Why Cornell Will No Longer Dominate the ECAC

It appears Cornell is no longer the powerhouse team it once was and will mostly likely not be for some time. For the simplistic reason it can no longer score more goals than it allows. Schafer was fortunate and had a pretty good recipe for winning the last few years, but now some of those important ingredients from last season are missing. Namely; Moulson, McKee, O’Byrne among a few others.

In the past CU was able to grind out wins by capitalizing on a very highly effective power play. They were able to achieve those 2 or 3 PP goals that gave them the lead. In addition, they were able to keep scoring against to a minimum with good goal tending. McKee was a good goaltender, but not great. What made him great was a good core of defensemen on the blue line.

Even last season CU had trouble scoring at even strength. Schaffer has never trained the lines well enough to “manufacture” a goal, but has instead relied heavily on a man advantage system to ensure goals. But those ingredients are no longer available. A quick fix was initiated to bring in what seemed to be at the time decent scoring freshman to fill some top spots, but to no avail. The freshman experiment has failed, and failed bad. The power play has not been effective because it has not been adapted for the group of players that make up the units now, as well, there should have been some major player modifications. Schaffer should have groomed his sophomores better last season. Instead he demoralized good forwards like Barlow, Connors, Fontas and Kindret, guys that had paid their dues and could have made a strong contribution in offense this season.

The problem of poor game results will ultimately compound the team’s ability to dominate the division in the future with recruiting. Just what kind of recruits will CU get in the future with poor rankings, probably not quality that it has obtained in the recent past

CU will most likely wallow in 4th or 5th place in the seasons to come. CU may get lucky and go deep in the playoffs, but unlikely. The other universities have raised the bar in their hockey programs and CU will no longer enjoy its dominance that it once held in the ECAC for some time. I am sure at the end of the season, we’ll see comments like; “this was rebuilding year”, “our freshman were having a transitional year” “Our veteran players didn’t provide the leadership” etc. etc., we might even see one of the assistant coaches depart. However, it won’t change anything. That magical recipe is gone and until Schaffer starts becoming successful in creating lines that can manufacture goals, or he leaves, which is unlikely with his long term contract, will CU be able to once again dominate the ECAC. The team didn’t need some internal soul searching, it needed coaches who could orchestrate an effective scoring offense, practice it everyday and refine it. You can’t will players to play better through articles, and comments in and out of the dressing room, it comes with hard and focused training and building chemistry. It’s funny how once a team starts scoring goals and winning, that then do all these issues with leadership, motivation and other stuff melt away.

The bottom line is that the “Schaffer System” has failed because it has not adapted well to the challenges that CU is facing both internally and externally. You can get lucky sometimes and be dealt a good hand for a year or two, but to be a consistent winner you have to work at what you have every year. How long will it be until the CU crowd shouts, “Its all your fault” and starts pointing to the coaches on the bench? But…of course that could never happen.

Spelling guide ---->

It would be really great to wait a couple days before starting these kinds of threads.

I think it's important to remember that this team is exactly what most people thought it was going to be. A middle of the pack team that had the chance to attain the 4th seed for the playoffs. I don't think anyone expected a long playoff run. However, we have been spoiled most of the last few years and once the playoffs come around I think we start forgetting that the team is 14-11 and not 25-5.

I wouldn't call this the end of an era until we another season or even two.

The reason Cornell won't dominate is cause the ECAC is a good deal better than it was 4, 5 years ago. Clarkson, SLU, and sometimes Dartmouth & Q can play with most teams in the country. Harvard can too, but not when its an important game (see: Beanpot, NCAAs).

Anyway, no, we won't dominate much like we did in the past because the competition is much better. And I for one, am glad to see it (although not so much tonight of all nights ).

That said, losing two major D and a goalie and a very solid senior class, this was a rebuilding year all along. Cornell can and will probably have dominant years again. Lets let Romano, Greening, Nash, Krueger, Milo, etc get another year under their belt and see how it goes.

In the past few decades, we won the ECAC in 1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005.

It's only been two years since we last won. In terms of ECAC dominance, nothing is wrong here.

Are you saying I should sell my season tickets while they're worth something? What would your position be had they won tonight? Best team in the nation for the next decade?

Next year, I don't care too much about dominating the ECAC. I just want us kick BU's ass in the MADISON SQUARE GARDEN!!

I was thinking today about the effect of Jamie Russell leaving Cornell a few years back to take over behind the bench at Michigan Tech. He's now in his fourth season there and has been making some very positive strides in what is perennial the cellar dweller of the WCHA. Is it possible that our recruiting has slowly been wilting over the past few years? Or am I thinking this way simply because of the recent sting of a less than stellar year?

Probably the most well-thought-out post on here in history. Something I've been thinking of for the last three weeks....

The Schafer glory years are over. The game has evolved, and he's still coaching his style of play from when he wore the Red and White. It's a shame, the players he hoodwinked into coming here deserve better.

I'm not sure that anybody has been "hoodwinked" into coming here. They can make visits, see games and see the style of hockey we play. They then make a decision about where they want to play. Not to mention the reputation we have for playing grind-it-out hockey. In the years that I've been here, it seems like our style of play is pretty well known in college hockey circles, so no player who signs on here should be surprised about what they find when they get here.

I am also amazed by the fact that everybody seems to think the world is falling apart because we had a mediocre year. It's a young team with a lot of talent on it. I'm upset at the way everything ended as I'm a senior and I don't know how of their games I'll be able to get to in the future but I'm really optimistic about the next few years. This seems to me to be the most purely talented team that we've had in my 4 years and I expect that we will see better results in the years to come. We're a couple of defensemen and a goalie who doesn't give up bad rebounds away from being right back where we were before. Clearly those positions were filled by O'Byne, Pokulok and McKee the last few years and losing all of them was a huge hit but we're not that far off for a team that finished 4th in the ECAC with this many freshmen and sophomores playing big roles.

Finally, what's with everybody saying Schafer doesn't change his style. Look at last year's recruiting class and it looks like a pretty big shift in philosophy to me. This year's team is extremely hard to gauge because he was stuck with the old type of players that Cornell is used to and the new fast-paced, offense-heavy system. It seems to me that as the old guard moves on, we'll get a better idea of what he's trying to do. If he tries to make Romano, Gallagher and Milo play a physical, pounding type of game the next couple of years you can complain that he's not adjusting. But give the guy a chance with this new breed of player that he's recruiting.

We had a very good year last year. At the end of last year, we all thought that if we lost McKee, O'Byrne, and Pokulok, we'd be in trouble.

So that happened, and we managed to have a decent year. Playoffs ended early, but we were in legitimate contention to win the ECAC's.

So stop panicking, we'll be good next year, and real good the year after that.

Wait, I thought Schafer glory years were over back in 2004? Also, I think Castro's days are numbered.

The irony is that it's the successes of the Schafer era that have raised expectations to the point where some think a season like this is a disaster. Here's what we've had in his 12 seasons:

ECAC Champs: 1996 1997 2003 2005
ECAC Finalists: 2001 2002 2006
ECAC Semifinalists: 2000
ECAC Play-In Victims: 1998
ECAC Quarter/Quintafinalists: 1999 2004 2007

ECAC RS #1: 2002 2003 2005
ECAC RS #2: 1997 2004
ECAC RS #3-4: 1996 2000 2001 2006 2007
ECAC RS #5-8: 1998 1999

NCAA Semifinalists: 2003
NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1997 2002 2005 2006
NCAA Tournament: 1996

For comparison, here's what we achieved in the 13 seasons Reycroft and McCutcheon had between them:

ECAC Champs: 1986
ECAC Finalists: 1992
ECAC Semifinalists: 1985 1989 1990 1991
ECAC Quarterfinalists: 1988 1994 1995

ECAC RS #2: 1991
ECAC RS #3-4: 1985 1986 1989 1990
ECAC RS #5-8: 1989 1992 1994
ECAC RS #9-12: 1983 1984 1987 1993 1995

NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1986
NCAA Tournament: 1991

Stop harping on the facts. Can't you just let IMM wallow in his misery?

