a growing sport. The more it grows, the more big schools start programs, the less competitive the ECAC and Ivy League will get on the national stage.

That said, let's hope like hell for a few more teams like the 2003 squad - if we get enough seasons like that we're bound to see a national title eventually.

As a 1996 graduate, I have seen how bad the program can be. The program can be a total failure without the right coach.

I believe Schafer tried to change up the system one year and move to a faster, smaller lineup. Didn't he recruit the Justin Milo/Tony Romano class with this in mind? And it didn't work out. I feel like he has had to rebuild after that year. This year's team overachieved and part of the issue is that the ECAC just isn't very good. I didn't follow very closely this year but it seemed like the defense was simply better than the offense and the power play was not impressive. Schafer has had teams with lethal power play units. But he needs more snipers (Matt Moulson anyone?) to make it work. Schafer does the job year in/year out and people are now spoiled. We are lucky to have him.

As we all know, and as the three Red coaches note proudly in interviews every chance they get, the Schafer system begins and ends with defense. The mantra: take care of things in your own zone and good things will follow at the other end. That’s fine, and indeed unassailable on some level. But what the coaches don't say is that it’s a system that depends on superior goaltending, and on eking out close wins in low-scoring games. The margins are very tight. If your goalie is having an off night, and if your (already limited) offense is sputtering, you're in trouble.

This team accomplished a lot this season, but I saw tonight what I also saw against NoDak (notwithstanding the Game 1 win) and against BU (even with the tie) and against Yale: that CU lacks scoring punch and is vulnerable against fast teams that dominate the neutral zone. True, in a one-off playoff game anything can happen, and the Red could ride a hot goaltender and some lucky bounces all the way to the Frozen Four and beyond. I think this is what Lobo means when he says that Schafer has gamed the system--such an approach would never work if playoff college hockey consisted of best-of-seven series where might generally wins out. But even in college hockey it’s a risky approach. This team just doesn’t have that extra gear that the best clubs have.

Maybe that’s too much to ask for, and we should be, as Tom Lento says, “satisfied with what we’ve got right now.” A fair point. But that doesn't make the complaint any less valid.

HockeyMan
As we all know, and as the three Red coaches note proudly in interviews every chance they get, the Schafer system begins and ends with defense. The mantra: take care of things in your own zone and good things will follow at the other end. That’s fine, and indeed unassailable on some level. But what the coaches don't say is that it’s a system that depends on superior goaltending, and on eking out close wins in low-scoring games. The margins are very tight. If your goalie is having an off night, and if your (already limited) offense is sputtering, you're in trouble.

No no no no no. A thousand times no. Everything you claim the "coaches don't say" is flat wrong. It's a system that depends on footwork, positioning, beating the other team to the puck, and maintaining possession in the offensive zone. If you fail to maintain possession in the offensive zone, you have superior defensive zone play and excellent goaltending to fall back on, so you always keep the games close and you can eke out wins even when you're not executing in the offensive end or when you're just getting beat by superior talent. The failings of recent teams have not been the system, which is why I think a lot of the complaints are invalid - they're based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Cornell (men's) hockey has been about for the past 15 years.

You, and others complaining about the system and clamoring for these mythical "faster skill players" who will suddenly materialize and carry Cornell to a title, are confusing a relative lack of offensive talent with a failing of the system. In 2003 Cornell had 4 d-men with excellent offensive skills in Cook, Downs, Murray, and McRae. I can't think of any blueliner on this year's team (or any Cornell team since Pokulok left) who could compare with Murray or McRae in that department, and there were maybe one or two as good as Cook and Downs. I haven't even mentioned Travis Bell yet, and he was also solid with the puck. In 2003 Cornell had 4 full lines of forwards who were positionally *amazing* at both ends of the ice, with 2 or 3 legitimately great college power forwards, not to mention a guy who was superb at putting the puck in the net from the top of the crease, a playmaker who's had a few cups of coffee in the NHL despite being 5'8" on skates, and a rookie named Matt Moulson who's got nearly 30 goals in the NHL this year. This year's team basically had one line that matched up well with the 2003 squad. Not to take anything away from this year's team, because I've been impressed with the way the third and fourth line have played, but they just didn't have the offensive depth of the 2003 team.

