Opinion Piece: A Little Perspective

When I recently saw someone refer to the "relative mediocrity" of this year's team, I died a little inside. Fair warning: there's a bit of "back in my day" coming, but it's not like I saw Dryden play or anything...

Keep reading...

Nice article, Age.

It's all too easy to forget the lean years and get spoiled by success. I hope your piece is read by most of the eLynah community.

Very well said. I can't stand to read the hockey pieces in the Cornell Sun. No disrespect to the two kids who write it, but honestly, it comes across as a weekly whine about how Cornell has failed each week. I choose not to read it and I know a lot of other hockey fans who don't either because they can't stand the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" weekly rant. Let's cheer the team on and quit whining. This year's team has a great chance to make the tourney and make some noise. Let's go Red!

Amen.

CowbellGuy
Fair warning: there's a bit of "back in my day" coming, but it's not like I saw Dryden play or anything...

The tag on this morning's tea bag read: "Too many of us keep looking forward to the good old days."

CUontheslopes
Very well said. I can't stand to read the hockey pieces in the Cornell Sun. No disrespect to the two kids who write it, but honestly, it comes across as a weekly whine about how Cornell has failed each week. I choose not to read it and I know a lot of other hockey fans who don't either because they can't stand the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" weekly rant. Let's cheer the team on and quit whining. This year's team has a great chance to make the tourney and make some noise. Let's go Red!

And no disrespect to you, but don't show your age by calling Elie and me "kids." I think it's rather ironic that someone who claims they don't read our articles then feels free to openly comment on how they come across as a weekly whine. Please read exactly what we've written this season at [cornellsun.com] but please ignore the titles as the editors write them (and do read every piece). Except for early season comments about Brendon Nash, we don't complain about the team. We offer honest assessments, and when things go poorly as in Dartmouth a few weeks ago, we comment on its effect. We've offered our share of compliments toward almost every player on the team as well as the traveling fan base. Do you know we were criticized for writing that we had great expectations for the team this season because they were "stale" thoughts?

In the past, we've taken umbrage with the treatment of Cornell Athletics toward hockey fans vis a vis other sporting events. Those articles can be found here [cornellsun.com] and [cornellsun.com]. It was in this context that the term "relative mediocrity" originated.

My only disagreement with the piece is that you also have to look at what is expected. Frankly, to me this year has been a disappointment. Not by any stretch would I say it's mediocre; no I've seen mediocre and this is not close to that. However my view of CU hockey is to be competitive for a top 4 ECAC spot each year, win a title every 4 years or so, get to the NCAAs more than 50% of the time, win 1 game at least half of that time and consideration of a Frozen Four appearance at least 3-4 out of 10 years. Now I consider those lofty goals, and more than I'd expect from any other ECAC team.

My problem is that I expected this was to be the year for an ECAC crown and serious Frozen Four potential. That may still happen, but this team, for one reason or another, has not shown the ability to put together a string of good/great games, the kind of thing you need to win the tourneys, ECAC or NCAA. After last year I expected that, so that's disappointing. Hopefully they will prove me wrong.

Another reason to be disappointed is I expect the next 2 years to be more rebuilding and not the NCAA type. If goal-tending turns out to be great, that may be wrong; but it's another reason I wanted this year to be better.

This has been a good year, the kind of year most ECAC schools would die for, but I expected a little better. So let's put our effort in helping and enjoying Harvard, they are games that we could lose.

Makes me want to make the trip from Troy on Friday, even though Janice and I were there last week for Onion and Senior Night. Thanks for reminding us how wonderful '96 was and how it foreshadowed 2003. In that time frame I was sure that Cornell would make Albany in '01. Buffalo two years later was fine. Was I hoping for Detroit? Surely. Do I still bleed Red no matter? Yes.

I'm not gonna toe the eLynah company line here. I disagree with Age's opinion. If you ask Schafer what his goal for the season is, he will not say to win the Ivy League title or the ECACs. The ultimate goal is to win the NCAA title. This year's team will probably not reach that goal. The season, therefore will not be a success. If the coaching staff or the players think otherwise, then the team is destined for mediocrity. I'm not saying the team isn't entertaining - I'm just saying the team isn't great.

The balance of Age's editorial seems to me like a bunch of excuses. Cornell hockey players have it pretty good. They are big fish in a small pond; they get a decent education; they usually get favorable admissions/financial aid considerations; they play in front of sold out and boisterous crowds; etc. In contrast to other schools with more prominent athletics programs, where hockey isn't necessarily the top sport on the depth chart, Cornell is a viable program which many recruits will (or should) strongly consider. Plus, I'm tired of hearing about "earning our degrees." I took a course with Greg Hornby back in the Spring of 2004. It was his senior year - we were both enrolled in ASTRO202 - Our Home in the Solar System for Freshman and Sophomores. If Hornby can graduate, anyone can. The bottom line is we get some pretty darn good players despite not having a prime rib carving station at Lynah Rink.

Schafer has done a good job getting the program to where it is now, and I have enjoyed entertaining hockey over the past 10 years. However, that isn't good enough. Perhaps another coach would be able to motivate the team to go the extra mile and win the NCAAs. The talent is there, and it is disappointing to consistently fall short every year.

Facetimer
I'm not gonna toe the eLynah company line here. I disagree with Age's opinion. If you ask Schafer what his goal for the season is, he will not say to win the Ivy League title or the ECACs. The ultimate goal is to win the NCAA title. This year's team will probably not reach that goal. The season, therefore will not be a success. If the coaching staff or the players think otherwise, then the team is destined for mediocrity. I'm not saying the team isn't entertaining - I'm just saying the team isn't great.

The balance of Age's editorial seems to me like a bunch of excuses. Cornell hockey players have it pretty good. They are big fish in a small pond; they get a decent education; they usually get favorable admissions/financial aid considerations; they play in front of sold out and boisterous crowds; etc. In contrast to other schools with more prominent athletics programs, where hockey isn't necessarily the top sport on the depth chart, Cornell is a viable program which many recruits will (or should) strongly consider. Plus, I'm tired of hearing about "earning our degrees." I took a course with Greg Hornby back in the Spring of 2004. It was his senior year - we were both enrolled in ASTRO202 - Our Home in the Solar System for Freshman and Sophomores. If Hornby can graduate, anyone can. The bottom line is we get some pretty darn good players despite not having a prime rib carving station at Lynah Rink.

