Cu - 0 Yale - 6 final

ftyuv
I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

Kyle Rose

ftyuv
I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

I don't think he was implying CU fans said that, but that there are teams, hint, hint North Dakota, for whom...

But then, I should probably let ftyuv do the speaking.

Kyle Rose

ftyuv
I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

So we're using the supreme court definition of pornography to define nationally competitive? To me, I'd like to see us make a Frozen Four once or twice a decade, make the NCAA tournament 3/4 years, and get home byes almost every year in the ECAC tournament. I think those are realistic for us. And most importantly you if you make the Frozen Four anything can happen. However, I think Schafer's teams have accomplished these standards, especially since in '05 and '06 we went to overtime in the regional finals (one in triple overtime). That's all you can ask for is a chance to be there. And the '06 team took the eventual national champs to 3OT, so any other regional and I think we have 2 Frozen Fours this decade and its a completely different conversation.

Remembering that this year was a rebuilding year that got off to a very slow start, a 4th place regular season finish and 2nd place in the ECAC tourney is not too bad. Some schools can't even do that in a good year.
However, when we have a successful team like last year's, our expectations should be much higher. In addition to a good end result, we should expect more out-of-conference wins and we should also expect wins (or at the very least well-played, close games) against other top ECAC teams (aka Yale).
And never, ever, under any circumstance should we be tied for 10th place in the ECAC with a team like Harvard (which I believe we were for a while at the beginning of this season)

Kyle Rose
With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

Kyle, you do know that it's possible to agree with me and still maintain credibility -- you don't have to distance yourself from me in every post. I agree that we should be "nationally competitive" every year. Obviously that doesn't mean we will win the championship or get a Frozen Four appearance every year. But that should be our motivation, our expectation, and our goal. Schafer has become complacent and has lost sight of these goals. Trotsky's obscure (yet irrelevant) stats may be enough for some of you to justify your support for Schafer, but it is clear from this thread that many of you are also concerned with the direction of this program. The first step back on the right path is a fresh face at the helm.

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

ftyuv
I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

I don't think he was implying CU fans said that, but that there are teams, hint, hint North Dakota, for whom...

But then, I should probably let ftyuv do the speaking.

Pretty much. It seemed to me that there were somewhat extreme ends of the spectrum being implied, if not being explicitly stated, and I felt like explicitly stating what was to me a reasonable "not quite NoDak, not quite Army" standard.

Towerroad
I have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:

1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.

2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.

3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.

4. Having the best band in the Ivy's

5. Winning the Ivy League.

6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament

7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education

8. Selling out womens games.

9. Consistently beating Yale

If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.

I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes. We won't do it every year, but the more the better.

Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything. In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

jtwcornell91
I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes.

Winning the ECACs should always be a goal. It seems that people take it for granted that Cornell will make the ECAC Semifinals each year and walk into another ECAC title. I guess that they have forgotten that there have been periods when that even seemed an unattainable goal for Cornell.

jtwcornell91
Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything. In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

That is a fair point. I think that more will always be at stake with Yale though because there is the added Ivy League rivalry. I feel that Cornell-Yale has the potential to border upon, but not equal nor surpass, Cornell-Harvard in its passion because of the dynamic as of late wherein, no matter where each team is ranked in the Conference, that game has particular emotional relevance because Yale has embarrassed Cornell as of late. I would argue that Yale basks in their contemporary success against Cornell.

I feel that Union dominated us this season but that irritates Cornell fans far less than Yale's domination over our program. I admit, that could be me projecting.

Our first win this year was against Clarkson. That shows that not even a program in that poor of shape is a guaranteed victory for Cornell.

jtwcornell91

Towerroad
I have enjoyed this thread immensely and learned a few things from people that know the game much better that I do (which will not prevent me from offering seemingly informed opinions in the future). Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what success is for Cornell Hockey. I think we focus too much on that elusive NCAA title. The nature of sports dictates that we constantly strive for the summit but no one could say that in recent years the Cornell Lax, Womens Hockey, or Wrestling have not been fabulously successful and a source of immense pride even though the ultimate title eluded them. So, lets take our eyes off the summit for a moment and enjoy the view, here are a few of my thoughts informed or otherwise about other measures of success:

1. Beating the Harvard Mens Varsity Figure Skating Society.

2. Filling Lynah East with a sea of Red and humiliating both of the aforesaid Figure Skating Society fans when it comes to Alma Mater singing and general cheering.