As for me, I'm selling all my Cornell gear and making a bee line for Cambridge. I want to be first in line at the Coop to buy some Crimson paraphernalia.

jtwcornell91
The irony is that it's the successes of the Schafer era that have raised expectations to the point where some think a season like this is a disaster. Here's what we've had in his 12 seasons:

ECAC Champs: 1996 1997 2003 2005
ECAC Finalists: 2001 2002 2006
ECAC Semifinalists: 2000
ECAC Play-In Victims: 1998
ECAC Quarter/Quintafinalists: 1999 2004 2007

ECAC RS #1: 2002 2003 2005
ECAC RS #2: 1997 2004
ECAC RS #3-4: 1996 2000 2001 2006 2007
ECAC RS #5-8: 1998 1999

NCAA Semifinalists: 2003
NCAA Quarterfinalists: 1997 2002 2005 2006
NCAA Tournament: 1996

Thanks fot the stats, John. Note that most of the success has come with Schafer's recruits (post-1999).

It's easy to abandon ship after this disappointing end to a frustrating year. Keep the long view in sight. All the comments concerning the transition year and loss of personnel are valid, not merely excuses.

Concerning the Jamie Russell issue, IIRC, Scott Garrow was the Cornell assistant whose last recruiting class before leaving Cornell was 02-03, a high-water mark for sure. I also recognize that he's been here for 3 or 4 years now, and this team belongs to the existing coaches.

Concerning the "condemned to mediocrity" prediction, it's too early to tell. Granted that Schafer enjoyed huge success when the game rewarded a more defensive, "clutch & grab" playing style, my jury's still out on whether he and his assistants can adapt to the more wide-open, offense-oriented game. They've shown they can do it in streaks. Whether that's a glimpse into the future or just a few "lucky" games is up for conjecture.

The thing I find most disconcerting is our weakness on special teams - some may say lack of creativity. This is the most orchestrated part of the game where coaches should be able to exert influence, yet we saw little improvement over the course of the year.

In my view, 07-08 will be a tell-tale year. By then the new offensive core will have matured, the coaches will have had time to refine their systems, we should have more stable goaltending (one way or another) and our young defense will have matured. I believe next year's freshmen will have a major impact on the success of that team. Much rests on them.

Townie
Thanks fot the stats, John.

Thanks to [www.tbrw.info] and [www.augenblick.org] for the easy-to-collate data.

I wasn't quite convinced it was true until I read Ice Meets Metal's post. Now I know its true. I'm gonna stop following Cornell hockey and switch my allegiance to Mercyhurst, or maybe Minnesota. There has to be a hockey program out there that isn't sinking with the Titanic. Any suggestions? Anyone wanna buy my game-worn Vesce jersey since I no longer will be needing it?

Every year someone goes on a rant like this about SCHAFER and the "Schafer System" and how it's no good at the end of the season. We are all dissapointed that this wasn't "the year" yet again. But it will be "our year" sometime soon and it will be great.
This team suffered through a lot of losses this year, replacing almost half the team. It was a rebuilder. Schafer is a defensive genius. The players will learn. All will be good and a shinny new championship banner or two will hang from Lynah's glorious rafters.

bandrews37
The Schafer glory years are over. The game has evolved, and he's still coaching his style of play from when he wore the Red and White.It's a shame, the players he hoodwinked into coming here deserve better.

did you see Schafer play? because if i remember correctly it was a totaly diffrent cornell team back then (when Lou Raycroft was coach).
DUMP AND RUN!

I'm a little surprised that there is so much rending of garments when the season went more or less as predicted before the season. If anything, the team appeared to gel sooner (over a year sooner!) than expected. When it became clear that the early success was a mirage a significant minority decided that (a) we were wrong to begin with and (b) the flash of greatness was the real level of this team, ergo (c) ending up where we thought we would is evidence that the bottom has fall out of the program.

Truth: an NCAA QF quality team lost its four best players and replaced them with freshmen. That team was less skilled and less experienced than its predecessors. It is not a sign of anything yet, except maybe that Schafer is a coach, not a miracle worker.

I think the real shame of this season is that our seniors were nowhere near as excellent as the last two years. We've come to expect a tremendous step-up in skill, consistency and maturity from our seniors, and if we had had that, this season would have a different story.

The freshmen were outstanding; the sophomores (especially Kennedy, Mugford, Seminoff and Barlow) and the juniors (which is an unfortunately small class) were as good as we could ask them to be. The story of the season should have been "the freshmen couldn't fill the gaps of so many departed skilled players." That would have been the expected outcome.

Instead, it was "the freshmen stepped up and played excellent, but the senior class just couldn't make it happen." McCutcheon showed streaks of brilliance, especially towards the end, but it just wasn't enough. I guess you can't really blame them, as Fontas, McLeod, Salmela, and Hedge never really got to play much. But I'm sure that if we had a class like '05 (Knoepfli, Cook, Vart., Iggy) or last year (Downs, the Abbots, I won't mention Moulson) this team would have gone real, real far.

So let's be positive about this season. Gallagher, Nash, Greening, Romano, Milo and Scrivens/Davenport made great strides. When Topher's wearing the C next year, and we get another excellent recruiting class, the team will be able to make a huge push again....and this time as underdogs.

Downs was '05, and if I recall correctly we were grousing about leadership issues last year, too.

Also, you had to know this topic was full of significant insight BECAUSE THE TITLE WAS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS.

Get a grip, people. A transition year in which we all expected them to be mediocre ends in a 4th place RS finish and a one-and-done in the ECAC's, and everyone is grousing. Bitch, bitch, bitch. I drove 800 miles 5 times this season (uphill both ways, at $5/gallon, in a 1975 Ford Crown Vic station wagon with broken springs and no shocks, etc.) to watch home games, and who knows how many miles to away games... and while I'm a bit bummed with the way the season ended, it was a fun year of hockey spectating.

Everyone ready to throw Coach Schafer to the hyenas should consider that Schafer has made Cornell hockey worth watching---beyond what is expected of us Faithful---every year since he became head coach. While I don't unconditionally support him or his coaching decisions, I think some of you need just a wee bit of perspective.

It was a good year given my expectations going in, and it was a lot of fun.

That, and at least Harvard has hit the links, too.

Kyle

Ben Rocky 04
I wasn't quite convinced it was true until I read Ice Meets Metal's post. Now I know its true. I'm gonna stop following Cornell hockey and switch my allegiance to Mercyhurst, or maybe Minnesota. There has to be a hockey program out there that isn't sinking with the Titanic. Any suggestions? Anyone wanna buy my game-worn Vesce jersey since I no longer will be needing it?

Note that there could be a "Paul is Dead" theme here. Ice Meets Metal has the initials IMM. Reminds me of the Beatles song I, Me, Mine.

So the Big Red is Dead! We heard it here first.

BMac
but the senior class just couldn't make it happen." McCutcheon showed streaks of brilliance, especially towards the end, but it just wasn't enough. I guess you can't really blame them, as Fontas, McLeod, Salmela, and Hedge never really got to play much.

Fontas is a junior, and we'll hopefully see him getting a bit more playing-time next year, considering he was a pretty strong addition the lineup mid-season and make some good contributions on faceoffs and the PK.