The system in 2003 wasn't any different than it is today. It's not the system. It isn't even the recruiting, and I doubt it's the coaching. It's the fact that a team full of national championship caliber players only comes around every so often even at the top programs, and at a place like Cornell the stars align far less frequently precisely because the Big Red *can't get* top line talent. You covet Yale's forwards, but Yale can't get top line talent either, and they will never be able to consistently compete for a national title with their current approach. They will always come up against a team built just like them, but with better and faster players, and they'll lose badly because they'll have no defensive presence to fall back on when they come up against that faster team.

This team accomplished a lot this season, but I saw tonight what I also saw against NoDak (notwithstanding the Game 1 win) and against BU (even with the tie) and against Yale: that CU lacks scoring punch and is vulnerable against fast teams that dominate the neutral zone. True, in a one-off playoff game anything can happen, and the Red could ride a hot goaltender and some lucky bounces all the way to the Frozen Four and beyond. I think this is what Lobo means when he says that Schafer has gamed the system--such an approach would never work if playoff college hockey consisted of best-of-seven series where might generally wins out. But even in college hockey it’s a risky approach. This team just doesn’t have that extra gear that the best clubs have.

You complain about faster, skilled teams with legitimate snipers picking Cornell apart. That's because Cornell doesn't move the puck that well and doesn't have the consistent positioning necessary to beat them to the puck along the wall or cut off their breakout while they're still deep in their own zone. It's not because Cornell is slow (although more speed always helps) and it's not because the system doesn't work. In 2003 everyone said MSU-Mankato had one of the fastest teams in the country with incredible scoring talent and two dangerous forward lines. Even Cornell fans were afraid they'd rip through Cornell's big "slow" defense, although we knew better about the slow part. The WCHA fans all said Cornell would go out and the EZAC would have a 1-and-done despite a #1 overall seed. Cornell won 5-2, and the game was never close. Those big time snipers got a few chances, but for the most part they couldn't do anything - they never got the puck out of the corner in the Cornell end, and when they did Cornell was back with numbers.

The "system" doesn't preclude good offense. It's true, Schafer doesn't require a great offense to field a competitive team, but he requires offensive presence to have consistent success against the top teams in the nation. The 2003 team had it. The 2005 team had it, but to a lesser extent, and that's the difference between the Frozen Four with an excellent shot at the title game and going out in the round of 8. The 2006 team discovered it in the post-season and lost in triple OT to Wisconsin (the Badgers won the title that year, playing what amounted to Cornell hockey, but with slightly better players). This team had it in bursts, but never sustained it enough to really threaten the best teams and simply didn't have the skills on the blueline or the depth of talent at forward that you really need to be successful in the NCAA tournament.

There are flaws with Schafer's approach - personally, I think he's a little too conservative, and I think he's not creative enough with the power play strategy - but overall it works well, and when the right players come together there's an excellent shot at a title in there.

Well, to add a little more stats to this, rather than just loud mouthing, CHN has announced their All-CHN Teams. A first, second and rookie team gives 18 players. Guess how many ECAC players. Two and one is on RPI, that gives athletic scholarships. The other is Scrivens. So what's that tell you, other than, this league does not, and never will have the talent to compete year in and year out with the 3 other big leagues. It just ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever. So those who think we just need to get those blue chippers and go out and win a championship, well go somewhere else and spread your falsehoods.

I'm as disappointed with this team as anyone, not just the seniors, but everyone together as a unit; however I also don't think that just changing a coach will bring true happiness. If it's so easy, name me another ECAC school that is doing it. Yale might get there, but they've got to not lose to Brown to show me. They are good enough to get to the Frozen Four, and also bad enough to lose later today. They also have a huge advantage over us with their tuition structure. Princeton also has that advantage, but they're certainly not the team you want to be. Harvard is another, but I certainly don't want to take their recent record. Union is coming on strong, but I'll need to see any of these programs produce for at least 5 years before I'd say they've done it. The rest of the league is, well, the rest of the league.

ECAC schools generally compete for second and lower tier players, none are stocked with top round draft picks. It's the rare player like Riley who wants the education. We need to get the Greenings, and Moulsons, and Murrays. Put enough of them together with an excellent goalie and we have a chance. But that will only happen every few years. The other years we hope to compete for the ECAC crown, but that won't necessarily get you a Frozen Four appearance.

Having said that, I'll also reiterate that I am disappointed with this team. Not just because we didn't get to the Frozen Four, but because of our inconsistencies. Last night was a classic example, we started out like the Brown game looking terrible, got a hard working goal, and came out in the second period playing very well and hard. Then we get another delay, looking at a goal, and all hell breaks lose. In retrospect, Schafer should have taken his time out then. It became obvious we were not ready to play the rest of the second period. Once that second goal was allowed we were done. I don't think this team has that belief in itself, that they will somehow get it done. Certainly 2003 had it. Maybe instead of a new coach, we need a sports psychologist. Certainly we need some players who can consistently elevate the team when it's needed.