3. Filling Lynah and maintaining the traditions and dreaded passion of the Faithful from the Anthems to the Salute.

4. Having the best band in the Ivy's

5. Winning the Ivy League.

6. Making it to the second round of the NCAA Tournament

7. Graduating Hockey Players who got an education

8. Selling out womens games.

9. Consistently beating Yale

If we do these things on a regular basis and never win a title who is to say that the program is not a tremendous success.

I would put Winning the ECACs somewhere on a list of successes. We won't do it every year, but the more the better.

Also, talk to me again in 3-4 years about whether #9 means anything. In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

The list was more focused on "Smelling the Roses" and small victories but I take your point. If we win the Ivy's and make the Tournament then it is likely we will have done well or the best in the ECAC.

I put #9 there at the suggestion of another poster but I think it is a demon that needs to be exorcised.

Like any set of goals they will evolve over time. Perhaps we should have a goal not to have a team that we are consistently losing to (Competitive or dominant vs all the ECAC?). I agree that Cornell-Yale might turn into a fun rivalry, right now it is neither fun nor a rivalry.

Because Cornell has been a sort of counterweight to the entire rest of the ECAC over Schafer's time, there's almost always that one team that is a ferocious and often successful competitor. The mark of a dominant team isn't usually the absence of any competitor, but maintaining a high standard while competitors rise and fall.

Here are the seeds by year in the ECAC tourney. That one team has been, roughly:

(our RS record and playoff record against them in parens)

1996-1999 Clarkson (2-6-0, 2-0)
1999-2001 St. Lawrence (1-4-1, 0-2)
2002-2006 Harvard (7-3-0, 2-2)
2006-2007 Dartmouth (1-3-0, 0-0)
2008-2009 Princeton (1-3-0 0-1)
2009-2011 Yale (0-6-0, 0-2)

Other than around 2002-2006, when Harvard still got us twice in ECAC finals during their "turn," we've always had one Achilles heel, yet we've stayed on top while those apparent Titans have always fallen back to earth.

jtwcornell91
In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.

Kyle Rose

jtwcornell91
In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.

IMHO the streak against Yale says almost nothing about Cornell and everything about Yale. They've had an insanely talented team since 2008-09. We'll see if they continue to dominate us. If I had to bet, I would say they will be about as good next year as we were this year, for the same reason.

Trotsky
Because Cornell has been a sort of counterweight to the entire rest of the ECAC over Schafer's time, there's almost always that one team that is a ferocious and often successful competitor. The mark of a dominant team isn't usually the absence of any competitor, but maintaining a high standard while competitors rise and fall.

Here are the seeds by year in the ECAC tourney. That one team has been, roughly:

(our RS record and playoff record against them in parens)

1996-1999 Clarkson (2-6-0, 2-0)
1999-2001 St. Lawrence (1-4-1, 0-2)
2002-2006 Harvard (7-3-0, 2-2)
2006-2007 Dartmouth (1-3-0, 0-0)
2008-2009 Princeton (1-3-0 0-1)
2009-2011 Yale (0-6-0, 0-2)

Other than Harvard, who still got us twice in ECAC finals during their "turn," we've always had one Achilles heel, yet we've stayed on top while those apparent Titans have always fallen back to earth.

If it's true that Yale's current team was engineered to beat Cornell, it says a lot about our long-term position in the ECAC. It's like Allain decided the route to success in the ECAC ran through the Big Red.

Another way of quantifying it. Number of times finishing 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, for those teams and us:

Since 1996

13 3 0 Cornell
8 4 4 Clarkson
6 8 2 Harvard
6 4 6 Dartmouth
6 3 7 St. Lawrence
5 4 7 Yale
3 7 6 Princeton

With Current Config (Since Quinnipiac)

5 1 0 Cornell
3 1 2 Dartmouth
3 1 2 Yale
2 2 2 Clarkson
2 2 2 Harvard
2 2 2 Princeton
2 2 2 St. Lawrence

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

jtwcornell91
In the past you could have substituted "Clarkson" for "Yale", and look where they are now.