Then apparently you missed the last four games of the season, when all we were doing was dumping and chasing.
In truth, I believe that Schafer has taken this team and this school as far as he possibly can. This team was in a position to win an ivy title this season, needing just two points in the final two league games to get at least a share, and they couldn't pull it out. Is it because we weren't talanted enough? No - we were outplayed and thus outcoached in both contests. The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.
People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.
Our hope should not to be simply be better than the teams in the ECAC. It should be to be better than EVERY team in college hockey. Too many are content just to finish higher than Harvard every year-and that's a dangerous mindset to be in.
And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.
There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best. The support from the administration is also average, could be better, could be worse. The league is middle tier and plays in some of the worst venues in division one hockey. And when you lump that all in with a style of play that - if you're a top-notch offensive player - will hamper your growth and development, than the writing on the wall is clear.

bandrews37
Then apparently you missed the last four games of the season, when all we were doing was dumping and chasing.
In truth, I believe that Schafer has taken this team and this school as far as he possibly can. This team was in a position to win an ivy title this season, needing just two points in the final two league games to get at least a share, and they couldn't pull it out. Is it because we weren't talanted enough? No - we were outplayed and thus outcoached in both contests. The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.
People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.
Our hope should not to be simply be better than the teams in the ECAC. It should be to be better than EVERY team in college hockey. Too many are content just to finish higher than Harvard every year-and that's a dangerous mindset to be in.
And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.
There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best. The support from the administration is also average, could be better, could be worse. The league is middle tier and plays in some of the worst venues in division one hockey. And when you lump that all in with a style of play that - if you're a top-notch offensive player - will hamper your growth and development, than the writing on the wall is clear.

I did not see the last 4 games. 2x away games with no vidieo + no All Access for 2 home playoff games / i live in florida = No I didnt see the last four games. Also, no indicators of that syle of play from any posters or game recaps. sooo...

Nothing unique about playing at Cornell?? We TOUGHT other schools those cheers! Lynah is an "old Barn" which lots of old school hockey players (and those new school guys with that mindset) like. And how is Schafer a phoney? He's the winningest coach in Cornell history and has taken this team to the FF not more than a few years ago and has a couple dozen former players in the Pros. That and he is a 2 time ECAC COTY. What planet are you from?

bandrews37
No - we were outplayed and thus outcoached in both contests. The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.


People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.

And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.

There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best.

Where this guy gets his/her info is beyond me? Maybe we shouldn't even respond, hoping he'll/she'll go away. I'd rather read this:
A few musings

So who are you going to sell your tickets to, bandrews? Since you're ready to throw the program under the bus after a few bad games, I'm sure you won't be needing them.

This was a transitional year in more ways than one, and we can get some perspective on it by taking a look at what happened to last year's national champion Wisconsin team that this year went 17-17-4. A gradual change over the last few years is that the Cornell program HAS been gaining stature and attracting better players. This makes the team more vulnerable to early departures. Adding the NHL's new policies regarding retaining rights to draftees which encourage early signings, the team suffered a double whammy. This is the price of success, and the coaching staff's ability to adapt their recruiting to take into account the likelihood of losing their most talented players early will be an important factor in the future success of the team. Another factor will be the Schafer "system" - how it adapts to fitting in players that are likely to be here only a few years and how attractive it will be to players hoping to get to the NHL and how helpful it will be in developing their skills for that level of play. The coaching staff is surely aware of all of this, and one interesting part of watching Cornell hockey over the next few years will be to see how they adapt to the new realities. This year was pretty noticeable change of course and a start in the right direction. Let's just see how it plays out.

ninian '72
..... the coaching staff's ability to adapt their recruiting to take into account the likelihood of losing their most talented players early will be an important factor in the future success of the team. Another factor will be the Schafer "system" - how it adapts to fitting in players that are likely to be here only a few years and how attractive it will be to players hoping to get to the NHL and how helpful it will be in developing their skills for that level of play. The coaching staff is surely aware of all of this, and one interesting part of watching Cornell hockey over the next few years will be to see how they adapt to the new realities. This year was pretty noticeable change of course and a start in the right direction. Let's just see how it plays out.

There is some truth to all of this.....But, I have to say that I'm not convinced that this "change of course" is the right direction. With the stringent academic requirements & scholarship limitations that CU must deal with (mea culpa, grammar police), I don't see them as being able to attract the very best offensive talent. I'm talking the true blue-chippers, here. They will get some really good talent....But, I still believe that talent level will be a bit removed from the very best; the players who have it all. As such, they'll be forever teasing us with a greatness that they're unlikely to achieve (Ex: coming one-goal short of the FF two years in a row).

I think they will be better served to go with the concept of playing puck control & absolutely stifling defense. These things can be taught. And, this coaching staff has shown that they can do that teaching well. True offensive greatness is an instinctive talent. The players either have it or they don't. And, I don't believe CU can hope to get enough truly great offensive players to take them to a Natl Championship.

I agree with almost everything you say. However, emphasizing team discipline and a system doesn't have to be restricted to a stifling, defense-first approach. It's worked for Cornell in the past and may continue to work, with some offensive tweaking. Over the years, I've watched other teams with more raw talent - Michigan in particular - and these teams aren't invincible. Red Berenson gives his fast, skill-oriented forwards a lot of latitude to be creative. They take a lot of risks that sometimes pay off, sometimes not, sometimes disastrously so. Ohio State has had their number over the years and often keeps an extra forward back, ready to help out in the defensive end. Good coaching, discipline, and good positional play can neutralize what a team gives up in speed and skill. The big question is how long it takes new players to absorb these lessons and make the system work. This year's team seems to have been a work in progress.

redice
I think they will be better served to go with the concept of playing puck control & absolutely stifling defense. These things can be taught. And, this coaching staff has shown that they can do that teaching well. True offensive greatness is an instinctive talent. The players either have it or they don't. And, I don't believe CU can hope to get enough truly great offensive players to take them to a Natl Championship.

You need a mix of all three elements to be a national champion. Just taking lessons from Cornell's history, the 67-70 teams had great O, D and G, and won. The late 70's teams had great O and G, but poor D, and lost. The early 00's teams had great D and G, and poor O, and lost.

It's true that Cornell will never parallel, say, Minnesota's lineup, where a Matt Moulson could be relegated to a role player. But they don't need that to win the title. They do need to land two or three outstanding offensive players within a few recruiting years of each other, to complement a solid D. The one genuinely top-tier guy they probably must have is at G, but as we have seen, they have had no problem getting those.

The readjustment to an offensive style is inevitable given the direction of the NHL. Unless the Devils start winning Cups again, purely defensive, system-oriented play will not attract many top quality recruits anymore. (Aside: Thank God!) This year's freshmen showed Cornell can recruit excellent offensive talent. I'm sure we have more Albany and NCAA moments in our near future.

Trotsky

redice
I think they will be better served to go with the concept of playing puck control & absolutely stifling defense. These things can be taught. And, this coaching staff has shown that they can do that teaching well. True offensive greatness is an instinctive talent. The players either have it or they don't. And, I don't believe CU can hope to get enough truly great offensive players to take them to a Natl Championship.

You need a mix of all three elements to be a national champion. Just taking lessons from Cornell's history, the 67-70 teams had great O, D and G, and won. The late 70's teams had great O and G, but poor D, and lost. The early 00's teams had great D and G, and poor O, and lost.

It's true that Cornell will never parallel, say, Minnesota's lineup, where a Matt Moulson could be relegated to a role player. But they don't need that to win the title. They do need to land two or three outstanding offensive players within a few recruiting years of each other, to complement a solid D. The one genuinely top-tier guy they probably must have is at G, but as we have seen, they have had no problem getting those.

The readjustment to an offensive style is inevitable given the direction of the NHL. Unless the Devils start winning Cups again, purely defensive, system-oriented play will not attract many top quality recruits anymore. (Aside: Thank God!) This year's freshmen showed Cornell can recruit excellent offensive talent. I'm sure we have more Albany and NCAA moments in our near future.

Well, I certainly like the tone of the way this thread is going. Much better than the beginning. I couldn't agree more with your post.

bandrews37
Our hope should not to be simply be better than the teams in the ECAC. It should be to be better than EVERY team in college hockey. Too many are content just to finish higher than Harvard every year-and that's a dangerous mindset to be in.

Yeah, I mean, we should realize the defensive mindset, while helping us win the ECAC, can only take us so far in the NCAAs and that we need to swtich to a more offensive system. Too bad Schafer seems unwilling to do that.