Schafer has done a good job getting the program to where it is now, and I have enjoyed entertaining hockey over the past 10 years. However, that isn't good enough. Perhaps another coach would be able to motivate the team to go the extra mile and win the NCAAs. The talent is there, and it is disappointing to consistently fall short every year.

Maybe I shouldn't even respond, but we don't come close to talent or other amenities, cost, difficulty of school, etc.,compared to those schools you mention. Compare to North Dakota, Minny, Wisc, Mich, well the list goes on. Check the NHL drafties list from some of those schools. Sure just change the coach and Frozen Four here we come.

Good Article! I am not sure I agree with all of it though. Schafer has done great things for the program but I doubt that the "Schafer System" with it's absolute premium on grind it out defense will ever take the program to the next level. Year after year I watch the same so so power play and offensive system. (shoot for the perimeter and hope for a garbage goal). I don't think the "system" is effectively balanced and year after year we are vulnerable to fast puck handling teams.

We are what we are, an Ivy League School and with that come some inherent limits (academics and very modest restraints on "scholarships" and some pluses. I am not sure it is worth giving up what we are to move to the next level it is certainly worth the debate.

Regardless: Let's Go Red!

More was expected of the team this year. In that regard it has been a disappointment. They still have time to deliver on the more part. If they don't get past the ECACs or pull a one-and-done Harvard-style exit from the NCAAs, well, okay. We'll have grist for the next decade as we talk about "if only ... "

But still: Good stuff. Well worth saying. Fifteen years coaching, roughly 4,000 fans a game, that's a million home attendance in Ithaca in the Schafer era. Has Harvard drawn that many fans in its entire existence?

Within the previously stated "inherent limits", I think Schafer has done & will continue to do a fine job with this program. Is another coach going to come in & take CU to a Nat'l title? IMO, no way!! The best we can hope for is good solid hockey. Teams that are near to being on a par with the best in the country. Even if that means we're a step below. But, with Schafer's system and the right players in the right spots, CU can win an NCAA Title. 2003 was very very close to being that team. That shows that the concept is workable. He'll do it one day.

That said, I am a bit disappointed with the 09-10 team. Before the season, I thought we had a serious chance to make a run for the title in Detroit. During the course of this season, they've not demonstrated that little something extra that championship teams have. (Ex: Games stolen from them in the late going (BU, DC)). At this late point in the season, I don't think it's likely to appear.

LGR!!!

amerks127

CUontheslopes
Very well said. I can't stand to read the hockey pieces in the Cornell Sun. No disrespect to the two kids who write it, but honestly, it comes across as a weekly whine about how Cornell has failed each week. I choose not to read it and I know a lot of other hockey fans who don't either because they can't stand the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" weekly rant. Let's cheer the team on and quit whining. This year's team has a great chance to make the tourney and make some noise. Let's go Red!

And no disrespect to you, but don't show your age by calling Elie and me "kids." I think it's rather ironic that someone who claims they don't read our articles then feels free to openly comment on how they come across as a weekly whine. Please read exactly what we've written this season at [cornellsun.com] but please ignore the titles as the editors write them (and do read every piece). Except for early season comments about Brendon Nash, we don't complain about the team. We offer honest assessments, and when things go poorly as in Dartmouth a few weeks ago, we comment on its effect. We've offered our share of compliments toward almost every player on the team as well as the traveling fan base. Do you know we were criticized for writing that we had great expectations for the team this season because they were "stale" thoughts?

In the past, we've taken umbrage with the treatment of Cornell Athletics toward hockey fans vis a vis other sporting events. Those articles can be found here [cornellsun.com] and [cornellsun.com]. It was in this context that the term "relative mediocrity" originated.

My apologies for calling you guys kids. I'm only '07, so I'm only a few years older. You're free to your opinions, but I'm free to disagree. I don't think your comments are insightful and I stopped reading the hockey column for the first time in 7 years after reading several of your pieces. Maybe you should reread your own articles from a more detached perspective because to me and a good portion of the Cornell hockey world, they come across as a weekly airing of grievances and complaints. Also, as you say, perhaps its the titles that set the tone for that interpretation, but articles titled "Inconstitency Plagues Mens Hockey," "Men's Hockey Has Issues, but Potential Is Evident," and "Red Still Needs to Learn to Finish" with text that reflects their titles certainly rings true to CowbellGuy's sentiment (no pun intended). Feel free to write whatever you want, but CowbellGuy is right. There's a distinctly unpleasant smell in the air of recent.

The atmosphere in Lynah has changed significantly since basketball has improved. The casual fans have stopped going to hockey in the numbers they once did even 4 years ago. Just look at the attendance numbers and the lack of sellouts. It's just my opinion, but the fanbase at Lynah used to be comprised of a more-or-less representative cross-sectional sampling of the Cornell student body. No longer is that the case. The average fan now is a hell of a lot pickier. For one, I've learned just to enjoy the ride. I'd like to see more general Cornell sports fans again instead of hyper-critical hockey-dorks (for lack of a better word). After years of being beaten down by ushers, the administration, and even some fellow fans, the Greek system has abandoned hockey in alarming numbers in favor of basketball and a lot of the fun in the atmosphere has gone with them. Again, just my 2 cents from someone who's been here for the last 7 years. I'm hardly old and hardly discussing how it was "back in the day," but I think it's becoming increasingly evident that when hockey's not the only good ticket in town, Lynah's not as fun as it was just a few years ago.

As the person who has used "relative mediocrity" as a term to describe this year's team, I would like to make a few points.

First, there is a clear difference between "mediocre" and "relative mediocrity," and I'm not sure everyone understands it. This year's team is certainly not "mediocre;" they finished second in the conference and currently sit at #10 in the Pairwise. I would never say that.