Except that Cornell never lost 8 straight to Clarkson, getting embarrassed in almost every loss. My problem with Cornell's performance vs. Yale is that Cornell continues not to have a clue how to beat this team: this is very different from losing streaks vs. Dartmouth, Clarkson, Harvard, etc.

IMHO the streak against Yale says almost nothing about Cornell and everything about Yale. They've had an insanely talented team since 2008-09. We'll see if they continue to dominate us. If I had to bet, I would say they will be about as good next year as we were this year, for the same reason.

I doubt Cornell will beat Yale 4-2, 4-1, and 6-0 next year, embarrassing them in the process. You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them. As I have pointed out numerous (two? three? five?) times, Cornell's much more talented 2009-10 squad (relative to 2010-11) could not muster a win against Yale, though they did come close in that OT loss late in the season.

As many have pointed out Cornell has been the dominant team in the ECAC during the Schafer era. The coach deserves a lot of credit for this. However, in the ECAC ecosystem there are other species that are vying for supremacy. It takes a while to understand that the ecosystem has changed and then to adapt to that change. The ecosystem changed when Mike Schafer arrived in Ithaca. It took a few years but by the middle of the last decade it was clear that Cornell was the dominant species.

So, the other member of the ecosystem, if they want to thrive as JTW said have to recognize that the road to the top of the ECAC leads through the Big Red. In order to rise to the top they either have to recruit bigger tougher players or evolve into a form that the Red can't deal with. Fortunately for them, the Cornell system is clear and it has its weaknesses which over time teams like Yale, Union and Princeton have learned to exploit in their bids for the top spot in the ecosystem.

So that is what I think the root of the angst on these pages. The there are some competitors that want our spot in the ecosystem and are evolving in ways that challenge our dominance. Those who are not concerned think of these rodents (or in one case slime molds) as an evolutionary dead end and those of us who are more concerned wonder if the age of the dinosaurs is at an end.

Towerroad
As many have pointed out Cornell has been the dominant team in the ECAC during the Schafer era.

I think that cuts to the big question: is dominance of the ECAC enough to qualify for success? I for one would like a bit more. Again, I'm not calling for a Frozen Four every year and a championship once every five -- but something a bit more than "we're the top of the middle tier."

Kyle Rose
You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them.

We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you, as Yale was this year. Last year Yale had essentially the same squad plus a pre-nautitorial Backmann and Arcobello. IMHO (and many may disagree) the 2010 Yale squad was actually better than this year's (the main rebuttal to which is Rondeau played great this year).

Kyle Rose
I doubt Cornell will beat Yale 4-2, 4-1, and 6-0 next year, embarrassing them in the process. You and I are simply going to have to disagree on the core point: the problem is not that Yale is so insanely talented but that in four years of Yale's building their system around that talent the Cornell coaching staff has not figured out a way to make Cornell consistently competitive against them. As I have pointed out numerous (two? three? five?) times, Cornell's much more talented 2009-10 squad (relative to 2010-11) could not muster a win against Yale, though they did come close in that OT loss late in the season.

I agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows. The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming. If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system. I do not think that means abandoning Cornell's system entirely but finding a way to adapt it when playing teams such as Yale. I do feel that Schafer deserves some deference for bringing prestige (everyone on here can debate about how much) back to a program that was performing abysmally before he took the helm. I will suspend my judgment on Schafer until next season. The reason that Yale seemed so dominant this year is because of their maturity and team dynamic. Assets that were absent from a Cornell team that was largely young and inexperienced because they lived in the shadows of the likes of B. Nash, R. Nash, Greening, Krueger, and Scrivens. I have hope for next year. We might not be able to embarrass Yale but returning to beating them would be nice.