One thing that I keep coming back to when thinking about this season is how tired the team looked both in the later parts of individual games and also the season. I think I started to really pay attention to this after the game at Union, where the team couldn't hold a 3-1 3rd period lead; that's very uncharacteristic for a recent Cornell squad. Another excellent example was the season-ending game on Saturday night. The first half of the game featured a lot of good periods of control by CU. By the 3rd period, Quinnipiac was in firm control of much of the play, and all the penalties and the GWG came from that.

A hallmark of the Cornell teams of the last 10 years has been great conditioning. They would just wear the other teams out by the 3rd period, and if they had a lead, it was nearly elementary to clamp down and not even let the opponent get a sniff of an offensive chance. I just got the feeling that this was a 1st-period team this year. We HAD to get out to a good 1st period, becasue we didn't have much in the tank by the end. A lot of the post-game comments (seemed to me) featured a lot of "we had a great 1st period...then yada yada yada."

The stats seem to support that (sure, you can get stats to say anything, but I'll try to keep it simple). Breaking out the trusty collegehockeystats.net tools, The goals broken down by period is interesting:

Scoring (Overall)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT |
Cornell            |  34  31  25  0   90 | 
Opponents          |  25  20  32  1   78 | 
Difference         |  +9 +11  -7 -1  +12 |

A steady decline in goals as games progressed, while opponents really made hay against us in the 3rd. And I know that Al D. (et al.) is going to shoot me for breaking these out, but CU was 12-3-2 when scoring first, and 2-10-2 when being scored upon first. Probably more telling:

Record leading after 2 periods: 12-0-2
Record trailing after 2 periods: 0-8-1
Record tied after 2 periods: 2-5-1

OK, so they were better than I thought at playing "lock-down with a lead" but they just didn't have the horses to make any offensive push in the 3rd period...and they played in a lot of close games.

With this team, in relying on the contributions of freshmen more than most years, that conditioning wasn't there. These are kids who aren't used to the grind of this level. The fast start suggested they were fresh and energetic, and then hit a wall. One thing I've always liked about Schafer's coaching is getting his guys well conditioned in the offseason. Now this freshman class should realize the value of taking it seriously. I don't know if we'll see anyone go on the Tony Bergin Weight Gain Plan(tm), but to be able to climb back to the national elite, this team has to develop better endurance.

Younger players tend to have the endurance issues. Even though they come out of leagues where they played twice as many games, the very fact of so many games means they practice much less, and their superior talent means many of coast through long stretches of play at half speed. You often see freshmen explode on the scene in the ECAC and then disappear for the second half of the season. Part of that is conditioning. Part of it is being beaten the crap out of twice each week by 22- or 23-year olds who have a lot more throw weight than the beanpoles in Junior A.

It was striking to see the inconsistency of the level of effort of the team throughout the whole year. I think your intuition is correct that much of that was hitting the conditioning wall. An off-season should help. An off-season after a (relatively) poor season, with so few juniors returning and thus everything depending upon the returning sophs and freshmen, should be pretty intense motivation.

Trotsky
Younger players tend to have the endurance issues.

That's what she said!

(Come on, you know you were thinking it.)

Ice Meets Metal
The bottom line is that the “Schaffer System” has failed because it has not adapted well to the challenges that CU is facing both internally and externally.

bandrews37
The Schafer glory years are over. The game has evolved, and he's still coaching his style of play from when he wore the Red and White. It's a shame, the players he hoodwinked into coming here deserve better.

Trotsky
This year's freshmen showed Cornell can recruit excellent offensive talent. I'm sure we have more Albany and NCAA moments in our near future.

Hey, I hear Schafer is playing golf with Jim Calhoun, Mike Eaves, and the other has-beens. Anyone want to take bets as to which one gets back first to his sport's final/frozen four? Elite Eight? Too bad there's no NIT in hockey for all the teams waiting until next year.

The Rancor

bandrews37
Then apparently you missed the last four games of the season, when all we were doing was dumping and chasing.
In truth, I believe that Schafer has taken this team and this school as far as he possibly can. This team was in a position to win an ivy title this season, needing just two points in the final two league games to get at least a share, and they couldn't pull it out. Is it because we weren't talanted enough? No - we were outplayed and thus outcoached in both contests. The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.
People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.
Our hope should not to be simply be better than the teams in the ECAC. It should be to be better than EVERY team in college hockey. Too many are content just to finish higher than Harvard every year-and that's a dangerous mindset to be in.
And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.
There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best. The support from the administration is also average, could be better, could be worse. The league is middle tier and plays in some of the worst venues in division one hockey. And when you lump that all in with a style of play that - if you're a top-notch offensive player - will hamper your growth and development, than the writing on the wall is clear.

I did not see the last 4 games. 2x away games with no vidieo + no All Access for 2 home playoff games / i live in florida = No I didnt see the last four games. Also, no indicators of that syle of play from any posters or game recaps. sooo...

Then if you didn't see the games, how can you have any type of informed opinion of how we have played when the games mattered the most? And I hope you didn't have the All Access because you were away, because it certainly was working - with score graphics and instant replay, no less.

Nothing unique about playing at Cornell?? We TOUGHT other schools those cheers! Lynah is an "old Barn" which lots of old school hockey players (and those new school guys with that mindset) like.

Tought, or taught? Appleton is an "old barn"; so is Baker Rink and Houston Field House - how's that make us unique? So just like the coach, the fans haven't evolved and/or stayed ahead of the rest of the country. Just like how everyone on here threw a shit fit about the jerseys the team wore in Florida, though at most 500 people saw the team actually wearing them in person. Did anyone care to think about what the players prefered, since they're the ones, you know, WEARING THEM? Every player I spoke with (and yes, I spoke with most of them) preferred the new uniforms, saying they were lighter and that made a difference late in the games because they weren't soaked with water and sweat. Yet because of fan backlash over them, the jerseys were banished to the back of the closet.

And how is Schafer a phoney? He's the winningest coach in Cornell history and has taken this team to the FF not more than a few years ago and has a couple dozen former players in the Pros. That and he is a 2 time ECAC COTY. What planet are you from?

Winningest coach just means he's been here longer than anyone else has. You want to get picky? Fine - he may have the most wins in school history, he's also got the most losses. Yes, more than Brian McCutcheon, more than Dick Bertrand, more than Lou Reycroft.

Much like the goalies thread, numbers can be twisted around here to prove whatever point you want. Most wins? Meaningless stat.

I will say this about next year's team: if we can get through the summer with minimal defections (and I've been hearing as many as four may leave - to go pro or to another program - and as few as one), this team will be a lot better, only because it'll be Topher wearing the C and not Bitz.

bandrews37
Just like how everyone on here threw a shit fit about the jerseys the team wore in Florida, though at most 500 people saw the team actually wearing them in person. Did anyone care to think about what the players prefered, since they're the ones, you know, WEARING THEM? Every player I spoke with (and yes, I spoke with most of them) preferred the new uniforms, saying they were lighter and that made a difference late in the games because they weren't soaked with water and sweat. Yet because of fan backlash over them, the jerseys were banished to the back of the closet.

Perhaps you can explain to us how having goofy fonts on front and back rather than the traditional and having vertical stripes on the sides rather than a horizontal stripe at the bottoms of the jerseys helped "make a difference late in the games." I don't recall anyone objecting to the material of which the jerseys were made, only the way they were decorated.

Wait...if it's going to provoke another irrational, intemperate rant, don't bother explaining.

bandrews37

Are you still talking? Go away, troll.

Ben Rocky 04

bandrews37

Are you still talking? Go away, troll.

Now, now. While bandrews37's posts are somewhat caustic and unpopular, I'm not willing to label them as trolling. I think he/she hasn't really been sniping or flaming anyone, just putting down an argument. I'd like for all rational posters to continue to be welcome here, even if they are from an Athletics Department lackey.

(disclaimer: don't know for sure if bandrews works in Athletics, but it's an educated guess judging from the comments made)

bandrews37
The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.

bandrews37
There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does.

Not trolling? You sure?

bandrews37
The assistant coaches are ok, but anyone who's ever talked to Schafer knows he's more phony than a $3 bill.