My only complaint with Schafer was why in the world did he take that time out. We were not playing like winners and weren't ever going to tie it up. Just like basketball, when it's obvious you are going to lose, forget about fouling.

You guys know a lot more about hockey than I do considering I started following this team (and hockey) in 2000 so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about but here's my opinion: Seeing all of the success under Schafer is fantastic. The problem is that Schafer is becoming a victim of his own successes. By keeping this team at the top of ECAC and getting them into the tournament with such frequency it's no longer a tremendous a achievment for him but par for the Schafer course. I'll be honest, just getting into a regional isn't enough for me anymore. What can I say, Schafer's success has spoiled me. Telling me it could be much worse doesn't make it any better.

A-ron
You guys know a lot more about hockey than I do considering I started following this team (and hockey) in 2000 so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about but here's my opinion: Seeing all of the success under Schafer is fantastic. The problem is that Schafer is becoming a victim of his own successes. By keeping this team at the top of ECAC and getting them into the tournament with such frequency it's no longer a tremendous a achievment for him but par for the Schafer course. I'll be honest, just getting into a regional isn't enough for me anymore. What can I say, Schafer's success has spoiled me. Telling me it could be much worse doesn't make it any better.

But it might give you a sense of realism.

I can't even believe this conversation exists. Every other ECAC team would kill for Cornell's success, as would about 30 other NCAA teams. It's not the '60s .... be happy with what you have. And when you call Cornell "just a bunch of of big, slow guys" then it shows you really just aren't paying attention.

Schafer squeezes every ounce out of the program. Saying his system doesn't work in the NCAAs is asinine. 6-2 in the first round. Even in those games when Cornell was supposedly the favorite, because they were the higher seed, they were always doubted - their record was theoretically inflated because of the ECAC etc.... In most of those games, their KRACH rating was lower than their opponent, even if they were the higher seed. They won those games because Schafer generally gets it done when it counts ... this year is a rarity. That's testament enough right there.

The program will regroup and reload - and be fine. Anyone who complains about this really just has no idea how easily it could all go South without the right staff.

adamw
It's not the mid '60s '90s... be happy with what you have.

FYP.

Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation Xers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.

Ungrateful, whining bandwagon facetimers.

In Schafer I trust, because I was there when we were at our worst. When we start finishing last or next-to-last in the league (Roll), I'll start calling for Schafer's head. Like that'll ever happen.

Wow. I'm not going to respond to the trolls on this thread with whom I'm ashamed to be associated as a Cornell fan (if anyone believes they really are). Instead let me make one observation related to our "system": last weekend, during a Cornell power play, I heard several fans yelling "cycle it!" and none yelling "shoot it!" Now, those fans I'm proud to be associated with.

Scersk '97
In Schafer I trust, because I was there when we were at our worst. When we start finishing last or next-to-last in the league (Roll), I'll start calling for Schafer's head. Like that'll ever happen.

Amen. Lest we forget, Clarkson won an NCAA playoff game just 2 years ago. 2 years from national contender to ECAC doormat - think about that, and think about that long and hard. Recruiting enough talent to an ECAC school and getting it to gel into a team that can even compete at the national level is HARD and Schafer is the master. With their reputation and financial policies, Harvard should be wiping the ice with us - they should get every single player that they go after. Instead, they just completed a 9-win season. There but for the genius of Schafer go we.

Let's say some alum donated $5M to the coaching endowment, we fire Schafer, and go out and hire a Blasi, Blais, Jackson, or Lucia for $300k+ per year (which is what it would take). Do you honestly think they would be able to recruit enough blue-chip first and second round NHL talent to Cornell to run and gun with the hockey factories? I do not. With the 29 game limit, admissions hurdles, academic rigor, isolated location, lack of TV exposure, etc, there's just no way that will happen no matter who is the coach. Given the structure of college hockey today, Coach Schafer is exceeding what should be your wildest expectations; if you are expecting more, then you are delusional. Period.

adamw
I can't even believe this conversation exists. Every other ECAC team would kill for Cornell's success, as would about 30 other NCAA teams. It's not the '60s .... be happy with what you have. And when you call Cornell "just a bunch of of big, slow guys" then it shows you really just aren't paying attention.