I was at the 2010 Yale-Cornell OT loss. The entire credit of that game goes to Scrivens. Neither Schafer nor the other coaches had any answers to Yale that night. It was Scrivens's amazing performance with 52 saves that allowed Cornell the chance to even stay even with Yale for so long. No team should put their goalie in a position where he needs to make 52 saves just to stay in a game.

Aaron M. Griffin
I agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows. The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming. If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system.

GAAAAH! I'm just going to stop reading here, because evidently you read only the sentence of my posts or you would have seen that I have written multiple times that I am not advocating anything like switching to the Yale system. When your reading comprehension improves, let me know and I'll give your posts further thought.

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

Kyle Rose
They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I was there for both blowout losses and didn't enjoy them any more than you did.

It would really help my argument if Yale won the national championship this year, so I'll be rooting for that.

Kyle Rose

Aaron M. Griffin
I agree with your argument but not necessarily the Schafer-must-go conclusion that likely follows. The fact that Cornell has not been able to respond to Yale's rise or its system in any meaningful way is very alarming. If Cornell hockey and Schafer, as a coach, want to remain relevant in college hockey, both must come up with a response to Yale's system.

GAAAAH! I'm just going to stop reading here, because evidently you read only the sentence of my posts or you would have seen that I have written multiple times that I am not advocating anything like switching to the Yale system. When your reading comprehension improves, let me know and I'll give your posts further thought.

My reading comprehension is plenty high enough. Perhaps it is you who should read more carefully. I only quoted your post as a segway to analyze other, broader statements that have been made by others. Nowhere did I imply or state that you stated that Cornell should abandon their system.

There are others who contribute relevant and valid opinions other than you. I was addressing the notion of some that Cornell should transition to a Yale-like system. You are amiss if you are going to argue that no one has argued that on here. I was merely addressing the necessity of making such changes that some have advocated. Neither you nor I think it is convincing. I agree with your general premise that Cornell's coaching staff has proven woefully inadequate in addressing the Yale challenge. An answer to Yale can be found within Cornell's current system.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.

Dafatone

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.

Miller, Agostino, etc. They're not going away anytime soon even if they take a step back next year.

Dafatone

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.

If only 11/4 was really soon.

underskill
Miller, Agostino, etc. They're not going away anytime soon even if they take a step back next year.

We'll see. Those are good players but the thing that made Yale a killer was rolling four fast, lethal lines backed by experienced defense. The graveyards are full of teams with just one great line. How many ECAC titles did UVM's elves win?

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.

If only 11/4 was really soon.

Like hell! I am a fan of College Hockey but lets not forget that we have Lax and Baseball and SUMMER. I can wait for next Nov. I want my SUMMER first.

Towerroad

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.

If only 11/4 was really soon.

Like hell! I am a fan of College Hockey but lets not forget that we have Lax and Baseball and SUMMER. I can wait for next Nov. I want my SUMMER first.

I don't know who this Summer chick is, but I bet she looks hot in a parka!

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

You realize that you are talking about the team that is the #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, right? It isn't like Yale beat us, while struggling to win the conference and flailing through the OOC schedule. They are - by every conceivable measure except wishful thinking - a much better team than Cornell is this year. As Trotsky said above, the whipping post we've been tied to for the last few years reflects the talent that is passing through New Haven at a time when Cornell is trying to replace a series of classes that have had more NHL talent in program history.

I don't understand the carping from so many people after a season that was better than people expected it to be before the puck dropped on the Red/White game.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

You realize that you are talking about the team that is the #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, right? It isn't like Yale beat us, while struggling to win the conference and flailing through the OOC schedule. They are - by every conceivable measure except wishful thinking - a much better team than Cornell is this year. As Trotsky said above, the whipping post we've been tied to for the last few years reflects the talent that is passing through New Haven at a time when Cornell is trying to replace a series of classes that have had more NHL talent in program history.

I don't understand the carping from so many people after a season that was better than people expected it to be before the puck dropped on the Red/White game.

We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."

And everyone please stop with the talent thing. Yale has no NHL draft picks in their entire senior class. We had Nash/Nash/Scrivens/Greening and all those other guys last year and we still lost to them.

ajh258
We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."

