How far Cornell hasn't fallen this year

This is shaping up as Cornell's least successful season in years. Can we take solace that the depths of our fall has only been to fifth place in the RS standings? Compare to say St. Lawrence and Dartmouth that finished last year's RS 1 and 3 and now are 9th (SLU) and in a three-way tie for last.

nm

I don't think you can compare Cornell's program to St. Lawrence or Dartmouth. Cornell has the tradition, money, infrastructure, recruiting network, not to mention player caliber to expect to be a top 10 team every year.

Simply put, Dartmouth and SLU are just not the same kind of program. I'm sure this is a poor analogy, but I don't think any Notre Dame football fan takes solace in the fact that some of the teams that finished ahead of them last year were even worse than they were this year? Notre Dame expects to win at football, Cornell expects to win at hockey; there are strong, winning traditions in place.

You can't just not compare the two programs- no offense to their respective fans, but Dartmouth hasn't won a thing in over 60 years, and SLUs history isn't much more distinguished.

Any season where we can't win a championship is a disapointing, and any season where we can't raise at least one banner is unacceptable.

I'm not on board with the comparison to SLU and think the comp to Dartmouth is crazy. That said, 5th place in an off-year does say good things about the program. Wait until next year to panic.

Just keep in mind that this is 5th place in a conference that went 21-38-4 (.365) against the "big 4" this year (according to CHN).

And a team that was 0-8 against the four teams above it.

I think billhoward's posting begs the question: How does one define "success" in athletics? How does one know that the failures of the Red are not a trend, to be replicated in the future? Will our fortunes be reversed? I mean to say: with Harvard now paying its athletic population for its labor, how can a (relatively) poor school like Cornell University compete? How will Cornell obtain good players? I must say that the Western schools play a different game. We all know that they are extremely fast, quick, skilled, and agile on the individual levels. Traditionally the defensive style of Cornell University has been able to overcome the "rabbits" of the West. But my question to the community is: Will Red Recruiting be able to trump the West anymore with its "tortoises," given the obscene competition for recruits. I am very worried for the state of Cornell hockey. I suspect we will never win another national championship. My father has argued so. Now this is pessimistic as hell, but I do not know why a team with such inspired fanbases cannot impose its will upon the University and Red Recruiting to build a team capable of national glory (yes, unrealistic, but come on, you cannot blame me for dreaming). OK, finally, I want to state that I apologize for my past annoyances and will stick only to substantive issues from now (I do realize now that the reference to my father was uncalled for). Thanks.

Well-put, ebilmes. It is the relativity of hockey leagues that we must consider, if we care about national glory. I was trying to reach your conclusion in my posting below. Thanks.

While I would never try to discredit anybody on the basis of their relative youth (and I would be foolish to try to do so on the basis of ebilmes's parentage, given that I share some of it), I think it's worth pointing something out.

Very little of what you say and ask now was not also said and asked in loud, semi-panicked conversations in 1993, 1994, and 1995 as the Cornell men's hockey team finished in 11th, 8th, and 9th place respectively. Just look at what happened after that, in 1996 and 1997.

Hell, look at our 8th place finish in 1998, and imagine how most of us must have felt at the time - were 1996 and 1997 flashes in the pan, super-motivated kids playing way above their ability and out of their heads for a new coach? Was it already over? Then look at what happened after that, in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006.

Just as you may find it telling that the older members of this group are the ones most ready to believe that our "calamitous" 5th place finish this year is part of a passing phase or a readjustment and that things will improve with the next couple of seasons, I find it telling that you, Doug08, and a couple of other of the youngest members of this group are the ones most ready to declare a permanent end to the glory.

Are there brand-new, never-before-seen obstacles to a return to glory? Perhaps, but I think it would be foolish to assume that we are the only ones who can see the obstacles or are trying to come up with solutions to them. An ability to adjust to one's circumstances in order to succeed does not mean that one will succeed at every turn. I find it utterly remarkable that anybody is willing to say right now, today, that Cornell will never win another national championship. Is it possible we never will? Of course it is, but that's largely because once you get to that level, anything can happen in a single game.

I am absolutely not ready to say that circumstances are already to the point where we should just pack in our priority numbers and go home. I believe we will be back in the Frozen Four in the next four or five years.