Schafer squeezes every ounce out of the program. Saying his system doesn't work in the NCAAs is asinine. 6-2 in the first round. Even in those games when Cornell was supposedly the favorite, because they were the higher seed, they were always doubted - their record was theoretically inflated because of the ECAC etc.... In most of those games, their KRACH rating was lower than their opponent, even if they were the higher seed. They won those games because Schafer generally gets it done when it counts ... this year is a rarity. That's testament enough right there.

The program will regroup and reload - and be fine. Anyone who complains about this really just has no idea how easily it could all go South without the right staff.

Thank you. The voice of reason.

adamw
I can't even believe this conversation exists. Every other ECAC team would kill for Cornell's success, as would about 30 other NCAA teams. It's not the '60s .... be happy with what you have. And when you call Cornell "just a bunch of of big, slow guys" then it shows you really just aren't paying attention.

Schafer squeezes every ounce out of the program. Saying his system doesn't work in the NCAAs is asinine. 6-2 in the first round. Even in those games when Cornell was supposedly the favorite, because they were the higher seed, they were always doubted - their record was theoretically inflated because of the ECAC etc.... In most of those games, their KRACH rating was lower than their opponent, even if they were the higher seed. They won those games because Schafer generally gets it done when it counts ... this year is a rarity. That's testament enough right there.

The program will regroup and reload - and be fine. Anyone who complains about this really just has no idea how easily it could all go South without the right staff.

Listen, I'm disappointed with last night's effort like everyone else. But our fan base is spoiled. We have the league's best coach, and while some might wish for a different power play strategy, "faster" players, etc., I'm happy with what we've got. Let's give credit to UNH last night -- they played a terrific game. I don't know where our passion was, but hey, that's sports.

Does anyone know why Schafer and the coaches didn't go out on the ice after the game and shake hands/congratulate the other team? Doesn't seem like him to do that and quite frankly it was a bit disappointing.

Tom Lento

Thank you for your insightful analysis. I learned a great deal. Elsewhere I have argued that under Schafer Cornell will be a # 10 team with a standard error of +/- 3

So, I buy what you said. Rock solid defense, attention to detail. The shortcomings are a very predictable, simple power play (For a contrast look at UNH's second PP last night where the compressed the defense and were able to pass through the defense to the open man, it was pretty) and challenges moving the puck. Are these limitations coach-able? If they are wouldn't it make sense to spend a bit more time working on these limitations instead of polishing the things we are really good at?

Tom Lento


No no no no no. A thousand times no. Everything you claim the "coaches don't say" is flat wrong. It's a system that depends on footwork, positioning, beating the other team to the puck, and maintaining possession in the offensive zone. If you fail to maintain possession in the offensive zone, you have superior defensive zone play and excellent goaltending to fall back on, so you always keep the games close and you can eke out wins even when you're not executing in the offensive end or when you're just getting beat by superior talent. The failings of recent teams have not been the system, which is why I think a lot of the complaints are invalid - they're based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Cornell (men's) hockey has been about for the past 15 years.

These are schoolmarmish banalities trying hard to be profundities. Perfectly obvious points, and entirely in keeping with the core assertion: Schafer's system is a defensively-oriented system that depends to a greater extent than others on superior goaltending.

Tom Lento

You, and others complaining about the system and clamoring for these mythical "faster skill players" who will suddenly materialize and carry Cornell to a title, are confusing a relative lack of offensive talent with a failing of the system. In 2003 Cornell had 4 d-men with excellent offensive skills in Cook, Downs, Murray, and McRae. I can't think of any blueliner on this year's team (or any Cornell team since Pokulok left) who could compare with Murray or McRae in that department, and there were maybe one or two as good as Cook and Downs. I haven't even mentioned Travis Bell yet, and he was also solid with the puck. In 2003 Cornell had 4 full lines of forwards who were positionally *amazing* at both ends of the ice, with 2 or 3 legitimately great college power forwards, not to mention a guy who was superb at putting the puck in the net from the top of the crease, a playmaker who's had a few cups of coffee in the NHL despite being 5'8" on skates, and a rookie named Matt Moulson who's got nearly 30 goals in the NHL this year. This year's team basically had one line that matched up well with the 2003 squad. Not to take anything away from this year's team, because I've been impressed with the way the third and fourth line have played, but they just didn't have the offensive depth of the 2003 team.