However, it seems in the Cornell hockey community that the reference point for the Schafer era tends to be the 2003 season, and sometimes 2005 as well. Everyone remembers that great run to the Frozen Four; I was throwing things at the television after I came home from high school to find Cornell losing to UNH.

More relevant to my original use of the word, Cornell hockey season ticket policy has been based off of those glory years, when Cornell hockey was the hottest thing on campus, students trampled each other to get season tickets, and no price seemed too high for tickets.

Things are different now. You can not find 1500 students to pay $247 for hockey season tickets, especially with the free basketball games next door, and the lousy economy. There are also factors like cheering policies at Lynah, the reputation of the hockey players on campus, and things like that.

But you're delusional if you don't think that a major factor behind decreased ticket sales is the team's relative mediocrity, compared to teams earlier in the decade. Of course it's unreasonable to expect a 2003-like season every year, but the fact is that tickets are priced for that kind of season, and Cornell just hasn't had a year like that during our time at Cornell.

Jim makes some good points above. If there was going to be a 2003- or 2005-like year during my time on the Hill, this was supposed to be it.

Going into the season, the team's goals were to win, and win everything. They wanted to win the Ivy title, the ECAC RS title, the ECAC tournament title, make the Frozen Four, and win the national championship. They did not say in October that they were happy to be playing during the glory days of Schafer and didn't care what happened because whatever it was, it was going to be better than the bad old days.

They wanted to win big, and they haven't won anything yet this season.

In fact, it's been 5 years since the last ECAC RS title, 5 years since the last ECAC tournament title, and 5 years since the last Ivy title. Jim mentioned the talent of this year's group; if Cornell wants another trip to the Frozen Four, this is a great opportunity for that to happen. Watching the games this season, the Frozen Four seems like an unlikely destination.

It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

CUontheslopes

amerks127

CUontheslopes
Very well said. I can't stand to read the hockey pieces in the Cornell Sun. No disrespect to the two kids who write it, but honestly, it comes across as a weekly whine about how Cornell has failed each week. I choose not to read it and I know a lot of other hockey fans who don't either because they can't stand the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" weekly rant. Let's cheer the team on and quit whining. This year's team has a great chance to make the tourney and make some noise. Let's go Red!

And no disrespect to you, but don't show your age by calling Elie and me "kids." I think it's rather ironic that someone who claims they don't read our articles then feels free to openly comment on how they come across as a weekly whine. Please read exactly what we've written this season at [cornellsun.com] but please ignore the titles as the editors write them (and do read every piece). Except for early season comments about Brendon Nash, we don't complain about the team. We offer honest assessments, and when things go poorly as in Dartmouth a few weeks ago, we comment on its effect. We've offered our share of compliments toward almost every player on the team as well as the traveling fan base. Do you know we were criticized for writing that we had great expectations for the team this season because they were "stale" thoughts?

In the past, we've taken umbrage with the treatment of Cornell Athletics toward hockey fans vis a vis other sporting events. Those articles can be found here [cornellsun.com] and [cornellsun.com]. It was in this context that the term "relative mediocrity" originated.

My apologies for calling you guys kids. I'm only '07, so I'm only a few years older. You're free to your opinions, but I'm free to disagree. I don't think your comments are insightful and I stopped reading the hockey column for the first time in 7 years after reading several of your pieces. Maybe you should reread your own articles from a more detached perspective because to me and a good portion of the Cornell hockey world, they come across as a weekly airing of grievances and complaints. Also, as you say, perhaps its the titles that set the tone for that interpretation, but articles titled "Inconstitency Plagues Mens Hockey," "Men's Hockey Has Issues, but Potential Is Evident," and "Red Still Needs to Learn to Finish" with text that reflects their titles certainly rings true to CowbellGuy's sentiment (no pun intended). Feel free to write whatever you want, but CowbellGuy is right. There's a distinctly unpleasant smell in the air of recent.

The atmosphere in Lynah has changed significantly since basketball has improved. The casual fans have stopped going to hockey in the numbers they once did even 4 years ago. Just look at the attendance numbers and the lack of sellouts. It's just my opinion, but the fanbase at Lynah used to be comprised of a more-or-less representative cross-sectional sampling of the Cornell student body. No longer is that the case. The average fan now is a hell of a lot pickier. For one, I've learned just to enjoy the ride. I'd like to see more general Cornell sports fans again instead of hyper-critical hockey-dorks (for lack of a better word). After years of being beaten down by ushers, the administration, and even some fellow fans, the Greek system has abandoned hockey in alarming numbers in favor of basketball and a lot of the fun in the atmosphere has gone with them. Again, just my 2 cents from someone who's been here for the last 7 years. I'm hardly old and hardly discussing how it was "back in the day," but I think it's becoming increasingly evident that when hockey's not the only good ticket in town, Lynah's not as fun as it was just a few years ago.

Yeah, why don't we read those titles. You know what, I think they are true, true when they were written and still true now. They are inconsistent, have potential, and still need to learn to finish. If you want to disagree with any of those, I'll gladly argue the point.

ebilmes
However, it seems in the Cornell hockey community that the reference point for the Schafer era tends to be the 2003 season, and sometimes 2005 as well. Everyone remembers that great run to the Frozen Four; I was throwing things at the television after I came home from high school to find Cornell losing to UNH.

Wait, isn't your dad a hockey fan? Why didn't he get you out of school that day?

Michigan, Minnesota, BU, even BC are relatively mediocre this year. In basketball, so are North Carolina, Memphis State and many others. What of it? That this year's team only finished second doesn't detract in the least from Cornell's enduring success under Coach Shaefer. CU fans have high standards for sure. For some they border on unreasonable.

Personally, I find it amazing that CU can turn out superior teams year in and year out. CU limits its applicant pool thru academic selectivity and financial restraints. And for all the protests to the contrary, CU is not Harvard, Yale or Princeton academically or reputaionally.