Yes, this was a disappointing season, in that we did not defeat anybody above us in the standings, but think about what that means - we didn't beat anybody we weren't supposed to beat. That doesn't shock me as much as it seems to shock other people. It was also difficult because we didn't do well out of conference. But there have only been a few seasons in the past thirteen since Coach Schafer took over that we have done well out of conference; the point isn't always to beat the OOC teams, it's to get exposure to OOC talent and styles of play, and if you can get some Ws, so much the better.

Listen, I'm not all "Trust in Schafer, he knows all." But one benefit of being around for twenty-one years of this stuff is that I've heard it before, and I've seen what happens afterwards. I said earlier this season, and I will repeat it now despite the results this past weekend:

Given what I know of our current team, who we're losing, who and what we believe we're gaining, and what I saw in the several games I watched, I could not shake the feeling that I was watching the 1999-2000 team all over again. Not in the specific tools that specific players have, although it's hard to resist comparisons - but in the sense that something special has started, that these kids are trying to work together much more than the team had in the previous couple of years, and that they just don't have the maturity of skills and judgment to make use of that drive, but that some of it will come to them, and the rest is on the way from other quarters.

Is it possible I'm wrong, and we're not going to have a Frozen Four-caliber team in 2011? Of course it is.

But I hope you'll excuse me for not rending my garments and sitting in ashes about it just yet.

This team had a better in-conference record than last years' team, but last year we really backed into 4th place.

Now what I would say to you Beeej is that I think that you establish that there is a chance that the Red will return to national glory but you do not really tell us how that will happen. Regardless, I very much appreciate your optimistic attitude and I, as a pessimist, will try to mirror your outlook on the Red. As I outline in my below posting, I believe that the Red and the fanbases are up against the gargantuan wall that is the recruiting policies of other Hockey Universities and the inferior position of Red Recruiting in the war for recruits. I too am skeptical of the Schafer, but I agree when he mentioned last week in the Sun that our ultimate goal is "destroying" the "Western Devils" (these are my own words) and winning the national tourney championship. Thank you

Beeeej
Listen, I'm not all "Trust in Schafer, he knows all."

I am, and the hell with the rest of you.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Beeeej
Given what I know of our current team, who we're losing, who and what we believe we're gaining, and what I saw in the several games I watched, I could not shake the feeling that I was watching the 1999-2000 team all over again.

Interesting thought. While I wouldn't say I felt that way, here's a look at next year's projected lineup, bearing in mind that this year is not over yet.

Trotsky
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Forget it, he's rolling.

Just because a poster says they agree with me does not mean that I, in turn, agree with his claims.

There's no doubt that Cornell will return to the top within a few years. My point was simply that this year was disappointing -- a good sized drop-off from earlier in the decade. This team could have accomplished a lot more than a mediocre finish in a weak conference.

Kris
Now what I would say to you Beeej is that I think that you establish that there is a chance that the Red will return to national glory but you do not really tell us how that will happen.

Actually, I think I did venture a few suggestions as to what will get us there: the relatively small graduating group; the current list of expected recruits for '09 and '10 and their particular strengths and reputations; the raw talent in our underclassmen that I believe will develop with time, work, and maturity; and maybe even to a certain extent the cyclical nature of the sport and our conference.

Every few years another horrific situation arises that makes us think we're doomed. Other schools following our lead and recruiting from Canada - the departure of the teams that became Hockey East - the increase in athletic scholarship presence at other ECAC schools - the season getting longer everywhere but in the Ivies - bigger, newer arenas going up elsewhere - cats and dogs living together! Yet all this happened before we got to the Frozen Four in 2003. I'm not suggesting Schafer has magical powers, I'm simply suggesting that the newest obstacles are not as onerous as people are making out.

Remember, one of the reasons we compete with the top schools for top recruits is that we got awfully good. We may not get the recruits we want, but we're getting better recruits than we did ten years ago. We may be losing people to the pros, but that's partly because we're getting recruits who are in demand by the pros. Success breeds success, but it also breeds its own challenges. I just find that when I look at a fifth-place finish in conjuction with new financial aid policies at a few of our competitor schools, I am not inclined to go screaming in the streets in panic. Those who are so inclined may do so, but I think it's awfully premature.

I also think it is as sure a sign as any that this program has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of people who were following it in the mid-1990s that anybody, much less a current senior, would suggest anything less than a new banner every year is unacceptable. (On the other hand, I can't argue with calling failure to win the conference tournament every year "disappointing" - of course it's "disappointing." I'd love for Cornell to win in Albany every single year. I also think it's grossly unrealistic to expect it, no matter how good your coach and your recruiting are. Even the perennial powers in the west don't win their conference tournament every year.)