Please. No one's saying these players should "suddenly materialize and carry Cornell to the title." The question, rather, is whether under the current system such players are likely to materialize over the short and medium term and with regularity. Maybe they can't under any circumstances (though let's not exaggerate CU's recruiting weakness in this regard: this is a storied program, with a superb fan base and a great venue and sterling academics), but that's another question. And let's not exaggerate the offensive prowess of Downs and Cook, shall we? As for your last sentence, well...yes. But perhaps 2003 was an outlier.

Tom Lento

The system in 2003 wasn't any different than it is today. It's not the system. It isn't even the recruiting, and I doubt it's the coaching. It's the fact that a team full of national championship caliber players only comes around every so often even at the top programs, and at a place like Cornell the stars align far less frequently precisely because the Big Red *can't get* top line talent. You covet Yale's forwards, but Yale can't get top line talent either, and they will never be able to consistently compete for a national title with their current approach. They will always come up against a team built just like them, but with better and faster players, and they'll lose badly because they'll have no defensive presence to fall back on when they come up against that faster team.

Now you're getting interesting. Agreed, the stars will align less frequently here and at Yale than they do at NoDak or Wisconsin. Top-line talent will be harder to come by. (This suggests, btw, that Ivy teams are consistently overranked nationally. If they get too little respect in men's BB, maybe they got too much in hockey.) The question then becomes whether Allain's system is likely to be more successful than Schafer's. Time will tell.

adamw
I can't even believe this conversation exists. Every other ECAC team would kill for Cornell's success, as would about 30 other NCAA teams. It's not the '60s .... be happy with what you have. And when you call Cornell "just a bunch of of big, slow guys" then it shows you really just aren't paying attention.

Schafer squeezes every ounce out of the program. Saying his system doesn't work in the NCAAs is asinine. 6-2 in the first round. Even in those games when Cornell was supposedly the favorite, because they were the higher seed, they were always doubted - their record was theoretically inflated because of the ECAC etc.... In most of those games, their KRACH rating was lower than their opponent, even if they were the higher seed. They won those games because Schafer generally gets it done when it counts ... this year is a rarity. That's testament enough right there.

The program will regroup and reload - and be fine. Anyone who complains about this really just has no idea how easily it could all go South without the right staff.

Well said Adam. I am definitely with you. As I said earlier, i have been following Cornell hockey for over 20 years and I remember when we celebrated because we advanced to the ECAC finals. Winning the ECAC seemed like it was an impossible dream for years. So I am thrilled with the success of the past decade. Right now, I am just sad because the last two years we have been placed in a region where the #4 beat the #1 and have still missed out on the FF. Maybe our team was looking past UNH this year and Bemidji last year. Who knows? I think that, whether or not Riley leaves, we will a bit down next year before returning to form in 2 years.

gored
I think that, whether or not Riley leaves, we will a bit down next year before returning to form in 2 years.

And "a bit down," in this case, may be a solid run at another ECAC championship and tempered but realistic national aspirations.

I doubt Garman's an awful goalie, and Iles may be a phenom. I like how our defense looks for next year. We will sorely miss Kreuger, but, whether one likes his play or not, Brendon Nash will be gone, so it's time for the rest of the D-men to step it up. I think they'll be up to the task. Mike Devin had what seemed to me to be an off year; I think he'll come back with a vengeance in his senior season. I look forward to Ross taking regular, important shifts and not having to worry whether or not he'll be in the lineup. D'Agostino (who is still so young!) and Birch will continue to develop into stalwarts. Hopefully one or two of the freshmen will join Ross and D'Agostino in representing the defensively-responsible but offensively-minded defenseman-type that we've been missing the last few years. Whitney? Well... he's either going to surprise the hell out of me or fade into the background. Personally, I think the difference between one freshman getting a regular shift and two freshmen getting regular shifts depends on how Whitney plays.

Whether Riley stays or goes, we may be "challenged" offensively. But, you know, that's fine. If we revert to '97-style Cornell hockey, we can still win a championship. It's about being disciplined and relentless. We shall see.

Interesting thread. I wonder why no one has yet stated the obvious: Cornell smoked this same team earlier this very year. Was Shafer's system to blame then, too? We played them twice, and each team totally outclassed the other once. It happens. That's sports.