Yale, Dartmouth, St. Lawrence all have had their moments. But CU is always in a position to make the frozen 4, to win the ECAC and the Ivy League. That we don't every single year doesn't indicate relative or any other form of mediocrity.

I remember the 1970 team. I saw every home game, their wins in the ECAC tournament when Hughes had a last minute goal waved off only to score the winner seconds later. And at Lake Placid where they held Michigan Tech shotless in the last period of the semi and Danny Lodboa got a true hat trick to beat Clarkson for the title. (Maybe my memory isn't perfect, but that's how I recall it.) And there have been great memories since, if none so bright. Lance Nethery, Brock Tredway, all the great goalies, the OT loss to Wisonsin, and on and on. Not at all a bad tradition or one that looks to end anytime soon.

Unfortunately, other programs aren't going to sit still and let Cornell have undefeated teams year after year. Sometimes the other guy wins. We learned that in 1971 with BU's first crop of scholarship atheletes. After that it took a long time for CU to get its legs again. But now that it has, talk of relative mediocrity seems as dated as the disco era to which it applied.

Keep in mind that 2003 was a glorious year. Our team was the #1 team in the country!! The game plan was simple -- get a lead, shut 'em down. And they did both so well. Best defense, top rated power play. With the exception of a few agonizing minutes following the bullshit called-off goal , they were truly awesome. 30-5-1.

2005 was not quite as intimidating, but they played tough when they needed to and produced an amazing season.

In 2010 their record vs TUC (or any other "good team" metric) sucks. That's either "not living to potential", "bad luck" or "less talented". Which one is it? Well, the record on the second night (3-6-3) was much weaker than their record on the first night (10-2-0). Their best game of the season was against UNH, but did we see the same level of intensity again?

Perhaps we're still wearing our rose-colored glasses from last year's lacrosse team. That team was similar to the '03 hockey team. They were damn intimidating, they played with confidence, and win or lose you know they were going to give the proverbial 110%. I just don't get the same warm fuzzies from this team.

And for all the protests to the contrary, CU is not Harvard, Yale or Princeton academically or reputaionally.

You're right. We're better.

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Yes, but by that metric, every team outside of 2003 would be "relatively mediocre" at best.

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Kyle Rose

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

To paraphrase Battlestar Galactica, this thread has happened before, and it will happen again.

CowbellGuy
Yes, but by that metric, every team outside of 2003 would be "relatively mediocre" at best.

False. I would not characterize 2005 or 2006 this way, either: in both years I thought the team outperformed expectations.

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy
Yes, but by that metric, every team outside of 2003 would be "relatively mediocre" at best.

False. I would not characterize 2005 or 2006 this way, either: in both years I thought the team outperformed expectations.

Mediocrity is not based on your expectations for a team; it is based on the quality of the team itself. So 2005 and 2006 were "relatively" mediocre, as compared to 2003. For that matter, Cornell 2003 was "relatively" mediocre as compared to Minnesota 2003. That's why the expression is so useless.

Sorry about spreading this over three responses. I blame Kyle.

ugarte
To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression.

Okay, then replace all instances with "underperforming expectations" and you will have my meaning. Based on what Schafer has done in the past, this team with this level of talent and experience should be in the top 5 in the country and have a lock on an NCAA bid regardless of what transpires in the ECAC tournament. That they are not says to me that they are underperforming expectations.

Sure, based on what we saw last year and who was returning, I don't think this year's results met with anyone's expectations, and I never suggested they did. But despite that, they're far from mediocre, relative or otherwise, and it just goes back to my point of people being spoiled around here.

CowbellGuy
Sure, based on what we saw last year and who was returning, I don't think this year's results met with anyone's expectations, and I never suggested they did.

So you agree with me, then. I'm glad we got this straightened out. Next.

Let's not get hung up on semantics, people.

The bottom line is we expected this team to be a lot better than they've currently demonstrated. There are games they've lost or tied that given the talent on this team they were expected to win. Are we being greedy? Sure we are, but that's what you get with raised expectations. Schafer set the bar. We're simply holding him to it.

And regarding the lack of sellouts, IMO, Athletics clearly has priced themselves out of the market. When men's hockey is the only game in town, you might get away with overpriced tickets. However, when you can get your entertainment for free especially with a more mainstream sport, all of a sudden you've got competition for the student dollar (as it were). It seems to me, that Athletics doesn't get that.

I have no problem with people being disappointed. I am disappointed (though I also thought the expectations were exaggerated).

I don't really think it's about semantics at all. Finishing first or second in the league isn't "mediocre" in anyone's book. It's a quantitative measurement of success. Now, if you take issue with how they got there and have unreasonable expectations for what a mid-caliber Ivy with unfavorable financial packages can achieve, I can't really help you. But they are definitely different issues.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy
Yes, but by that metric, every team outside of 2003 would be "relatively mediocre" at best.

False. I would not characterize 2005 or 2006 this way, either: in both years I thought the team outperformed expectations.

Mediocrity is not based on your expectations for a team; it is based on the quality of the team itself. So 2005 and 2006 were "relatively" mediocre, as compared to 2003. For that matter, Cornell 2003 was "relatively" mediocre as compared to Minnesota 2003. That's why the expression is so useless.

Sorry about spreading this over three responses. I blame Kyle.

2006 is a perfect example. Coming off a run where the team was 1 OT goal from the FF, the expectations were up again. The team finished 3rd in the league, 1 point out of 1st. They squeaked past Clarkson in a QF series that featured two 2OT games and wound up getting demolished in the ECAC Final (won't say to whom). Woe was the forum then...what happened? How are we not moving forward, etc. They managed to get an at-large bid to the NCAA, thanks to a win over a strong Colgate team in the SF. Then McKee put the team on his back, threw up 7 straight scoreless periods in Green Bay, and suddenly the season was a "hold your heads high, boys, you done good." success.

One or two strong weekends in the playoffs can completely turn the perception of a season.

RichH
They managed to get an at-large bid to the NCAA, thanks to a win over a strong Colgate team in the SF.