And everyone please stop with the talent thing. Yale has no NHL draft picks in their entire senior class. We had Nash/Nash/Scrivens/Greening and all those other guys last year and we still lost to them.

A team that finishes in fourth place and gets to the conference championship game during a rebuilding year has a bright future. Cornell is bringing in a very talented freshman class in the fall. When those players become juniors and seniors (and some won't stay for four years), we can reevaluate whether Cornell is a first-rate D1 program. Casey Jones has a reputation for being an excellent recruiter. So far, the recruiting results have looked good. Let's see how those recruits perform as upperclassmen.

I strongly agree with the premise that the 2009-10 team fell short of expectations. But, one underachieving team that was good instead of great does not mean that the program is doomed to disappoint us during its next peak.

Lastly, it's fallacious to assert that there has been no talent gap between Yale and Cornell because Cornell has had more NHL draft picks. Lots of small, quick college players have tremendous success in college hockey despite getting overlooked in the draft. Undrafted smurfs Martin St. Louis and Eric Perrin were quite formidable for UVM 15 years ago. They comprised two thirds of the best line in the ECAC that I've seen in the last two decades.

cbuckser
They comprised two thirds 95% of the best line in the ECAC that I've seen in the last two decades.

FYP. As the Harvard radio announcer put it, "My grandmother would score 30 points a year on a line with those two."

(JC Ruid, in case you were wondering)

ftyuv

Towerroad

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
We will disagree, but I don't think you can just "figure out" how to compete with a team that is simply head and shoulders superior to you

They may not figure out how to win, but they certainly should be able to figure out how not to lose 6-0 after several years of observation and planning.

I hate to go with "wait and see" as a strategy, but I think we'll find out soon whether Yale truly exploited some flaw in our strategy, or if it's just that this year's graduating class for Yale was absolutely stacked.

If only 11/4 was really soon.

Like hell! I am a fan of College Hockey but lets not forget that we have Lax and Baseball and SUMMER. I can wait for next Nov. I want my SUMMER first.

I don't know who this Summer chick is, but I bet she looks hot in a parka!

Better in a bikini by the shore

Robb

cbuckser
They comprised two thirds 95% of the best line in the ECAC that I've seen in the last two decades.

FYP. As the Harvard radio announcer put it, "My grandmother would score 30 points a year on a line with those two."

(JC Ruid, in case you were wondering)

Could we send this info to the Harvard coaches? I'm sure she'd get a look and also would be an A student if she were to matriculate.

What is the consensus (there has been so much on elynah of late) as to why we almost stole the game from Yale in Ithaca this year? If the ref had seen the puck under Rondeau's pad the game would have had a more exciting ending.

toddlose

scoop85

ajh258

Chris '03

ajh258
Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.

You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):

...

44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH. Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.

And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:

BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1


Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.

I'm sorry. Complaining that "only" a single Frozen Four appearance somehow represents failure? As someone who graduated in the mid-80's when we didn't make the ECAC final four let alone the NCAA's, I have little to complain about regarding our success during the Schafer era. For those who would rather see someone else at the helm, I say be careful what you wish for.

From a 1994 grad, I have to second you on that one.

Yeah, there are a number of coaching vacancies out there. If you remember how you felt when you saw the headlines last spring, "Donahue to BC" and "Tambroni to PSU," try on this thought experiment: "Schafer to PC."

Not very pretty, is it?

ajh258
We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

* This is an accurate portrayal.
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.

ugarte

ajh258
We are not talking about the past ugarte, we are talking about the future. I don't think anyone will argue that this season was beyond expectations. However, the goal here is to avoid games like this in years to come, not pat ourselves on the back and say, "Oh it's because they were #1."

Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

* This is an accurate portrayal.
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.

Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.

Swampy
Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.

I only meant to refer to the best of the Schafer-coached squads. My Big Red watching started during the McCutcheon era.

ugarte
** This is intentional exaggeration. Though, on this note, I always thought that LeNeveu and McKee always had to watch a lot of shitty passing too. Those teams weren't graceful passers, they mucked along the wall for the puck, got it up ice by dumping it into the corners and then mucked around again to set up their offense. If hockey was a skills competition even the best of Cornell's squads would have been middle of the pack.