As for the pattern of Cornell "failure", let me just amen the context others have given for Shafer's teams. This is my first post to this forum - usually I just quietly follow the occasional thread. But this time I simply cannot remain silent. I grew up in Ithaca, have been watching Cornell games since the early '80s, have been coached by and played with former Cornell players, graduated from Cornell, etc. I've seen Cornell get smoked by Harvard so many times that my loathing for them comes from a deep and ugly place, not from an academic inferiority complex. My dad got me season tickets one year just because Cornell was playing Harvard at home on my birthday - a game Cornell lost, 5-0. And I've seen us rise again and rip their hearts out in equally vicious and delicious fashion. I was at the Weder series, when Cornell scored so many goals I actually felt remorse for an opponent (tempered with much rejoicing). When I was in high school, I got to play a pick-up game with Kent Manderville and Dan Ratushny at Lynah the week after they returned from playing in the Olympics, still wearing their Team Canada gear. Myself a goalie, at one point I stoned Manderville on a clean breakaway, a big thrill for me.

I've seen three head coaches at Cornell and heard about others from my parents, who have followed the team since the '60s. Though one of those former coaches is a family friend, in objectivity I would have to concede that what Shafer has achieved with the program is far above and beyond anything his predecessors (excepting Harkness) have. The halcyon days of being a perennial national title contender resulted from Cornell's blazing the recruiting trail into Canada to find talent. Now everybody does that. And while I'm passionate about New York hockey, the youth programs here simply can't create the same homegrown talent that is found in Minny or Michigan or Mass. So Cornell searches far and wide with a pretty limited budget to find the best it possibly can, and Shafer does an unbelievable job of consistently replacing valuable players with solid recruits who he then develops into the next class of valuable players. Cornell, quite simply, has a tradition that Shafer respects and teaches his players to respect, and he gets as much as humanly possible out of them. Who would have thought that guys like Murray, Moulson, Bitz, O'Byrne, Vesce, etc. would be making contributions in the NHL?! These guys just weren't that talented when they came to Cornell, and now they do enough things to be able to play the game at the highest level. To imagine those guys ascending to that level by way of some other college or junior program is almost unimaginable. Credit Shafer - his "system" produced those players. In fact, his "system" is so good at developing quality forwards that it makes any goalie who dons the Cornell jersey an All-American candidate. Let me say this as clearly as I can: Cornell does not recruit great goalies. Cornell recruits solid goalies, goalies on par with the other players Cornell recruits, and makes them look great because it is that well coached. The evidence? Dadswell, D'Alessio, Crozier, Pelletier, Duffus, Leneveau, McKee, etc. How many All-American goalies has Cornell had that have made zero impact on the NHL? After Dryden (who came, remember, back when we were practically the only college team pilfering Canada's talent) we've had Hayward and Elliot play significantly in the NHL, and both had modest careers at best. The rest have been "great" at Cornell and not so great afterward. Many of those goalies were products of previous coaches, and Cornell coaches have long preached what Shafer does about responsible hockey, but Shafer just does it better than others have. For Cornell to be consistently in the Top 10 is no less amazing now that it would have been in the '80s and '90s, but it is much more frequent.

As far as competing on the national stage with the best of the WCHA, CCHA, and Hockey East, the best way to win with lesser talent is by doing exactly what Cornell does - suffocating forechecking, backchecking, and defending. Nothing wrong with those virtues. When teams from the ECAC, AHA, and CHA win against the big boys, is it 7-6 or is it 2-1? Would you rather try to engage those teams in shootouts or shutouts? The choice is clear. One of these days, one of these not-so-good Cornell teams is going to run the table in the NCAAs the way they just did the ECAC tournament and everyone will recognize Shafer for the genius he is. Or maybe it will never happen. But playing the way we play gives us the best ODDS of winning, not just in the ECAC but in the NCAAs.

I'm just as disappointed as anyone else with last night's performance (it was painfully awful to watch), but it was just one bad game, not reason to throw out a very successful coach with a very successful system. I'm content to bide my time as a fan, knowing that each year Shafer will put on the ice a team with a legitimate chance to go all the way. That's a pretty great feeling as a fan. I've been a Cornell hockey fan my whole life, and there has never been a better time to be one than now. Well, maybe the late '60s. But besides that.

HockeyMan
Now you're getting interesting. Agreed, the stars will align less frequently here and at Yale than they do at NoDak or Wisconsin. Top-line talent will be harder to come by. (This suggests, btw, that Ivy teams are consistently overranked nationally. If they get too little respect in men's BB, maybe they got too much in hockey.) The question then becomes whether Allain's system is likely to be more successful than Schafer's. Time will tell.