As for the specifics, I have no suggestions. I am not a recruiter, I have no pipeline, and I'm surely no coach. But Coach Schafer has done pretty well by me in the thirteen years he's been at Cornell - and a fifth-place finish a couple of seasons after two years in a row of overtime national quarterfinal losses simply isn't anywhere near enough for me to go knocking on his door and demanding to know what he intends to do about it, then presenting him with a list of my ideas.

ebilmes
Just because a poster says they agree with me does not mean that I, in turn, agree with his claims.

There's no doubt that Cornell will return to the top within a few years. My point was simply that this year was disappointing -- a good sized drop-off from earlier in the decade. This team could have accomplished a lot more than a mediocre finish in a weak conference.

I apologize for lumping you into this particular argument - I think I actually started one post and ended up writing another.

And I'm not sure they could have accomplished a lot more. Sometimes your results are a pretty good indicator of your talent. I don't think it's a coincidence that the four teams above us swept us. On the other hand, let's see what happens in the ECAC tournament. I'd be surprised to see us hoist the trophy, but I certainly wouldn't complain.

People seem to ignore the fact that once again, the league was remarkably tight. Fact is that Cornell was one point off of securing the bye. Any of our close losses (or any of our ties)...one shot that squeaks through, correct one of those defensive breakdowns early in the season, and it's different. Heck, we turn one of the losses to Princeton into a win, and we're sitting in 2nd place.

The only thing is that in sports, you can play "what if" games for days and drive yourself crazy. Also, every team around us has the same argument I just made above.

Given what I saw after the 2nd home weekend, I'm OK with where we are. Strides have been made...maybe not as big as we would like, but I like this team. They're young, and good enough to be able to beat anyone in the league. It's playoff time, lets make some gravy.

Of course, I'm one of those grateful classes from the '90s, so I see a #5 finish as an ideal spot from which to make a playoff run.

a path of Dart/Union and then clarkson who they have have played 3 times and have been the better team in 2/3 of each game yet nothing to show for it arnt really a daunting path to earn a trip to the NCAA's..

upperdeck
clarkson who they have have played 3 times and have been the better team in 2/3 of each game

that could be argued, but I will agree that the games were closer than the scores showed (I am only speaking of the 2 league games, not Florida)

Clarkson is the only major obstacle to a Cornell ECAC title. That and the way we've played this year. Everyone else, we're better than or nearly equal to. Assuming the higher seed wins in the first round (us), then we get to see if Schafer can fire up the team in Schenectady. If some lower seed pulls an upset in the second round (in addition to Cornell), then that is Clarkson's Friday night opponent. Still, an iffy proposition. And a better proposition than what Dartmouth faces this year after also being near the top last year.

Kris
I do not know why a team with such inspired fanbases cannot impose its will upon the University and Red Recruiting to build a team capable of national glory

Because such a naked effort to put winning above all would require such a betrayal of the principles of Ivy League athletics that the resultant championship would be hollow and meaningless?

Put another way, was President Day wrong in telegramming Dartmouth to concede the infamous 5th down game? After all, that little telegram cost them a 19 game win streak and a probable shot at the national title...

billhoward
Clarkson is the only major obstacle to a Cornell ECAC title. That and the way we've played this year. Everyone else, we're better than or nearly equal to.

Princeton is nearly as good as Clarkson, and Cornell hasn't played them well, either.

Trotsky

billhoward
Clarkson is the only major obstacle to a Cornell ECAC title. That and the way we've played this year. Everyone else, we're better than or nearly equal to.

Princeton is nearly as good as Clarkson, and Cornell hasn't played them well, either.

I don't know, 2 one goal games, same or more shots; I'd not be unhappy with Princeton. Overall I still think Clarkson is the best team in the league. Now whether they can get past their poor past ECAC performance is a different question. They also have more experience in the tourney, both players and coach, than PU.

We'll see. I'm thinking that if Cornell can claw their way to Albany, they'll be facing Clarkson in the semi.

Trotsky
We'll see. I'm thinking that if Cornell can claw their way to Albany, they'll be facing Clarkson in the semi.

I don't disagree. I'm not picking any other top 4 to lose.

I wasn't saying anything about the future of the program, just that it is a disservice to Cornell hockey to compare it to Dartmouth and SLU.