I think your recollection is faulty: that year we weren't worried about getting a bid, but rather whether we would be sent west (again) or not. There wasn't much question about Cornell getting a bid in the first place.

Kyle Rose

RichH
They managed to get an at-large bid to the NCAA, thanks to a win over a strong Colgate team in the SF.

I think your recollection is faulty: that year we weren't worried about getting a bid, but rather whether we would be sent west (again) or not. There wasn't much question about Cornell getting a bid in the first place.

Perhaps, but there was definitely a "sky is falling" feeling after the ECAC final. Now we point to that season as the #2 highlight of the decade.

Jeff Hopkins '82
Let's not get hung up on semantics, people.

The bottom line is we expected this team to be a lot better than they've currently demonstrated. There are games they've lost or tied that given the talent on this team they were expected to win. Are we being greedy? Sure we are, but that's what you get with raised expectations. Schafer set the bar. We're simply holding him to it.

Totally agree. We are arguing whether this team, which most of us agree has been under expectations, is relatively mediocre or under expectations. How silly. If they want to define this as RM, I'm tired of writing it already, so be it. It doesn't mean they are not enjoying the year, it doesn't mean they don't support the team, it's just a phrase they used, and will probably not use again. I'd go back to the headlines of the articles mentioned previously, and ask yourself whether you agree with those. If you do, as I do, then so be it; use whatever language you want, you're saying the sme thing.

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Fair enough, but we end up in the same place: if we don't make the tournament, the team has not met expectations. All I'm saying is that outcome hasn't yet been decided.

cu722001
I remember the 1970 team. I saw every home game, their wins in the ECAC tournament when Hughes had a last minute goal waved off only to score the winner seconds later. And at Lake Placid where they held Michigan Tech shotless in the last period of the semi and Danny Lodboa got a true hat trick to beat Clarkson for the title. (Maybe my memory isn't perfect, but that's how I recall it.)

Close, but not "perfect." Cornell played Wisconsin in the semifinal.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here. If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression. It seems pretty clear that when Elie used the phrase in this post from a few weeks ago, and, previously, when Mitchell used the same term in this Daily Sun article from about two years ago, they were referring to mediocrity relative to the dual contexts of A) the heights reached between 2002 and 2006, and B) the unprecedented success of the men's basketball team (which has a huge advantage in competing for student attendance in that it's free). And they're not complaining about the team's performance any case, they're just pointing out (in both cases) that it might play a role in attendance and the atmosphere at hockey games.

Does anyone think they're actually wrong (i.e., that the hockey team's performance, or, more precisely, the perception of the hockey team's performance) might play a role in attendance, or are we just complaining about the particular phrasing they've chosen to use? Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here. If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

Jim Hyla

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here. If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

OK, but I think the point is, all the things that will determine whether you're ultimately disappointed or not haven't happened yet. If the team was 29-0-0 right now then you'd be feeling pretty good at the moment, but if they got swept next weekend in the ECAC QF and lost in the first round of the NCAAs, you'd probably ultimately be quite disappointed; conversely, if they were 10-17-2 right now, you wouldn't be thrilled with how the season had gone thus far, but if they then won the ECAC tournament, got the autobid, and made it to the Frozen Four before getting knocked out of the NCAA Tournament, you'd probably ultimately be pretty happy. In either case, it's just too soon to make any kind of a postseason assessment about what kind of a year it was, and I think that holds true now as well.

Josh '99

Jim Hyla

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here. If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

OK, but I think the point is, all the things that will determine whether you're ultimately disappointed or not haven't happened yet. If the team was 29-0-0 right now then you'd be feeling pretty good at the moment, but if they got swept next weekend in the ECAC QF and lost in the first round of the NCAAs, you'd probably ultimately be quite disappointed; conversely, if they were 10-17-2 right now, you wouldn't be thrilled with how the season had gone thus far, but if they then won the ECAC tournament, got the autobid, and made it to the Frozen Four before getting knocked out of the NCAA Tournament, you'd probably ultimately be pretty happy. In either case, it's just too soon to make any kind of a postseason assessment about what kind of a year it was, and I think that holds true now as well.

You're absolutely right. I have no idea how I'll be feeling in April. All I can, and all we should be discussing, is how we feel now. Leave the ifs for later, once we know how the ifs turn out. Then I'll know how I feel then. Do you see how stupid this all is? I/we can talk about what has happened and how we feel about it; but you're right, if things take a different turn, we might feel differently later.

Jim Hyla

Josh '99

Jim Hyla

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here. If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

OK, but I think the point is, all the things that will determine whether you're ultimately disappointed or not haven't happened yet. If the team was 29-0-0 right now then you'd be feeling pretty good at the moment, but if they got swept next weekend in the ECAC QF and lost in the first round of the NCAAs, you'd probably ultimately be quite disappointed; conversely, if they were 10-17-2 right now, you wouldn't be thrilled with how the season had gone thus far, but if they then won the ECAC tournament, got the autobid, and made it to the Frozen Four before getting knocked out of the NCAA Tournament, you'd probably ultimately be pretty happy. In either case, it's just too soon to make any kind of a postseason assessment about what kind of a year it was, and I think that holds true now as well.

You're absolutely right. I have no idea how I'll be feeling in April. All I can, and all we should be discussing, is how we feel now. Leave the ifs for later, once we know how the ifs turn out. Then I'll know how I feel then. Do you see how stupid this all is? I/we can talk about what has happened and how we feel about it; but you're right, if things take a different turn, we might feel differently later.

You're right, it really is a pretty stupid conversation, all in all. (Myself included, of course.)

What I am wondering is why are the ticket sales so slow for this series? The regular season game was a sellout and I waited in line for an hour or something and didnt get a ticket. This time I was able to just walk up at 10am and they had plenty of tickets left.

phillysportsfan
What I am wondering is why are the ticket sales so slow for this series? The regular season game was a sellout and I waited in line for an hour or something and didnt get a ticket. This time I was able to just walk up at 10am and they had plenty of tickets left.