I must say that I take exception to that notion. In the recruiting process, you will find few that are as unrelenting as Brent or as "cool" with the players than Scottie. Coach Schafer is a great salesman of the program, but also an honest one. The recruits understand that what they see with Schafe is what they will get (all the players will attest as much, from Romano to Mugford to Carefoot to McKee). The staff genuinely cares about the academic progress of each player, something that in today's world of college hockey is very unique. The coaches have all the systems one could imagine for both defensive and offensive success in place, but, in the end, it really comes down to execution. That ebbs and flows with every year depending on the leadership and maturity level of the team.

bandrews37
There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does.

While that may be true to a certain extent, with cheers like Sieve, Sieve, Sieve, and others being similar across the nation, Cornell remains unique with the majority of their cheers. In this year alone, I heard cheers at the Yale and Brown games that I had not heard prior from the crowds at CC, DU, Wisky, UND, BC, BU, UMD, MTU, and UNH. Also, one impressive thing about Cornell is the relative lack of expletives from cheers. The Lynah Faithful show that you do not need to be crass (or in DU's case, overtly sexual) to provide a great home-ice advantage.

bandrews37
People on here are quick to point out our facilities as a strong point in luring top-notch recruits. Really, though, the new facilities aren't as grand as everyone makes them out to be. Sure, they're a step up over what we had, but Clarkson, Dartmouth and Quinnipiac all have a better setup, and that's just within the league. What our new facilities move us to is the middle of the national pack.

I think this is a case where I can understand your perspective, but I must say that Cornell has taken greatly productive strides in their upgrades. Lynah is an old facility, without a doubt, one lacking many of the bells and whistles that come with the underbody of many facilities (like large rehabbing pools, hot tubs, cold tubs, and more all in the locker room area of UND), but what Cornell sports is more than sufficient in the eyes of the recruits, and the locker room is comparable, but different than the schools mentioned above. But like you stated, the competition is stiff, and if you aren't moving forward, you are probably falling behind.

bandrews37
And frankly, it's funny to hear how much of an impact the fans think they have on potential recruits and on the success of the team. Does having a packed house help? Sure it does. But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.

I think you are right to a certain extent. A packed house can be an excellent help in the recruiting process, but it typically will not be a deciding factor for the majority of recruits. Places like UND, Wisky, Minnesota, and UNH, all experience great fan support as well, with an obvious disparity in attendance numbers as well. But Wisconsin typically has 2000 empty seats a game (a stat given to me by Kevin Patrick), and they also have to compete with the football, volleyball, and both basketball teams for campus attention. UND has a phenomenal venue, but the ceiling is very high, not making it as loud as some more intimate venues like UNH and Cornell. UNH has great fan support and a loud rink, but a locker room that closely resembles the old locker room in Lynah. DU, BC, CC, and BU typically experience full capacity only for rivalry games (though there are surely exceptions with seasonal differences in certain matchups that may be more enticing). Let me catch myself before I might be misunderstood for someone bashing other programs, and what they might have to offer. That is not my point at all; hardly, as each and everyone of those are tremendous programs in their own right. The point I am trying to make is that every program has its own problem or two that does not escape the recruits they bring on campus, and Cornell is not unique in that area, but neither is any other program in the nation.


I think that you have some very valid concerns, bandrews37, ones that are undoubtedly on the minds of the Big Red coaching staff much of their days. But that comes with running a program, and these are things that they are constantly trying to address in an expedited manner.

Al DeFlorio

bandrews37
Just like how everyone on here threw a shit fit about the jerseys the team wore in Florida, though at most 500 people saw the team actually wearing them in person. Did anyone care to think about what the players prefered, since they're the ones, you know, WEARING THEM? Every player I spoke with (and yes, I spoke with most of them) preferred the new uniforms, saying they were lighter and that made a difference late in the games because they weren't soaked with water and sweat. Yet because of fan backlash over them, the jerseys were banished to the back of the closet.

Perhaps you can explain to us how having goofy fonts on front and back rather than the traditional and having vertical stripes on the sides rather than a horizontal stripe at the bottoms of the jerseys helped "make a difference late in the games." I don't recall anyone objecting to the material of which the jerseys were made, only the way they were decorated.

Wait...if it's going to provoke another irrational, intemperate rant, don't bother explaining.

I wouldn't say I've said anything all that irrational - just stepping away from being a fanboy and taking an objective look at the team for a change, that's all.
Personally, Al, I don't care if they come out looking like a damn candy cane. If the players have a preference to them, then that's what I want them to wear. Because without the players, there's no team. To me, that's the one thing that I feel gets forgotten on here.

And RichH, thanks for understanding I am not trolling, but merely expressing my opinions based on following the team and college hockey in general. And no, I'm not an Athletics lackey - like you, I'm a fan who cares as much about the program as anyone else (only I'm a bit more concerned about the direction of the program than others).

bandrews37
But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.

There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best.

snip

Appleton is an "old barn"; so is Baker Rink and Houston Field House - how's that make us unique? So just like the coach, the fans haven't evolved and/or stayed ahead of the rest of the country.

Good point about the home players. But you really want to compare playing/spectating in Lynah Rink vs. playing in Baker?? Absurd. I reject your argument that a game at Lynah is no different than anywhere else. And it's not just CU players and fans saying things:


[Q]
"We’re excited to play in a facility with the character of Lynah. We’ve played there before, and it’s always a great experience...I truly believe that Lynah is one of the best places to play college hockey, so we are looking forward to it."
--Quinnipiac coach Rand Pecknold, Cornell Daily Sun, 3/9/07
[www.cornellsun.com]


"However, I think that while there is unique quaintness to the rinks of the league (none with a better atmosphere that Lynah Rink at Cornell), many players who have Ivy or ECACHL options played elsewhere because of the facilities."
--Dave Starman, CSTV, March 1, 2007
[www.cstv.com]


"I joke that I have a March time share there given our recent history, but there really isn't much to hate about Lynah Rink. The atmosphere is something I wish we could replicate at Cheel, but, the buildings are so much different structurally that it would be impossible. I just get a real charge out of how in to it the crowd is, much like Kansas University's Allen Field House in basketball. Don't get me wrong, Cheel is beautiful in so many ways, and not just broadcasting view and facilities, but everywhere. Lynah just, in my opinion, has it all."
--Bob Ahlfeld (Clarkson broadcaster), Clarkson Hockey Fans interview, 7/18/06
[clarksonhockeyfans.blogspot.com]

"THE RINK: Dave made an interesting point to me about Lynah Rink: the combination of its small size and rabid fans just might make for the biggest home ice advantage in college hockey, since all that noise is packed in by the small building. It's similar in a lot of ways to Walter Brown Arena at BU (although I think the layout of Lynah is far superior). However, unlike BU, Cornell doesn't have to compete with opponents whose facilities are far superior, and also has an Ivy League degree to offer. Honestly, while I do think that there are better buildings - physically - in the ECACHL (Dartmouth and Yale come to mind immediately), the atmosphere at Lynah is unmatched in the league."
--Elliot Olshansky, CSTV blog - February 18, 2006
[slog.cstv.com]

"Let’s face it: Bright Hockey Center should be renamed Bright Reading Center. It’s as quiet as a library on Friday and Saturday nights. On the other hand, what’s not to love about Lynah’s electric atmosphere. Even people who’ve never been there before are looking forward to it. 'I’ve never been there or played there, but it’s all I hear about,' said Harvard freshman Dylan Reese. 'I hear it’s one of the best places in college hockey to play, and in the world, frankly. I’m excited.'"
--Jon Paul Morosi, Harvard Crimson, 12/5/03
[www.thecrimson.com]

"In fact, a case can be made that no Division I fans influence the game-time atmosphere as much as the Lynah Rink faithful do."
--Hockey East Commissioner Joe Bertagna, USCHO column, 1/28/03
[www.uscho.com]

"Absolutely best integration of fans to players in college hockey...What they do after the last home game, where they stay with the band and then mix with the players, is unlike anyplace else."
--Hockey commentator Bob Norton, same Bertagna article

"Few Eastern schools have anything like North Dakota's new Engelstad Arena, with its marble Sioux head. But Hagwell was willing to rate the Cornell crowd at Lynah Rink with any in the nation."
--USCHO.com town meeting report, 4/5/02
[www.uscho.com]
[/Q]

This with just a few minutes of searching. There are hundreds of similar quotes from opponents, coaches, and media. Your opinion of the quality of the facilities seems to be valid, and on par with the rest of the East. But I strongly disagree with your assertion that hockey games at Cornell have fallen behind the rest of the nation in atmosphere, noise, and fun. There are probably only about 4-5 places in the nation that rival them.