Doug '08
I wasn't saying anything about the future of the program, just that it is a disservice to Cornell hockey to compare it to Dartmouth and SLU.

Well your first post seemed a lot stronger than that, and billhoward didn't compare our program to theirs; he just pointed out how far others had fallen compared to our drop.

I haven't really checked the standings in other leagues in a while and I was quite shocked to see that it is possible that Maine and/or UMASS-Amherst (both NC$$ playoff teams from last year) might not make it into the Hockey East playoffs! I knew that Maine was having a down year, but not that down as in failing to get into the league playoffs.

Cornell's failure to lock up a first round bye doesn't seem so bad.

LGR!

Rita
I haven't really checked the standings in other leagues in a while and I was quite shocked to see that it is possible that Maine and/or UMASS-Amherst (both NC$$ playoff teams from last year) might not make it into the Hockey East playoffs! I knew that Maine was having a down year, but not that down as in failing to get into the league playoffs.

Cornell's failure to lock up a first round bye doesn't seem so bad.

Yeah... if we failed to get into *our* league's playoffs, we'd *really* be in trouble

billhoward
This is shaping up as Cornell's least successful season in years.

Well, they now have 1 more playoff victory than last year's team, and as many as the 2004 team.

Trotsky

billhoward
This is shaping up as Cornell's least successful season in years.

Well, they now have 1 more playoff victory than last year's team, and as many as the 2004 team.

Yes, but a playoff win in the prelims is not the same as in the quarters.

Trotsky

billhoward
This is shaping up as Cornell's least successful season in years.

Well, they now have 1 more playoff victory than last year's team, and as many as the 2004 team.

I forgot - how many 12 seeds did the 04 and 07 teams play?

Lets not forget just how young this team is. With only 3 contibuting seniors, the future looks bright. If you look around the world of college hockey you will see that it is the veteran teams that have the majority of the success. If we can somehow keep R. Nash and C. Greening in the fold for another year or two then you will see Cornell back at the top of the league. I think this team has done a tremendous job of laying the foundation to a return to prominance.

Cop at Lynah
Lets not forget just how young this team is. With only 3 contibuting seniors, the future looks bright. If you look around the world of college hockey you will see that it is the veteran teams that have the majority of the success. If we can somehow keep R. Nash and C. Greening in the fold for another year or two then you will see Cornell back at the top of the league. I think this team has done a tremendous job of laying the foundation to a return to prominance.

Agree.

Although Dartmouth ended up as the 12th seed, it would be a mistake to either disparage the Big Green or expect that Cornell should roll over Dartmouth every game. Dartmouth didn't beat BU and UNH by accident (notwithstanding UNH's huge shots-on-goal advantage). Dartmouth has a ton of talent, but is awfully young. This year's Dartmouth team reminds me of the 2001-02 Yale team that Cornell faces in the ECAC QFs. The won-loss record is deceiving because those young, talented teams can play great when all of their stars are aligned.

DeltaOne81

Rita
I haven't really checked the standings in other leagues in a while and I was quite shocked to see that it is possible that Maine and/or UMASS-Amherst (both NC$$ playoff teams from last year) might not make it into the Hockey East playoffs! I knew that Maine was having a down year, but not that down as in failing to get into the league playoffs.

Cornell's failure to lock up a first round bye doesn't seem so bad.

Yeah... if we failed to get into *our* league's playoffs, we'd *really* be in trouble

Got a good laugh because the Dartmouth announcer mentioned that while this was a rebuilding year they still made the playoffs...

calgARI '07
I forgot - how many 12 seeds did the 04 and 07 teams play?

Beating a 12 seed is better than losing to a 5 seed.

Josh '99

calgARI '07
I forgot - how many 12 seeds did the 04 and 07 teams play?

Beating a 12 seed is better than losing to a 5 seed.

Winning is usually better than losing, but I think the point is that when you finish in the top floor, then you have already "won" the games played on this play-in weekend. Or to change your line, beating a 12 seed doesn't mean you'll beat a 4 seed, better to be that 4 seed from the beginning.

Trotsky
We'll see. I'm thinking that if Cornell can claw their way to Albany, they'll be facing Clarkson in the semi.

Starting to worry about Cornell clawing its way out of the first round vs. Dartmouth.