That has been happening with playoff games. They are not always bought with the season package, so those that don't want to come don't buy. Although the recent games have been listed with good attendance, there have been a lot of empty seats. If not sold for the season, those would have been available then as well.

Kind of a shock that Harvard won't be a sell-out, however. ("in my day" cane-shake, here, conveniently forgetting that in my day we didn't play a post-season game until I was a senior).

Trotsky
...in my day we didn't play a post-season game until I was a senior.

So were the other years relatively mediocre? Sorry, couldn't help it.

cu722001
And for all the protests to the contrary, CU is not Harvard, Yale or Princeton academically or reputaionally.

In all seriousness, there's no question CU is not H,Y,P reputationally. However, there's no way in hell I'm going to agree with you on the academically line. With some specific majors as exceptions, the top 20-30 schools are pretty similar.

Then again, I went to CU-Engineering. #1 in the Ivy's academically AND reputationally!

We also make the best Ice Cream in the Ivy League!

Towerroad
We also make the best Ice Cream in the Ivy League!

Except for that barbecue ice cream they kept trying to push on us my first couple years.

kaelistus
Then again, I went to CU-Engineering. #1 in the Ivy's academically AND reputationally!

Right. I turned down Yale and Princeton; MIT, too, but for different reasons.

Jeff Hopkins '82
Let's not get hung up on semantics, people.

If we didn't, eLynah would be missing most of its posts.

French Rage

Towerroad
We also make the best Ice Cream in the Ivy League!

Except for that barbecue ice cream they kept trying to push on us my first couple years.

I thought that ice cream was courtesy of Sylvia's soul food restaurant in Harlem, as part of the one- or twice-a-semester guest catering of the dining halls. Nobody would eat it, but rather than dump it, Noyes trotted out the tubs of it day after day, week after week, month after month. But now that you mentioned it, it's entirely possible that the Dairy Bar made and supplied it in conjunction with the Sylvia's themed dinner.

Either way, Sylvia's/BBQ Ice cream has been a running joke among friends and I for ~9 years now.

Josh '99

Jim Hyla

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jordan 04
I don't understand how all these judgments are being made as to whether or not this team has or has not met expectations. They haven't even yet played a game that matters with respect to meeting expectations.

Sorry Jordan, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen posted to this thread yet. Just because Cornell can still win out and make the NCAA's doesn't mean they haven't squandered opportunities to solidify a spot.

Not to mention that "just barely qualifying for the tournament" is itself below expectations.

I agree with Jordan here. If the team goes on a torrid run and wins their next eight games, nobody is going to say that they in any way didn't meet expectations because the NCAA seeding wasn't what it might potentially have been with more RS wins or because Yale won the Cleary Spittoon.

They've "squandered opportunities to solidify a spot" in the NCAA, yes, but that's not really the same thing.

The if is the important variable. What most are talking about is what has happened so far. I think this has been a good week weather wise, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow then it will change my opinion of the week. If the team puts it all together and wins the NCAAs, then it's been a great year. Right now I'm disappointed.

OK, but I think the point is, all the things that will determine whether you're ultimately disappointed or not haven't happened yet. If the team was 29-0-0 right now then you'd be feeling pretty good at the moment, but if they got swept next weekend in the ECAC QF and lost in the first round of the NCAAs, you'd probably ultimately be quite disappointed; conversely, if they were 10-17-2 right now, you wouldn't be thrilled with how the season had gone thus far, but if they then won the ECAC tournament, got the autobid, and made it to the Frozen Four before getting knocked out of the NCAA Tournament, you'd probably ultimately be pretty happy. In either case, it's just too soon to make any kind of a postseason assessment about what kind of a year it was, and I think that holds true now as well.

Sounds like you are describing 1980. Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

Best part of season was going 1-3 vs. best Dartmouth Team ever. Lost twice in regular season, lost again in NCAA consolation, but beat them in ECAC final.

nshapiro
Sounds like you are describing 1980. Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

That's what I thought of, too.

But for me, that playoff run reminds me of harassing Bob Gaudet. In Boston, he tried to wing a puck at us during warm-ups. In Providence, he skeated over during warm-ups and asked us if we'd "give it a rest." Definitely inside his head.

That, and the first occurrence of the "Screw BU, XXX too" version of the cheer.

Jeff Hopkins '82

nshapiro
Sounds like you are describing 1980. Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

That's what I thought of, too.

But for me, that playoff run reminds me of harassing Bob Gaudet. In Boston, he tried to wing a puck at us during warm-ups. In Providence, he skeated over during warm-ups and asked us if we'd "give it a rest." Definitely inside his head.

That, and the first occurrence of the "Screw BU, XXX too" version of the cheer.

I was not aware that Gaudet's douchebaggery had such a long history.

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression. ... Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Second, this isn't even in the ballpark of "too pedantic for this forum." See, e.g., 80% of what you choose to pick nits on.

ugarte

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression. ... Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Second, this isn't even in the ballpark of "too pedantic for this forum." See, e.g., 80% of what you choose to pick nits on.

Why doesn't it convey anything meaningful? It conveys exactly what we intended it to mean. One explanation of why student enthusiasm has waned since 2006 is that current students (born circa 1990) are less inclined to buy pricey season tickets because the team is not performing as well relative to the recent seasons (the only seasons current students know anything about outside of 1967 and 1970). It further implies we do not think this team is mediocre, but the casual, fringe hockey fan might think it is because they expect success based on the seasons which built Cornell's reputation.

Audience is important to remember. It may come as a ridiculous shock, but just like every column we've written, it was not intended exclusively for the die-hard eLynah fan. We wrote it for mass consumption by the average CURRENT student and Athletics employee.

Josh '99

Jeff Hopkins '82

nshapiro
Sounds like you are describing 1980. Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

That's what I thought of, too.

But for me, that playoff run reminds me of harassing Bob Gaudet. In Boston, he tried to wing a puck at us during warm-ups. In Providence, he skeated over during warm-ups and asked us if we'd "give it a rest." Definitely inside his head.

That, and the first occurrence of the "Screw BU, XXX too" version of the cheer.