I know you wanted to raze the place and get a state-of-the-art palace built somewhere away from campus, but my opinion holds for Lynah as it did for the new basketball facility that CornellFan brought up in the "other sports" forum.

bandrews37
Much like the goalies thread, numbers can be twisted around here to prove whatever point you want. Most wins? Meaningless stat.

Agreed in this context. I like to go by winning %, where coach Schafer ranks #3 in school history (.636). However, it's his post-season records that get my attention. ECAC: 30-12-2 (.705) and NCAA: 6-6 (.500). And 4 league championships in 12 years. I think it's quite impressive. True, he doesn't have the NCAA title yet, and he may never get it, but no current ECAC coach can claim as much success, and I can't think of anyone who I'm confident could be more successful with our recruiting & academic advantages/disadvantages at this place and time.

bandrews37
I wouldn't say I've said anything all that irrational - just stepping away from being a fanboy and taking an objective look at the team for a change, that's all.
...
And RichH, thanks for understanding I am not trolling, but merely expressing my opinions based on following the team and college hockey in general. And no, I'm not an Athletics lackey - like you, I'm a fan who cares as much about the program as anyone else (only I'm a bit more concerned about the direction of the program than others).

No you're not being irrational, just pessimistic. You're looking at a season that was less successful than some of us have come to expect from Cornell hockey and extrapolating the total decline of the program. This is unjustified in my opinion. You're looking at a short stretch of games with negative results and concluding that Schafer is no longer a capable coach and asd a result the program is going nowhere with him. That seems unreasonable to me.

Let me change that. From your comments it seems like you decided long ago that you don't like Schafer as a coach and are just using the playoff results, etc. to back up your opinion. You're entitled to that opinion.

I think there is a good deal of discussion to be had about Schafer, though, and I'm interested in hearing from veterans of the Faithful more experienced than I a bit more about this.

As many of pointed out, there's not much doubt that Schafer is willing to adapt to make us a faster, more offense-driven team. My question is, can he do it? I've only been watching for a couple years, so to me Cornell is defensive. This year was obviously an intersection of rebuilding and restructuring, so flux is only natural and we can't extrapolate much from it. But judging from the few games I've seen, and game threads, it sounds like we haven't really changed our strategy. For instance, our powerplay still sounds like a defense-centric PP -- move the puck on the outside, hope for the one-timer from the blueline. I don't think I've seen or heard much in the way of crashing down and creating on-the-fly advantages down low, which would seem to me the kind of powerplay an offensively-minded team would lean towards.

I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle. If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.

ftyuv
I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle. If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.

It may be worth considering at some point, but we don't have nearly enough data to say whether he can or can't handle it. One rebuilding season doesn't tell the story.

Just because you have more faster, smaller skill players doesn't mean that we will or should suddenly play a wide open WCHA game. Defense is still extremely important and you want to convince the players to play a two way game. It may be a harder sell to a kid with more offensive talent as opposed to a big guy who's always worked in the corners. But that's where smart recruiting comes in. Cornell probably shouldn't recruit a kid who is unwilling to play defense, even if he can fly and score. Or at least not very many such players.

If we win the QF series, this entire thread doesn't happen.

ftyuv
I don't think I've seen or heard much in the way of crashing down and creating on-the-fly advantages down low...

Actually, this is exactly what I see happening. It did not happen over night, and it is still pretty ugly, but the PP has changed. I noticed after the break that the normal cycle and shoot had been adjusted to get Bitz moving down low and open up McCutcheon on the backside with both Sawada and Bitz in rebound position. I think McCutcheon scored on this at 'Gate, but I can't remember or check right now(TWCNY has both 'gate games on demand for free, ch.577). Since then, it has looked more creative, although at times not very pretty. With Romano, Scott, Nash, Gallagher and McCutcheon (I think this was the line) on a PP against Q, they did a good job of moving the puck and finding openings, except for ones on the way to the net.

I think that the PP might have come together with more consistent lines. I don't think I saw the same PPer's together in any 2 games down the stretch.(I only saw home games)

Btw, I know that some recent shifts did resemble the traditional PP, but there has been an effort to change.

[edit ch. 577]

Trotsky
If we win the QF series, this entire thread doesn't happen.

Meh. If we lose in the semis it happens next week. There are people who had an axe to grind.

ftyuv

I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle. If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.

At various junctures during the season, I also casually wondered whether the coaches were up to task with the different style of play. I was thinking along the lines of, why not hire a more offensive-minded assistant coach who either played or specialized in such a system? Here, of course, I am not trying to get coach Garrow or Brekke fired; these two are likely to be the unsung and under-appreciated members of the team. But having a coach who is familiar with where coach Schafer wants to take the team should help, either in real-game situations or in recruiting.

Or maybe Joe can help, in addition to everything that he has done for Cornell hockey already...

ftyuv
I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle. If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.

I think the problem isn't just "rebuilding year" but also "transition year." I don't think it fair to assume that Schafer can't coach offense. Now that the holdovers from the defense-first era are graduating, the transition to a high-scoring offense can be completed.

The returning juniors, Topher, Sawada and Krantz^* are all skilled offensive players as much as (if not more than) defense-first guys. When they get to skate with the offensive-minded classes of '10 and '11^** we'll see whether the staff can coach a high-scoring squad.

* Does anyone know what Fontas will bring to the table?
** I don't even know where to fold the class of '09 into this analysis.

min

ftyuv

I'm not saying we should get rid of Schafer, but I think it's worth considering whether he is really doing us a service by trying to move the team in a direction he may not be able to handle. If we recruit small and fast but coach big and stingy, it could leave us in a damaging no-man's land.

At various junctures during the season, I also casually wondered whether the coaches were up to task with the different style of play. I was thinking along the lines of, why not hire a more offensive-minded assistant coach who either played or specialized in such a system? Here, of course, I am not trying to get coach Garrow or Brekke fired; these two are likely to be the unsung and under-appreciated members of the team. But having a coach who is familiar with where coach Schafer wants to take the team should help, either in real-game situations or in recruiting.

That's about the level that I've thought it out, too. And KeithK, just to be clear, I wasn't saying that I've drawn any conclusions -- just that I think it's worth keeping the question in the back of our minds. Would I have not posted that if we'd had a great season? Probably -- because that question would have been answered. Our mediocre season doesn't mean that the question is answered against the coach, but it does mean (to me) that the question's still open.


I'm also of the opinion that a good mind is good at methods, not just individual skills. Maybe all Schafer needs is to do more research into this new style and how to coach it (something I would guess/hope he's doing already). This is a transition for him too, and we should of course give him a couple years to adjust his style. But we should just be aware that the possibility is there that he's just not the coach for a fast, offensive team. This is especially pertinent now that it's our off-season and we need something to bicker about other than whether Clarkson is evil or merely villainous.

Yep, I got that you were just asking the question. It's worth thinking about as long as we're not quick to jump to conclusions.

I'm not objective, there's no way I can see Schafer as incapable of anything short on walking of water, and there have been times...

Here are some things to ponder, too:

Ron Mason, Michigan State

1990 35-7-3
1991 17-18-5
1992 26-10-8

Jerry York, BC

2001 33-8-2
2002 18-18-2
2003 24-11-4

Jack Parker, BU

1998 28-8-2
1999 14-20-3
2000 25-10-7
2001 14-20-3
2002 25-10-3

Losing three guys to the pros can cause a program to wobble. It doesn't mean anything about the coaching.