Cop at Lynah
Lets not forget just how young this team is. With only 3 contibuting seniors, the future looks bright. If you look around the world of college hockey you will see that it is the veteran teams that have the majority of the success. If we can somehow keep R. Nash and C. Greening in the fold for another year or two then you will see Cornell back at the top of the league. I think this team has done a tremendous job of laying the foundation to a return to prominance.

There's a lot to like about this team, despite their inconsistencies this season. I would caution, however, that Scott and Sawada will take a fair number of points with them.

Another thing to consider is that 2 of the 4 teams that finished ahead of Cornell are as young as the Red (Princeton and Union). They each lose only one more senior than Cornell and have a larger group of freshmen/sophomores. They also only lose one of their top 8 or 9 scorers, while Cornell loses 2. Also, those two teams are far less likely to suffer early departures than Cornell. Still, if everyone who could return does, Cornell should be a pretty good team next year.

ithacat

Cop at Lynah
Lets not forget just how young this team is. With only 3 contibuting seniors, the future looks bright. If you look around the world of college hockey you will see that it is the veteran teams that have the majority of the success. If we can somehow keep R. Nash and C. Greening in the fold for another year or two then you will see Cornell back at the top of the league. I think this team has done a tremendous job of laying the foundation to a return to prominance.

There's a lot to like about this team, despite their inconsistencies this season. I would caution, however, that Scott and Sawada will take a fair number of points with them.

Another thing to consider is that 2 of the 4 teams that finished ahead of Cornell are as young as the Red (Princeton and Union). They each lose only one more senior than Cornell and have a larger group of freshmen/sophomores. They also only lose one of their top 8 or 9 scorers, while Cornell loses 2. Also, those two teams are far less likely to suffer early departures than Cornell. Still, if everyone who could return does, Cornell should be a pretty good team next year.

Your post made me sadder than redice's prediction in the Game 2 thread.

ugarte

ithacat

Cop at Lynah
Lets not forget just how young this team is. With only 3 contibuting seniors, the future looks bright. If you look around the world of college hockey you will see that it is the veteran teams that have the majority of the success. If we can somehow keep R. Nash and C. Greening in the fold for another year or two then you will see Cornell back at the top of the league. I think this team has done a tremendous job of laying the foundation to a return to prominance.

There's a lot to like about this team, despite their inconsistencies this season. I would caution, however, that Scott and Sawada will take a fair number of points with them.

Another thing to consider is that 2 of the 4 teams that finished ahead of Cornell are as young as the Red (Princeton and Union). They each lose only one more senior than Cornell and have a larger group of freshmen/sophomores. They also only lose one of their top 8 or 9 scorers, while Cornell loses 2. Also, those two teams are far less likely to suffer early departures than Cornell. Still, if everyone who could return does, Cornell should be a pretty good team next year.

Your post made me sadder than redice's prediction in the Game 2 thread.

Greening and Nash will be the two best players in the league next year.

Feel better?

redhair34
Feel better?

Not until our defense starts playing better.

How many third period leads did we give up this year? How many third period leads did we give up in the previous seven seasons?

metaezra

redhair34
Feel better?

Not until our defense starts playing better.

How many third period leads did we give up this year? How many third period leads did we give up in the previous seven seasons?

Yeah, the difference between last night's results and results from playoff games the years we were going deep in the NCAAs isn't that the opposing goalie stood on his head. It's that Cornell, playing under Schafer's system, gives up one, maybe two goals at most. Until this part of the team's play gets up to past standards, the team as a whole will remain below the overall excellent standards of past years.

I'd be curious to compare opponents' SOG over the past 2 years with, say, 2003.

Swampy
I'd be curious to compare opponents' SOG over the past 2 years with, say, 2003.

I sense a TBRW table.

2008 is the first season for the records I have in which Cornell has been outshot.

The 27.9 shots allowed per game is way over the norm of recent Schafer teams. The shots per game for the team (26.6) is also below the recent trend, but more in line with the early 00's teams that others have compared this one with.

Trotsky

Swampy
I'd be curious to compare opponents' SOG over the past 2 years with, say, 2003.

I sense a TBRW table.

2008 is the first season for the records I have in which Cornell has been outshot.

The 27.9 shots allowed per game is way over the norm of recent Schafer teams. The shots per game for the team (26.6) is also below the recent trend, but more in line with the early 00's teams that others have compared this one with.

What's very disturbing is that the trend since 2003 has been steadily upward. Then again, the good news is regression towards the mean.

Swampy
Then again, the good news is regression towards the mean.

You shot who in the what now?