Feel free to go back through the archives and confirm that I've stated the same thing myself many times in the past. I recall once saying something about the passing ability of the mid-00's teams making the ECAC champion squads of the mid-90's crap bricks.

The issue is not Cornell's ability in absolute terms: having seen the B&W footage of the 1960 NCAA title game, I am pretty well convinced that my beer league team could have beaten either team without breaking much of a sweat. The issue is precisely Cornell's ability relative to the other teams it is playing now: that means making adjustments to the system to compensate for other coaching staffs doing the same thing. Yale's system appears to have been designed specifically to beat Cornell—a strategy that appears to be working—which means Cornell needs a plan to counter this.

Let me be clear that I'm not saying that I expected this Cornell squad to beat this Yale squad, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a probability greater than zero of winning any particular game: the system should prevent 6-0 losses given a reasonable D1 talent gap. If the final score were 2-0 or 4-2, we would not be having this conversation.

ugarte
Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

ugarte
The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

css228

ajh258
I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

Ben

css228

ajh258
I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.

ajh258

ugarte
Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

ugarte
The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.

Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.

Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.

How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.

Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.

ajh258
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.

The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.

ugarte

ajh258
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.

The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.

Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion. Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory. As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire? Jerry York?

css228

Ben

css228

ajh258
I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.

If you can expand Lynah to 100,000 seats, and get BCS/Big 10 tv revenue to supplement ticket revenue, then this argument would hold up slightly better.

ugarte

Swampy
Although I agree with just about everything ugarte says here, I do disagree with the last line. Watching our Harkness-coached NC teams was like watching a work of art. It was a different style in a different time, but the passes were amazing.

I only meant to refer to the best of the Schafer-coached squads. My Big Red watching started during the McCutcheon era.

I knew what you meant. Personally, I long for the days when our goalie(s) is bored and leans on his stick, watching the game as our offense keeps the puck at the other end of the ice, taking shot after shot, checking to keep the other team bottled up, and making one-touch passes once they recover the puck. But that's not exactly Schafer's [current] style, and I'm OK with that.

Jim Hyla

ajh258

ugarte
Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

ugarte
The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.

Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.

Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.

How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.

Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.

In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:





and this:

marty
In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:

bsflag.gif

and this:

misc_firedevil.gif

Thanks, I needed that.

marty

Jim Hyla

ajh258

ugarte
Really? Because from where I'm sitting the goal here appears to be to whine every time Cornell doesn't make the final four and determinedly avoid the discussion of evidence that suggests that the fault is not endemic to the system but rather a short-term downturn in an otherwise stellar run. Different people take different approaches to this: you and Facetimer seem to think that a coaching change to a unicorn* is the answer while Kyle seems to think that the kids are texting during practice instead of doing passing drills.**

Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high. Of course you're going to say I'm complaining too much if you think the team has already met its goals. Taking personal shots at me for making suggestions might make you feel better, but it does not benefit the team. The attitude of content you have with our current performance demonstrates that you've given up on improving our team in a significant way. If that's true, please take a back seat and watch the rest of us at least try to make the program better. Additionally, I'm tired of trying to defend my position of not asking for a coaching change. Please read my previous posts before speaking.

ugarte
The majority of us here think the answer is that anyone who expects Cornell to be the #1 team in the ECAC every year and a perpetual national title contender doesn't really pay attention to sports. Every team in every league has down years you ride out the storms when they are as mild as "lost in the ECAC championship game with a young team the year after losing most of the offense, an all-ECAC goalie and the #1 defenseman."

You're exaggerating our expectations and trying to make those of us who want to see the program better look like fools. Of course every team has up and downs, but I'm suggesting we try to move up the range of ups and downs. No one's asking for Frozen Four appearances every year, but does 2 or 3 times every decade sound that impossible? Right now, it doesn't look like we're on that track.

Also, I've never said the problem is with this year's team, yet you guys keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

Wow, I never knew we had the possibility of improving the team. Tell me how we can do it, I'll sign up.