It's not a matter of stars being aligned - it's a matter of getting top-end talent. Period. Frankly, because of the rising tide (Cornell) lifts all boats philosophy, schools like Dartmouth, Yale, Princeton, etc... have been able to get a lot of top-end talent (relatively) moreso than the ECAC lull period of the early 2000s. There have also been these changes:

- St. Lawrence and Colgate have started awarding scholarships
- RPI fired its coach
- other big schools are losing their top-end talent more quickly, thanks to the pillaging by the NHL
- Yale, Harvard, Princeton's financial aid packages have been greatly improved

All of this makes it more possible for the ECAC to compete. Without those things, things would be worse off than they are. So these things make it *possible* to compete nationally, but still very difficult. And no other ECAC team has been able to do it. Despite all of this, Cornell is the only one of them that can consistently win any NCAA games at all. Think about that.

In regards to your comparison to Yale ... Yale already lost an NCAA game last year. This year, my guess is today's game with North Dakota won't be that competitive. We'll find out soon - I hope I'm wrong. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Yale's system will be worse in the NCAAs, in the long haul, than Cornell's. Trying to go offensively toe to toe with these other big-time programs, is foolish. Does anyone really think Yale would score the most goals per game if they played in the WCHA every night?

That said - Cornell was behind 2-0 in each of the last three NCAA appearances - and had enough firepower to each time rally to win. Think about that. 05, 06 and 09 - down 2-0 each time. Cornell is not big and slow. They are big, quick, and can play offense. But the system is defense first, pay attention to detail, and wear the hell out of the other team by possessing the puck in the OFFENSIVE zone. This is a PROVEN way to win given the talent Cornell can get.

Another point ... look at how many NHL players Dartmouth has produced in recent years. Yet, Dartmouth can't even make the NCAA tournament. Something else to think about. Look at Yale again ... they put together this great team, yet despite their head coach being a former goalie, their goaltending is poor. A great way to sabotage things.

Again - I can't even believe we're having this conversation - but I thought I'd give some perspective.

Towerroad
Tom Lento

Thank you for your insightful analysis. I learned a great deal. Elsewhere I have argued that under Schafer Cornell will be a # 10 team with a standard error of +/- 3

So, I buy what you said. Rock solid defense, attention to detail. The shortcomings are a very predictable, simple power play (For a contrast look at UNH's second PP last night where the compressed the defense and were able to pass through the defense to the open man, it was pretty) and challenges moving the puck. Are these limitations coach-able? If they are wouldn't it make sense to spend a bit more time working on these limitations instead of polishing the things we are really good at?

Honestly, I think more time on passing would probably be beneficial, but it's a trade-off. 3 weeks working on passing and puck movement is 3 weeks where you can't really work on defensive zone responsibility, forechecking systems, and penalty kill positioning. It's 3 weeks where you can't work on shot-blocking. There are defensive benefits to good puck movement - we saw what bad passing can do to a defense yesterday - but I don't know if it's the right thing for Cornell to focus on in practice. At this point, Schafer has earned my trust - I believe he's working on the most important things - but I would really like to see Cornell become a better passing squad. The team hasn't really moved the puck well for the last 4-5 years.

HockeyMan

These are schoolmarmish banalities trying hard to be profundities. Perfectly obvious points, and entirely in keeping with the core assertion: Schafer's system is a defensively-oriented system that depends to a greater extent than others on superior goaltending.

If they're so obvious then why do you still not get the fact that you're flat wrong? If anything, Schafer's system is *less* dependent on superior goaltending than a system built around high-flying forwards attacking in the offensive zone. Cornell's system emphasizes offensive zone possession (i.e. minimizing offensive opportunities for the other team), defensive zone positioning (i.e., eliminating high-quality offensive chances by keeping the shots on goal to the outside and from routine, less dangerous angles), and effective shot blocking (i.e., minimizing the total number of shots on goal). All of this means that Cornell really only requires a competent goaltender to be successful. Yes, when up against a team with better players you'll need superior goaltending to win. This isn't news, it's true for every single team in hockey, and it pretty clearly has nothing to do with Schafer's system.

Please. No one's saying these players should "suddenly materialize and carry Cornell to the title." The question, rather, is whether under the current system such players are likely to materialize over the short and medium term and with regularity. Maybe they can't under any circumstances (though let's not exaggerate CU's recruiting weakness in this regard: this is a storied program, with a superb fan base and a great venue and sterling academics), but that's another question. And let's not exaggerate the offensive prowess of Downs and Cook, shall we? As for your last sentence, well...yes. But perhaps 2003 was an outlier.

Downs and Cook were excellent at moving the puck, better than most of the Cornell blueliners I've seen. Still, the best D-men Cornell has in any given season are at least on par with Downs and Cook offensively, if not somewhat better. The point is that Downs and Cook were *not* the top d-men on that team.