Looks a lot like Schafer '03, '04, '05, '06, don't it?

I'm not 100% convinced that Schafer is changing Cornell's style of play, which is what everyone seems to believe is happening. I see him changing his recruiting style, and I believe that if necessary he'll shift Cornell's style of play. It's not actually necessary yet.

The style of play that made Cornell successful was a style ideally suited to the big, physical players that Cornell brought in with the class of 2003, but it wasn't fundamentally different from the style of play Cornell used through the late 90s. Schafer hockey, which he's made Cornell hockey, is predicated on stifling, physical defense which starts with puck possession in the *offensive* zone. The forecheck is a critical part of the equation, but it's not the only way to maintain puck possession - if Cornell has forwards who can keep the puck pinned in the offensive zone, whether by taking possession and maintaining control (current smaller frosh and soph forwards) or winning physical battles along the boards and laying big, physical hits on the opposition (previous years, and even now guys like Sawada fit this description), the fundamental premise of Schafer's coaching system isn't likely to change.

I don't see Cornell becoming a coast-to-coast style team. I don't know if Schafer can become an offensive-minded coach, but I don't think it's necessary. It was clear that only occasionally can a team built solely around defense and special teams advance deep in the NCAAs. 2003 was the chance for that model to win a national title, and they didn't catch enough breaks against UNH to even get to the finals, where they would have been underdogs to a more talented and well-coached Minnesota team. I believe Schafer is merely recruiting more talented offensive forwards because 1) the recent success of the program makes it possible for Cornell to win those recruiting battles and 2) with some more offensive talent Cornell can put up the 3+ goals per game necessary to make that defensively oriented team a genuine threat to win an NCAA title. I'd be surprised if there weren't some gritty, physical forwards amongst the next two sets of recruits.

Schafer wants a national title. He's making adjustments to his basic strategy in order to achieve that goal. I don't think Cornell is transitioning to a radically different style of play. You might see more creativity through the neutral zone and in the offensive zone than you've seen in the past, but you won't see the team move away from its basic defensive mindset, and you won't see too many offense-only forwards.

As for special teams, I hope they'll get away from the umbrella as a power play set, or at least focus on moving the puck down low more. The umbrella was amazingly effective in 2002-2003 because it had exactly the right mix of players to make it work - a PP quaterback with soft hands, good vision, and a huge shot (Murray); two guys up high with solid shots, good passing ability, excellent decisionmaking, and the ability to pinch and create chances down low (Bâby and McRae); a small, agile, tough forward who could open up the ice down low and work in the corners and behind the net (Vesce); and an immovable object in front of the net with excellent hands and a knack for key deflections, who could also work down low and in the corners with Vesce and McRae (Paolini).

Cornell hasn't had that mix since 2003. The recent successful seasons on the PP were something of a mirage - the PP was getting progressively less effective as time wore on, and success was largely driven by the average quality of the opposition. Even the successful units were vulnerable to aggressive penalty kills which pressured the top of the umbrella. The predictable, uninspiring PP of this year was simply an indication that the personnel had changed to the point where the PP set couldn't really be saved.

I've also noticed the effort to work more down low on the PP, although I haven't been able to watch that many games this spring. I've been seeing more weak side movement and cross-ice passes. That'll help a lot, as it opens up the ice for the PP. Sometime in the middle of next season there's a good chance the PP will start clicking, much as the umbrella started clicking in 2002. If that happens, and if they get the PK to stop sending everyone down low after the puck (I can't tell you how many times I saw 3 white jerseys in the corner on the penalty kill), Cornell's special teams could be right back up near the top of the NCAA as soon as next season.

There are certainly reasons to be upset with the way this year went for Cornell, but there are also a lot of reasons to be optimistic. Assuming no major injuries or defections to the pros - and I'm not expecting any of the latter - If Cornell finishes in the middle of the ECAC and fails to make any noise in the playoffs, then you should start seriously wondering if Schafer can make the necessary adjustments to keep Cornell near the top of the league. For now, it's worth idly considering, but I'd hardly call this season anything other than playing to expectations. With O'Byrne, Pokulok, and McKee, this team is completely different, and a 4th place finish would be a major disappointment.

Thanks for a well-thought-out post. We may not agree on every specific, but your overall ideas are pretty similar to mine. Particularly your closing about the effect of losing 3 key players.

bandrews37

snip

Appleton is an "old barn"; so is Baker Rink and Houston Field House - how's that make us unique? So just like the coach, the fans haven't evolved and/or stayed ahead of the rest of the country.

Tear down Fenway! Some of the seats have horrible sight lines, it is too small, and the seats aren't comfortable. How will the Sox ever keep a solid fan base and draw the best free agents with that rotting hulk? They better move it further from downtown so the parking is better, too.

RichH

bandrews37
But you can't tell me that the words the seniors speak every season about how much they will miss playing in front of the fans aren't echoed at North Dakota, Denver, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Maine, BU, BC, New Hampshire - even at other schools in the ECAC, like Clarkson and SLU.

There's nothing unique about playing at Cornell. The fans cheer the same exact cheers that every other school around the country does. The facilities are average at best.

snip

Appleton is an "old barn"; so is Baker Rink and Houston Field House - how's that make us unique? So just like the coach, the fans haven't evolved and/or stayed ahead of the rest of the country.

Good point about the home players. But you really want to compare playing/spectating in Lynah Rink vs. playing in Baker?? Absurd. I reject your argument that a game at Lynah is no different than anywhere else. And it's not just CU players and fans saying things:


[Q]
"We’re excited to play in a facility with the character of Lynah. We’ve played there before, and it’s always a great experience...I truly believe that Lynah is one of the best places to play college hockey, so we are looking forward to it."
--Quinnipiac coach Rand Pecknold, Cornell Daily Sun, 3/9/07
[www.cornellsun.com]


"However, I think that while there is unique quaintness to the rinks of the league (none with a better atmosphere that Lynah Rink at Cornell), many players who have Ivy or ECACHL options played elsewhere because of the facilities."
--Dave Starman, CSTV, March 1, 2007
[www.cstv.com]


"I joke that I have a March time share there given our recent history, but there really isn't much to hate about Lynah Rink. The atmosphere is something I wish we could replicate at Cheel, but, the buildings are so much different structurally that it would be impossible. I just get a real charge out of how in to it the crowd is, much like Kansas University's Allen Field House in basketball. Don't get me wrong, Cheel is beautiful in so many ways, and not just broadcasting view and facilities, but everywhere. Lynah just, in my opinion, has it all."
--Bob Ahlfeld (Clarkson broadcaster), Clarkson Hockey Fans interview, 7/18/06
[clarksonhockeyfans.blogspot.com]

"THE RINK: Dave made an interesting point to me about Lynah Rink: the combination of its small size and rabid fans just might make for the biggest home ice advantage in college hockey, since all that noise is packed in by the small building. It's similar in a lot of ways to Walter Brown Arena at BU (although I think the layout of Lynah is far superior). However, unlike BU, Cornell doesn't have to compete with opponents whose facilities are far superior, and also has an Ivy League degree to offer. Honestly, while I do think that there are better buildings - physically - in the ECACHL (Dartmouth and Yale come to mind immediately), the atmosphere at Lynah is unmatched in the league."
--Elliot Olshansky, CSTV blog - February 18, 2006
[slog.cstv.com]

"Let’s face it: Bright Hockey Center should be renamed Bright Reading Center. It’s as quiet as a library on Friday and Saturday nights. On the other hand, what’s not to love about Lynah’s electric atmosphere. Even people who’ve never been there before are looking forward to it. 'I’ve never been there or played there, but it’s all I hear about,' said Harvard freshman Dylan Reese. 'I hear it’s one of the best places in college hockey to play, and in the world, frankly. I’m excited.'"
--Jon Paul Morosi, Harvard Crimson, 12/5/03
[www.thecrimson.com]

"In fact, a case can be made that no Division I fans influence the game-time atmosphere as much as the Lynah Rink faithful do."
--Hockey East Commissioner Joe Bertagna, USCHO column, 1/28/03
[www.uscho.com]

"Absolutely best integration of fans to players in college hockey...What they do after the last home game, where they stay with the band and then mix with the players, is unlike anyplace else."
--Hockey commentator Bob Norton, same Bertagna article

"Few Eastern schools have anything like North Dakota's new Engelstad Arena, with its marble Sioux head. But Hagwell was willing to rate the Cornell crowd at Lynah Rink with any in the nation."
--USCHO.com town meeting report, 4/5/02
[www.uscho.com]
[/Q]

This with just a few minutes of searching. There are hundreds of similar quotes from opponents, coaches, and media. Your opinion of the quality of the facilities seems to be valid, and on par with the rest of the East. But I strongly disagree with your assertion that hockey games at Cornell have fallen behind the rest of the nation in atmosphere, noise, and fun. There are probably only about 4-5 places in the nation that rival them.