I was not aware that Gaudet's douchebaggery had such a long history.

The more relevant question here is whether douchebaggery is born or learned behavior.

ugarte

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression. ... Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Just because you claim it doesn't convey anything meaningful doesn't make it so. I, for one, found it to be pretty clear what it meant if you read the context.

Josh '99

ugarte

Josh '99

ugarte

Kyle Rose

ebilmes
It goes without saying, but much credit should be given to Schafer for his success over the last 14 years and his ability to keep the team towards the top of the ECAC and on the national radar. Saying that this season isn't as great as 2003's is a fact, and not some dig at the coach. Nor does making that comparison reveal some appalling lack of appreciation for how bad we were before Schafer arrived, or some misguided notion that the team didn't stop winning between 1970 and 1996. But this year's team has certainly failed to meet expectations so far, and is certainly a step down from what we saw in 2003 and 2005.

This captures my opinion perfectly and distinguishes between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" perfectly.

To me the difference between "mediocrity" and "relative mediocrity" is that "relative mediocrity" is a nonsense expression. It evokes nothing except mediocrity.

I understand that "relative" is a way of distinguishing this season from actual mediocre seasons but the article wasn't comparing the team to mediocre teams from the past; it was comparing it to GOOD teams from the past. Instead of directly comparing 09-10 to the best teams of the decade, it circuitously compares them to the Skazyk era. Since it is clear that the point wasn't to call a team that finished one point out of a regular season title and on the bubble of an NCAA at-large bid "mediocre" it was a poor choice of phrase.

The fact that you seem to be having trouble parsing it doesn't make it a nonsense expression. ... Because this strikes me as a pretty pedantic discussion, even for this forum.

First, I didn't "have trouble" parsing it. I understood it; It remains a horrible choice of words because, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY INTEND, it doesn't, by itself, convey anything meaningful. I think the fact that the eminent Kyle Rose took it to be a comparison of performance to expectations as opposed to a comparison of performance this year to the performance we've become accustomed to says a lot about how poor a choice of phrase it is; that it has been used more than once by them does not strengthen the case.

Just because you claim it doesn't convey anything meaningful doesn't make it so. I, for one, found it to be pretty clear what it meant if you read the context.

Agree.

min

Josh '99

Jeff Hopkins '82

nshapiro
Sounds like you are describing 1980. Underperformed all year...squeaked into ECAC playoffs (when 8 out of 17 made playoffs)...Won ECAC Tourney, and lost NCAA semi-final and consolation (when NCAAs had 4 teams).

That's what I thought of, too.

But for me, that playoff run reminds me of harassing Bob Gaudet. In Boston, he tried to wing a puck at us during warm-ups. In Providence, he skated over during warm-ups and asked us if we'd "give it a rest." Definitely inside his head.

That, and the first occurrence of the "Screw BU, XXX too" version of the cheer.

I was not aware that Gaudet's douchebaggery had such a long history.

The more relevant question here is whether douchebaggery is born or learned behavior.

In the case of his son, probably both nurture and nature. WRT the rest of the team, hopefully just nurture.

I guess we are just fitting in with the rest of college hockey this year.

From INCH's weekly Rankings Outrage: "It’s further proof that [sic] dominant theme in college hockey this season is mediocrity."

[insidecollegehockey.com]

Jordan 04

French Rage

Towerroad
We also make the best Ice Cream in the Ivy League!

Except for that barbecue ice cream they kept trying to push on us my first couple years.

I thought that ice cream was courtesy of Sylvia's soul food restaurant in Harlem, as part of the one- or twice-a-semester guest catering of the dining halls. Nobody would eat it, but rather than dump it, Noyes trotted out the tubs of it day after day, week after week, month after month. But now that you mentioned it, it's entirely possible that the Dairy Bar made and supplied it in conjunction with the Sylvia's themed dinner.

Either way, Sylvia's/BBQ Ice cream has been a running joke among friends and I for ~9 years now.

I thought it was the result of one of those "come up with your own flavor" contests at the Dairy Bar. Though I do recall the Sylvia name so you may be correct. Either way, you are right about Noyes not giving up and bringing it out again and again to no avail. They also started cutting back on the other flavors they had to try to force us to eat it, though the hole in their logic was leaving the soft-serve machine operational. Good to know my group isn't the only one remembering that incident.

OK - just another b.s. opinion ... but from my perspective, I don't think nationally people regarded this as being "the year" for Cornell, and I'm not sure where that comes from. At least, if you define it vis-a-vis 2003. Going into 2002-03, at least myself, personally, I had a palpable feeling that this was a Frozen Four team, and anything less was going to be an extreme disappointment. I never came close to having that feeling with this year's team. I knew it would be good -- and perhaps it could take advantage of, yes, the relative mediocrity of the entire nation right now -- but I don't know many people outside this forum who believed Cornell was a FF favorite or anything.

To me, last year exceeded expectations. The fact that Cornell came so close to the FF is still agonizing, but I wouldn't have expected it going in. With Cornell matchup up against an inexperienced, prone-to-losing-the-big-game Northeastern team - and then after BSU knocked off Notre Dame - I looked at it as miracle of miracles that somehow Cornell would "steal" its way to the Frozen Four. Figured defeating BSU at that point was a shoo-in. It was an agonizing slap in the face that it didn't happen -- but only because so rarely are such "gift" opportunities presented to you ... not because I thought Cornell was really one of the best four teams in the country.

All that said, the points about the attendance at Lynah - and especially how it relates to basketball - are all valid. Expectations are too high, people are spoiled, the tickets are too high compared to basketball, etc..., etc... It's unfortunate, because Lynah is, consequently, going through a dip in enthusiasm - but not because the team is terrible, but due to these other factors. And it's a shame, because, as I've said before, Cornell's recruiting advantage, as it were, is the Lynah enthusiasm - directly.