As for the blue-chip offensive talents you crave, those players won't materialize with regularity at Cornell *ever* under *any* coach. Storied programs and sterling academics are nice, but NHL prospects don't give a crap about sterling academics and I'm guessing almost none of the elite college hockey recruits care that much about who played for your team 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Sterling academics also keep out far more players than they attract - at the end of the recruiting process the player still has to get in to the school. As for facilities - Lynah's a dump and from what I hear the general athletic facilities at Cornell pale in comparison to those at places like Michigan or Minnesota. The fans are great, and there's great history there, but to most recruits comparing Cornell to, say, North Dakota or Minnesota that's like a consolation prize. I haven't even mentioned the no scholarships issue, which is arguably the most important factor. Given the recruiting constraints, I'll take the coach who wins with what he can get, not the guy who can only win if he can get the best talent.

Of course, Schafer's staff also does a great job of recruiting. Cornell has had more than its fair share of astonishingly good players come through this program in the last 10 years, but with a few rare exceptions these guys were not highly touted recruits coming in. There's a reason they aren't high-flying, fast skating forwards with tremendous shots and an uncanny ability to find open men in front. There's a reason Cornell's recruits are generally not destined to become college hockey greats before they ever put on a college hockey sweater, and it's not because those players can't or won't play a left wing lock. The fact that many of them do become great college hockey players is a testament to both their talent and drive and the coaching and recruiting ability of Schafer and his staff.

Now you're getting interesting. Agreed, the stars will align less frequently here and at Yale than they do at NoDak or Wisconsin. Top-line talent will be harder to come by. (This suggests, btw, that Ivy teams are consistently overranked nationally. If they get too little respect in men's BB, maybe they got too much in hockey.) The question then becomes whether Allain's system is likely to be more successful than Schafer's. Time will tell.

Yes, time will tell, and I'll lay money that Allain's system won't work on the national stage. I'll be stunned if I'm wrong, because it's been tried before. Clarkson did it for years under Mark Morris. Look at their NCAA record during that time, and they were the absolute class of the ECAC - they were better and faster than everyone else in the league by a long shot, but they weren't great defensively and their goaltending wasn't positionally sound. When they got to the tournament and faced an equally fast team with a better goaltender they simply couldn't answer. SLU has gone for higher end talent and a more open system under Joe Marsh. They made the Frozen Four about 10 years back, and they had some of the best teams in the league around that time, but they haven't been anywhere near that quality since and for all his success Marsh has only been able to achieve occasional national prominence at SLU. In the last 2 years Allain has 2 RS titles, 1 ECAC title, 0 NCAA wins, and a QF loss at home to Brown. Yale was the class of the ECAC the past 2 years. So far, this is a familiar story, but I'll certainly watch Yale with interest for the next few years to see how they do.

Of course, I believe Yale can get to the Frozen Four, and they could even win a national title (although with Backman out it's extremely unlikely). If they ride a hot goalie and catch a magical run of near-perfect execution from their top 2 lines, it could happen. The same thing is true for Cornell. The difference is it's been true for Cornell for about 7 of the last 10 years, Cornell has been consistently successful in early-round play at the NCAAs, and now people who don't understand the first thing about how Schafer coaches and have no perspective on the realities of recruiting in college hockey are demanding more. I got news for you - there are maybe half a dozen hockey programs that can expect to both compete for a title on a regular basis and win one every few years. They all have scholarships, lower academic standards, and bigger hockey budgets than Cornell.

As for your comment about Ivy teams, Cornell and Yale were both overrated in the polls for most of this year. The statistical rankings had both teams pegged about right - somewhere near the top 10, but nowhere near the top 5. For an Ivy program, that's probably the best you can hope for. Top 10ish year in and year out, with the oddball magical run into title contention and a (more frequent) drop off the bubble during rebuilding years.

From my perspective it is a case of marginal analysis. As a whole I think we would be better off taking some period of time and instead of moving our defense from the top 5% in the country to the top 2% working on moving our puck handling from 50% to 65%. I think that would make the team stronger overall. (Clearly,I made the numbers up to illustrate the point).

However, I am not sure if puck handling is a coach-able skill at this level. I would let those more knowledgeable comment.

Along the boards we are monsters, set up in front of the net we are impenetrable, in transition and in unsettled play we are weak. It seems to me that we have to work on our weaknesses if we want to get better not hone our strengths.