I know you wanted to raze the place and get a state-of-the-art palace built somewhere away from campus, but my opinion holds for Lynah as it did for the new basketball facility that CornellFan brought up in the "other sports" forum.

bandrews37
Much like the goalies thread, numbers can be twisted around here to prove whatever point you want. Most wins? Meaningless stat.

Agreed in this context. I like to go by winning %, where coach Schafer ranks #3 in school history (.636). However, it's his post-season records that get my attention. ECAC: 30-12-2 (.705) and NCAA: 6-6 (.500). And 4 league championships in 12 years. I think it's quite impressive. True, he doesn't have the NCAA title yet, and he may never get it, but no current ECAC coach can claim as much success, and I can't think of anyone who I'm confident could be more successful with our recruiting & academic advantages/disadvantages at this place and time.

Good to see there's someone halfway intelligent to have a discussion with around here.... thanks for the well thought out reply.
I wasn't comparing the atmosphere at Lynah to Appleton or Baker, merely the comment that it was an old barn, and so are the other two. Just because it's old doesn't make it special. It does get loud in there (only the two times this season when it was louder there than any other place I'd been were the end of the Harvard game and the end of the Colgate game, killing off the bs five minute penalty on Krantz). I'm just saying, the players who leave Mariucci and the Ralph echo the same comments that departing Red players do. Is it one of the best places to play around the nation? Absolutely - but the same arguement could easily be made by fans of a half dozen other schools.
I wouldn't say I wanted to raze Lynah - I just think that in 5-10 years, we're going to be behind the eight ball again in terms of facilities in the east, and then we'll be asking why we did all this now. I maintain that if you're standing still, you're moving backward, because there's others gaining ground - which may or may not be what happened this season (others gaining ground, I mean) (yes, losing three players hurt, but in the end, you're not going to win many playoff series scoring a goal a game - we made Fisher look like Ryan Miller last weekend).
Anyway, regarding Schafer... I'll agree four titles in 12 years is pretty good. His playoff record, though, is inflated over coaches in the past because of the format of the postseason. In the old days, you had to only win three games - that changed to six in Schafer's early years, then to as few again as four now. Also, the NCAA tournament was smaller back in the day. Is he probably one of the top 3 coaches in the league? Might be fair to say that. All I know is, having spoken with him, and most of his past assistants over the years, I just feel like the assistants don't nearly get the credit they deserve. They do the heavy lifting (recruiting, scouting, gameplanning), and he gets the glory - which is what happens with every team, no matter the sport, I know. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bow to the altar of Schafer. I feel like he's changed since taking us to the frozen four, and not in a good way.

bandrews37
Good to see there's someone halfway intelligent to have a discussion with around here...

Sigh.

If Schafer is changing our style of play, it’s been a big success. We were +21 at even strength, the best in the ECAC. The problem season has been totally, totally special teams. Generally there is a pretty strong correlation between even strength and special teams. Not this year. We were -9 on special teams, next to last after RPI. (Clarkson was +20 ES, +15 ST, Quinnipiac +3 ES, +29 ST). I tend to think this something of a fluke, we just didn’t have the right personnel this year. It’s not like Schafer can’t coach special teams, in the past when we had the right guys we did great on the power play and penalty kill (+30 in 04-05).

bandrews37
Anyway, regarding Schafer... I'll agree four titles in 12 years is pretty good. His playoff record, though, is inflated over coaches in the past because of the format of the postseason. In the old days, you had to only win three games - that changed to six in Schafer's early years, then to as few again as four now. Also, the NCAA tournament was smaller back in the day. Is he probably one of the top 3 coaches in the league? Might be fair to say that. All I know is, having spoken with him, and most of his past assistants over the years, I just feel like the assistants don't nearly get the credit they deserve. They do the heavy lifting (recruiting, scouting, gameplanning), and he gets the glory - which is what happens with every team, no matter the sport, I know. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bow to the altar of Schafer. I feel like he's changed since taking us to the frozen four, and not in a good way.

I may not be halfway intelligent, but the number of teams making the NCAA quarterfinals hasn't changed since they went to an 8+ team tournament, so Schafer's record of advancing that far is no less impressive. Also, you're shifting the argument - Rich was talking about winning percentage, not raw number of wins. .700+ in ECAC tournament play is .700+ in ECAC tournament play, and having to do it by way of more games doesn't make it less impressive. Yes, Schafer got there through a down cycle in ECAC history, and had a few games against lower-tier teams in the league (not so many, actually, if you look at the opponents), but .700 in the conference playoffs is pretty damn good no matter how you slice it. .500 in the NCAAs is reasonably impressive, too. It's not spectacular, but given Cornell's position in the hockey world, and considering how other ECAC teams have fared in the NCAAs over the same time period (even excluding Harvard's miserable record), Schafer's done quite well.

I agree that the assistants don't get the credit they deserve from the world at large, but the head coach does make a huge difference in recruiting and strategizing, and as you say it's not just Cornell where the quality of its assistants isn't recognized across the sporting world (although I have seen a lot of praise on this board for Cornell's assistants, and there are usually rumors about possible head coaching jobs for them, so their work does not go unnoticed).

I've already posted my thoughts on Schafer's style. I think it can still be effective, but we'll know more after next season.

Trotsky

bandrews37
Good to see there's someone halfway intelligent to have a discussion with around here...

Sigh.

Interesting. I would have gone with this.

rstott
If Schafer is changing our style of play, it’s been a big success. We were +21 at even strength, the best in the ECAC. The problem season has been totally, totally special teams. Generally there is a pretty strong correlation between even strength and special teams. Not this year. We were -9 on special teams, next to last after RPI. (Clarkson was +20 ES, +15 ST, Quinnipiac +3 ES, +29 ST). I tend to think this something of a fluke, we just didn’t have the right personnel this year. It’s not like Schafer can’t coach special teams, in the past when we had the right guys we did great on the power play and penalty kill (+30 in 04-05).

I think you've hit it on the head here. It's amazing how confident I felt watching this team play 5-on-5 hockey this year. It almost got to the point where I was scared of getting power plays, and that is pathetic. Based on the team's even strength ability, the offensive and defensive talent is there. I think it will come down to drilling and really being confortable/familiar with eachother in the schemes and hopefully this offseason will be well-used in that regard.

I suspect Schafer had something additional up his sleeve, but we won't get to see it this year. The defense first approach works better on smaller rinks, but I'm eager to see what happens when the new forwards have an opportunity to play on larger western ice surfaces. Having that kind of speed in Minnesota just might have made the difference.

Thanks Tom. You've pretty much said what I've been thinking and not writing very well.

bandrews37
I'm just saying, the players who leave Mariucci and the Ralph echo the same comments that departing Red players do. Is it one of the best places to play around the nation? Absolutely - but the same arguement could easily be made by fans of a half dozen other schools.

Even in the relatively small world of college hockey, being in the top seven hardly makes us disadvantaged.