I am afraid that the above incident happened well after my time on the hill but when you are on the cutting edge of a field as important as Ice Cream there are bound to be a few casualties along the way. The price of greatness is often high.

adamw
OK - just another b.s. opinion ... but from my perspective, I don't think nationally people regarded this as being "the year" for Cornell, and I'm not sure where that comes from. At least, if you define it vis-a-vis 2003. Going into 2002-03, at least myself, personally, I had a palpable feeling that this was a Frozen Four team, and anything less was going to be an extreme disappointment. I never came close to having that feeling with this year's team. I knew it would be good -- and perhaps it could take advantage of, yes, the relative mediocrity of the entire nation right now -- but I don't know many people outside this forum who believed Cornell was a FF favorite or anything.

To me, last year exceeded expectations. The fact that Cornell came so close to the FF is still agonizing, but I wouldn't have expected it going in. With Cornell matchup up against an inexperienced, prone-to-losing-the-big-game Northeastern team - and then after BSU knocked off Notre Dame - I looked at it as miracle of miracles that somehow Cornell would "steal" its way to the Frozen Four. Figured defeating BSU at that point was a shoo-in. It was an agonizing slap in the face that it didn't happen -- but only because so rarely are such "gift" opportunities presented to you ... not because I thought Cornell was really one of the best four teams in the country.

All that said, the points about the attendance at Lynah - and especially how it relates to basketball - are all valid. Expectations are too high, people are spoiled, the tickets are too high compared to basketball, etc..., etc... It's unfortunate, because Lynah is, consequently, going through a dip in enthusiasm - but not because the team is terrible, but due to these other factors. And it's a shame, because, as I've said before, Cornell's recruiting advantage, as it were, is the Lynah enthusiasm - directly.

Adam, do you think national people ever think there's a year for Cornell?

I think the idea came because when both Greening and Nash came back, the feeling was they felt they could do better than last year. We had a very good core group returning and should have been better than last year. To date I don't think that has played out. They still haven't shown they can beat Yale, and if not we're never going to win an ECAC title.

Jim Hyla
I think the idea came because when both Greening and Nash came back, the feeling was they felt they could do better than last year. We had a very good core group returning and should have been better than last year. To date I don't think that has played out. They still haven't shown they can beat Yale, and if not we're never going to win an ECAC title.

It's been a long time since they had a dominant weekend-long effort, but at the same time they are almost pathologically consistent.

Back from vacation, so here's my 2 cents. When I attended Cornell from 81-85, the team had some exciting games (especially the miracle comeback against Harvard my senior year), but the team was average record-wise (I hate to use the term "mediocre" in this thread ). Now people are complaining about a team that finished 1-point out of first in an increasingly competitive league, a team that has a real chance to advance yet again to the NCAA's. While there are certainly some disappointing results this year, there have been some real successes as well, and we know we have a chance to win every single night.

I think the current students and recent alumni are absolutely spoiled by the team's success over the past decade. Anyone who even hints that Schafer isn't the right guy for this program is, frankly, nuts. To me Schafer is the key to the program, and I have little doubt that we will continue to remain an upper-echelon ECAC team as long as he remains in charge. If that's not enough for some people, so be it.

Jim Hyla
Adam, do you think national people ever think there's a year for Cornell?

True Jim - and I thought of that as I wrote it. But I guess that was my shorthand way of saying "reasonable national perspective of someone not biased for or against Cornell/ECAC" ... or maybe it was my shorthand way of saying "MY perspective"

Greening/Nash returning was definitely big, but there were so many more pieces in place in 2003 than this team ever showed. Was Brendon Nash or Justin Krueger, as good as they are, ever going to be close to Doug Murray? Are they even as good as Mark McRae? Do the secondary lines have players as good as Shane Palahicky and Mike Knoepfli? The Abbott Brothers on a fourth line? Moulson? Hynes? Paolini? And while Greening is as good as any player on that team, Nash has never proven to be a better player than anyone on that top line. So many pieces were clearly in place that year - and with 60 more #$%^%$%& seconds of game time against UNH, or Mike Ayers not making a header save, we could all be reminiscing about a national title.

Don't get me wrong, by the way, we're talking about small degrees between the greatness of that team, and now. I'm not trying to denigrate this team - and with some breaks, no reason why it couldn't make the FF. I'm just saying that the palpable feeling that this was "Cornell's year" was never felt, and I for one did not have that level of expectation.

By the way - anyone who wants to get rid of Schafer, or believes a different coach would "improve" things, needs to just watch another sport.

After attending all the home games and all but three away games this year, I join some of the faithful in agreeing that the team could do better under the circumstances. While it was not necessarily give a "mediocre" performance throughout the year, I definitely walked away from many weekends feeling disappointed. When this happens once or twice, it's understandable because everyone have their bad days and we can't expect a perfect weekend every time. However, when there's a repeated pattern of losing on Saturdays during the Jan-Mar. stretch and a rising popularity for basketball, it becomes very hard for me to hold back my frustrations. There are also many other reasons why one would attribute to the lack of enthusiasm this year and these reasons have been discussed on other threads earlier this year. I'm not going to repeat them, but when all of them compound onto each other, it becomes very difficult for the average student season ticket holder to be as excited about hockey.

It's within this context that criticisms arise and I hope our alumni would understand why. Ultimately, the team is going to be evaluated based on their post-season performance, and yesterday's win against Harvard restored some of the optimism I felt from the beginning of the year.

Jim Hyla
They still haven't shown they can beat Yale,

True

Jim Hyla
and if not we're never going to win an ECAC title.

Maybe not true...

TimV

Jim Hyla
They still haven't shown they can beat Yale,

True

Jim Hyla
and if not we're never going to win an ECAC title.

Maybe not true...

Which begs the question (after two weekends of Brown stuff on our collective shoes...or skates) is it mediocrity or parity that we are seeing in Division One hockey? The first round NCAA upsets of the past few years have made me a believer in the significant number of very talented players on all the division one teams.

Mediocrity is the flip side of parity because there's no objective measure except relative to the competition.

In the ECAC, at least, dispersion has been tightening. Solely on spotty observation I'd argue this is because the weakest sisters have come up to the pack.

I knew clicking on that link would give me a headache.