Well, I guess I do know how we (I) can improve the team. You (I) contribute financially and spiritually (cheering, etc.). You (I) try and give them enough finances to succeed and provide enough of the Lynah atmosphere, that those who get turned on by that want to come here.

Past that, what we (I) do on this board is bullshit. I happened to like to bullshit, so I post a lot. But I certainly don't think I help the team by posting here. I hope no one in athletics spends much time here, or else I'm hurting the team, as their time would be a lot better spent doing other things.

How the h*ll (Yeah, I don't know why I can type bullshit and not this, so don't ask. OK?) you think we help the team by our mouthing off here, is beyond me. Maybe you can explain it sometime.

Again, what we do here is bullshit (as in talking, not that everything said is). It doesn't help or hurt the team. There, I'm glad I said it.

In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:

bsflag.gif

and this:

misc_firedevil.gif

I guess.

Jim Hyla

marty
In appreciation of Jim's post I found this:

bsflag.gif

and this:

misc_firedevil.gif

Thanks, I needed that.

This thread has gone to

css228

Ben

css228

ajh258
I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

Sorry to jump back to an earlier line of discussion, but this is absolutely correct, and it's the reason I didn't get STs last year or this year: they're just too expensive, and as I've found the cost of individual game tickets adds up quickly as well. This did mean that I was able to watch a fantastic basketball team and a great women's hockey team, but I'd prefer to be able to watch men's hockey as well. I'm sure that the atmosphere for the women's games near the end of the season was directly related to the fact that those were free (with the exception of the NCAA game, when tickets were just $3).

However, the Penn State argument is not a fair comparison because they have significantly fewer home games.

Still we shouldn't be paying more than PSU students for big time DI football. Even if you dropped tickets by $3 a game (200 for students instead of 260), I'm sure you'd see a massive increase in student attendance.

We've been at this discussion (or variations on a theme) many times over the last three years. For some background reading on ebilmes and my thoughts, and those of others on eLynah, see:

[cornellsun.com]

[cornellsun.com]

[elf.elynah.com]

[elf.elynah.com]

[elf.elynah.com]

[elf.elynah.com]

[elf.elynah.com]

ajh258
My question from the beginning was: can we get the players for our style of play? We obviously cannot recruit Red Wings players, so that argument is moot. As I said, all the big, talented guys who work well for our style are being recruited by those western schools, which we cannot compete with due to our financial and academic constraints. Is the problem that we simply cannot pass? Is the problem recruiting? Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.

It seems short-sighted to say that "all the big, talented guys who work well for our style are being recruited by those western schools" (and, by implication, that we can't successfully recruit any of them), seemingly on the basis of one rebuilding year in which we still played in the conference championship game. We've had those guys before, and we'll have them again.

Al DeFlorio

ugarte

ajh258
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.

The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.

Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion. Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory. As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire? Jerry York?

We really only need a few stands of Ned's DNA and a little patience. In fact we can make him better, Super Ned! But let's keep very careful control of this IP and never let it near Cambridge or New Haven. Or perhaps we could license it and solve our Endowment problems. In Ithaca did Great Neds spawn/ A stately hockey palace decree.

Towerroad

Al DeFlorio

ugarte

ajh258
Is it a short term downturn? Again, it depends on what your definition of success and downturns are and, as mentioned before, it seems that your standards are just not as high.

The level of success that you seem to expect hasn't existed at Cornell, with the exception of one three-year stretch, since before your parents met each other. So this is either a short-term downturn or the middle of an INCREDIBLY long shitshow that will continue forever.

Thank you for adding some much-needed sense to this ridiculous discussion. Anyone who thinks Cornell is going to go out today and find another Ned Harkness who will recreate 1967-1970 is hallucinatory. As someone asked above--and was never answered--who is this savior Cornell is magically going to hire? Jerry York?

We really only need a few stands of Ned's DNA and a little patience. In fact we can make him better, Super Ned! But let's keep very careful control of this IP and never let it near Cambridge or New Haven. Or perhaps we could license it and solve our Endowment problems. In Ithaca did Great Neds spawn/ A stately hockey palace decree.

I don't know, but I'm concerned that a few strands were left at Union.

{sigh}